Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.cognitive,sci.philosophy.tech
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!nntp.sei.cmu.edu!news.psc.edu!hudson.lm.com!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!in2.uu.net!ncrgw2.ncr.com!ncrhub6!daynews!intruder!news
From: David E. Weldon, Ph.D. <David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM>
Subject: Re: 1. FOL and 2. Longley's insidious programme
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: 149.25.61.42
Message-ID: <DCv0DC.GB7@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com>
Sender: news@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com (News administrative Login)
Reply-To: David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM (WELDOD)
Organization: AT&T Global Info Solutions
X-Newsreader: DiscussIT 2.0.1.2 for MS Windows [AT&T Software Products Division]
References: <3vll6j$enb@nntp5.u.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 1995 22:41:36 GMT
Lines: 142
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:32212 comp.ai.philosophy:31312 sci.logic:13600 sci.cognitive:8856 sci.philosophy.tech:19197


}==========R. Mounce, 8/1/95==========
}
}David E. Weldon, Ph.D.  
}<David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM> wrote:
}>For the record (since you are treading on my -- sacred? -- 
}ground.  Folk, or
}>naive, or natural psychology refers to the implicit theories that 
}the everyday
}>person carries in his head and uses to understand and navigate 
}his or her
}>environment.  
}
}Thanks for the comment on the application.  I hear you saying that 
}this
}general terminology doesn't have much application in 
}psychology study. 
}The category I identify as far too general is the "everyday 
}person" 
}category.  If that category was well defined, then characterizing it 
}might
}have some use. 

I was drawing a distinction between psychologists, clinicians, and other
trained people, on the one hand, and everyone else, on the other hand.
}
}I am still not too sure what the difference might be between 
}implicit
}theory and explicit in this general group because it is an 
}assumption that
}we all operate with implicit ease although we cannot say for sure 
}that
}other individuals are not explicitly conscious of actions which we 
}observe
}to be implicit or natural. 

Portions of the above are incomprehensible to me.  However, an explicit theory
of personality is one that is formally explicated by someone and used overtly
to judge the state of others.  For example, Freudian Theory is an explicit
theory of personality.  An implicit theory of personality is a structure of
relationships (one of the class of cognitive stuctures)among a variety of
constructs (traits, environmental settings, behaviors) related to the
understanding of other people's personality.  This structure is internal and
used by observers to judge the likeableness, approachableness, goodness, or
threat-potential of others.  The one judging is not even explicitly aware that
this structure is being used.  However, evidence for its existence is
demonstrated by asking everyday people to judge the relationships between
adjectives that describe behavior, personality traits, and situations.  A
substantial literature exists in the Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology between 1955 and 1981.

}
}The difference is between understanding (which ultimately should 
}be
}clearly explicit) and navigating (which we hope by the explicit
}understanding to be easily applied as implicit action).  How are 
}the two
}combined?  On what basis is anyone's combination of explicit 
}understanding
}and implicit navigation judged? 
}
}>In general, a person's internal beliefs about objects in the world 
}are called
}>that person's "implicit theory of -------" whatever the object 
}focused on. 
}
}I think this combines too much of a methodology in one stroke. 
}Furthermore, I don't understand what the modifier "internal" is 
}supposed
}to add to the word "beliefs".  I am re-phrasing this and thinking it 
}says,
}"a person's beliefs about objects are that person's <beliefs 
}about> the
}object focused on."  What does "implicit theory" add to the idea 
}that a
}person has beliefs?  It is confusing because a belief combines 
}observation
}with interpretation, but how often is the meaning of the 
}interpretation
}left unverified while the subject proceeds to accept the idea 
}internally
}as a theory that has been well-judged?  That is, the person acts 
}naturally
}on their first assumption.  Those first assumptions generally 
}relate to a
}general system which may or may not be well defined and 
}verified in the
}subject's thinking. 

The term "implicit theory" carries with it the following connotations:  that
the beliefs are internal and not always well-articulated by the holder; that
the beliefs are not simply a list of isolated probability statements or
propositions, but are linked together into a coherent and semi-consistant
structure; and that some of these beliefs link the internal cognitive
structure to observables in the environment.  In short, an implicit theory has
all the attributes of a scientific theory except the verification rules are
much more relaxed and the person possessing the theory is not always aware
that it exists in his mind.

}
}>Thus, if you are studying the way everyday people make 
}decisions about couse
}>and effect in the environment, you are studying people's, 
}"implicit theory of
}>cause/effect." 
}
}And, if "you are studying" anything, then you are an everyday 
}person who
}is, by this logic, using an everyday "implicit theory of..." everyday
}person studying everyday people." 

Not if you are a psychologist or a clinician of any type.  Because by the time
you've been through that training your cognitive structures are totally
contaminated by explicit theories.

}
}	"I love....everyday people.  Different strokes, for 
}different
}folks, and so on and so on and shoobee doobee doo-ron. 
}
}Doug
}
}>I think Dr. Longley sometimes accuses
}>cognitive psychologists of generating a universal "implicit 
}theory of
}>behaviour."  In this case, his use of "folk" or "naive" carries a 
}faint wiff
}>of negative connotation.
}
}This is about the only meaning I get out of it.  Although he intends 
}us to
}reference a larger body of literature about the subject, it is 
}difficult
}to relate to his unexplicit interpretation of this large body when the
}reference vocabulary carries a connotation. 

You may begin with Egon Brunswik, 1995, and his book on the "Lens Model" 
After that, read the book entitled, "Implicit Theories of Personality," by
Jerry and Nancy Wiggens.
}
}

