The concept of embodied cognition is not a settled one and has different interpretations and approaches among theorists. These range from radical embodiment to minimal embodiment, with various positions in between. Different perspectives, such as enactive, embedded, and extended or distributed cognition, are associated with the study of cognition and embodiment. There is no strong consensus on the idea of embodiment within these perspectives. Furthermore, not all approaches to embodied cognition oppose the classical computational model of cognition. The paper, “Interpretations of embodied cognition” by Shaun Gallagher aims to provide an overview of the different interpretations and meanings of embodied cognition in order to map out the landscape of this concept.
This paper really bring some sanity/clarity on what is what of embodiment.
Though Andrew Wilson has an issue with not including Gibson in this list, there is a great discussion happening there.
The concept of the Entrepreneurship Mindset has gained significant attention in recent years, especially because of the work by people in self-help/success-guru industries and also independently in the field of entrepreneurship education. However, there are concerns regarding the validity and applicability of this concept in real-world contexts. This post is about a critical examination of the idea of Entrepreneurship Mindset in light of latest information.
One of the primary issues with the Entrepreneurship Mindset is its lack of universally accepted understanding, definition, and boundary conditions. The term “mindset” itself is too vague and ecologically invalid, making it challenging to study and measure effectively. Without a clear understanding of what constitutes a mindset, it becomes difficult to develop entrepreneurship education programs that aim to cultivate this elusive concept.
Is it possible to study the Entrepreneurship Mindset when the concept of the 'Mind' itself lacks universally accepted understanding, definition, and boundary conditions?; Let alone making it the goal of Entrepreneurship Education to develop entrepreneurship mindset.
Moreover, the focus on individualistic and atomistic perspectives in the Entrepreneurship Mindset raises concerns about its contextual relevance. Entrepreneurship is a complex domain that involves various environmental factors and complex dynamical features. Simply emphasizing individual mindset without considering the larger context and system as a whole may oversimplify the challenges and dynamics of entrepreneurship.
The use of cognitive strategies as a means to develop the Entrepreneurship Mindset faces criticism on the basis of a much more fundamental level debate also, i.e. Cognitive approaches often rely on internalism, representation, and computation, which may not adequately capture the physical and social aspects of entrepreneurship. Additionally, the notion of attributing success or failure solely to mindset overlooks the multitude of variables and external factors that contribute to entrepreneurial outcomes.
This further points to the issue of Ecological validity when studying the Entrepreneurship Mindset. Ecological validity refers to the extent to which research findings can be applied to real-world situations. The concept of mindset, with its lack of clear definition and contextual relevance, may have low ecological validity, limiting the generalizability of its findings to real-life entrepreneurial contexts.
The overemphasis on mindset in entrepreneurship education can lead to misguided assumptions and blame on individuals for broader system failures. By attributing success or failure solely to mindset, it neglects the importance of structural and systemic factors that influence entrepreneurial outcomes. Such an approach may lead to oversimplification and a lack of understanding of the complex interplay between individuals, systems, and the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Key Points
The term “mindset” in the context of entrepreneurship is often used without a universally accepted understanding, definition, and boundary conditions. This lack of clarity raises questions about the validity and applicability of studying the Entrepreneurship Mindset.
The dominant position of cognitive perspectives in entrepreneurship is based on internalism, representation, and computation. However, it is important to recognize that entrepreneurship is an ecologically grounded phenomenon that goes beyond symbolic cognitive internalism.
Mindset theories, including Carol Dweck’s growth mindset, have faced criticism and replication challenges. The effects of mindset interventions on student achievement have been found to be weak, although they may benefit low-income and academically at-risk students.
It is crucial to avoid falling into the trap of traditional cognitive psychology and its decontextualized concepts like mindset. Entrepreneurship education should focus on understanding the complexities of the entrepreneurial ecosystem and promoting process changes and interactions rather than trying to change individuals’ mindsets.
For cognitive strategies to be valid, it should be contextual by default. Trying to measure mindset through approaches like questionnaires oversimplifies the complexity of entrepreneurship and ignores the multitude of variables at play.
Domains like ecological psychology and 4E cognition challenge the concept of mindset by opposing cognitive internalism and representational cognition. These perspectives argue that mindset is too contextually withdrawn from ethics and reality.
The concept of mindset lacks ecological validity, which refers to how accurately research findings can be generalized to real-world situations. Mindset studies often fail to reflect the complexities of entrepreneurial behavior and experiences in natural environments.
Blaming individuals’ mindset for their successes or failures in entrepreneurship oversimplifies the reality. Factors like social, economic, and environmental conditions play significant roles in entrepreneurial outcomes, and ignoring these variables is misleading.
Entrepreneurship scholars are aware of the issues surrounding mindset and strive to contextualize the idea. Definitions and facets of mindset vary depending on the researcher and the specific context and experience
Applying complexity to the study of entrepreneurship makes more sense than siloed top-down approaches. The complexities of the entrepreneurial domain require a holistic perspective that considers the context and system as a whole.
Comments
Entrepreneurship? Entrepreneurial? Enterprising? I'd suggest that due to (academic) definitional dependency, it is typically the definition the researcher decides upon that contextualises these types of study, not what is universally accepted??? 😉 ask @entrep_thinking ? https://t.co/PVp0EZWLIM
Hi, guys! Yes, mindset is so badly defined. From the expert cognition stuff out there, the mindset has multiple facets which rise & fall in importance depending on context & experience. I would love to see how facets would differ across "Andy's 3"!
Thanks. That's is great coming from a person who dedicated the time. I think(as Andrew said 👇), if we are using the concept of mindset, the challenge would be contextualisation. Because the concept is decontextualizable, overused and also misused. https://t.co/8NPZZDByWv
This is great in an atomistic/individualistic perspective, despite the challenges to do measurements and replication. But is it possible to bring this same idea by accomodating the propensity of a context and system as a whole. pic.twitter.com/yEkbqDVxQC
Anthony Chemero’s radically embodied cognitive science challenges traditional cognitive science approaches by emphasizing the importance of the body and its interaction with the environment in understanding cognition.
Ian Haking passed away on 10 May 2023. I don’t have a good grasp of his ideas but I liked one of his quotes very much. That is;
"In my opinion, the right track in Dewey is the attempt to destroy the conception of knowledge and reality as a matter of thought and of representation". (Ian Hacking)
He was agreeing with this idea of Dewey
Source (Representing and Intervening; Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science’, by Ian hacking)
"In my opinion, the right track in Dewey is the attempt to destroy the conception of knowledge and reality as a matter of thought and of representation".
Interestingly, his “powerful knowledge” perspective was emerged from his South African experience. In this article he shares his experience which might be interesting as a co-read-along with the following video by Ghana’s Education minister in which he says;
“You cannot memorize your way out of poverty”
“You cannot memorize your way out of poverty”. Ghana's Education Minister https://t.co/V5g5jeHPs8
I was exploring critical works on Herbert Simon. In domains like entrepreneurship Simon is rarely observed under critical lens. Prof Antony Chemero suggested literature about connectionist networks from the 1980s because the proponents often thought of themselves as demonstrating problems with Newell and Simon’s physical symbol system hypothesis.
I have also posted a Guy Claxton playlist in which Claxton questioned the core ideas over which the Neo-Traditionalist view(Cognitive-load, Direct instruction, Knowledge rich curriculum) is built-on. This includes fundamental assumptions about Computer analogy(+boxology), Evidence(evidence in health Vs education), False binaries, Contextually divorced ideas, etc.
This post is about a 2020 article titled “A Problem for Cognitive Load Theory—the Distinctively Human Life-form”, by Professor Jan Derry of UCL. She used Philosopher Robert Brandom’s Inferentialism to directly question the representationalist world view presented by Cognitive load theory, and to some extent Constructivist thinking. “She challenges the presuppositions involved not only in arguments for guided instruction by those supporting cognitive load theory, but also in opposed pedagogic approaches involving discovery and inquiry learning”. According to her, Both approaches are in danger of presupposing what C.B. Macpherson criticised as ‘possessive individualism’—i.e. capacities, beliefs and desires viewed as possessions of an individual. As a result, they fail to pay attention to mediation and normativity, both of which are distinctive aspects of human action.
In the Cognitive view, mind is distinct from world, and representations depict states of affairs; in the Inferential view, mind and world are not separated, and inferential connections, arising through human activity, constitute representations in the first place. Thus the role of representations has gone down one level. She adds, “the forging of the connection between word and object involves reversing the conceptual framework of much conventional pedagogical practice and placing the emphasis on bringing the learner into the inferential relations that constitute a concept prior to its acquisition.”
My comments
This is an amazing perspective to have. Since I am in a quest to explore the maximum of diversities of ideas in education and learning, what I really like to further explore is–How does inferentialism fit with ecological and enactive perspectives, which also may stress the need to have a purpose, intention, and meaning, etc.
Video: Knowledge in education: Why philosophy matters
(Jan Derry talks about the core themes mentioned in the paper)
One key experiment noted in the paper
One of the highlights of the article is the example of an experiment conducted by Martin Hughes and Margaret Donaldson, in order to put the original findings of Piaget and Inhelder’s mountain task experiment (Piaget and Inhelder, 1967) to the test(Donaldson, 1978).
It demonstrated the importance of the purposes and intentions behind human action, which very much relates to inferential thinking than just a representation of one mental item to another in the brain.
It is very interesting to watch twitter debates between various academic communities. The problem is that if you are already part of a cult, you will never get to enjoy the big picture birds eye view of the show.
When it comes to education and learning, two of the prominent communities use the science tag, often to trash constructivism and progressive models. They are Neuroscience and Cognitive science or fusion; Cognitive Neuroscience. Recently I have been watching both Cognitive Neuroscience people and Cognitive science people exposing the neuro-reductionism and the uselessness so called Neuro speak. There is a lot of valuable insights in this critic.
I have already tweeted about it and blogged about it last year. But still, here is the original link to the tweet : Neuroscience of education
1. The first tweet is by Daniel Ansari, Cognitive Neuroscientist. He made the observation that Neuroscience can’t suggest what is and what isn’t effective pedagogy. Adds that, neural data cannot directly speak to the effectiveness of the instructional approach but can be an informative correlate of the behavioural outcomes (e.g intervention specific gains in reading)
2. The second one is by Daniel Willingham and David Daniel. They talks about this issue in their YouTube vlog; discusses the application of neuroscience in education
3. Third one is an article/ blogpost: In this, Mirjam Neelen & Paul A. Kirschner observes that “In general, brain imaging techniques in and of themselves don’t have any real practical implications. At best, for learning, it can be used in combination with behavioural research to try to understand processes underlying learning” Link to blog post: “STOP ABUSING NEUROSCIENCE FOR LEARNING!”
4. The recent one(order in which I found) is from “The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (Penguin Press Science S.)” by Steven Pinker. He observed: “Neural plasticity is just another name for learning and development, described at a different level of analysis. All this should be obvious, but nowadays any banality about learning can be dressed up in neurospeak and treated like a great revelation of science.“
What about Cognitive reductionism
All of these observations are agreeable. Absolutely significant. But a persistent question in my mind is about the reductionism of cognitive science and the blindness of people who are committed to the cult. And can we call it a science when most of complexity and interactive dynamics are ignored. Isn’t it based on streetlight effect, that occurs when people only search for something where it is easiest to look.
What is the validity of’—for example, standardized tests, when it is absolutely clear that the tests are not measuring any skills of life success, but the socially constructed metric. An example of Pisa: Paper
Isn’t educational cognitive science mostly about social construction than about real science? I argue that most of the cognitive science driven assessments and assumptions are in a way shaping the society, constructing its values, engineering the social systems to make it easier for some people to climb the ladder, and difficult for others .
To Conclude
I like cognitive science and Neuroscience. I acknowledge the value of the tools and insights generated from neuroscience and cognitive science. I am huge fan of genuine works like that from expertise researchers and people like Herbert Simon(with his bounded rationality) who transformed the way I think. But borrowing from Dave Snowden, I am also a believer of bounded applicability of ideas, tools, theories, methods, etc. I have a tendency to question the one size fits all. E.g. , I believe Cognitive load theory is useful and good, but I also think it shouldn’t be used to dictate or sanction the validity of Direct( rote) instruction perspective. Or worst it shouldn’t be used to trash all other methods because all of them doesn’t fit a certain criteria( computer analogy).
Thus, I must say, I am hugely skeptical of many dimensions of educational cognitive science, particularly those works that has a tendency to influence policy and that part which is directly connected to money making industry, testing, assessments, etc.
