Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (4):169-188 (2011)
Abstract |
The prominence of Bayesian modeling of cognition has increased recently largely because of mathematical advances in specifying and deriving predictions from complex probabilistic models. Much of this research aims to demonstrate that cognitive behavior can be explained from rational principles alone, without recourse to psychological or neurological processes and representations. We note commonalities between this rational approach and other movements in psychology that set aside mechanistic explanations or make use of optimality assumptions. Through these comparisons, we identify a number of challenges that limit the rational program's potential contribution to psychological theory. Specifically, rational Bayesian models are significantly unconstrained, both because they are uninformed by a wide range of process-level data and because their assumptions about the environment are generally not grounded in empirical measurement. The psychological implications of most Bayesian models are also unclear. Bayesian inference itself is conceptually trivial, but strong assumptions are often embedded in the hypothesis sets and the approximation algorithms used to derive model predictions, without a clear delineation between psychological commitments and implementational details. Comparing multiple Bayesian models of the same task is rare, as is the realization that many Bayesian models recapitulate existing (mechanistic level) theories. Despite the expressive power of current Bayesian models, we argue they must be developed in conjunction with mechanistic considerations to offer substantive explanations of cognition. We lay out several means for such an integration, which take into account the representations on which Bayesian inference operates, as well as the algorithms and heuristics that carry it out. We argue this unification will better facilitate lasting contributions to psychological theory, avoiding the pitfalls that have plagued previous theoretical movements
|
Keywords | Bayesian modeling cognitive processing levels of analysis rational analysis representation |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1017/s0140525x10003134 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture.Jerome H. Barkow, Leda Cosmides & John Tooby - 1992 - Oxford University Press.
Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture: A Critical Analysis.Jerry A. Fodor & Zenon W. Pylyshyn - 1988 - Cognition 28 (1-2):3-71.
Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman - 1974 - Science 185 (4157):1124-1131.
View all 80 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
Troubles with Bayesianism: An Introduction to the Psychological Immune System.Eric Mandelbaum - 2019 - Mind and Language 34 (2):141-157.
From Cognitivism to Autopoiesis: Towards a Computational Framework for the Embodied Mind.Micah Allen & Karl J. Friston - 2018 - Synthese 195 (6):2459-2482.
Bayesian Cognitive Science, Unification, and Explanation.Stephan Hartmann & Matteo Colombo - 2017 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 68 (2).
Rational Use of Cognitive Resources: Levels of Analysis Between the Computational and the Algorithmic.Thomas L. Griffiths, Falk Lieder & Noah D. Goodman - 2015 - Topics in Cognitive Science 7 (2):217-229.
Can Quantum Probability Provide a New Direction for Cognitive Modeling?Emmanuel M. Pothos & Jerome R. Busemeyer - 2013 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (3):255-274.
View all 84 citations / Add more citations
Similar books and articles
Post Hoc Rationalism in Science.Eric Luis Uhlmann - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (4):214-214.
Commentary/Jones & Love: Bayesian Fundamentalism or Enlightenment?Keith J. Holyoaka & Hongjing Lua - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (4).
Is Everyone Bayes? On the Testable Implications of Bayesian Fundamentalism.Maarten Speekenbrink & David R. Shanks - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (4):213-214.
The Imaginary Fundamentalists: The Unshocking Truth About Bayesian Cognitive Science.Nick Chater, Noah Goodman, Thomas L. Griffiths, Charles Kemp, Mike Oaksford & Joshua B. Tenenbaum - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (4):194-196.
Pinning Down the Theoretical Commitments of Bayesian Cognitive Models.Matt Jones & Bradley C. Love - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (4):215-231.
The Illusion of Mechanism: Mechanistic Fundamentalism or Enlightenment?Dennis Norris - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (4):208-209.
Survival in a World of Probable Objects: A Fundamental Reason for Bayesian Enlightenment.Shimon Edelman & Reza Shahbazi - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (4):197-198.
More Varieties of Bayesian Theories, but No Enlightenment.Jeffrey S. Bowers & Colin J. Davis - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (4):193-194.
Analytical Perspectives on Religious Fundamentalism.Jakobus Martinus Vorster - 2007 - Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 6 (17):5-20.
Religious Fundamentalism and Social Order: A Philosophical Perspective.Domenic Marbaniang - 2010 - In Religious Fundamentalism. Domenic Marbaniang.
Maybe This Old Dinosaur Isn’T Extinct: What Does Bayesian Modeling Add to Associationism?Irina Baetu, Itxaso Barberia, Robin A. Murphy & A. G. Baker - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (4):190-191.
Don't Throw Out the Bayes with the Bathwater.Philip M. Fernbach & Steven A. Sloman - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (4):198-199.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2013-10-27
Total views
86 ( #118,068 of 2,421,228 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #543,757 of 2,421,228 )
2013-10-27
Total views
86 ( #118,068 of 2,421,228 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #543,757 of 2,421,228 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads