Psychometric engineering as art

The Psychometric Society is “devoted to the development of Psychology as a quantitative rational science”. Engineering is often set in contradistinction with science; art is sometimes considered different from science. Why, then, juxtapose the words in the title:psychometric, engineering, andart? Because an important aspect of quantitative psychology is problem-solving, and engineering solves problems. And an essential aspect of a good solution is beauty—hence, art. In overview and with examples, this presentation describes activities that are quantitative psychology as engineering and art—that is, as design. Extended illustrations involve systems for scoring tests in realistic contexts. Allusions are made to other examples that extend the conception of quantitative psychology as engineering and art across a wider range of psychometric activities.     

Multiple levels of inquiry in cognitive science

Summary Gibsonian ecological psychology, symbolic information processing, and connectionist information processing are frequently construed as three competing paradigms or research traditions, each seeking dominance in experimental psychology and in cognitive science generally. There is an important element of truth in this perspective, and any adequate account of the development of experimental psychology over the past 30 years would have to examine seriously how the various conceptual frameworks, experimental endeavors, and social institutions have figured in this conflict. But the goal of this paper is not to characterize the historical dynamics within experimental psychology and cognitive science; rather, it is to consider what sorts of rapprochement is possible. Rapprochement, however, is not sought simply for its own sake or out of an a priori conviction that scientific enterprises should be unified. Spirited controversy between competing traditions is often an important component of progess (Laudan, 1977). Rapprochement has a purpose when alternative theoretical traditions have reached a point when each confronts serious shortcomings that can best be overcome by incorporating alternative perspectives. In this paper I try to show that this is the situation that exists in experimental psychology and cognitve science generally with respect to the three traditions enumerated above. I first explore how cognitive inquiry directed at internal procedures for processing information could benefit from a detailed study of the context of cognition, including insights provided by the Gibsonian tradition. Second, I examine the current controversy between symbolic and connectionist approaches and address the question of what contributions each offers to the other. Finally, I offer a framework in which multiple levels of inquiry in cognitve science can be related.     

Empirical evaluation and justification of methodologies in psychological science.

The purpose of this article is to describe a relatively new movement in the history and philosophy of science, naturalism, a form of pragmatism emphasizing that methodological principles are empirical statements. Thus, methodological principles must be evaluated and justified on the same basis as other empirical statements. On this view, methodological statements may be less secure than the specific scientific theories to which they give rise. The authors examined the feasibility of a naturalistic approach to methodology using logical and historical analysis and by contrasting theories that predict new facts versus theories that explain already known facts. They provide examples of how differences over methodological issues in psychology and in science generally may be resolved using a naturalistic, or empirical, approach.     

Cognitive-behavioral therapy and decision science

In recent decades cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and decision science (DS) have emerged within the field of psychological science. Though these are two vastly different areas of study, they are similar in that they address human information processing, cognition, behavior, and the link between them. In this article, we provide brief summaries of CBT and decision science, discuss their similarities and differences, and discuss how future research can identify ways in which these fields can inform each other. Several CBT techniques that might be of use to the efforts of the decision science field to prevent cognitive biases are suggested. Research that integrates these two fields may lead to the improvement of both.     

Editorial: Cognitive science and the understanding of emotions

Abstract

Within cognitive science emotions are likely to become increasingly important as we begin to understand more about systems with multiple goals that operate in imperfectly known environments. Whether cognitive science has insights into emotional processes to offer to people outside the discipline is a separate matter, but here too there are indications that the exploration of schemata, plans, and goals will give insights into the psychology of human emotions.     

Semantic approaches in the philosophy of science

In this article I give an overview of some recent work in philosophy of science dedicated to analysing the scientific process in terms of (conceptual) mathematical models of theories and the various semantic relations between such models, scientific theories, and aspects of reality. In current philosophy of science, the most interesting questions centre around the ways in which writers distinguish between theories and the mathematical structures that interpret them and in which they are true, i.e. between scientific theories as linguistic systems and their non-linguistic models. In philosophy of science literature there are two main approaches to the structure of scientific theories, the statement or syntactic approach—advocated by Carnap, Hempel and Nagel—and the non-statement or semantic approach—advocated, among others, by Suppes, the structuralists, Beth, Van Fraassen, Giere, Wójcicki. In conclusion, I briefly review some of the usual realist inspired questions about the possibility and character of relations between scientific theories and reality as implied by the various approaches I discuss in the course of the article. The models of a scientific theory should indeed be adequate to the phenomena, but if the theory is ‘adequate’ to (true in) its conceptual (mathematical) models as well, we have a model-theoretic realism that addresses the possible meaning and reference of ‘theoretical entities’ without relapsing into the metaphysics typical of the usual scientific realist approaches.     

Three steps to open science for qualitative research in psychology

Principles and applications of open science (also referred to as open research or open scholarship) in psychology have emerged in response to growing concerns about the replicability, transparency, reproducibility, and robustness of psychological research alongside global moves to open science in many fields. Our objective in this paper is to inform ways of collectively constructing open science practices and systems that are appropriate to, and get the best out of, the full range of qualitative and mixed-method approaches used in psychology. We achieve this by describing three areas of open research practice (contributorship, pre-registration, and open data) and explore how and why qualitative researchers might consider engaging with these in ways that are compatible with a qualitative research paradigm. We argue it is crucial that open research practices do not (even inadvertently) exclude qualitative research, and that qualitative researchers reflect on how we can meaningfully engage with open science in psychology.     

Editorial synthesis for counseling psychology and relationship science: Making connections and expanding disciplinary diversity

The field of relationship science began with understanding the role of attraction and has expanded to examine factors associated with relationship initiation, development, and maintenance. Despite the growth of the field, recent reviews of topics present in relationship science have revealed a dearth of literature examining sociocultural contexts that may impact relational processing, especially for traditionally underrepresented groups in science. Notably, given the theories, frameworks, and methods applied in these disciplines, counseling psychology and relationship science are at the forefront of examining such contexts. To this end, the goal of the special issue was to bring together scholars whose work is either an application of or showcases how the contemporary foci of counseling psychology, including but not limited to intersectionality, social justice, cultural competence/humility, identity, strengths-based approaches, and social power hierarchies are applicable to the study of relationships broadly defined. This editorial synthesis provides a brief summary of the four articles that are included in this special issue and ends with recommendations for future research that intersects counseling psychology and relationship science.     

Part-whole science

A scientific explanatory project, part-whole explanation, and a kind of science, part-whole science are premised on identifying, investigating, and using parts and wholes. In the biological sciences, mechanistic, structuralist, and historical explanations are part-whole explanations. Each expresses different norms, explananda, and aims. Each is associated with a distinct partitioning frame for abstracting kinds of parts. These three explanatory projects can be complemented in order to provide an integrative vision of the whole system, as is shown for a detailed case study: the tetrapod limb. My diagnosis of part-whole explanation in the biological sciences as well as in other domains exploring evolved, complex, and integrated systems (e.g., psychology and cognitive science) cross-cuts standard philosophical categories of explanation: causal explanation and explanation as unification. Part-whole explanation is itself one essential aspect of part-whole science.     

Synergistic Information Processing Encrypts Strategic Reasoning in Poker

There is a tendency in decision‐making research to treat uncertainty only as a problem to be overcome. But it is also a feature that can be leveraged, particularly in social interaction. Comparing the behavior of profitable and unprofitable poker players, we reveal a strategic use of information processing that keeps decision makers unpredictable. To win at poker, a player must exploit public signals from others. But using public inputs makes it easier for an observer to reconstruct that player's strategy and predict his or her behavior. How should players trade off between exploiting profitable opportunities and remaining unexploitable themselves? Using a recent multivariate approach to information theoretic data analysis and 1.75 million hands of online two‐player No‐Limit Texas Hold'em, we find that the important difference between winning and losing players is not in the amount of information they process, but how they process it. In particular, winning players are better at integrative information processing—creating new information from the interaction between their cards and their opponents’ signals. We argue that integrative information processing does not just produce better decisions, it makes decision‐making harder for others to reverse engineer, as an expert poker player's cards act like the private key in public‐key cryptography. Poker players encrypt their reasoning with the way they process information. The encryption function of integrative information processing makes it possible for players to exploit others while remaining unexploitable. By recognizing the act of information processing as a strategic behavior in its own right, we offer a detailed account of how experts use endemic uncertainty to conceal their intentions in high‐stakes competitive environments, and we highlight new opportunities between cognitive science, information theory, and game theory.     

The naked truth: Positive,arousing distractors impair rapid target perception

Emotional stimuli tend to capture and hold attention more than non-emotional stimuli do. Aversive pictures have been found to impair perception of visual targets even after the emotional information has disappeared. The benefits of such interlinked emotion and attention systems have sometimes been discussed within an evolutionary framework, with a survival advantage attributed to early detection of threatening stimuli. However, consistent with recent suggestions that attention is drawn to arousing stimuli regardless of whether they are positive or negative, the current investigation found that erotic distractors—generally rated as both pleasing and arousing—consistently elicited a transient “emotion-induced blindness” similar to that caused by aversive distractors (Experiment 1). This effect persisted despite performance-based monetary incentives to ignore the distractors (Experiment 2), and following attentional manipulations that reduced interference from aversive images (Experiment 3). The findings indicate that positively arousing stimuli can spontaneously cause emotion-induced deficits in visual processing, just as aversive stimuli can.     

PANENTHEISM AND THE UNDOING OF DISENCHANTMENT

In this article, I draw on historical and conceptual arguments to show, first, that disenchantment and the influential view of the relationship between science and religion to which disenchantment gives rise are rooted in the metaphysics of theism. I then introduce the alternative metaphysical position of panentheism and identify Jungian psychology as an important, if implicit, mid‐twentieth‐century instance of panentheistic thought. Using the example of Jungian psychology, I demonstrate how the viewpoint of panentheism undoes the implications of disenchantment for the relationship between science and religion, promoting greater opportunities for dialogue and reconciliation between science and religion. I note, however, that these closer relations may depend on understanding science and religion differently from how they are understood under disenchantment. While the original tension between science and religion is eased, another tension—between panentheistic and disenchanted understandings of science and religion—is exposed. I conclude by reflecting on some implications of this discussion for sociology.     

佛教五蕴系统——一种信息加工模型

作为佛教基础教义的“五蕴”是对心理机能尤其是认知过程的高度概括——人类信息加工包括色蕴、受蕴、想蕴、行蕴和识蕴五大机能系统。色蕴对感官信息进行初级加工;受蕴进行信息的情绪编码;随后在想蕴阶段进行高级整合,完成信息的概念语言表征;行蕴则为信息加工提供能量及方向导控;识蕴负责信息储存、监控调节及信息输出,最终形成完整的认知判断。佛教五蕴提供了一种信息加工的新模型。     

Perception of students in the south of Brazil of status of psychology as a science

73 university students (M age=20.5 yr., SD=4.8; range 17-44 yr.) from the southern state of Paraná took the Psychology as Science scale to assess whether they view psychology as a rigorous science. Analysis showed the students considered psychology to be a science, agreed study of psychology should be part of a university curriculum, not many believed that psychological research may contribute to the solution of psychological problems, and few believed obtaining a Bachelors of Science degree in Psychology was useful in obtaining employment. Data were compared with a previous study conducted on a northeastern sample.     

Behavioral science integration: A practical framework of multi-level converging evidence for behavioral science theories

Several frameworks exist to help science in organizing known information, connecting previously disparate phenomena, promoting understanding, and identifying gaps in knowledge. This paper integrates previous frameworks that have been used in the behavioral sciences to produce a more comprehensive, specific, and complete framework, consonant with the process of scientific discovery as based on multiple, independent, and converging lines of evidence. This multi-level convergence framework is designed specifically for the analysis and understanding of human cognitive/behavioral traits, in contrast to more general frameworks that are designed to be applied relatively widely (such as across all information processing systems or across all biological organisms). This integrated framework overcomes gaps in prior frameworks, provides a more complete picture of the interrelationships between various aspects of the behavioral sciences, and can aid in evaluating theories, both for comparison and identifying gaps in evidentiary support.     

The harms of ignoring the social nature of science

In this paper I argue that philosophers of science have an obligation to recognize and engage with the social nature of the sciences they assess if those sciences are morally relevant. Morally-relevant science is science that has the potential to risk harm to humans, non-humans, or the environment. My argument and the approach I develop are informed by an analysis of the philosophy of biology literature on the criticism of evolutionary psychology (EP), the study of the evolution of human psychology and behaviour. From this literature, I tease out two different methods of scientific critique. The first I call the “truth-detectional” approach. Those who take this approach are first and foremost concerned about the truth of EP claims as that truth can be determined by evidence. The second I call the “social-dimensional” approach. Those who take this approach talk about the production and truth of EP claims but within a social framework. On this account, the legitimacy and perceived legitimacy of EP claims are not separate from the institutional and social processes and values that lend to their production. I show that the truth-detectional approach risks harms to society and to the philosophy of science, but that the social-dimensional approach avoids these harms. Philosophers of science, therefore, should take a social-dimensional approach to the assessment of morally-relevant science.