Modularity and Its Stance Today in Cognitive Psychology - Essay Example

Modularity and it’s stance today in Cognitive Psychology Abstract The scientific study of cognition in psychology has a vast array of influential theories and theorists relaying them. These range from: developmental, representational, anthropomorphism, evolutional, and a myriad of many others’s. The one specific psychological point they all have in common though, is the idea that the human mind/brain does have significance with regard to a modular interpretation and modularity theory. Some theorists relay the human mind/brain as being totally modular while others, such as Fodor believe in modularity but argue the point of how effective this type of domain study really is in higher cognitive areas in the brain. There are some within the area of cognitive science that claim the use of modularity has lost its sustenance and is to simplistic now. This research will serve to touch on the previous statement and also, all aspects in the study of cognition. It will attempt to provide both sides of the argument concerning modularity of the human mind/brain and whether or not it still sustains the importance in cognitive science as years previously. This research will do this by focusing a little time and energy into different theoretical perspectives, within the science of psychology. The main case study will be utilizing the idea of human emotion. This paper will begin by offering a comprehensive idea into how the study of cognition and scientific cognitive studies evolved. Throughout history, the study of emotions in human cognition has always been questioned as to where they psychologically belong and what they are (Ledoux 1995). Years of study, with this direct human response, has yet to meet with a clear consensus on the extent they have in cognitive processes either. The definition of emotion, itself, is met with uncertainty and questionability, from a variable amount of scientists working in the areas of cognitive sciences. For a number of years now, scientists in the field of psychology have utilized a battery of different psychological theories in an attempt to find a direct placement area for emotion (Ledoux 1995). The fear conditioning response has been used to try and determine the mutuality between cognition and emotion. Avoidance conditioning has also been studied in regards to deciphering emotion and cognition and how they work together as well as how much they both depend on one another. Though neither of these two conditioning theories provided a direct answer, they did define that specific areas of the brain are involved in providing mediation between these two aspects of human thinking and human emotion. The most that is basically known for certain is that cognition plays an essential part in emotion in regards to fear and adaptation to different stimuli. They are both unique trademarks of the human workings in the mind (Ledoux 1995). Emotion is relative in all forms of psychological studies of human development and expression. From the relativity between cognition and emotion, scientific theories lead on into the modular ideas of how the workings of the human mind/brain all come together to involve learning and developmental issues as well. In cognitive studies, modularity of the mind and the various interpretations has held a great deal of relevance in many areas of cognitive science. Fodor’s work in particular made great strides in the development of modular thinking and its study. Some cognitive areas utilize modularity and some do not. Also, there are many cognitive scientists now who debate on how efficient modular techniques are and where they now fit in with regards to the scientific elements of cognition. One theory being questioned at the moment is whether or not there is any modularity in Experts’ Knowledge. The idea in this theory is basically on memorization skills and how the human mind stores chunks of data into memory. Scientists who work within a modular area theorization would claim that various pieces of information are gathered and stored in different aspectual modules of the mind. Information on mechanisms would be kept separate from information on home decorating. So the claim is evident how knowledge can be perceived as being modular. The perception of many modular theorists is that knowledge is gathered in perceptual chunks and then stored in the human mind/brain (Chase & Simon 1973). In the area of Neo-Cartesianism and knowledge studies, there are various areas, some being: declarative, procedural, and episodic; all of these follow systematic steps in the learning process. One study that was utilized in regards to the attempt to decipher if modularity was a part of knowledge was involving the game of chess. (deGroot & Gobet 1996). It was found through this experiment that chess players do not rely on any superior cognitive skills but rather use visual memory perception in knowledge. This is very relative to a modular type of construction in that various modules are used to determine how proficient memory really is. This study also illustrates that modularity is still a good scientific psychological tool in interpretating how short term memory reflects on Expert Knowledge. Also this type of study is excellent in that it demonstrates how modular structure correlates essential aspects of human cognition. Therefore, the idea that Knowledge is intertwined with modularity, and the proof that modular technique is still quantifiable has been verified and considered to be very useful in human memorization studies. There is a newer area of cognitive science that has been evolving in the last decade that is worth consideration in this research, as well. This new science is the Evolutional theory. Scientists in this field focus a lot within the implied theory of modularity in human cognition. These theorists debate the point that the architecture of the mind, in the regions of peripheral and central is classified into a modular architecture and each module reflects on a solution for problems in the past (Dickens 2000). It has been discussed and assumed that this new perspective has the ability to alter current modes of areas in psychology that would change the views of adaptionists. Also, this theory places special interest in the area of canalization which is directly relative to an idea in the concept of modular thinking (Dickens 2000). Canalization involves the direction of learning into more specific goals in domain specific areas. It implies that in the initial phase of learning (such as in infancy) there is no perfect or specific way in which you would start off but rather an initiative to want to learn and to gradually progress through the learning phase until the actual goal is achieved. This whole concept is constructed around a modular methodology. Due to the fact that this theory is relatively new to the world of psychology, yet uses an age old technique, such as modularity, it places a great deal of relevance on the modular theory of science. This impresses upon the fact that modular methods of study are neither simplistic nor outdated but rather are evolving themselves to fill the niches in younger theorizations of cognitive science and the human mind/brain. Furthermore, with regard into the study of evolutionalism, “it is a very broad and eclectic topic” (Caporeal 2001). One way in which this theory exudes modular characteristics is in the way it judges human cognitive abilities. It utilizes three various phases (just as modularity techniques use modules) to depict the varying evolutionary behaviours of human society. The first is episodic culture where it is claimed that memory is totally reliant on the environmental stimuli. The subsequent phase is mythic culture and this looks at how the basis for language has evolved and how narration is implemented in and used. The final phase involved is mimetic culture which is the study of how the body has been used in representation and how the processes of memories have adapted over time (Caporael 2001). This theory also studies how emotions are inner connected with cognition and human behaviour. It is reflective on a modular plane as well as somewhat using a Darwinian approach as well. These ethologists trace the history of a smile all the way back to “primate antecedents, developmental sequence, cross cultural communicative competence, and cultural specific contexts” where it can be discovered that smiling can have various meaning and other places in the world (Caporeal 2001). In the theory of mind development, there involves amore personal perspective in regards to individual “beliefs, desires, emotions, thoughts, perceptions, intentions, and other mental states” (Flavell 2004). Since the two decades that this theory has been incorporated into the field of psychology it has become one of the most prominent out of all the theories. This theory is more aimed towards a non-modular view point and even implemented many of Piagets’ ideas into its interpretations of cognition and learning. Piaget believed that children developed by being cognitively egocentric. Piaget focused a lot of his cognitive research on realism (Flavell 2004). The theory theorists argue that knowledge about the mind is not scientific but rather it is our everyday environment that develops the cognitive processes in a human mind (Flavell 2004). “Theory theorists imply that experience plays a major formative role in children’s theory-of-the-mind development” (Flavell 2004). In contrast, modular theorists use domain specific identity and modular mechanisms in the research of cognition and mental development. There is no real focus on the environment or other related aspects that this theory utilizes. According to developmental theorists, the brain is modular. They not only relay this fact but they go as far as to substantiate that the brain starts out this way, at birth, and that the modules are intact (Developmental Neuropsychology 1997). When developmental theory is compared, using Fodor’s implied scientific reasoning, with Piagets theory of development, there is a significant differential form of opinions. It is like comparing nature to nurturing. Piagets’ Cognitive Developmental theory was more apse to focus on how knowledge develops in the human mind. Further, he viewed it more so, than how personality relates to anything in the outside environment. For him, cognition was a biological process and he studied how incoming information was processed within the workings of the brain (Developmental Psychology Handbook 2003). His belief in childhood development was one where he believed it to involve specific growth stages. He viewed the environment to be something that merely stimulated and provided learning information. He theorized that all children would ultimately progress, regardless of the environment around them. This theory differs greatly from that of a modular theorist in that it is totally focused on the development of knowledge. This theory does not put much (if any) focus on the possibility of being born with specific knowledge that needs to be developed to progress by utilizing a nurturing process. With regard to Social Cognitive learning theory, it is a mixture between Behaviourism and the environment as learning stimuli, as well. Although, social learning theory places a great deal more detail into human development than behaviourism does. Behaviourists view cognitive learning as a trial and error type of example. They believe modelling the behaviour of others or imitating it is what assists in the development of human cognition (Developmental Handbook of psychology 2003). Social Learning theory in contrast to Fodor’s Very Simple Theory of Mind (VSTM), is similar yet opposite as well. In this theory, Fodor does not allow for the possibility that a child’s mind might comprehend various familiar objects or ideas from the adult mind and learn from them. Social learning theory does, however, harbour this belief (Perner 1995). Fodor claims children do not have the ability to consider how an idea came about; they don’t distinguish between various beliefs in learning and cognition. On the other hand, Social theory and Behavioural theory quite distinctly rely on imitating and modelling behaviour in a child’s cognitive development and awareness (Perner 1995). Fodor’s (VSTM) states that intentional objects stem from a child’s perception of them not their ability to interact with them 100 %. Thereby the causation is found that leads to the child’s behavioural changes, and becomes more apparent. If a child perceives a stick to be something to hit another object with then that is how they will cognitively consider it. It’s not just the action of using the stick that they become aware of what its purpose is for. Social theorists and behaviourists believe though, it is the actual modelling of the behaviour and interaction with the environment that stimulates the child’s cognitive awareness. They also believe that perception does play a role but not as much as the actual hands on type of learning experience and environmental stimuli does. In summarizing this research involving Fodor’s work in cognition and various other theorists as well, hopefully a better understanding has been reached. Fodor’s work in modularity is still alive and being utilized in many different aspectual circuits of cognitive science. How the mind works is a truly puzzling issue and it is believed that all scientific theorizations offer an idea into moving one step closer in achieving a full comprehension of how everything affects the human mind/ brain, in development and cognitive learning. The view point that the mind is not just one single module but rather, many is a key into trying to solve the problems there have been in adaptation throughout the centuries (Pinker 1995). Obviously, the mind seems to be more of a vast network of knowledge, modular beliefs, evolutional ideals, and biological structures, that have all united together, which has enabled mankind to carry on with a traceable history of cognitive learning and development, since ancient times (Pinker 1995). To say that the belief of modularity studies have outlived their worth seems to deny cognitive science some of the essential ingredients it has developed through this theory. All the psychological theories pulled together, work together in order to try and solve one of human kind’s most pertinent questions. How does the human mind/ brain truly work? References Caporeal, Linnda (2001). Evolutionary Psychology: Toward a Unifying theory and a Hybrid Science. Annual Review of Psychology, Ejournal Chase, W.S. & Simon, H.A. (1973). Perception in Chess. Cognitive Psychology, Ejournal 55-81 deGroot, A.D. &Gobet, F. (1996). Perception and Memory in Chess. Assen: Van Gorcum Developmental Neuropsychology (1997). Crucial Differences between Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience and Adult Neuropsychology. Vol.13 Developmental Psychology Handbook (2003). Seminar1: Comparing Theories of Developmental Psychology Dickins, Thomas (2000). The Evolution of Language A non-modular suggestion about the origin of symbols. 3rd Conference 1-5 Flavell, John (2004). Theory of Mind Development: Retrospect and Prospect. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, Vol.50 Ledoux, Joseph (1995). Emotion: Clues from the Brain. Annual Review of Psychology. Vol.46, 1 Perner, Joseph (1995). The Many Faces of Belief: Reflections on Fodor’s and the Child’s Theory of mind. Elsiver Journal: Cognition 57, 241-269 Pinker, Steve (1995). How does the Mind Work? Mind and Language, Vol.20, No.1, 1-24 Read More