DOCSLIB.ORG

The General Intelligence Factor Exploring Intelligence 25 Copyright 1998 Scientific American, Inc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The General Intelligence Factor Exploring Intelligence 25 Copyright 1998 Scientific American, Inc Despite some popular The General assertions, a single factor for intelligence, called g, can be measured with IQ Intelligence tests and does predict Factor success in life by Linda S. Gottfredson No subject in psychology has pro- downplayed or ignored. This misrepresen- mental tests are often designed to mea- voked more intense public controversy tation reflects a clash between a deeply sure specific domains of cognition—ver- than the study of human intelligence. felt ideal and a stubborn reality. The ideal, bal fluency, say, or mathematical skill, From its beginning, research on how implicit in many popular critiques of spatial visualization or memory—people and why people differ in overall mental intelligence research, is that all people are who do well on one kind of test tend to ability has fallen prey to political and born equally able and that social inequali- do well on the others, and people who social agendas that obscure or distort ty results only from the exercise of unjust do poorly generally do so across the even the most well-established scientific privilege. The reality is that Mother board. This overlap, or intercorrelation, findings. Journalists, too, often present a Nature is no egalitarian. People are in fact suggests that all such tests measure view of intelligence research that is unequal in intellectual potential—and some global element of intellectual abil- exactly the opposite of what most intel- they are born that way, just as they are ity as well as specific cognitive skills. In ligence experts believe. For these and born with different potentials for height, recent decades, psychologists have other reasons, public understanding of physical attractiveness, artistic flair, ath- devoted much effort to isolating that intelligence falls far short of public con- letic prowess and other traits. Although general factor, which is abbreviated g, cern about it. The IQ experts discussing subsequent experience shapes this poten- from the other aspects of cognitive abili- their work in the public arena can feel tial, no amount of social engineering can ty gauged in mental tests. as though they have fallen down the make individuals with widely divergent The statistical extraction of g is per- rabbit hole into Alice’s Wonderland. mental aptitudes into intellectual equals. formed by a technique called factor The debate over intelligence and Of course, there are many kinds of analysis. Introduced at the turn of the intelligence testing focuses on the ques- talent, many kinds of mental ability and century by British psychologist Charles tion of whether it is useful or meaning- many other aspects of personality and Spearman, factor analysis determines the ful to evaluate people according to a character that influence a person’s minimum number of underlying dimen- single major dimension of cognitive chances of happiness and success. The sions necessary to explain a pattern of competence. Is there indeed a general functional importance of general mental correlations among measurements. A mental ability we commonly call “intel- ability in everyday life, however, means general factor suffusing all tests is not, ligence,” and is it important in the prac- that without onerous restrictions on as is sometimes argued, a necessary out- tical affairs of life? The answer, based on individual liberty, differences in mental come of factor analysis. No general factor decades of intelligence research, is an competence are likely to result in social has been found in the analysis of per- unequivocal yes. No matter their form inequality. This gulf between equal sonality tests, for example; instead the or content, tests of mental skills invari- opportunity and equal outcomes is per- method usually yields at least five dimen- ably point to the existence of a global haps what pains Americans most about sions (neuroticism, extraversion, consci- factor that permeates all aspects of cog- the subject of intelligence. The public entiousness, agreeableness and openness nition. And this factor seems to have intuitively knows what is at stake: when to ideas), each relating to different sub- considerable influence on a person’s asked to rank personal qualities in order sets of tests. But, as Spearman observed, practical quality of life. Intelligence as of desirability, people put intelligence a general factor does emerge from analy- measured by IQ tests is the single most second only to good health. But with a sis of mental ability tests, and leading effective predictor known of individual more realistic approach to the intellectual psychologists, such as Arthur R. Jensen of performance at school and on the job. It differences between people, society could the University of California at Berkeley also predicts many other aspects of well- better accommodate these differences and John B. Carroll of the University of being, including a person’s chances of and minimize the inequalities they create. North Carolina at Chapel Hill, have con- divorcing, dropping out of high school, firmed his findings in the decades since. being unemployed or having illegitimate Extracting g Partly because of this research, most intel- children. ligence experts now use g as the working By now the vast majority of intelli- Early in the century-old study of definition of intelligence. gence researchers take these findings for intelligence, researchers discovered that The general factor explains most granted. Yet in the press and in public all tests of mental ability ranked individ- differences among individuals in perfor- debate, the facts are typically dismissed, uals in about the same way. Although mance on diverse mental tests. This is 24 Scientific American Presents Human Intelligence Copyright 1998 Scientific American, Inc. Y AR T LIBR BRIDGEMAN AR Ad Parnassum, by Paul Klee HIERARCHICAL MODEL of intelligence is akin to a pyramid, with g at the apex; true regardless of what specific ability a intelligence researchers can statistically other aptitudes are arrayed at successively test is meant to assess, regardless of the separate the g component of IQ. The abil- lower levels according to their specificity. test’s manifest content (whether words, ity to isolate g has revolutionized research numbers or figures) and regardless of the on general intelligence, because it has way the test is administered (in written allowed investigators to show that the or oral form, to an individual or to a predictive value of mental tests derives stitutes intelligence in action. Indeed, group). Tests of specific mental abilities almost entirely from this global factor intelligence can best be described as the do measure those abilities, but they all rather than from the more specific apti- ability to deal with cognitive complexity. reflect g to varying degrees as well. Hence, tudes measured by intelligence tests. This description coincides well with the g factor can be extracted from scores In addition to quantifying individual lay perceptions of intelligence. The g fac- on any diverse battery of tests. differences, tests of mental abilities have tor is especially important in just the Conversely, because every mental also offered insight into the meaning of kind of behaviors that people usually test is “contaminated” by the effects of intelligence in everyday life. Some tests associate with “smarts”: reasoning, prob- specific mental skills, no single test mea- and test items are known to correlate bet- lem solving, abstract thinking, quick sures only g. Even the scores from IQ ter with g than others do. In these items learning. And whereas g itself describes tests—which usually combine about a the “active ingredient” that demands the mental aptitude rather than accumulated dozen subtests of specific cognitive exercise of g seems to be complexity. knowledge, a person’s store of knowledge skills—contain some “impurities” that More complex tasks require more mental tends to correspond with his or her g reflect those narrower skills. For most manipulation, and this manipulation of level, probably because that accumulation purposes, these impurities make no prac- information—discerning similarities and represents a previous adeptness in learn- tical difference, and g and IQ can be used inconsistencies, drawing inferences, ing and in understanding new informa- interchangeably. But if they need to, grasping new concepts and so on—con- tion. The g factor is also the one attribute The General Intelligence Factor Exploring Intelligence 25 Copyright 1998 Scientific American, Inc. Matrix Reasoning 1. 2. A B C D E A B C D E Number Series Analogies 3. 2, 4, 6, 8, _, _ 7. brother: sister father: 4. 3,6,3,6, _,_ A. child B. mother C. cousin D. friend 5. 1,5,4,2,6,5, _, _ 8. joke: humor law: TFREDSON A. lawyer B. mercy C. courts D. justice T 6. 2,4,3,9,4,16, _,_ GO LINDA S. Answers: 1. A; 2. D; 3. 10, 12; 4. 3, 6; 5. 3, 7; 6. 5, 25; 7. B; 8. D 8. B; 7. 25; 5, 6. 7; 3, 5. 6; 3, 4. 12; 10, 3. D; 2. A; 1. Answers: SAMPLE IQ ITEMS resembling those on current tests require in the images, numbers or words. Because they can vary in the test taker to fill in the empty spaces based on the pattern complexity, such tasks are useful in assessing g level. that best distinguishes among persons pendent of g (or each other). Further- by-product of one’s opportunities to considered gifted, average or retarded. more, it is not clear to what extent learn skills and information valued in a Several decades of factor-analytic Gardner’s intelligences tap personality particular cultural context. True, the research on mental tests have confirmed a traits or motor skills rather than mental concept of intelligence and the way in hierarchical model of mental abilities. aptitudes. which individuals are ranked according The evidence, summarized most effec- Other forms of intelligence have to this criterion could be social artifacts.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Compare and Contrast Two Models Or Theories of One Cognitive Process with Reference to Research Studies
    ! The following sample is for the learning objective: Compare and contrast two models or theories of one cognitive process with reference to research studies. What is the question asking for? * A clear outline of two models of one cognitive process. The cognitive process may be memory, perception, decision-making, language or thinking. * Research is used to support the models as described. The research does not need to be outlined in a lot of detail, but underatanding of the role of research in supporting the models should be apparent.. * Both similarities and differences of the two models should be clearly outlined. Sample response The theory of memory is studied scientifically and several models have been developed to help The cognitive process describe and potentially explain how memory works. Two models that attempt to describe how (memory) and two models are memory works are the Multi-Store Model of Memory, developed by Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968), clearly identified. and the Working Memory Model of Memory, developed by Baddeley & Hitch (1974). The Multi-store model model explains that all memory is taken in through our senses; this is called sensory input. This information is enters our sensory memory, where if it is attended to, it will pass to short-term memory. If not attention is paid to it, it is displaced. Short-term memory Research. is limited in duration and capacity. According to Miller, STM can hold only 7 plus or minus 2 pieces of information. Short-term memory memory lasts for six to twelve seconds. When information in the short-term memory is rehearsed, it enters the long-term memory store in a process called “encoding.” When we recall information, it is retrieved from LTM and moved A satisfactory description of back into STM.
    [Show full text]
  • Theories of Intelligence, Learning, and Motivation As a Basis for Praxis
    Theories of Intelligence, Learning, and Motivation as a Basis for Praxis Dr Eulalee Nderu-Boddington Ph.D. Education Assistant Professor at Prince Sultan University Riyadh Saudi Arabia May 26th 2008 ABSTRACT This paper examines how Piaget, Werner, and Gardner differ regarding the roles of cognition, intelligence, and learning in the developmental process. Piaget believes in the predominance of genetic factors. Werner stresses the influence of biological factors, while Gardner proposes that the environment plays a greater influence in how intelligence and learning are acquired. This paper also surveys research on achievement and learning strategies and their role in student motivation. The development of conceptual understanding is related to prior knowledge, interest, learning goals, and achievement goals. Introduction This paper focuses on the developmental theories of Werner, Gardner, and Piaget, all of whom have significantly influenced the field of education through their differing understandings of how students learn from childhood to adulthood. Most researchers agree that a combination of biology and environment affects personality and intelligence, but they differ in assigning relative importance to these two influences. Although poor nutrition, poor health care, and head injuries have been linked to poor IQ scores, for the most part environmental variables have not been found to account for a substantial portion of observed variations in human intelligence. Therefore, some psychologists believe heredity is the dominant influence on intelligence. They base their views on research that concentrates on variations among people in general cognitive ability or IQ. Others believe that such research overemphasizes the concept of IQ and gives too much credit to genetics (Azar, 1995).
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Ability and Fertility Amongst Swedish Men. Evidence from 18 Cohorts of Military Conscription
    Max-Planck-Institut für demografische Forschung Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research Konrad-Zuse-Strasse 1 D-18057 Rostock Germany Tel +49 (0) 3 81 20 81 - 0 Fax +49 (0) 3 81 20 81 - 202 www.demogr.mpg.de MPIDR Working Paper WP 2017-020 l December 2017 Cognitive ability and fertility amongst Swedish men. Evidence from 18 cohorts of military conscription Martin Kolk l [email protected] Kieron Barclay l [email protected] © Copyright is held by the authors. Working papers of the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research receive only limited review. Views or opinions expressed in working papers are attributable to the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute. Cognitive ability and fertility amongst Swedish men. Evidence from 18 cohorts of military conscription Martin Kolk1 and Kieron Barclay2 Abstract: We examine the relationship between cognitive ability and childbearing patterns in contemporary Sweden using administrative register data. The topic has a long history in the social sciences and has been the topic of a large number of studies, many arguing for a negative gradient between intelligence and fertility. We link fertility histories to military conscription tests with intelligences scores for all Swedish born men born 1951 to 1967. We find an overall positive relationship between intelligence scores and fertility and that is consistent across our cohorts. The relationship is most pronounced for transition to a first child, and that men with the lowest categories of IQ-scores have the fewest children. Using fixed effects models we additionally control for all factors that are shared across siblings, and after such adjustments we find a stronger positive relationship between IQ and fertility.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligence, Genetics Of: Heritability and Causation
    Intelligence, Genetics of: Heritability and Causation a risk factor for Alzheimers-disease. Psychological Medicine 25: 223–9 Skodak M, Skeels H M 1949 A final follow-up on one hundred adopted children. Journal of Genetic Psychology 75: 84–125 Wilson R S 1983 The Louisville Twin Study: Developmental synchronies in behavior. Child Deelopment 54: 298–316 R. Plomin Intelligence, Genetics of: Heritability and Causation In theory, the ‘genetics of intelligence’ describes the extent to which, and manner by which, an individual’s Figure 1 mental abilities are influenced by his or her genes. In The frequency distribution for an idealized IQ test. practice, there is a lot of debate and no universally Raw scores from a test are rescaled to fit the shape of a accepted description of the genetics of intelligence. normal curve with mean at 100 and standard deviation Intelligence is regarded as a complex trait, meaning of 15. Consequently, when the test is devised, 95 that many genetic and environmental factors are percent of the population will have IQ scores that fall thought to influence it. Nevertheless, we know little between 70 and 130 by construction about the number or nature of genes that influence cognitive abilities. We know even less about how the different aspects of intelligence interact with one expression of these genes depends on other genes or on another and that these interactions generate the environmental factors. To complicate matters even observed correlations (Hunt 1997). For example, further, there are numerous facets of intelligence, each strength in one area of intelligence (e.g., memory) of which may be influenced in different ways by genes might compensate for weakness in another area (e.g., and the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Psychometric G: Definition and Substantiation
    Psychometric g: Definition and Substantiation Arthur R. Jensen University of Culifornia, Berkeley The construct known as psychometric g is arguably the most important construct in all of psychology largelybecause of its ubiquitous presence in all tests of mental ability and its wide-ranging predictive validity for a great many socially significant variables, including scholastic performance and intellectual attainments, occupational status, job performance, in- come, law abidingness, and welfare dependency. Even such nonintellec- tual variables as myopia, general health, and longevity, as well as many other physical traits, are positively related to g. Of course, the causal con- nections in the whole nexus of the many diverse phenomena involving the g factor is highly complex. Indeed, g and its ramifications cut across the behavioral sciences-brainphysiology, psychology, sociology-perhaps more than any other scientific construct. THE DOMAIN OF g THEORY It is important to keep in mind the distinction between intelligence and g, as these terms are used here. The psychology of intelligence could, at least in theory, be based on the study of one person,just as Ebbinghaus discov- ered some of the laws of learning and memory in experimentswith N = 1, using himself as his experimental subject. Intelligence is an open-ended category for all those mental processes we view as cognitive, such as stimu- lus apprehension, perception, attention, discrimination, generalization, 39 40 JENSEN learning and learning-set acquisition, short-term and long-term memory, inference, thinking, relation eduction, inductive and deductive reasoning, insight, problem solving, and language. The g factor is something else. It could never have been discovered with N = 1, because it reflects individual di,fferences in performance on tests or tasks that involve anyone or moreof the kinds of processes just referred to as intelligence.
    [Show full text]
  • S Intelligence?
    Philosophical Psychology, 2018 VOL. 31, NO. 2, 232–252 https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2017.1401706 What Kind of Kind IIss Intelligence? Davide Serpico Department of Classics, Philosophy and History, University of Genoa, Italy AbstractAbstract: The model of human intelligence that is most widely adopted derives from psychometrics and behavioral genetics. This standard approach conceives intelligence as a general cognitive ability that is genetically highly heritable and describable using quantitative traits analysis. The paper analyzes intelligence within the debate on natural kinds and contends that the general intelligence conceptualization does not carve psychological nature at its joints. Moreover, I argue that this model assumes an essentialist perspective. As an alternative, I consider an HPC theory of intelligence and evaluate how it deals with essentialism and with intuitions coming from cognitive science. Finally, I highlight some concerns about the HPC model as well, and conclude by suggesting that it is unnecessary to treat intelligence as a kind in any sense. Keywords : Intelligence; IQ; g Factor; Natural Kinds; Homeostatic Property Cluster; Essentialism; Psychometrics; Behavioral Genetics; Heritability Introduction Although the concept of intelligence is shrouded in controversy, it is nonetheless widely used both in psychological and in folk settings. Several theories have been proposed in order to clarify whether intelligence can be conceived as a general ability or only as a bundle of distinct cognitive phenomena. Several criticisms have been raised against a strong interpretation of genetic data based on the well-known intelligence quotient (IQ). Several attempts have been made to find more comprehensive definitions of intelligence. After a century of research, there is still extensive debate going on about the status of intelligence.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognition, Affect, and Learning —The Role of Emotions in Learning
    How People Learn: Cognition, Affect, and Learning —The Role of Emotions in Learning Barry Kort Ph.D. and Robert Reilly Ed.D. {kort, reilly}@media.mit.edu formerly MIT Media Lab Draft as of date January 2, 2019 Learning is the quintessential emotional experience. Our species, Homo Sapiens, are the beings who think. We are also the beings who learn, and the beings who simultaneously experience a rich spectrum of affective emotional states, including a selected suite of emotional states specifically and directly related to learning. This proposal reviews previously published research and theoretical models relating emotions to learning and cognition and presents ideas and proposals for extending that research and reducing it to practice. Our perspective The concept of affect in learning (i.e., emotions in learning) is the same pedagogy applied by an athletic coach at a sporting event. A coach recognizes the affective state of an athlete, and, for example, exhorts that athlete toward increased performance (e.g., raises the level of enthusiasm), or, redirects a frustrated athlete to a productive affective state (e.g., instills confidence, or pride). A coach recognizes that an athlete’s affective state is a critical factor during performance; and, when appropriate, a coach will intervene with a meaningful strategy or tactic. Athletic coaches are skilled at recognizing affective states and intervening appropriately. Educators can have the same impact on a learner by understanding a learner’s affective state and intervening with appropriate strategies or tactics that will meaningfully manage and guide a person’s learning journey. There are several learning theories and a great deal of neuroscience/affective research.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 14: Individual Differences in Cognition 369 Copyright ©2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc
    INDIVIDUAL 14 DIFFERENCES IN COGNITION CHAPTER OUTLINE Setting the Stage Individual Differences in Cognition Ability Differences distribute Cognitive Styles Learning Styles Expert/Novice Differences or The Effects of Aging on Cognition Gender Differences in Cognition Gender Differences in Skills and Abilities Verbal Abilities Visuospatial Abilities post, Quantitative and Reasoning Abilities Gender Differences in Learning and Cognitive Styles Motivation for Cognitive Tasks Connected Learning copy, not SETTING THE STAGE .................................................................. y son and daughter share many characteristics, but when it comes Do to school they really show different aptitudes. My son adores - Mliterature, history, and social sciences. He ceremoniously handed over his calculator to me after taking his one and only college math course, noting, “I won’t ever be needing this again.” He has a fantastic memory for all things theatrical, and he amazes his fellow cast members and directors with how quickly he can learn lines and be “off book.” In contrast, my daughter is really adept at noticing patterns and problem solving, and she Proof is enjoying an honors science course this year while hoping that at least one day in the lab they will get to “blow something up.” She’s a talented dancer and picks up new choreography seemingly without much effort. These differences really don’t seem to be about ability; Tim can do statis- tics competently, if forced, and did dance a little in some performances, Draft and Kimmie can read and analyze novels or learn about historical topics and has acted competently in some school plays. What I’m talking about here is more differences in their interests, their preferred way of learning, maybe even their style of learning.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Retention of Generation Y Students Through the Use of Games
    11 COGNITNE RETENTION OF GENERATION Y STUDENTS THROUGH THE USE OF GAMES AND SIMULATIONS A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Argosy University - Sarasota In partial fulfillment of The requirements for the degree of Doctorate of Business Administration Accounting Major by Melanie A. Hicks Argosy University - Sarasota August 2007 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. III Abstract A new generation of students has begun to proliferate colleges and universities. Unlike previous generations, Generation Y students have been exposed to a variety of technological advancements, have different behaviors towards learning, and have been raised in a different environment. These differences may be causing conflict with traditional pedagogy in educational institutions, thereby creating, while it may be unintentional, an inability for Generation Y students to learn under the standard educational method of lecture presented to previous generations. The literature supports the position that additional teaching methods are needed in order to effectively educate Generation Y students (Prensky, 2001; Brozik & Zapalska, 1999; Albrecht, 1995). Consequently, the primary goal of this dissertation is to examine the ability of Generation Y students to achieve greater cognitive retention when the instructional material is conveyed with the assistance of or through the use of games andlor simulations. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. IV © Copyright 2007 by Melanie A. Hicks Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Scott Hicks, who has encouraged me and constantly pushed me to "seek first to understand, then to be understood".
    [Show full text]
  • Human Intelligence Differences: a Recent History Ian J
    Forum TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.5 No.3 March 2001 127 Historical Perspective Human intelligence differences: a recent history Ian J. Deary Differences among humans in their mental important5. As a result of The Bell Curve’s that it does not emerge (Guilford, abilities are prominent, important, and controversies, the APA put together a task Thurstone, Gardner, Cattell and Horn); that controversial. In part, the controversy force of 11 people to write a report on there is a hierarchy of mental abilities from arises from over-uses and abuses of mental ‘Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns’. The the general factor through broad ability tests, from insalubrious events in the individuals concerned came from different factors to very specific, narrow abilities history of mental test research, and from research traditions within and outside (Burt, Vernon) or that there is merely a lack of knowledge about what is and is not intelligence and were known to hold very range of uncorrelated narrow abilities currently known concerning human different views on the topic. Yet, they (Guilford)10,11. The resolution of these intelligence. In this article, some of the managed to produce a wide-ranging review debates was available from the 1940s, but well-attested facts about human intelligence article that all contributors signed. It not widely recognized. By 1939, Eysenck differences are summarized. A striking remains a touchstone for disinterested and showed that even Thurstone’s own data limitation of this body of research is that, authoritative information about intelligence contained a general factor that refuted his whereas much is known about the taxonomy differences.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Efforts in Flynn Effect Research: Balancing Reductionism with Holism
    J. Intell. 2014, 2, 122-155; doi:10.3390/jintelligence2040122 OPEN ACCESS Journal of Intelligence ISSN 2079-3200 www.mdpi.com/journal/jintelligence Article Future Efforts in Flynn Effect Research: Balancing Reductionism with Holism Michael A. Mingroni Newark, Delaware, USA; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-302-753-3533 External Editor: Joseph L. Rodgers Received: 13 February 2014: in revised form 2 October 2014 / Accepted: 2 October 2014 / Published: 15 October 2014 Abstract: After nearly thirty years of concerted effort by many investigators, the cause or causes of the secular gains in IQ test scores, known as the Flynn effect, remain elusive. In this target article, I offer six suggestions as to how we might proceed in our efforts to solve this intractable mystery. The suggestions are as follows: (1) compare parents to children; (2) consider other traits and conditions; (3) compare siblings; (4) conduct more and better intervention programs; (5) use subtest profile data in context; and (6) quantify the potential contribution of heterosis. This last section contains new simulations of the process of heterosis, which provide a plausible scenario whereby rapid secular changes in multiple genetically influenced traits are possible. If there is any theme to the present paper, it is that future study designs should be simpler and more highly focused, coordinating multiple studies on single populations. Keywords: Flynn effect; intelligence; secular trend; heterosis 1. Introduction It has been nearly thirty years since James Flynn brought widespread attention to the occurrence of rapid gains in IQ test scores [1,2]. However, in honestly assessing the situation today one would have to conclude that we are not much closer to identifying the cause than we were three decades ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Co-Cognition Contents 1. Introduction
    This paper was published in Mind & Language, 13, 1998, 499-512. Archived at Website for the Rutgers University Research Group on Evolution and Higher Cognition. Rethinking Co-cognition Shaun Nichols Department of Philosophy College of Charleston Charleston, SC 29424 [email protected] and Stephen Stich Department of Philosophy and Center for Cognitive Science Rutgers University New Brunswick, NJ 08901 [email protected] Contents 1. Introduction 2. Points of Agreement 3. The Co-Cognition Thesis and a Friendly Amendment 4. A Critique of the Co-Cognition Thesis 1. Introduction In cognitive science and philosophy of mind, there has been a wealth of fascinating work trying to tease out the cognitive mechanisms that are involved in understanding other minds or "mindreading" (e.g., Baron-Cohen, 1995; Bartsch & Wellman, 1995; Fodor, 1995; Goldman, 1992; Gopnik, 1993; Harris, 1991; Leslie, 1991; Perner, 1991). This research has focused on evaluating the empirical evidence for various accounts of mindreading, predicting the results of future experiments, and carrying out experiments that might distinguish between the available theories. Our own previous work adopted this naturalistic approach (Stich & Nichols, 1992, 1995, 1997; Nichols et al., 1996; Nichols et al., 1995). In contrast to the naturalistic exploration of mindreading, Jane Heal has argued that simulation theorists have discovered an a priori truth about mindreading (Heal, 1994, 1995). In Heal's most recent paper (this issue), which is largely a response to an earlier paper of ours (Stich & Nichols, 1997), she maintains that we are committed to a view that conflicts with a simulationist thesis which is a priori true.
    [Show full text]