“Ratiomorphic” Models of Perception and Thinking [1955]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The items reprinted in this volume by Brunswik (1955b), Leeper (1955) and Murphy (1955), are abstracts of papers presented at a symposium on “The Relation of the Person to His Environment/’ held in Montreal at the 1954 meetings of the International Congress of Psychology.1 In his contribution, Brunswik reported some of his theoretical and empirical work on central psychological responses and processes, emphasizing (1) that flexible and rule-like strategies of integrating information could be distinguished by the distributions of judgments; (2) that “perception” and “thinking” might be found to correspond with these two strategies of integration; and (3) that “perception” and “thinking” could both be conceived of as special cases of a larger category of processes he described as “ratiomorphic.” We will discuss this work in four sections. First, we will consider how Brunswik’s research on central processes might appear to conflict with his general disapproval of an “encapsulated” psychology that focuses exclusively on internal processes. We will show that despite some appearances to the contrary, Brunswik’s mature framework was not hostile to studies of internal process if they were conducted “properly.” Second, we will explicate Brunswik’s conceptual distinction between the processing strategies, the logic behind his empirical method for distinguishing between them, and his reason for proposing an overarching category of ratiomorphic processes. Third, we will briefly review Brunswik’s empirical and theoretical work on the strategies underlying, and the interactions between, “perception” and “thinking.” Fourth, we will relate Brunswik’s work to research that he influenced directly as a progenitor and that he anticipated as a precursor.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".