Cognitive psychology (hell, experience, science)

[sandandfoam]

Is this approach correct in regarding our minds as computational?

[Panda]

Cognitive theory's holds extremely well for treating illnesses like depression. My personal view, and I think it is one also taken by lots of psychologists, is that the brain works based on a sort of mish mash of the different approaches.

[sandandfoam]

Originally Posted by Panda

Cognitive theory's holds extremely well for treating illnesses like depression. My personal view, and I think it is one also taken by lots of psychologists, is that the brain works based on a sort of mish mash of the different approaches.

I agree with you. But getting back to the question - Is this approach correct in regarding our minds as computational?

[Zephyr]

The further psychology strays from a behavioral approach, the more annoying it becomes, at an alarming rate. Just saying this as a psych student.

[sandandfoam]

Originally Posted by Zephyr

The further psychology strays from a behavioral approach, the more annoying it becomes, at an alarming rate. Just saying this as a psych student.

Why do you think that?

[Zephyr]

Originally Posted by stephenw

Why do you think that?

Maybe I've just had some lame teachers, but they've all pushed aside the importance of empirical testing, and constantly offering hypotheses that are not only untested, but would be hell to even design an experiment for. With most behavioral theories, we're shown exactly how they came to be, and the evidence that both supports them and questions them, but with other work, we get nothing. I mean, unless my teachers are leaving something important out, that just ain't science

[Mister Emu]

Hahaha...

I've had extremely little psychology study, but I'd agree... and I think it has more than a little to do with the highly suspect ethical nature of the tests one would need to prove some theories...

Like the guy who proved that phobias are transferable, can't remember his name, he scared the bejeebus out a little baby whenever it would go near a white stuffed rabbit(or whatever it was), then the baby would be terrified of other white stuffed animals...

Proved that this occurs, but dang... that is completely unethical...

edit:
Watson and baby Albert... it was a white lab rat, and the fear transfered to everything white, including a santa clause mask, Watson's hair, and a white rabbit...

[sandandfoam]

I'm not sure about conceiving of our minds as computational because of phenomenal consciousness.
The computer metaphor for mind bothers me too. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because steam engines were used as a metaphor for mind when they were the peak of human technology?

[sandandfoam]

Originally Posted by Zephyr

Maybe I've just had some lame teachers, but they've all pushed aside the importance of empirical testing, and constantly offering hypotheses that are not only untested, but would be hell to even design an experiment for. With most behavioral theories, we're shown exactly how they came to be, and the evidence that both supports them and questions them, but with other work, we get nothing. I mean, unless my teachers are leaving something important out, that just ain't science

Maybe you should have another look at cognitive? It is widely regarded as the branch of psychology devoted to the scientific study of the mind. Behaviorism cannot, and does not try to, account for so much.

[Stellify]

Originally Posted by Zephyr

Maybe I've just had some lame teachers, but they've all pushed aside the importance of empirical testing, and constantly offering hypotheses that are not only untested, but would be hell to even design an experiment for. With most behavioral theories, we're shown exactly how they came to be, and the evidence that both supports them and questions them, but with other work, we get nothing. I mean, unless my teachers are leaving something important out, that just ain't science

Sounds like you're more of the quantitative psych type. Both branches (quantitative and qualitative) have their pros and cons. As far as strict scientific research goes, quantitative is basically a must. But the issue with that is that it reduces everything down to measurable quantities...numbers. Whereas this approach is useful, it fails to grasp the entirety of human emotion and experience. It's good for trying to get statistics, but there's definitely a lot of room for error. Such as exposing a group to some stimuli and asking them to rate their resulting happiness on a scale of 1-5. Sure, you get means, medians, modes, etc. out of it, but does everyone quantify their happiness in the same way? Are the numbers 1,2,3,4 and 5 really a good representation of "happiness"?
Being empirical is all well and good, and I think science requires it to a certain extent, but I also think humans are naturally such subjective beings that reducing everything to objective numbers and observations simply can't quite explain, measure, or do justice to the existential, phenomenological life-experience of humanity as a whole.
I know I probably don't sound like it right now, but I really do think empirical, quantitative research is important. I just don't like the reductionistic mindset so many people cling to when they get too comfortable with it. Reality is subjective, so I think it's important to understand an individual's subjective experience of the world when treating them. I think subjective research gets overlooked more than it ought to, sometimes.
*phew* sorry to rant

Have you ever read any case studies?

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

Hahaha...

I've had extremely little psychology study, but I'd agree... and I think it has more than a little to do with the highly suspect ethical nature of the tests one would need to prove some theories...

Like the guy who proved that phobias are transferable, can't remember his name, he scared the bejeebus out a little baby whenever it would go near a white stuffed rabbit(or whatever it was), then the baby would be terrified of other white stuffed animals...

Proved that this occurs, but dang... that is completely unethical...

edit:
Watson and baby Albert... it was a white lab rat, and the fear transfered to everything white, including a santa clause mask, Watson's hair, and a white rabbit...

Watson's experiment on Little Albert was extremely unethical, but thankfully that type of treatment is illegal nowadays
Incidentally, more studies on conditioning have been done (in nicer ways, of course) and it's been found that over time, extinction occurs. Extinction is the slow loss of the conditioned behavior once the unconditioned stimulus and neutral/conditioned stimulus are no longer presented simultaneously.