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]

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.