A View on the Determenistic Explanation of Actions Based on the Joint Construction of Goals and Means

Main Article Content

Pavel N. Prudkov Olga N. Rodina

Abstract

People describe and explain everyday behavior and cognition in terms of actions, that are goal-directed processes. There are two conventional approaches explaining the construction of goal-directed processes (predetermined goals and means and the separate and arbitrary construction of goals and means). However, these approaches cannot elucidate the flexibility and diversity of actions and some characteristics of thinking. We hypothesize the goal and means of an action are constructed jointly on the basis of the criterion of minimal construction costs and this entirely determines actions. Some ideas in favor of this mechanistic explanation of actions and objections against it are considered. The idea that the mechanism of joint construction entirely determines actions was examined in an experiment when participants were informed on the joint construction mechanism and instructed to violate its functioning by performing an action. Participants could violate the functioning of the mechanism at two levels of the action but information about one level was more explicit than about another level. It was assumed that participants would violate the functioning of the mechanism only at one level. This means that joint construction really determines actions because a sort of compliance between these levels was necessary to perform the action. This assumption was confirmed experimentally.

Article Details

How to Cite
PRUDKOV, Pavel N.; RODINA, Olga N.. A View on the Determenistic Explanation of Actions Based on the Joint Construction of Goals and Means. Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 11, n. 12, dec. 2023. ISSN 2375-1924. Available at: <https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/4802>. Date accessed: 25 feb. 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v11i12.4802.
Section
Research Articles

References

1. Jamison J, Dean K, Schechter L. To deceive or not to deceive: The effect of deception on behavior in future laboratory experiments. J. of Economic Behavior & Organization. 2008; 68(3-4):477-488.

2. Shrout PE, Rodgers J. Psychology, science, and knowledge construction: Broadening perspectives from the replication crisis. Annual review of psychology. 2018;69:487-510.

3. Arocha JF. Scientific realism and the issue of variability in behavior. Theory & Psychology. 2021;31(3):375-398.

4. Grice JW. From means and variances to persons and patterns. Frontiers in Psychology. 2015; 6,
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01007

5. Powers WT. Living control systems III: The fact of control. Benchmark;2009.

6. Heckhausen J, Heckhausen H. Motivation and action. Cambridge University Press;2008.

7. Tooby J, Cosmides L. The psychological foundations of culture, In: The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. edn: Oxford University Press;1992:19-136

8. Tooby J, Cosmides L, Barrett HC. Resolving the debate on innate ideas: Learnability constraints and the evolved interpenetration of motivational and conceptual functions. In: The Innate Mind: Structure and Content. edn: Oxford University Press;2005.

9. Buller DJ. DeFreuding evolutionary psychology: adaptation and human motivation. In: Where Biology Meets Psychology: Philosophical Essays. Edn: The MIT Press/ Bradford Books;1999:99-114

10. Leont’ev AN. Activity. Consciousness. Personality. Politizdat;1975.

11. Newell A, Simon HA. Human problem solving. Prentice Hall;1972.

12. Russell SJ, Norvig P. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall; 2009.

13. Frederick S. Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic perspectives. 2005;19(4):25-42.

14. Kahneman, D. Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2011.

15. Johnson-Laird P, Oatley K. Basic emotions, rationality, and folk theory. Cognition and Emotion.1992;6:201-223.

16. Oatley K. Best laid schemes: The psychology of emotions. Cambridge University Press;1992.

17. Damasio AR. Descartes' error. Putnam;1994.

18. Gigerenzer G, Todd PМ. Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford University Press;1999.

19. Evans JSB. Dual-processes accounts of reasoning. Annual Review of Psychology. 2008;59:255-278.

20. Evans JSB, Stanovich, KE. Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on psychological science. 2013;8(3):223-241.

21. Luria AR. Higher cortical functions in man. Springer Science & Business Media; 2012.

22. Bago B, De Neys W. Fast logic?: Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory. Cognition. 2017;158:90-109.

23. Thompson VA, Johnson SC. Conflict, metacognition, and analytic thinking. Thinking & Reasoning. 2014;20(2):215-244.

24. Prudkov PN. A view on human goal-directed activity and the construction of artificial intelligence. Minds and Machines. 2010;20(3):363-383.

25. Prudkov PN. The joint construction of goals and means as a solution for the problem of variability in behavior. Theory & Psychology. 2021;31(3):480-484.

26. Landau, LD, Lifshitz EM. Mechanics, course of theoretical physics. Butterworth-Heinenann; 1976.

27. Rumelhart, DE. The Architecture of Mind: A Connectionist Approach, In: Foundations of Cognitive Science. edn: MIT Press;1989:133-159.

28. Anderson JR, Lebiere C. The atomic components of thought. Erlbaum; 1998.

29. Wood JN, Grafman J. Human prefrontal cortex: processing and representational perspectives. Nature Review Neuroscience. 2003;4:139-147.

30. Deary IJ, Penke L, Johnson W. The neuroscience of human intelligence differences. Nature Review Neuroscience. 2010;11(3):201-211.

31. Bargh JA, Ferguson MJ. Beyond behaviorism: on the automaticity of higher mental processes.Psychological Bulletin. 2000;126(6):925-945.

32. Galinsky AD, Moskowitz GB. Counterfactuals as behavioral primes: priming the simulation heuristic and consideration of alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2000; 36:384–409.

33. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211:453-458.
34. Prudkov PN. Puzzles, riddles and Margolis's version of Wason's selection task. Psycoloquy. 2000:11(107)
https://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?11.107

35. Corsini RJ, Auerbach AJ. Concise encyclopedia of psychology. Wiley;1998.

36. Navon D, Gopher D. On the economy of the human information processing system. Psychological Review.1979;86:214-255.

37. Kurzban R, Duckworth A, Kable JW, Myers J. An opportunity cost model of subjective effort and task performance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2013;36(06):661-679.

38. Toplak ME., West RF, Stanovich KE. Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test. Thinking & Reasoning. 2014; 20(2):147–168.