Edit Because these boys do not have the ability to succeed, they resort to a process Cohen calls reaction formation.
References and Further Reading 1. Exemplar models were also being developed during this time, but the prototype theory encapsulated many of the views which were the foils against which the Theory-Theory developed its main assumptions.
These theories assume that concepts represent statistical information about the categories that they pick out.
The concept tree represents the properties that people take to be typical of trees: These comprise the tree prototype or stereotype. This stereotype is acquired by a process of abstraction from examples: This summary is often represented as a list of features that belong to category members.
Properties that are more frequently perceived in the instances will be assigned a greater feature weight in the prototype. This process of concept acquisition is often portrayed as a passive one. Similarity computations also explain other phenomena, such as the fact that some objects are better examples of a category than others flamingos and penguins are atypical birds since they lack most of the prototypical bird features.
The prototype theory has several characteristics which made it a fitting target for Theory theorists. First, it suggests that concepts have a basically superficial nature.
Often, though not invariably, features in prototypes were assumed to be readily perceivable. Prototype theory was thus affiliated with a certain empiricist bent.
This was reinforced by the fact that prototypes are acquired by a simple statistical-associative process akin to that assumed by classical empiricists. Second, prototype theory involved a relatively impoverished account of Middle range theory development and deployment.
Concepts passively adjust themselves to new stimuli, and these stimuli activate stored concepts in virtue of their resemblances, but there is little role for active revision or reflective deployment of these concepts.
In the wake of the anti-empiricist backlash that gave rise to contemporary cognitive science, particularly in cognitive-developmental psychology, these assumptions were ripe for questioning.
Origins of the View The Theory-Theory itself has a somewhat complicated origin story, with roots in a number of philosophical and psychological doctrines. One is the reaction against stage theories of cognitive development, particularly Piagetian and Vygotskian theories.
Each stage is characterized by a distinctive set of representations and processes. Similarly, Vygotsky held that children move from a stage of representing categories in terms of sensory images of individual objects, through a stage of creating representations of objectively unified categories, and finally a stage of categories arranged around abstract, logical relationships.
Early childhood cognition, in short, involves being perceptually bound. While the empirical basis and explanatory structure of these theories had been challenged before see R. A paradigm shift occurs when counterevidence to a theory has built up beyond a certain threshold and it can no longer be adequately modified in response, consistent with its not becoming intolerably ad hoc.
In paradigm shifts, new explanatory notions and models take center stage, and old ones may be pushed to the margins or adopt new roles. New practices and styles of experimentation become central.
These changes are relatively discontinuous compared with the usual gradual accumulation of changes and modifications characteristic of science.
A second, connected with this notion of a paradigm shift, is the Kuhnian doctrine of incommensurability. This is the idea that when new theories are constructed, the central explanatory concepts of the old theory often change their meaning, so that a claim made before and after a paradigm shift, even if it uses the same words, may not express the same proposition, since those words now express different concepts.
Often this involves creating new concepts that cannot be captured in the conceptual vocabulary of the old theory, differentiating two concepts that were previously conflated, or coalescing two previously distinct concepts into one. In all of these cases, the expressive vocabulary of the new conceptual scheme is not equivalent to that of the old scheme.
Theory theorists have often adopted both the Kuhnian claim about paradigm shifts as a model for understanding certain phenomena in development, and the associated claim of semantic or conceptual incommensurability Carey, This view is most clearly defended by Quinewho proposes that children begin life with an innate similarity space that is governed by perceptual information, and over time begin to develop theoretical structures that supersede these initial groupings.
Inductive inferences concerning a category are within reach so long as they are confined to these observable properties, and objects share inductive potential to the extent that they are similar to the perceptual prototype.
Moreover, these perceptual prototypes are assumed to be acquired by statistical tabulation of observed co-occurrences in the world, in a relatively theory-free way; seeing that certain furry quadrupeds meow is sufficient for constructing a cat concept that encodes these properties.
It is only at later stages of development that concepts reflect understanding of the hidden structure of categories, and come to enable inductions that go beyond such similarities. On the other hand, the category of things on the left side of my desk, or things within feet of the Eiffel Tower, or things that are either electrons or clown wigs, do not.
They are simply arbitrary collections. Feature-based theories of concepts, such as prototype theory, seem to have particular difficulty explaining the phenomenon of coherence, since they are inherently unconstrained and allow any set of properties to be lumped together to form a category, whereas our concepts often appear to represent categories as involving more than merely sets of ad hoc co-instantiated properties.
They include relations among these properties, as well as explanatory connections of various sorts. These features are explanatorily connected in various ways:The Theory-Theory of Concepts.
The Theory-Theory of concepts is a view of how concepts are structured, acquired, and deployed. Concepts, as they will be understood here, are mental representations that are implicated in many of our higher thought processes, including various forms of reasoning and inference, categorization, planning and decision making, and constructing and testing .
Central place theory is a geographical theory that seeks to explain the number, size and location of human settlements in a residential system. The theory was created by the German geographer Walter Christaller, who asserted that settlements simply functioned as 'central places' providing services to surrounding areas.
Theory of Unpleasant Symptoms, Middle Range Theory for Nursing. Symptom management in Behcet's disease While supply chain scholars have made considerable progress in theory building and testing, there has been a relative dearth of middle range theory.
Theory of Development. by Garry Jacobs, Robert Macfarlane, and N. Asokan [presented to Pacific Rim Economic Conference, Bangkok, Jan , ]. They place middle range theory development within the context of disciplinary knowledge, a contribution that is needed for nurse scholars at all levels, including those in academic and clinical envi-.
Context and leadership: an examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire ☆.