Disclaimer: English Kinda Thing

The sole purpose of the "English Kinda Thing" is to document my attempts to correct my own mistakes in standard English usage and to share the resources I find. In no way do I attempt to teach nobody English through these blurbs--just as I intend not to teach nobody to be a neurotic and psychotic handicap in Ratology Reloaded or Down with Meds! :-)

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Thompson (2009). Dual-process theories: A metacognitive perspective.

Although I would love to find my intuitive mumbo jumbos to align perfectly with expert's notions, I have to say that some of my mumbo jumbos don't quite go hand in hand with some quotes I found in Dr. Thompson's article.  The good thing is that since the psychotic model I built is but a layperson's model about my psychotic head, it gives me a good excuse to make my own interpretation and acknowledge how a model about how deviated I am from the normal might deviate from different viewpoints (I hope). 8-X

The good thing about this article and the book is that it contains a combination of views, which makes me feel not so insecure to the extent that I will take the entire model out. 8-O lol

Thompson, V. A. (2009). Dual-process theories: A metacognitive perspective. In two minds: Dual processes and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

"I develop the argument that the outcome of a given reasoning attempt is determined not only by the content of the information that is retrieved by S1 and analyzed by S2, but also by a second-order judgment." (p. 171)
The author endorsed the importance of the second-order principle, which address a question brought up by Chi.
 "I referred to metacognitive judgments as second-order judgments, that is, as judgments about judgments." (p. 186)
" Specifically, a JOR is a judgment about the heuristic judgment delivered by S1." (P. 186)
"One might be tempted to thereby classify the FOR as a heuristic output that bears more similarity to the automatic, implicit response generated by S1 than by a true metacognitive judgment." (p. 186)
What this sentence sounds to me is that the author does not consider the outcome of S1 is not metacognitive. Unfortunately, at this stage, I will not be able to verify my interpretation with the author.
"It was argued that S2 intervention is linked to metacognitive processes of monitoring and control, and that these metacognitive processes are in turn linked to cognitive capacity." (p. 188)

No comments:

Post a Comment