scholarly journals "Please tap the shape, anywhere you like": The psychological reality of shape skeletons

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. 1155-1155
Author(s):  
C. Firestone ◽  
B. Scholl
Keyword(s):  
Psychological Reality ◽  
Shape Skeletons

LPCD framework: Analytical tool or psychological model?

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Danks
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Analytical Tool ◽  
Mathematical Framework ◽  
Bayesian Decision ◽  
Perceptual Decision Making ◽  
Psychological Model ◽  
Psychological Reality ◽  
Psychological Theories ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Bayesian Decision Making

AbstractThe target article uses a mathematical framework derived from Bayesian decision making to demonstrate suboptimal decision making but then attributes psychological reality to the framework components. Rahnev & Denison's (R&D) positive proposal thus risks ignoring plausible psychological theories that could implement complex perceptual decision making. We must be careful not to slide from success with an analytical tool to the reality of the tool components.

Situating ourselves linguistically and culturally in psychological reality.

PsycCRITIQUES ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 56 (35) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sherri McCarthy ◽  
Natalie Hess
Keyword(s):  
Psychological Reality

Morphomic structures in synchrony and diachrony

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Maiden
Keyword(s):  
Crucial Role ◽  
Psychological Reality ◽  
Linguistic Description ◽  
Crucial Problem ◽  
Theoretical Considerations

The chapter discusses in further detail the nature of morphomes and of morphomic structure, demonstrating the crucial role played by diachronic data in diagnosing the psychological reality of putative morphomic structures and addressing some serious misapprehensions in the literature with regard to the kind of criteria adopted in this book. It is also argued here that the identification of morphomic structures is a necessary part of linguistic description, independently of theoretical considerations. It is stressed that the crucial problem is to explain why morphomic structures persist in diachrony.

Positive Psychology’s A Priori Problem

2017 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 313-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara S. Held
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
A Priori ◽  
A Posteriori ◽  
Negative Numbers ◽  
Psychological States ◽  
Psychological Reality ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Optimal Functioning ◽  
Conceptual Muddles ◽  
Negative Phenomena

The positive/negative distinction works well in many fields—for example, in mathematics negative numbers hold their own, and in medical pathology negative results are usually celebrated. But in positive psychology negativity should be replaced with positivity for flourishing/optimal functioning to occur. That the designation of the psychological states and processes deemed positive (good/desirable) and negative (bad/undesirable) is made a priori, independent of circumstantial particularity, both intrapersonal and interpersonal, does not seem to bother positive psychologists. But it should, as it results in conceptual muddles and dead ends that cannot be solved within their conceptual framework of positivity and negativity. Especially problematic is an ambiguity I find in positive psychologists’ a priori and a posteriori understandings of positivity and negativity, an ambiguity about constitutive and causal relations that pervades their science and the conclusions drawn from it. By eliminating their a priori dichotomy of positivity and negativity, positive psychologists might well find themselves in a better position to put back together the psychological reality that they have fractured in their ontologically dubious move of carving up psychological reality a priori into positive and negative phenomena. They then might find themselves better placed to “broaden and build” their own science of flourishing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document