Talk:Information processing theory

Thinking of linking to this from information metabolism

What do you think? Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the "four main beliefs" come from. I haven't seen them before and I would not say they are universally accepted. They seem to be a vague mishmash of "beliefs" when what we need is a clear statement of what the information processing perspective is and what principles and predictions follow from that perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotczar (talk • contribs) 17:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How come "human problem solving" by Newell and Simon was not mentioned in this document? --128.46.211.237 (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I just did some real brief editing, and I saw the 4 main beliefs which I have never heard of before either. Also, I agree that some of the psychologists should be named. Fantz, Fagan, Coen, Bandura, Meltzoff, Moore, and others should be listed in case people need further info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.109.34 (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a complete rework without the ideological bias

Overall, this article has several issues or flaws. General IP models say nothing about development so they can't contradict developmental models. Piaget should not even be mentioned in an article on IP. We can skip the oft repeated and incorrect idea that a revolution occurred in which (some?) psychologist freed themselves from behaviorist ... concepts, research limitations, principles? This sort of time-worn and incorrect history is of little or no use in understanding IP or its development. While most IP models are represented as linear processes, that is only for clarity and there is nothing about the model that restricts parallel processes. Linear turning machines can mimic parallel processors so this point is a bit moot. IP models are based on the idea that, like computers, human cognition can be described via information transformation processes and functions. I also have never heard of the presented four main beliefs which should include a citation or, better, omitted. This whole article needs to be reworked in light of the work of AI learning researchers in addition to the models of Atkinson and Shiffren, Craik and Lockhart, and Badderley. If one is going to assert that researchers are "turning away" from the model, one is on the hook to support that claim. I think the claim is just wrong and reflects the biases of the author. IPT is the only current coherent scientific model of cognition and learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.176.158 (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that IP has basically nothing to say about cognitive development. Piaget's ideas cannot be described as information processing and do not match or reference IP models. I fully support the idea the oft repeated claim that psychology rejected behaviorism in some sort of revolution is false and takes up space without contributing to understanding IP. The origin of IP theory is with computer science--not any cognitive psychology revolution. I generally agree with the suggestion that the scientists mentioned should be the focus of this article. Some people do not accept the model, they are not turning away from it, and it is self serving to claim that some unknown group the author does to speak for is somehow moving away from this perspective.Robotczar (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me further complain about mention of social factors. Social factors are irrelevant unless they affect not just what humans think but how they think and learn. This question may be open to debate but the article implies that social factors do affect how we think (without references). If social factors do affect how humans process information, then such factors can be incorporated in the model. I suggest that the model can already account for any difference due to social factors as merely different learned knowledge. Social factors are in no way key to understanding IP theory, nor are they a strong basis for attacking the model. Most of the stuff in this article is ideologically based and do not reflect empirical evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.176.158 (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Four Pillars

I assume that the four pillars originated with the Wikipedia author as no reference is given. I have never heard of them and I am familiar with IP theory. The information should be justified or omitted.Robotczar (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]