Wither psychology today?

CSGnet Archive CSG2007
1

[From Rick Marken (2007.04.17.1120)]

I am so sick about the events of yesterday I can barely type.

So I’ll just post a copy of an announcement of a lecture in cognitive neuroscience that I just got. This is the hot new stuff in psychology, presented by a leading scientist in the field. It is the “basic wisdom” in the field. If anyone wonders why PCT has a hard time making headway in conventional psychology, I think this little blurb shows what the “market” is really looking for. The answer to the subject question of this post is clearly “The same place it was yesterday, with a dash of neuroanatomy added for good measure”.

The prefrontal cortex: Rules, concepts, and cognitive control"

What controls your thoughts? How do you focus attention? How do you know how to act while dining in a restaurant? This is cognitive control, the ability to organize thought and action around goals. Results from our laboratory have shown that neurons in the prefrontal cortex and related brain areas have properties commensurate with a role in “executive” brain function. They are involved in directing attention, in recalling stored memories, predicting reward value, and they integrate the diverse information needed for a given goal. Perhaps most importantly, they transmit acquired knowledge. Their activity reflects learned task contingencies, concepts and rules. In short, they seem to underlie our internal representations of the “rules of the game”. This may provide the foundation for the complex behavior of primates, in whom this structure is most elaborate.

Regards

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken
rsmarken@gmail.com

marken@mindreadings.com

2

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.04.17.1545 CDT)]

It is remarkable how after such a tragedy people keep thinking of causes,
triggers, or whatever that made the kid do what he did. That is, if they could
have removed the factor, had they been able to take away some external stimuli,
he wouldn't have done it.

Well, IMHO had Virginia Tech sent messages to all students, staff, and security
to begin securing buildings as early as 8am, he would have had less of an
environment in which to act....

Sad day, but let's not start blaming immigration, immigrants, people who are
different, etc.

Heckfire...

--Bryan

Quoting Richard Marken <rsmarken@GMAIL.COM>:

···

[From Rick Marken (2007.04.17.1120)]

I am so sick about the events of yesterday I can barely type.

So I'll just post a copy of an announcement of a lecture in cognitive
neuroscience that I just got. This is the hot new stuff in psychology,
presented by a leading scientist in the field. It is the "basic wisdom" in
the field. If anyone wonders why PCT has a hard time making headway in
conventional psychology, I think this little blurb shows what the "market"
is really looking for. The answer to the subject question of this post is
clearly "The same place it was yesterday, with a dash of neuroanatomy added
for good measure".

The prefrontal cortex: Rules, concepts, and cognitive control"
>
> What controls your thoughts? How do you focus attention? How do you know
> how to act while dining in a restaurant? This is cognitive control, the
> ability to organize thought and action around goals. Results from our
> laboratory have shown that neurons in the prefrontal cortex and related
> brain areas have properties commensurate with a role in "executive" brain
> function. They are involved in directing attention, in recalling stored
> memories, predicting reward value, and they integrate the diverse
> information needed for a given goal. Perhaps most importantly, they
> transmit acquired knowledge. Their activity reflects learned task
> contingencies, concepts and rules. In short, they seem to underlie our
> internal representations of the "rules of the game". This may provide the
> foundation for the complex behavior of primates, in whom this structure is
> most elaborate.
>

Regards

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken
rsmarken@gmail.com
marken@mindreadings.com

3

[From Rick Marken (2007.04.17.1630)]

Sad day, indeed! And I agree that looking for the cause – internal or external – of the kid’s behavior would not have helped. But I don’t think Virginia Tech security could have done anything more than it did. I think their response was reasonable and appropriate.

The only thing that could have mitigated this disaster is strict gun control. Without an automatic weapon the shooter could not have done nearly as much damage as he did. But strict gun laws (like rational tax policies, diplomatic approaches to international conflicts, single payer health care, etc etc) is just not consistent with the prevailing right wing ideology, which seems to be that the US government should not interfere with anything except other governments that we don’t like and people’s sex lives. Oh, and drugs too. It’s OK to regulate drugs.

What a great group.

Best

Rick

···

Bryan Thalhammer (2007.04.17.1545 CDT)

It is remarkable how after such a tragedy people keep thinking of causes,
triggers, or whatever that made the kid do what he did. That is, if they could
have removed the factor, had they been able to take away some external stimuli,

he wouldn’t have done it.

Well, IMHO had Virginia Tech sent messages to all students, staff, and security
to begin securing buildings as early as 8am, he would have had less of an
environment in which to act…

Sad day, but let’s not start blaming immigration, immigrants, people who are
different, etc.

–
Richard S. Marken
rsmarken@gmail.com

marken@mindreadings.com

4

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.04.17.2055 CDT)]

Rick,

Oh, true, I just wondered if they could have been more pro-active as we were
promised when Dept. of Homeland Security was started. You can see that there has
not been much inspiration into what it takes to make a suitable response in an
emergency. I hope the Cossacks don't arrive in an American city...

Strict Gun Control. Well, there is a balance. I wrote a note to Steph Miller
Show, saying:

Guns have only two legitimate uses, sport and defense. Offense is not one of
those although defense can include personal, civil, and national. And defense
can include offensive moves that ultimately result in one's border's being
defended (the current Iraq mess not being one of those offenses that I would
include). One CAN have a gun for defense, but let's face it, each case is
special, and we don't want to encourage a Wild West like the NRA would endorse.
Sport is a preparation for defense, but no more.

I think that guns can be good, in that they prevent violence. But the current
model for defense and the collection of "sport" weapons has gone beyond the
pale. One does not need the semi-automatics except on a range. Personal defense
ordinarily does not include a pair of semi-automatics with clips enough for
hundreds of rounds.

When this college kid bought another hand gun and ammo in abundance, that should
have sent a red flag. If the NRA were so hot, they would institute an advisory
role for young sportsmen/women. They would prevent the MISUSE of weapons and
protect both the 2nd Amendment and the honor of the sport nationwide. But,
nahhhh, they won't, since they want to take the polar extreme, like Burt
Lancaster and his cold calloused claws. Nope.

I agree that the Libertarian perversion of conservatism has perverted the GOP
and the Nation. I don't think that fiscal conservatism is anywhere to be found
among Republicans, and perhaps the Dems may better represent fiscal conservatism
this time around. And goodness knows what the theocons have done to harm the GOP
and the Nation... We won't recover in at least 50-100 years. :frowning:

Read:
* Invasion of the Party Snatchers by Victor Gold.
* Why the Christian Right Is Wrong: A Minister's Manifesto for Taking Back Your
Faith, Your Flag, Your Future (Hardcover) by Robin Meyers
* It Can Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush, by Joe Conason.

Best,

--Bryan

5

[From Fred Nickols (2007.04.18.0748 EST)] --

Rick Marken (2007.04.17.1120)]

I am so sick about the events of yesterday I can barely type.

So I'll just post a copy of an announcement of a lecture in cognitive
neuroscience that I just got.

The "blurb" says to me that the sophists of science still pander to the
princes of power. The "swells who run the show" would love to be able to
get inside our heads and control what goes on there - and there are those
who will hold out to them the promise of being able to do so. Personally, I
don't think that will ever happen so I don't spend much time worrying about
it but I am acutely aware of the appeal of claims to that effect.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@att.net

6

[From Rick Marken (2007.04.18.1140)]

Fred Nickols (
2007.04.18.0748 EST)–

The “blurb” says to me that the sophists of science still pander to the
princes of power. The “swells who run the show” would love to be able to
get inside our heads and control what goes on there - and there are those

who will hold out to them the promise of being able to do so. Personally, I
don’t think that will ever happen so I don’t spend much time worrying about
it but I am acutely aware of the appeal of claims to that effect.

What got me about the blurb was this:

> neurons in the prefrontal cortex and related
> brain areas have properties commensurate with a role in "executive" brain

> function. They are involved in directing attention, in recalling stored
> memories, predicting reward value, and they integrate the diverse
> information needed for a given goal. Perhaps most importantly, they

> transmit acquired knowledge. Their activity reflects learned task
> contingencies, concepts and rules.

It struck me as consistent with what I see has a trend in psychology toward what I would call “reductionism on steroids”. This is the use of findings about brain activity to explain mental processes and observable behavior. Basically, conventional understandings of behavior – like the idea that some things have greater reward value than others – are “explained” by saying that “this” part of the brain lights up when the person does “that” or that “this” neuron responds in that way to “rewards”. The current approach to being scientific in psychology seems to involve using high tech brain scanning equipment rather than building and testing models of the behavior to be understood. It’s just another trendy science fad that will make it hard for PCT to generate much interest in psychology. In the 1980s the trendy science was AI, in the 1990s it was complex systems, now it’s brain imaging. Makes it tough for a poor PCT boy to make a living;-)

By the way, any chance that you could come to the CSG Conference in Minnesota, Fred? It would be great if you could.

I would also like to get deposits ASAP from those of you who plan to attend (thanks, Bill and Gary, I got yours already).

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken
rsmarken@gmail.com

marken@mindreadings.com

7

[From Bill Powers (2007.04.18.1406 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2007.04.18.1140) –

[citing an article:]

> neurons in the
prefrontal cortex and related
> brain areas have properties commensurate with a role in
"executive" brain
> function.  They are involved in directing attention, in
recalling stored
> memories, predicting reward value, and they integrate the diverse
> information needed for a given goal.  Perhaps most importantly,
they
 transmit acquired knowledge. Their activity reflects learned task
> contingencies, concepts and
rules.

It struck me as
consistent with what I see as a trend in psychology toward what I would
call “reductionism on steroids”.

Well, try this one:

[

](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QZxsM8xWFA&NR=1)Hey, dude, look at that UBA [Unidentified Brain Activity]
light up there! Wow! Oh, wow, there’s another one, man, what IS that? I
don’t believe I’m getting this on tape. Hey, we gotta publish this (gimme
a drag on that)!

I think neuroscientists are showing themselves to be as gullible as those
people Alex Zelchenko (you met him at the Cenacle in 2004) observed on
the shore of Lake Michigan in the '50s. They were pointing a flashlight
up into the night sky and blinking it in time as they chanted over and
over, “Please - con- tact - us - we - are - your -
friends.”

It’s important to remember that in any group, the intelligence of half of
them is below average.

Best.

Bill P/

8

[From Rick Marken (2007.04.18.1445)]

Bill Powers (2007.04.18.1406 MDT)

Rick Marken (2007.04.18.1140) --

>It struck me as consistent with what I see as a trend in psychology

toward what I would call "reductionism on steroids".

Well, try this one:

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QZxsM8xWFA&NR=1
...

It's important to remember that in any group, the intelligence of half of them is
below average.

The thing that is most interesting to me is that this doesn't seem to
be an intelligence issue. While I tend to think of nearly everyone
(except right wing Republicans) as being smarter than I am, the people
I have met who are engaged in this "psychology by brain scanning" are
really, really smart by anyone's measure of smartness. For some
reason,that probably has to do with the "culture" of
academic/scientific psychology that one has to buy into in order to
make the cut, the high tech biology approach to psychology is more
comfortable than the modeling approach. I think students find it more
exciting, too. It gives people a feeling of "understandingness" with
some cool anatomical names. What could be better than finally
understanding that imitation is explained by "mirror neurons".

Ah well.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
rsmarken@gmail.com
marken@mindreadings.com

9

It’s important to remember
that in any group, the intelligence of half of them is

below average.

The thing that is most interesting to me is that this doesn’t seem
to

be an intelligence issue.
[From Bill Powers (2007.04.18.1827 MST)]

Rick Marken (2007.04.18.1445)]

Oh, but it is. Within the group of really, really smart nueorscientists,
the ones who publish that garbage are obviously in the half that is below
average.

Of course my intelligence test is specific to the group.

Best,

Bill P.