Developmental disorders and cognitive architecture
In Pieter R. Adriaens & Andreas de Block (eds.), Maladapting Minds: Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Evolutionary Theory. Oxford University Press (2011)
| Abstract | For the last thirty years, cognitive scientists have attempted to describe the cognitive architecture of typically developing human beings, using, among other sources of evidence, the dissociations that result from developmental psychopathologies such as autism spectrum disorders, Williams syndrome, and Down syndrome. Thus, in his recent defense of the massive modularity hypothesis, Steven Pinker insists on the importance of such dissociations to identify the components of the typical cognitive architecture (2005, 4; my emphasis): This kind of faculty psychology has numerous advantages (...). It is supported by the existence of neurological and genetic disorders that target these faculties unevenly, such as a difficulty in recognizing faces (and facelike shapes) but not other objects, or a difficulty in reasoning about minds but not about objects or pictures. Similarly, Simon Baron-Cohen writes (1998, 335; my emphasis; see also Temple, 1997): I suggest that the study of mental retardation would profit from the application of the framework of cognitive neuropsychology (…). In cognitive neuropsychology, one key question running through the investigator’s mind is “Is this process or mechanism intact or impaired in this person?” When cognitive neuropsychology is done well, a patient’s cognitive system is examined with specific reference to a model of the normal cognitive system. And, not infrequently, evidence from the patient’s cognitive deficits leads to a revision of the model of the normal system. However, in recent years, the use of developmental psychopathologies to identify the components of the typical cognitive architecture has come under heavy fire. In a series of influential articles, neuropsychologist Annette Karmiloff-Smith has argued that findings about the pattern of impairments and preserved capacities in people with developmental psychopathologies say nothing about the cognitive architecture of.. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesRalph-Axel Müller (2002). Weak Evidence for a Strong Case Against Modularity in Developmental Disorders. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):764-765.
Morten H. Christiansen, Christopher M. Conway & Michelle R. Ellefson (2002). Raising the Bar for Connectionist Modeling of Cognitive Developmental Disorders. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):752-753.
Christine Temple & Harald Clahsen (2002). How Connectionist Simulations Fail to Account for Developmental Disorders in Children. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):769-770.
Philip Gerrans & Valerie E. Stone (2008). Generous or Parsimonious Cognitive Architecture? Cognitive Neuroscience and Theory of Mind. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (2):121-141.
C. Glymour (1994). On the Methods of Cognitive Neuropsychology. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45 (3):815-35.
Franck Ramus (2002). Evidence for a Domain-Specific Deficit in Developmental Dyslexia. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):767-768.
Joseph L. H. Cruz (1998). Mindreading: Mental State Ascription and Cognitive Architecture. Mind and Language 13 (3):323-340.
Victoria McGeer (2007). Why Neuroscience Matters to Cognitive Neuropsychology. Synthese 159 (3):347 - 371.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-30Total downloads26 ( #47,684 of 549,122 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,390 of 549,122 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
