PSY1SFP Scientific Foundations of Psychology Lecture 2 PDF

PSY1SFP: Scientific Foundations of Psychology Lecture 2: How do we know what we know? Lecture Plan Theory of mind Reasoning and (ir)rationality How do we progress knowledge in psychology? How do we know we’re right? Testing theories What happens when we’re wrong? Is psychology WEIRD? Kuhn: paradigms...

PSY1SFP: Scientific Foundations of Psychology Lecture 2: How do we know what we know? Lecture Plan Theory of mind Reasoning and (ir)rationality How do we progress knowledge in psychology? How do we know we’re right? Testing theories What happens when we’re wrong? Is psychology WEIRD? Kuhn: paradigms and paradigm shifts Gaining Knowledge The Scientific Method allows knowledge to progress by testing and refining theories, building upon existing knowledge Theory of Mind: Mindreading Humans (Homo sapiens) are a particularly social species One of Homo sapiens’ special attributes is the ability to read one another’s minds We attribute both ourselves and others a wide range of mental states, including beliefs, motivations, emotional states So we both have a mental state (e.g., I’m contented) and we attribute mental states to others (e.g., They’re peeved) Human minds think about others’ minds and try to understand and predict behaviours Theory of Mind: Mindreading Mindreading poses challenges: we only have access to our own mental state; others’ minds are not directly accessible Dennett (1987) proposed an ‘intentional stance’ theory to account for how we predict/understand others’ mental states: “First you decide to treat the object whose behavior is to be predicted as a rational agent; then you figure out what beliefs that agent ought to have, given its place in the world and its purpose. Then you figure out what desires it ought to have, on the same considerations, and finally you predict that this rational agent will act to further its goals in the light of its beliefs. A little practical reasoning from the chosen set of beliefs and desires will in many—but not all— instances yield a decision about what the agent ought to do; that is what you predict the agent will do.” (p.17) Theory of Mind: Mindreading “When I wish to find out how wise, or how stupid, or how good, or how wicked is any one, or what are his thoughts at the moment, I fashion the expression of my face, as accurately as possible, in accordance with the expression of his, and then wait to see what thoughts or sentiments arise in my mind or heart, as if to match or correspond with the expression.” (Poe, 1845/1990, p.18) “In general we may remark that the minds of men are mirrors to one another.” (Hume, 1739/1958, p. 365) Theory of Mind Mindreading isn’t something we’re born with – it develops during early childhood (3 – 5 years) Young children don’t appear to be able to distinguish between mental representation and reality – this can be tested using the false belief task (Wimmer & Perner, 1983) Reasoning and (ir)rationality Aristotle is credited with arguing that humans are a rational animal: humans are distinguished from plants and other animals by possession of a rational principle But psychological research suggests that humans often make irrational choices and perform poorly on reasoning tests Which 2 cards would you turn over to test the following rule: If there is a vowel on one side, there is an even number on the other Reasoning and (ir)rationality The Gambler’s Fallacy illustrates people’s tendency towards irrationality People often believe that the probability of an independent event is affected by a series of previous occurrences e.g., people think ‘heads’ is more likely when tossing a coin after 3 ‘tails’ in a row In roulette gamblers may bet on ‘red’ after a long steak of ‘black’ or wait to use a pokie machine that hasn’t paid out Reasoning and (ir)rationality Research shows that human reasoning is fallible; sometimes we reason irrationally Yet humans are an extremely successful, dominant species so it seems unlikely that human reasoning is typically irrational Evans and Over (1996) suggest that there are two notions of rationality 1) Thinking that is generally reliable for achieving our goals 2) Thinking which conforms to the correct (normative) theory Evans and Over suggest that humans are good at 1) but less good at 2) How do we progress knowledge in psychology? Intuition: relies on instinct/gut feeling as a guide to what feels true Authority: accepts ideas because a figure of authority says that they’re true Rationalism: uses logical and reasoning to draw conclusions Empiricism: acquires knowledge through observation and experience Scientific Method: systematically collects and evaluates evidence to test ideas and answer questions How do we know we’re right? Science proceeds through a series of hypotheses and refutations but we will never ‘know’ that we’re right! Based on a theory, we come up with a hypothesis which is tested – the results may support the hypothesis or may refute the hypothesis When a hypothesis is refuted we amend the hypothesis and test it again – by deriving, testing and refining hypotheses, we get closer and closer to the ‘truth’ BUT we can never expect to be completely correct Testing theories Psychological research is used to test, and so support or refute, psychological theories Research Paradigm/Programme (Chung & Hyland, 2012) 1. Determines what we think is possible and so determines the theories we are prepared to test 2. Determines the methods we consider rational to test our theory, and so determines the way we collect data Good research is: theory-driven designed to falsify hypotheses What happens when we’re wrong? New theories, methods and/or data may pose challenges to what we ‘know’ – we can’t exclude the possibility that what we ‘know’ now may be proven wrong in the future What happens when we’re wrong? Harvey (1628) proposed circulation: we have a pulse caused by the heart beating which pumps blood around the body “When a horse swallows water, then we see movement and hear a sound: that we freely admit. However, the idea that blood flows from veins to arteries, that we can neither perceive nor will we hear … we do not believe that blood flows, but if blood flows from the veins of the lung… into the branches of the arteries, how there can be a pulse which is perceived in the breast, how the noise? I am innocent of these speculations. “ Parsino (1647) What happens when we’re wrong? New theories, methods and/or data may pose challenges to what we ‘know’ – we can’t exclude the possibility that what we ‘know’ now may be proven wrong in the future e.g., in the 1950s both autism and schizophrenia were thought to be caused by ‘refrigerator mothers’ Homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder in the first edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM; removed from the DSM-II, 1973) Our current understanding of brain structure and cognitive function is limited by the limited sample… Is psychology WEIRD? In 2010 Henrich et al. published an important paper arguing that psychology is WEIRD. The participants tested in the VAST majority of psychology experiments come from countries that are: Western Educated Industrialised Rich Democratic Is psychology WEIRD? 96% of the research on human nature and human behaviour relies on data from 12% of the human population (Heinrich et al., 2010) – this means the data are not representative In fact, Heinrich et al. argue that WEIRD participants are some of the least representative people in the world and are often the outliers in cross-cultural comparisons From babies’ motor development (Western kids are slower to crawl) to brain lateralization (literacy alters brain structure) to moral reasoning (individual vs group), WEIRD participants live up to the acronym Kuhn and Paradigm Shifts Kuhn (1970) introduced the concept of paradigms in scientific research – the paradigm is the basic framework of assumptions and principals used by a scientific community (set of norms that tell a scientists how to think and behave) e.g., in clinical psychology and psychotherapy, most theories assume that when someone is mentally ill, something is wrong and the therapist fixes what is wrong (e.g., cognitive behavioural therapy); an alternate assumption holds that the body is selfhealing and the therapist provides the conditions needed for the body to heal (e.g., humanistic therapy) Kuhn and Paradigm Shifts Whilst there may be rival schools of thought, a single dominant paradigm is accepted by the scientific community until sufficient problems/anomalies emerge Then alternate theories are proposed and a rival paradigm becomes accepted as the new paradigm Kuhn and Paradigm Shifts Pre-science: state before a scientific consensus is reached Disorganized, constant debate, multiple theories Normal Science: paradigm is established Scientific work progresses and works to solve problems thrown up by the paradigm; problems that can’t be solved within the paradigm are seen as anomalies (assume that they’ll eventually be solved) "Normal Science, the activity in which most scientists inevitably spend almost all of their time, is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like. Much of the success of the enterprise derives from the community's willingness to defend that assumption, if necessary at considerable cost. Normal Science, for example, often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments" (Kuhn, 1996, p. 5). Kuhn and Paradigm Shifts Crisis: develops when anomalies are sufficiently numerous or serious to undermine the assumptions of the paradigm Ideas/theories that challenge the paradigm are developed, resulting in multiple competing theories during a period of ‘extraordinary science’ If anomalies can be resolved the crisis is over and we return to ‘normal science’ If the anomalies can’t be resolved there’s a scientific revolution resulting in a paradigm shift Kuhn and Paradigm Shifts In medieval times people believed that the sun, and all the planets, revolves around the earth which was at the centre of the universe (geocentrism) In 1543 Copernicus published an alternate theory, instead suggesting that the earth and all the planets revolved around the sun (heliocentrism) Galileo’s pioneering use of the telescope allowed him to collect data about the positions of the planets and stars – his data supported the Copernican theory but caused such a scandal that he was tried and convicted of heresy! Kuhn and Paradigm Shifts Revolution: following the crisis a new paradigm will be adopted The new paradigm explains observations, and resolves anomalies, better than the old paradigm We return to ‘normal science’ but under this new paradigm And so on… Kuhn & Pardigm Shifts We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. Pauli (1958) Summary Human minds think about others’ minds and try to understand and predict behaviours (theory of mind) Research using the false belief task shows that we are not born with theory of mind; it develops during childhood Theory of mind tends to assume humans are rational, but psychological research suggests that humans often make irrational choices and perform poorly on reasoning tests (e.g., Wason task; Gambler’s fallacy) Science progresses by testing and supporting/refuting hypotheses but we will never ‘know’ that we’re right Good research is: theory-driven and designed to falsify hypotheses Kuhn (1970) introduced the paradigm: basic framework of assumptions and principals used by a scientific community A single dominant paradigm is accepted by the scientific community until sufficient problems/anomalies emerge. Alternate theories are then proposed and a rival paradigm becomes accepted as the new paradigm (scientific revolution!)