Lecture 8 Flashcards
What did Cosmides & Tooby, 1987 say about natural selection?
It cannot select for behaviour per se; it can only select for mechanisms that produce behaviour. This means psychological mechanisms are chosen (mental adaptations, information processing circuits in brains etc) which suggests natural selection should favour efficiency
What did Fodor, 1983, say that modulatiry of mind was
Cognitive psychology; perceptual processes are organised as hard-wired genetically influenced modules.
The modules respond to specific circumstances and stimuli, with specific outcomes. It is automatic and fast. He argued that central cognitive processes are not modular, but are slow and non-mandatory influenced by knowledge and learning. They are domain general
What did Tooby, Cosmides and Barkow suggest about the adapted mind
Argued that central processes are also modular. 1. Domain-general processes are inefficient and error prone. 2. Children couldn’t learn everything they needed. They suggestes the swiss army knife.
Is language modular?
Chomsky suggests language is modular, with the language acquisition module (1975). Where there is specific anatomical regions for language (broca’s and wernike’s area) The capacity for language seems innate and it is a duble dissociation; froup with impaired language but typical intellgience (Lesions in broca’s and/or wernickes area), group with typical language but imparied intelligence (William’s syndrome).
What are the clinical evidences for encapsulated modules?
Visual agnosia - the man who mistook his wife for a hat.
Achromatopsia - total colour blindness.
Akinetopsia - motion blindness.
Agrammatism - loss of complex syntax.
Jargon aphasia - loss of complex semantics.
Alexia - loss of object words.
Also, capgras delusion - the delusion that an individual has been replaced with an identical looking imposter and prospagnosia - imparied face recognition.
Does evolution favour domain specific or domain general psychological mechanisms?
Domain specific is innate and hard-wired, with short-cuts for specific problems. Whereas domain general is influence by learning, flexible and applicable to different situations.
What is the opposition to modularity?
Domain-general processes are no more incompatible with evolutionary theory than domain-specific processes (Laland & Brown, 2002) - they are flexible!
Discuss the counter-evidence to modularity
Plasticity of the brain - if on ebrain region is injured, another can take over that function, e.g. when a person becomes blind, the visual cortex can take over touch perception.
Communication between modules - knowing can affect perception: if you are expecting to see a cat, you are more likely to see a hallucination of a cat. And if you’re watching someone’s lips while they speak that can help you hear their words more clearly.
What are the alternatives to strict modularity?
Sperber (1994) agrees that there are distnct perceptual modules that are organised as concepts (modules are related to a specific concept and are built up with experience), but these modules are coordinated and hierarchical.
The developmental perspective offers an alternative view. Karmiloff-smith (1996) suggested modularity derives the process of development, modules just spring into action. Proposes innate predispositions rather than modules. BUT domain-specific knowledge that becomes more flexible during development.
Is face perception modular?
Face perception is an important process and supports modularity. Karmiloff-Smith argues that recognising faces is domain-specific modularisation (not innate). Because babies fixate on face stimuli more so than incomplete faces (Baron-Cohen, 1995). However, brain studies show that processing becomes more refined by 12months. So is it more recognition expertise?
