Browsing by Author "Bickhard, M. H."

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4

Open Access
Beyond principles and programs: an action framework for modeling development
(S. Karger AG, 2013) Allen, J. W. P.; Bickhard, M. H.
Fields focuses on implementation not origins, but the origins of nativism are located in issues about the origins of representations. His narrower focus is on organization of empirical atoms - nativism argues that object representations must be innate. In contrast, Fields argues that persistence is a computational phenomenon and that programs can construct "object files," thus, nativism about object representations is not necessary. All such positions, however, assume basic empiricist atoms. Action-based approaches provide a powerful alternative to the foundationalist assumption common to both nativist and empiricist frameworks. Only an actionbased framework is able to account for the emergence of representation from a base that is not itself already representational. Accordingly, an action-based approach to representation in general and object representation in particular has implications for understanding persistence. In convergence with Piagetian theory, the interactivist model outlined above suggests that object persistence is itself a developmental phenomenon that involves increasing representational complexity over the first 2 years of an infant's life.
Open Access
Stage fright: internal reflection as a domain general enabling constraint on the emergence of explicit thought
(Elsevier, 2018) Allen, Jedediah W.P.; Bickhard, M. H.
It has become increasingly clear over the last half century that there are multiple importantchanges in children’s abilities taking place at around age 4. These changes span social, emotional,and cognitive domains. While some researchers have argued that a domain-general developmentexplains some of the changes, such a position is a minority view. In the current article, weprovide some evidence for the development of an age 4 domain-general enabling constraint onchildren’s ability to reflect. In turn, the development of reflection is argued to enable the tran-sitions that we see within and across developmental domains. The model of reflection beingoffered is part of a broader action-based model of cognition and mind–interactivism (Bickhard,1973, 1978, 2009a,b). The empirical part of the article presents a new object reasoning task. Thistask was derived from theoretical constraints on the interactivist models of knowing and re-flection. Results indicated that most children responded to the task incorrectly until age 4 whichwas interpreted as evidence that they lacked the ability to explicitly reason about relations be-tween objects. Correlations between our new task and standard false-belief tasks were explored.Collectively, these results provide empirical support for the claim that children undergo a do-main-general development in their ability for epistemic reflection at around age 4
Open Access
Stepping back: reflections on a pedagogical demonstration of reflective abstraction
(S. Karger AG, 2015) Allen, J. W. P.; Bickhard, M. H.
Open Access
Whence Container?
(S. Karger AG, 2017) Allen, J. W. P.; Bickhard, M. H.
The current target article provides a robust investigation of the “cultural character” of cognitive development. This investigation has both theoretical and empirical/ methodological aspects. Methodologically, the authors argue for a unit of analysis concerning the development of object knowledge that includes other agents engaged in communication with the infant (i.e., that includes the sociocultural aspects of the infants’ developmental environment). We agree with such a position and further illustrate its utility in our own analysis of the phenomenon of overimitation. With respect to the underlying theory, we agree with the arguments against strictly cognitivist frameworks (including those with a more recent “embodied” flavor), as well as the fundamental importance ascribed to sociality and culture. However, for some aspects of the pragmatics of the object paradigm we would suggest narrowing the scope about the necessity of culture for development while in other respects we would like to suggest possible elaborations or extensions. Perhaps most fundamentally, we suggest that the physical versus cultural split that frames the target article discussion is not as metaphysically fundamental as seems to be presupposed.