Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Upcoming on Mixing Memory

I've got a few posts stewing on the following topics:
  • Essentialism about social concepts
  • Motivated cognition outside of politics
  • Cultural differences in cognition
  • Memetics
These seem to be topics that garner a lot of interest. But I'd also like to take suggestions and requests. If there's a topic on cognition, perception, neuroscience, or something related, that you'd like to hear about, let me know. If I know enough about it to post on it, I will. So, leave me a comment or drop me an email.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

i'm excited for the memetics post myself... whenever dennett gets talking about ideas working like viruses (or symbiotes), some red flag gets waved in my head. I'd love to see your take.

jeff g said...

I would like to see a little bit regarding concept stability and publicity and how, if concepts are relatively public, they cannot, according to you, take on a semi-autonomous existence akin to what to Dennett's semantic memetics.

Chris said...

jeff, that's actually along the lines of the criticism I was planning on discussing in the post, so that should work out nicely. Might also provide for some interesting discussion.

Todd said...

Chris,
I would be really interested in hearing your take on cultural differences in cognition, especially given most of the research that I've seen tends to view cognitive processes as universal to humans. Of course, the other topics are also quite fascinating. Keep up the great blogging...

Anonymous said...

I'm particularly interested in cognition on moral issues-- how/when moral reasoning takes place, etc.

Also everything theory of mind-- the dispute between theory theory and simulation, cognitive and affective empathy, things of that nature.

That said, I really appreciate your blog; it's chock full of interesting stuff every time I check. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Memetics as an idea interests me, but I don't know much about it other than what little I've read in Dawkins and Blackmore. I'd love to hear your take on it.

Chris said...

Anon (one of you),

I've got three long (too long) posts on moral cog (here, here, and here). There may be more coming, but since it's such a difficult topic to write on, it might be a while. Those should keep you busy for a while, though.

Theory-theory vs. simulation is a great topic. I've thought about posting on it before, but I was afraid it might be a little too... technical. But if you're interested, someone else probably is as well.

Todd, I've posted on cultural differences once before (I think only once). The next post will be on some specific work. Are there any aspects of the cultural difference stuff that you'd be interested in hearing about in particular?

Michael Anissimov said...

Can you blog on known correlations between brain structure and intelligence? The memetics post also sounds interesting.

Chris Chatham said...

chris - great blog as always. I'm curious about theory-theory; I don't really understand what that's all about.

michael - there's a great paper in today's issue of nature describing the relationship of structural change to IQ, by Shaw et al. check it out...

Chris said...

Michael, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "correlations between brain structure and intelligence." I saw that they've recently found some relationship between IQ and patterns in brain development, but I haven't yet read the research. Is that what you're thinking of? Oh wait, as soon as I typed that, I see that Chris Chatham has already mentioned it.

Chris C., theory-theory it is. Actually, the debate between the theory-theory people and the simulation people is pretty interesting, because it's part of a much larger debate about the nature of representation (symbolic vs. embodied, or symbolic vs. "modal"). The larger debate could, when all's said and done, have enormous consequences (or it could turn out, like the images vs. propositions debate of the 70s, to be irrelevant), but the theory-theory vs. simulation debate will definitely have consequences for how we understand other minds.

Chris Chatham said...

hey, that sounds great. a post about theory-theory would be awesome. i'm all about the big debates :)

MathCogIdiocy said...

Can I chime in with a vote for the theory-theory since it sounds interesting and I know nothing? Does this relate to how we represent abstract concepts (like mathematics)?

Chris said...

math, yes, it relates to how we representa many, if not all concepts.

Anonymous said...

Would be interested to hear your take on the perceptual vs amodal accouts of concepts...I remember you trashing Prinz's book but not explaining why...

Chris said...

anon, I wrote a long post criticizing Barsalou's perceptual symbol systems way back when. I'll try to find the post, later. Since Prinz' theory is basically Barsalou's with some philosophical trimmings, any criticism of Barsalou's will likely be a criticism of Prinz'. There are others (e.g., his deciderata are misguided, to an extent), though. I'll see if I can turn them into a post.

Shane said...

Yep, Prinz was a student of Barsalou's. I recall his deciderata stemmed (in part) from what a philosopher would need to explain, rather than a psychologist.
I tried to find your Barsalou post but to no avail, and the serach facility doesn't work, so if you could put in a link that would be nice.
I am interested in simulationist accounts of cognition (and not just as an alternative to theory-theory) so would put in a vote for that.

Afiz said...

Successful Internet Marketing
Targeted Internet Marketing
Online Forex Trading
Automated Forex Trading