| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Agibw8vp4v","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ12Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ16Ӻ","endOffset":336°Ӻ,"quote":"As a biologist, Piaget was well acquainted with the notion of reflex and he investigated the phenomenon in his children. Since infants manifest some such ‘fixed action patterns’ as soon as they are born, they must be considered the result of genetic determination rather than learning. Whereas most developmental psychologists seemed satisfied with that explanation, Piaget focused on the fact that this genetic determination was likely to be the result of natural selection. In other words, he considered that these action patterns arose through accidental mutations and spread, because they, rather than others, had consequences that were conducive to survival. He therefore saw reflexes not as they are usually depicted in textbooks, viz.:\nSTIMULUS → ACTIVITY (RESPONSE)\nbut as composed of three rather than two parts. The third part was the result of the activity that was crucial for the perpetuation of the reflex. On the basis of the organism’s past experience, this result could be expected, and thus open the way to cognitive applications:\n\t1 \t \t2 \t \t3 \n\tPERCEIVED → \tACTIVITY → \tBENEFICIAL or SITUATION EXPECTED RESULT \nThis addition was legitimate because, although reflexive action patterns are ‘wired in’ and remain fixed for a certain time, they can eventually be modified or even dismantled by the organism’s experience. Adults, for instance, no longer manifest some of the reflexes that helped them to find the mother’s nipple when they were infants.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321088360461005206332":^°°,^"jQuery321088360461005206332":^°°,^"jQuery321088360461005206332":^°°,^"jQuery321088360461005206332":^°°,^"jQuery321088360461005206332":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1562085952884°
|
