Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.cognitive,sci.philosophy.tech
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news4.ner.bbnplanet.net!news3.near.net!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!agate!tcsi.tcs.com!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: <DCKGC2.9Gs@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: <806899151snz@longley.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 05:52:49 GMT
Lines: 45
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:32024 comp.ai.philosophy:31107 sci.logic:13331 sci.cognitive:8714 sci.philosophy.tech:19102


}==========David Longley, 7/27/95==========
}
}In article <3v8scg$53s@nntp5.u.washington.edu>
}           mounce@u.washington.edu "R. Mounce" writes:
}
}> Mr. Longley: I just thought that your use of "folk psychology", 
}and "folk
}> judgement" as Putnam says, is vague and judgemental.  
}Generally, it can
}> mean common sense of which the danger might be a judgement 
}of itself to be
}> self-evident.  That is a worthwhile topic to explore.  
}
}For more precise uses of 'folk psychology', 'naive psychology' 
}and 'natural
}assessments', see the literature in Journal of Personality and 
}Social
}Psychology between 1968 and 1980, or any one of the many texts 
}on Attribution
}Theory or Conditioning or Induction.
}-- 
}David Longley
}
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.  There is NO branch of scientific psychology that is called folk,
etc., psychology.  There are several branches of psychology that study the
"folk" or "naive" or etc., psychology of everyday people (this is not to say
that psychologists don't have implicit theories of behaviour, it's just that
these theories have been so polluted by scientific psychology that they no
longer represent what everybody else uses).

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. 
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." Or if you are studying the way ordinary people make decisions
about the like-ableness of another person, you are studying ordinary people's,
"implicit theory of personality."  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.

