Lecture
As we have said, conceptual sciences, including cognitive psychology, are metaphorical in nature. Models of natural phenomena, in particular, cognitive models, are official abstract ideas derived from observations based on observations. The structure of the elements can be presented in the form of a periodic table, as Mendeleev did, but it is important not to forget that this classification scheme is a metaphor. And the statement that conceptual science is metaphorical does not in the least diminish its usefulness. Indeed, one of the tasks of building models is to better comprehend the observable. And conceptual science is needed for another: it gives the researcher a certain scheme within which one can test specific hypotheses and which allows him to predict events based on this model.
The periodic table very elegantly satisfied both of these tasks. Based on the location of the elements in it, scientists could accurately predict the chemical laws of compound and substitution, instead of conducting endless and erratic experiments with chemical reactions. Moreover, it has become possible to predict not yet open elements and their properties in the complete absence of physical evidence of their existence. And if you are engaged in cognitive models, do not forget the analogy with the Mendeleev model, because cognitive models, like models in the natural sciences, are based on the logic of inferences and are useful for understanding cognitive psychology.
In short, models are based on conclusions drawn from observations. Their task is to provide a intelligible representation of the nature of the observed and help to make predictions in the development of hypotheses. Now consider several models used in cognitive psychology.
Let us begin the discussion of cognitive models with a rather crude version, which divided all cognitive processes into three parts: the detection of stimuli, the storage and transformation of stimuli, and the development of responses:
This dry model, which is close to the previously mentioned SR model, was often used in one form or another in previous ideas about mental processes. And although it reflects the main stages in the development of cognitive psychology, there are so few details in it that it can hardly enrich our “understanding” of cognitive processes. She is also unable to generate any new hypotheses or predict behavior. This primitive model is similar to the ancient ideas of the universe as consisting of earth, water, fire and air. Such a system really represents one of the possible views on cognitive phenomena, but it incorrectly conveys their complexity.
One of the first and most frequently cognitive models related to memory. In 1890, James expanded the concept of memory, dividing it into "primary" and "secondary" memory. He assumed that primary memory deals with events that have occurred, and secondary memory with permanent, "indestructible" traces of experience.
Later, in 1965, Waugh and Norman proposed a new version of the same model and it turned out that it was largely acceptable. It is understandable, it can serve as a source of hypotheses and predictions - but it is also too simplified. Can it be used to describe all the processes of human memory? Hardly; and the development of more complex models was inevitable. A modified and updated version of the model of Bau and Norman is shown in Fig. 2. Note that a new storage system and several new information paths have been added to it. But even this model is incomplete and requires expansion.
Over the past decade, building cognitive models has become a favorite pastime for psychologists, and some of their creations are truly magnificent. Usually, the problem of overly simple models is solved by adding another “block”, another information path, another storage system, another element worth checking and analyzing. Such creative efforts look quite justified in the light of what we now know about the richness of the human cognitive system.
Now you can conclude that the invention of models in cognitive psychology was out of control, like a wizard's student. This is not entirely true, for this is such an extensive task - that is, analysis of how information is found appears to be transformed into knowledge, and how this knowledge is used - that no matter how we limit our conceptual metaphors to simplified models, we still will not be able to exhaustively clarify the entire complex sphere of cognitive psychology .
Comments
To leave a comment
Models and research methods
Terms: Models and research methods