| | Adam, I appreciate the references to Smalltalk and Windowing, Norman and Gibson (I've found many links to the underlying work of Gibson, very interesting: here, here, and here; some of the reading I have found, however, is opaque and unconvincing). I'm not much for this sort of 'direct realism' (viz Gibson's theory of perception), it's just not engaged enough with neuroscience for my tastes.
I would agree with your other comment above if rewritten: "Much of today's software engineering, including object-oriented programming, has been strongly influenced by concepts arising from cognitive and developmental psychology."
As for Loftus, I am a strong supporter of her work (she is a colleague of Lilienfeld, and authors a chapter in the book I cited above. See also Lilienfeld's journal Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice). She is a giant on the psychological science stage, has helped knock down the excesses of the recovered memory movement, has helped hone police/juridicial practice, as you note, and has worked tirelessly against pseudoscience in psychology as well.
Among the 'proven' effects on memory that she works with are: priming, retroactive interference, the 'imagination effect,' source-monitoring, and so on. Good stuff. I recommend her "The Myth of Repressed Memory," and "Eyewitness Testimony."
Loftus told an amusing story at one of her numerous campus speeches. It illustrates that solid, questioning, skeptical, engaged tone of inquiry that she exemplifies:
Some evidence is so flimsy or fragile that it is not really
evidence at all. For example, as I and others have shown,
some kinds of eyewitness testimony are so fraught with the
probability of error that it is not really evidence at all,
and to consider it so can sometimes lead to grave
miscarriages of justice. So these questions about evidence
are valuable to be asking over and over in life.
There is a wonderful cartoon that appeared recently in
Parade magazine. And here's where we get to that cat. A
mother and her little son are sitting at the kitchen table.
Apparently, mom has just chided the son for excessive
curiosity. The son rises up and barks back:
"Curiosity killed what cat? What was it curious about? What
color was it? Did it have a name? How old was it?
I particularly like the last question. Maybe the cat was
very old, and died of old age, and curiosity had nothing to
do with it at all. So in closing, I remind you that speakers
at university graduations give advice freely:
Go forth. Always do right. Be true to yourself. Make
yourself necessary to somebody. Wear sunscreen.
It's all good but, my pick for the one advice morsel to
suggest to you is simple. Remember to ask the questions that
good . . .scientists have learned to ask: "What's the
evidence?" and then "What exactly is the evidence?" And if
you forget these questions, then just try asking for the
name or the age of the cat that curiosity killed.
(Full speech: 'Who is the Cat That Curiosity Killed?')
WSS
|
|
