Title |
The poverty of embodied cognition
|
---|---|
Published in |
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, June 2016
|
DOI | 10.3758/s13423-015-0860-1 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Stephen D. Goldinger, Megan H. Papesh, Anthony S. Barnhart, Whitney A. Hansen, Michael C. Hout |
Abstract |
In recent years, there has been rapidly growing interest in embodied cognition, a multifaceted theoretical proposition that (1) cognitive processes are influenced by the body, (2) cognition exists in the service of action, (3) cognition is situated in the environment, and (4) cognition may occur without internal representations. Many proponents view embodied cognition as the next great paradigm shift for cognitive science. In this article, we critically examine the core ideas from embodied cognition, taking a "thought exercise" approach. We first note that the basic principles from embodiment theory are either unacceptably vague (e.g., the premise that perception is influenced by the body) or they offer nothing new (e.g., cognition evolved to optimize survival, emotions affect cognition, perception-action couplings are important). We next suggest that, for the vast majority of classic findings in cognitive science, embodied cognition offers no scientifically valuable insight. In most cases, the theory has no logical connections to the phenomena, other than some trivially true ideas. Beyond classic laboratory findings, embodiment theory is also unable to adequately address the basic experiences of cognitive life. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 16 | 17% |
United Kingdom | 11 | 12% |
Australia | 7 | 7% |
Spain | 5 | 5% |
France | 4 | 4% |
Netherlands | 3 | 3% |
Canada | 2 | 2% |
Ireland | 2 | 2% |
Germany | 2 | 2% |
Other | 8 | 8% |
Unknown | 35 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 61 | 64% |
Scientists | 26 | 27% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 6% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 5 | <1% |
United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
Germany | 1 | <1% |
Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
Portugal | 1 | <1% |
Sweden | 1 | <1% |
Canada | 1 | <1% |
France | 1 | <1% |
Denmark | 1 | <1% |
Other | 3 | <1% |
Unknown | 522 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 122 | 23% |
Student > Master | 71 | 13% |
Researcher | 65 | 12% |
Student > Bachelor | 62 | 11% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 30 | 6% |
Other | 102 | 19% |
Unknown | 88 | 16% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 204 | 38% |
Neuroscience | 31 | 6% |
Arts and Humanities | 31 | 6% |
Social Sciences | 30 | 6% |
Philosophy | 29 | 5% |
Other | 107 | 20% |
Unknown | 108 | 20% |