Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tzmfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T12:46:23.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The unbearable lightness of “Thinking”: Moving beyond simple concepts of thinking, rationality, and hypothesis testing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2011

Gary L. Brase  and
James Shanteau
Gary L. Brase
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506. [email protected]@ksu.eduhttp://www.k-state.edu/psych/research/brase_gary.htmhttp://www.k-state.edu/psych/research/shanteau_james.htm
James Shanteau
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506. [email protected]@ksu.eduhttp://www.k-state.edu/psych/research/brase_gary.htmhttp://www.k-state.edu/psych/research/shanteau_james.htm
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three correctives can get researchers out of the trap of constructing unitary theories of “thinking”: (1) Strong inference methods largely avoid problems associated with universal prescriptive normativism; (2) theories must recognize that significant modularity of cognitive processes is antithetical to general accounts of thinking; and (3) consideration of the domain-specificity of rationality render many of the present article's issues moot.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 5 , October 2011 , pp. 250 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, N. H. & Shanteau, J. (1977) Weak inference with linear models. Psychological Bulletin 84:1147–70.Google Scholar
Barrett, H. C. & Kurzban, R. (2006) Modularity in cognition: Framing the debate. Psychological Review 113:628–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carruthers, P. (2006) The case for massively modular models of mind. In: Contemporary debates in cognitive science, ed. Stainton, R. J., pp. 3–21. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, F. S. (1936) The Crack-Up. Esquire Magazine, February 1936. Available at: http://www.esquire.com/features/the-crack-up.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983) The modularity of mind: An essay in faculty psychology. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hagen, E. H. (2005) Controversial issues in evolutionary psychology. In: The handbook of evolutionary psychology, ed. Buss, D. M., pp. 145–73. John Wiley.Google Scholar
Krueger, J. (2001) Null hypothesis significance testing: On the survival of a flawed method. American Psychologist 56:16–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loftus, G. R. (1996) Psychology will be a much better science when we change the way we analyze data. Current Directions in Psychological Science 5:161–71.Google Scholar
Nickerson, R. S. (2000) Null hypothesis significance testing: A review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychological Methods 5:241–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (2007) Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1997) How the mind works. W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2002) The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. Viking.Google Scholar
Platt, J. R. (1964) Strong inference. Science 164:347–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, R. (2000) Massively modular minds: Evolutionary psychology and cognitive architecture. In: Evolution and the human mind: Modularity, language and meta-cognition, ed. Carruthers, P. & Chamberlain, A., pp. 13–46. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sun, S., Pan, W. & Wang, L. L. (2010) A comprehensive review of effect size reporting and interpreting practices in academic journals in education and psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology 102:989–1004.Google Scholar
Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. (1992) The psychological foundations of culture. In: The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, ed. Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J., pp. 19–136. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar