scholarly journals Why Evolutionary Psychology Should Abandon Modularity

2021 ◽  
pp. 174569162199711
Author(s):  
David Pietraszewski ◽  
Annie E. Wertz
Keyword(s):  
Evolutionary Psychology ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Levels Of Analysis ◽  
The Future ◽  
Massive Modularity ◽  
Ill Posed ◽  
The Mind ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Level Of Analysis

A debate surrounding modularity—the notion that the mind may be exclusively composed of distinct systems or modules—has held philosophers and psychologists captive for nearly 40 years. Concern about this thesis—which has come to be known as the massive modularity debate—serves as the primary grounds for skepticism of evolutionary psychology’s claims about the mind. In this article we argue that the entirety of this debate, and the very notion of massive modularity itself, is ill-posed and confused. In particular, it is based on a confusion about the level of analysis (or reduction) at which one is approaching the mind. Here we provide a framework for clarifying at what level of analysis one is approaching the mind and explain how a systemic failure to distinguish between different levels of analysis has led to profound misunderstandings of not only evolutionary psychology but also of the entire cognitivist enterprise of approaching the mind at the level of the mechanism. We furthermore suggest that confusions between different levels of analysis are endemic throughout the psychological sciences—extending well beyond issues of modularity and evolutionary psychology. Therefore, researchers in all areas should take preventive measures to avoid this confusion in the future.

scholarly journals Why evolutionary psychology should abandon modularity

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Pietraszewski ◽  
Annie E. Wertz
Keyword(s):  
Evolutionary Psychology ◽  
Levels Of Analysis ◽  
Preventative Measures ◽  
The Future ◽  
Massive Modularity ◽  
Ill Posed ◽  
The Mind ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Level Of Analysis

A debate surrounding modularity—the notion that the mind may be exclusively composed of distinct systems or modules—has held philosophers and psychologists captive for nearly forty years. Concern about this thesis—which has come to be known as the massive modularity debate—serves as the primary grounds for skepticism of evolutionary psychology’s claims about the mind. Here we will suggest that the entirety of this debate, and the very notion of massive modularity itself, is ill-posed and confused. In particular, it is based on a confusion about the level of analysis (or reduction) at which one is approaching the mind. Here, we will provide a framework for clarifying at what level of analysis one is approaching the mind, and explain how a systemic failure to distinguish between different levels of analysis has led to profound misunderstandings of not only evolutionary psychology, but also of the entire cognitivist enterprise of approaching the mind at the level of mechanism. We will furthermore suggest that confusions between different levels of analysis are endemic throughout the psychological sciences—extending well beyond issues of modularity and evolutionary psychology. Therefore, researchers in all areas should take preventative measures to avoid this confusion in the future.

scholarly journals La linguistique peut-elle sortir de son état pré-galiléen ?

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Jean-Pierre Desclés
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Analysis ◽  
General Topology ◽  
Levels Of Analysis ◽  
Grammatical Categories ◽  
The Future ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Different Levels

The future of linguistics implies a better definition of concepts, especially in the semantic analysis. The notion of operator plays an important role in several areas of linguistics, for instance categorical grammars and representations of the meanings of grammatical categories. The general topology makes it possible to mathematize the grammatical concepts (time, aspects, modalities, enunciative operations) by means of operators. Curry’s Combinatorial Logic is an adequate formalism for composing and transforming operators at different levels of analysis that connect the semiotic expressions of languages (the observables) with their semantico-cognitive interpretations. The article refers to many studies that develop the points discussed.

scholarly journals Vygotskian (but only partly Vygotsky’s) understanding of special education

Educação ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaro Toomela
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Special Form ◽  
Theoretical Background ◽  
Levels Of Analysis ◽  
Specific Level ◽  
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation ◽  
Form Of Life ◽  
Stage Development ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Level Of Analysis

In this article general principles of special education are discussed from the Vygotskian perspective. First it is suggested that for understanding of special education in particular and the psyche and its development in general, structuralsystemic epistemology should be applied. To understand special education, psyche and its development should be understood at different levels of analysis. In this paper first life is defined in order to define psyche as a special form of life. Psyche, at the next more specific level of analysis is distinguished into complementary parts, that of individual and its environment. Environment is defined next and theoretically distinguished into four kinds. On this theoretical background, pedagogy and special education are defined. Special education should be based on thorough understanding of the learner at different levels of analysis: according to general stages of development, according to within-stage development, and at the level of the structure of cognition. Two principal targets of the special education and three basic strategies of neuropsychological rehabilitation and special education are distinguished. *** A compreensão Vygotskyana (mas só em parte de Vygotsky) da educação especial ***Neste artigo, os princípios gerais da educação especial são discutidos a partir da perspectiva Vygotskyana. Em primeiro lugar, sugere-se que, para a compreensão da educação especial em particular e da psique e seu desenvolvimento em geral, a epistemologia estrutural-sistêmica deve ser aplicada. Para entender a educação especial, a psique e seu desenvolvimento devem ser entendidos em diferentes níveis de análise. Neste artigo, a primeira vida é definida com o intuito de definir a psique como uma forma especial de vida. A psique, no nível seguinte e mais específico da análise, é diferenciada em partes complementares, do indivíduo e de seu ambiente. O ambiente é definido em seguida, e distinguido teoricamente em quatro tipos. Nesta base teórica, a pedagogia e a educação especial são definidas. A educação especial deve basear-se na compreensão completa do aprendiz em diferentes níveis de análise: de acordo com estágios gerais de desenvolvimento, de acordo com o desenvolvimento durante o estágio, e no nível da estrutura do conhecimento. Destacam-se dois alvos principais da educação especial e três estratégias básicas de reabilitação neuropsicológica e educação especial.Palavras-chave: Educação especial; Vygotsky; Luria; Estratégias; Epistemologia estrutural-sistêmica.

Peace: A Conceptual Survey

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul F. Diehl
Keyword(s):  
System Level ◽  
Levels Of Analysis ◽  
Political Relationships ◽  
The World ◽  
Positive Peace ◽  
Theory Research ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Elusive Concept ◽  
Level Of Analysis ◽  
Associated Data

Peace is an elusive concept with many different meanings. Traditionally, it has been equated with the absence of war or violence, but such “negative peace” has limited value as it lumps wildly disparate situations together, such as rivalries (India–Pakistan) and close political relationships (e.g., European Union). Nevertheless, this conception remains the predominant approach in theory, research, teaching, and policy discourse. “Positive peace” definitions are much broader and encompass aspects that go beyond war and violence, but there is far less consensus on those elements. Conceptions include, among others, human rights, justice, judicial independence, and communication components. Best developed are notions of “quality peace,” which incorporate the absence of violence but also require things such as gender equality in order for societies to qualify as peaceful. Many of these, however, lack associated data and operational indicators. Research on positive peace is also comparatively underdeveloped. Peace can also be represented as binary (present or not) or as a continuum (the degree to which peace is present). Peace can be applied at different levels of analysis. At the system level, it refers to the aggregate or global conditions in the world at a given time. At the dyadic or k‑adic level, it refers to the state of peace in relationships between two or more states. Finally, internal peace deals with conditions inside individual states, and the relationships between governments, groups, and individuals. Aspects of peace vary according to the level of analysis, and peace at one level might not be mirrored at other levels.

L. Levels of Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 155-158
Author(s):  
Mauro Caprioli ◽  
Claire Dupuy
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Levels Of Analysis ◽  
Unit Of Analysis ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
The Social ◽  
Micro Level ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Citizens Attitudes ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Level Of Analysis

This chapter studies levels of analysis. Research in the social sciences may be interested in subjects located at different levels of analysis. The level of analysis indicates the position at which social and political phenomena are analysed within a gradual order of abstraction or aggregation that is constructed analytically. Its definition and boundaries vary across social science disciplines. In general, the micro level refers to the individual level and focuses on citizens’ attitudes or politicians’ and diplomats’ behaviour. Analyses at the meso level focus on groups and organizations, like political parties, social movements, and public administrations. The macro level corresponds to structures that are national, social, economic, cultural, or institutional — for example, countries and national or supranational political regimes. The explanandum (what research aims to account for), the explanans (the explanations), the unit of analysis, and data collection can be located at different levels. The chapter then considers two main errors commonly associated with aggregation and levels of analysis: ecological and atomistic fallacies.

Personality Psychology: Current Status and Prospects For the Future

2008 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 171-177
Author(s):  
Lawrence Pervin
Keyword(s):  
Dynamic Systems ◽  
Social Cognitive ◽  
Levels Of Analysis ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Personality Psychology ◽  
Systems Perspective ◽  
The Future ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Interpersonal Environment ◽  
The Mind

Personality Psychology: Current Status and Prospects For the Future I want to consider the current status and future of the field of personality psychology, often basing my observations on my own research and theoretical interests. Let me begin by summarizing what I have to say in terms of three points of emphasis: First, the field of personality can be viewed in terms of three disciplines—trait, social cognitive, and psychodynamic—each associated with its own empirical procedures and observations. That is, each is associated with its own form of personality data but all represent relevant data. Second, there is a need in the field for a dynamic systems perspective, one that emphasizes the interplay among the parts of the personality system in the course of the person's ongoing transactions with the physical and interpersonal environment. Third, in the future personality psychologists increasingly will have to integrate findings from biopsychology and neuroscience into their theories and research questions. This raises the question of how they can create bridges across levels of analysis and avoid the problem of reductionism. In other words, there is the issue of how personality psychologists will address the mind-body problem.

What We Know and Don’t Know About Passion at Work

2019 ◽  
pp. 505-528
Author(s):  
Kim Cameron
Keyword(s):  
Levels Of Analysis ◽  
Causal Relationships ◽  
Important Research ◽  
Harmonious Passion ◽  
Obsessive Passion ◽  
The Future ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Contextual Differences

This chapter addresses the question: What do we know, and what don’t we know about passion at work? One key objective of this final chapter is to provide a brief synopsis of the key findings reported by the various authors in this volume. The chapter summarizes the consensual definitions that have emerged regarding passion and its two major forms—obsessive passion and harmonious passion. It highlights factors that produce passion as well as those that result from passion. Especially, the differences associated with obsessive passion and harmonious passion are highlighted. Different predictors and different outcomes are associated with each form of passion. In addition, findings associated with individual, organizational, and macro levels of analysis are summarized. Different relationships with these two forms of passion are manifest across different levels of analysis. A second objective is to articulate some of what we do not yet know about passion. The chapter highlights some of the important research questions that can help guide research on passion in the future. This discussion includes issues regarding the development of passion, causal relationships between passion and certain outcomes, forms and manifestations of passion, and individual and contextual differences associated with passion.

Bridging Micro and Macro Approaches on Civil Wars and Political Violence

2014 ◽  
Vol 58 (8) ◽  
pp. 1343-1359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laia Balcells ◽  
Patricia Justino
Keyword(s):  
Political Violence ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Social Economic ◽  
Local Level ◽  
Levels Of Analysis ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Conflict Processes ◽  
New Research ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Level Of Analysis

This article reflects on the importance of linking micro and macro levels of analysis in order to advance our current understanding of civil wars and political violence processes and discusses the contributions of the articles in this special issue. We first identify the main problems in research on political violence that is focused on a single level of analysis and describe the challenges faced by research that attempts to establish connections between different levels. We then introduce the different articles in the special issue, with an emphasis on the micro–macro-level linkages they develop and highlighting their commonalities. We conclude by emphasizing the importance of a new research agenda for the study of civil wars and political violence that bridges social, economic, and political dynamics occurring at the local level and conflict processes taking place in the macro arena.

System, State, or Individual: Gaming Levels of Analysis in International Relations

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Asal ◽  
Inga Miller ◽  
Charmaine N Willis
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Levels Of Analysis ◽  
System State ◽  
International Level ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Level Of Analysis

Abstract Students often struggle to grasp how examining international phenomena at the systemic, state, or international level of analysis can yield different understandings or perspectives. To help students understand the dynamics at the different levels of analysis, we suggest the use of several short games that make students be “lab rats in their own experiments.” In this article, we discuss the mechanics of three short games we play with our students. We offer our qualitative impressions of the impact of these games on the understanding of the students.

scholarly journals Innovations in the psychopathology of schizophrenia: a primer for busy clinicians

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Peter Wilson ◽  
Clara Humpston ◽  
Rajan Nathan
Keyword(s):  
Predictive Processing ◽  
Levels Of Analysis ◽  
Social Interventions ◽  
Personal Level ◽  
Multiple Levels ◽  
The Mind ◽  
The Brain ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Psychopathology Of Schizophrenia ◽  
Process Based Models

SUMMARY Significant developments in schizophrenia psychopathology are ready to be incorporated into clinical practice. These advances allow a way forward through the well-described challenges experienced with current diagnostic and psychopathological frameworks. This article discusses approaches that will enable clinicians to access a wider and richer spectrum of patient experience; describes process-based models of schizophrenia in the domains of both the brain and the mind; and considers how different levels of analysis might be linked via the predictive processing framework. Multiple levels of analysis provide different targets for varying modalities of treatment – dopamine blockade at the molecular level, psychological therapy at the level of the mind, and social interventions at the personal level. Psychiatry needs to align itself closer to neuroscientific research. It should move from a symptom-based understanding to a model based on process. That is – after having asked about a patient's symptoms and experience clinicians need to introduce steps involving a consideration of what might be the brain and mind processes underlying the experience.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document