http://popsych.org/why-domain-general-does-not-equal-plasticity/ The Internet's Best Evolutionary Psycholo-guy Wed, 03 Jan 2018 01:05:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 http://popsych.org/why-domain-general-does-not-equal-plasticity/#comment-365 No, Really; Domain General Mechanisms Don’t Work (Either) | Pop Psychology Sat, 20 Oct 2012 02:51:17 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=155#comment-365 [...] to understand the functional design of the mind. I previously touched briefly on why it would be a mistake to assume that domain-general mechanisms would lead to plasticity in behavior. Today I hope to expand on that point and explain why we should not expect domain-general [...] [...] to understand the functional design of the mind. I previously touched briefly on why it would be a mistake to assume that domain-general mechanisms would lead to plasticity in behavior. Today I hope to expand on that point and explain why we should not expect domain-general [...]

]]> http://popsych.org/why-domain-general-does-not-equal-plasticity/#comment-362 Daniel Engblom Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:04:15 +0000 http://popsych.org/?p=155#comment-362 This general inability to be able to equate flexibility, learning and plasticity with biology, genes and neural patterns brings to my mind the stubborn, inborn dualistic bias. Just to focus on plasticity, when people began recording new connections forming in adult brains, it made many scratch their heads, but it shouldn't have; If truly a materialistic worldview would guide everyone in hypothesis testing and looking at evidence, then everyone should have noticed that people do change their behaviour, learn new knowledge, and it has to be stored somewhere, the brain being the obvious candidate. But instead, it almost reeked as if the assumption was that new information would be stored in ghostly souls - And that might just be the problem with people continuously drawing the line between learning and flexibility, which we PERSONALLY feel, subjectively, and genes and brains, the areas of science and feels abstract, at best. That there's an anti-materialistic intuition about learning, because its in the every-day common-sense view, but people still are blind to their intuitions guiding their criticisms of biology, because they see biology as fixed, the vessel for our growing souls. This general inability to be able to equate flexibility, learning and plasticity with biology, genes and neural patterns brings to my mind the stubborn, inborn dualistic bias. Just to focus on plasticity, when people began recording new connections forming in adult brains, it made many scratch their heads, but it shouldn’t have; If truly a materialistic worldview would guide everyone in hypothesis testing and looking at evidence, then everyone should have noticed that people do change their behaviour, learn new knowledge, and it has to be stored somewhere, the brain being the obvious candidate. But instead, it almost reeked as if the assumption was that new information would be stored in ghostly souls – And that might just be the problem with people continuously drawing the line between learning and flexibility, which we PERSONALLY feel, subjectively, and genes and brains, the areas of science and feels abstract, at best. That there’s an anti-materialistic intuition about learning, because its in the every-day common-sense view, but people still are blind to their intuitions guiding their criticisms of biology, because they see biology as fixed, the vessel for our growing souls.

]]>