For any who may be interested, Iris Marion Young wrote a (now quite famous) piece called "Throwing Like a Girl: A Phenomenology of Feminine Body Comportment Motility and Spatiality" in which she describes how Merlau-Ponty's description of the 'lived body' (most notably, in Phenomenology of Perception) differs for women. This difference is not merely a difference in observed behavior but, consistent with Merlau-Ponty's account of an embodied being in the world, it strikes right at the heart of the lived experience.
So, for example, the Merlau-Ponty quote from the Heft reading, "The body is the vehicle for being in the world, and having a body is, for a living creature, to be intervolved in a definite environment, to identify oneself with certain projects and be continually committed to them" (Merleau-Ponty, 1963, p. 82), is for Young different in men and women within the context of a patriarchal society.
This is of particular importance to the Heft reading because the ideas of ecological psychology are clearly in line with those of Merleau-Ponty. As such, Young's critique of Merleau-Ponty may be relevant to this approach, particularly in the later sections of the paper in which Heft discusses how functional meaning may be culturally derived and how perceptual learning is shaped by many variables (including exploration - which Young would claim to be inhibited in women - and age).
Wednesday, 25 February 2015
Ecological Analytic Philosophy
Despite my fear of being the person inappropriately dressed for the party (metaphorically speaking), I will attempt to relate ecological psychology to the analytic philosophical tradition (Adam, go easy on me). After all, Harry Heft's description of the ecological approach (particularly that of Gibson) inspired within me a flashback to my last semester, not only within the continental camp (e.g. Merleau-Ponty, who was cited several times in the paper, not to mention concepts of the 'lived body' and apperception described by Husserl), but also within analytic attempts at demystifying perception (if one can call it that). Specifically, I was reminded of the sense-data debate, with Bertrand Russell in one corner and Wilfrid STALKER Sellars in the other. Ding, ding! Round one!
Tuesday, 24 February 2015
Is pain all in our heads?
Of Statistics and Significance
Most psychology students are steeped in the culture of null hypothesis testing, with convention dictating that p-values below 0.05 be treated rather differently from p-values above that threshold. If one had little exposure to other branches of science, one might even come to believe that this form of inferential practice was at the heart of the scientific method. Nothing could be more (significantly) wrong. In fact, null hypothesis testing, the concept of statistical significance, and the holy p-value are all rather local phenomena, found primarily in the soft sciences, where the entities being discussed are in desperate need of shoring up to ensure their very reality: a job that null hypothesis significance testing does very poorly.
Interesting then that a reputable journal smack in the middle of the soft sciences, Basic and Applied Social Psychology has now reached a point where it is banning null hypothesis testing and the associated argument from "significance".
Interesting then that a reputable journal smack in the middle of the soft sciences, Basic and Applied Social Psychology has now reached a point where it is banning null hypothesis testing and the associated argument from "significance".
Monday, 23 February 2015
Planimeter perception
Runeson argues that perception consists of 'Smart' Perceptual Mechanisms. He compares them to
the polar planimeter, an instrument which allows for the measurement of areas
on a 2D surface such as a map. These smart mechanisms are similar to the affordances that Gibson sees as the basis for perception. Runeson does not see the need for cognitive
processes in perception. As in the planimeter, the relationship between
the stimulus and the smart mechanism is automatic, emanating from the ‘physical
realisation’ of the mechanism.
This is fine if the phenomenon
under study is perception and the unit of analysis is the smart mechanism. But
if we want to dig lower, how does it work? The distance the planimeter travels in any direction is directly
related to the area covered by the arm.
A mathematical proof is available.
Can smart mechanisms be explained at a lower level?
Sunday, 22 February 2015
Why Chomsky might be right about the evolution of language... but probably isn't. Part 1
This is a two-part blog post. Part
1 explains why Chomsky might be right, the second part will explain why I think
he isn’t.
Chomsky says language didn't evolve
- according to psychologist Frederick Coolidge, who recently wrote a blog post
entitled "Why Chomsky is wrong about the
evolution of language." Citing
a 2014 paper by Bolhuis, Tattersall, Chomsky
& Berwick as evidence,
Coolidge makes two major claims. First, that Chomsky denies language
evolved, but appeared suddenly and was not subject to natural selection.
Secondly that Chomsky denies genetic evidence, comparative animal studies,
neurophysiological evidence and childhood acquisition theories, all of which
contradict his language origin theory. In this blog post I’ll deal with his
first point and the second in my next post.
Saturday, 21 February 2015
Try to see if from their perspective: Embodied Perspective Taking
The other day while I was studying at home a repair person asked for the code to our front gate so they could come as they pleased. I couldn’t tell them the number until I shifted my body slightly to the left, where if I were outside in front of my house, I’d be facing the dial pad, and drew the pattern of the numbers I habitually press in the air. Simultaneously I recalled the standard arrangement of numbers on a dial pad and superimposed that pattern on a mental image I had of the dial pad. 1,4,3, 6.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





