paper i — critical thinking

alternative explanation of LoF

equipotential theory (eqpt) - all areas of brain are equally active in all mental functions

• studies show brain plasticity — also brains have changed to compensate for damage

limitations of LoF

• equipotential theory (EQPT)

• reductionist

reductionism as a limitation of LoF

analysing complex behaviour by studying simplest/basic mechanisms believed to be related to that function

• excludes possibility that other regions of brain contribute to a particular function

strengths of MRI (as a method to study the brain)

• non-invasive

• image quality is improving with time

• more ethical/practical than other data gathering techniques

• detects tumors, bleeding, infection, strokes, nerve injury etc

limitations of MRI (as a brain imaging tech)

• shows structure (not activity)

• noisy

• claustrophobic

• expensive

reductionist as a limitation of DPM

excludes possibility that other regions of brain contribute to thinking and decision making (just S1 or S2 when thinking or decision making)

strengths of SCT

• biological evidence (mirror neurons)

• predictive validity

limitations of SCT

• low construct validity

• cognitive variability between individuals (“nurture” argument)

biological evidence supporting SCT

there is scentific evidence of mirror neurons in the brain may play a role in learning as they fire when animals perform an action as it sees other animals perform that action)

predictive validity as a strengths of SCT

Bandura’s variables (modelling, reinforcement, attention) allows as to predict the behaviour of people (ex. child in odden & rochat)

construct validity as a limitation of SCT

motivation & potential can be difficult to measure, thus we cannot directly know if they’re learning as a result of these factors

cognitive variability as a limitation of SCT

SCT assumes we:

1. learn in similar/the same ways

2. respond to social cues + modelling in the same ways

thus SCT is nurture based argument