Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T19:43:29.772Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rational constructivism, statistical inference, and core cognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2011

Fei Xu
Fei Xu
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720. [email protected]://babylab.berkeley.edu/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I make two points in this commentary on Carey (2009). First, it may be too soon to conclude that core cognition is innate. Recent advances in computational cognitive science and developmental psychology suggest possible mechanisms for developing inductive biases. Second, there is another possible answer to Fodor's challenge – if concepts are merely mental tokens, then cognitive scientists should spend their time on developing a theory of belief fixation instead.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , June 2011 , pp. 151 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carey, S. (2009) The origin of concepts. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chater, N. & Oaksford, M. (2008) The probabilistic mind: Prospects for Bayesian cognitive science. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewar, K. & Xu, F. (2010) Induction, overhypothesis, and the origin of abstract knowledge: Evidence from 9-month-old infants. Psychological Science 21:1871–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D., Schulz, L., Kushnir, T. & Danks, D. (2004) A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review 111(1):1–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gweon, H., Tenenbaum, J. & Schulz, L. E. (2010). Infants consider both the sample and the sampling process in inductive generalization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107:9066–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kemp, C., Perfors, A. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007) Learning overhypotheses with hierarchical Bayesian models. Developmental Science 10:307–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schulz, L. E., Bonawitz, E. B. & Griffiths, T. (2007) Can being scared make your tummy ache? Naive theories, ambiguous evidence and preschoolers' causal inferences. Developmental Psychology 43:1124–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenenbaum, J. B., Griffiths, T. L. & Kemp, C. (2006) Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10:309–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vul, E. & Pashler, H. (2008) Measuring the crowd within: Probabilistic representations within individuals. Psychological Science 19:645–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, F. (2007) Rational statistical inference and cognitive development. In: The innate mind: Foundations and the future, vol. 3, ed. Carruthers, P., Laurence, S. & Stich, S., pp. 199–215. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Xu, F., Dewar, K. & Perfors, A. (2009) Induction, overhypotheses, and the shape bias: Some arguments and evidence for rational constructivism. In: The origins of object knowledge, ed. Hood, B. M. & Santos, L., pp. 263–84. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, F. & Garcia, V. (2008) Intuitive statistics by 8-month-old infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105:5012–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, F. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007) Word learning as Bayesian inference. Psychological Review 114:245–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed