Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Connecting Piaget, Rosenberg (et al) and Judith Rich Harris
It seemed to me that something was missing in Piaget's concepts, as described by Rosenberg. There was something too idealistic about it all - with the purpose of cognitive development being achievement of cooperation. It's missing competition. I've always enjoyed a good debate about cooperation vs. competition. I've come to understand them as the yin/yang of things. Both are necessary for survival. Neither is "better". But both have their proponents - and their detractors. As if you could eliminate one of them or the other!
In Judith Rich Harris' model, there is a place for both. Cooperation is part of the socialization subsystem, developed to make you function as a group member. But competition is there, too - in the status subsystem.
I am not sure how you would work competition into Piaget's concepts? Perhaps I can make an attempt. Piaget has humans developing ever increasing levels of cognitive capability, going at each stage through a transformation from egocentricity to sociocentricity. Rosenberg at al characterize this as culminating in effective cooperation. But, wouldn't it also culminate in effective competition? The models built at each stage increase both the capacity for cooperation and competition.
I am still in the middle of Political Reasoning and Cognition, and it's raised another question - actually several. The authors cite studies by Ward and Lane - in interviewing subjects to determine their cognitive level and its effect on their political beliefs. The levels seems to be discrete, rather than continuous. You are at the "low" level or the "high" one. This is an interesting idea, and seems possible to me. I am sure Piagetians have an opinion on this.
This book was written in 1988. The ideas seem promising, but it's not clear that they've had a major impact on political science. Rosenberg's current program is a very interesting one, a cross-disciplinary political science and psychology program. He describes the issues:
Somewhat daunting from my persepective and exactly the reason I shyed away from academia. Crossing intellectual boundaries seems necessary to me.
It seemed to me that something was missing in Piaget's concepts, as described by Rosenberg. There was something too idealistic about it all - with the purpose of cognitive development being achievement of cooperation. It's missing competition. I've always enjoyed a good debate about cooperation vs. competition. I've come to understand them as the yin/yang of things. Both are necessary for survival. Neither is "better". But both have their proponents - and their detractors. As if you could eliminate one of them or the other!
In Judith Rich Harris' model, there is a place for both. Cooperation is part of the socialization subsystem, developed to make you function as a group member. But competition is there, too - in the status subsystem.
I am not sure how you would work competition into Piaget's concepts? Perhaps I can make an attempt. Piaget has humans developing ever increasing levels of cognitive capability, going at each stage through a transformation from egocentricity to sociocentricity. Rosenberg at al characterize this as culminating in effective cooperation. But, wouldn't it also culminate in effective competition? The models built at each stage increase both the capacity for cooperation and competition.
I am still in the middle of Political Reasoning and Cognition, and it's raised another question - actually several. The authors cite studies by Ward and Lane - in interviewing subjects to determine their cognitive level and its effect on their political beliefs. The levels seems to be discrete, rather than continuous. You are at the "low" level or the "high" one. This is an interesting idea, and seems possible to me. I am sure Piagetians have an opinion on this.
This book was written in 1988. The ideas seem promising, but it's not clear that they've had a major impact on political science. Rosenberg's current program is a very interesting one, a cross-disciplinary political science and psychology program. He describes the issues:
Interdisciplinary programs are difficult to design. Crossing intellectual
boundaries creates unusual demands both with regard to the theoretical
definition of the subject matter and the empirical methods which may be used
to examine it. Typically graduate programs adopt the perspective of either
political science or psychology. Within this context they then tend to
emphasize either theoretical issues or empirical ones.
Somewhat daunting from my persepective and exactly the reason I shyed away from academia. Crossing intellectual boundaries seems necessary to me.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]