Case Studies in Interdisciplinary Research

Humans are capable of understanding an incredible variety of actions performed by other humans. Even though these range from primary biological actions like eating and fleeing, to acts in parliament or in poetry, humans generally can make sense of each other’s actions. Understanding other people’s action, called "action understanding," can transcend differences in race, gender, culture, age, and social and historical circumstances. Action understanding is the cognitive capability of making sense of another person’s action by integrating perceptual information about the behavior with knowledge about the immediate and socio-cultural contexts of the action and with one’s own experience. Since it is necessary to integrate multiple sources of information, it is not surprising that failures to understand a person’s behavior are also common. Well known is the case of an autistic professor who compares herself to an "anthropologist from Mars." Incapable of spontaneously understanding why someone cries, she has learned rules that help her to infer that people who rub their eyes while tears are running down their cheeks are weeping and probably feel unhappy (Sacks, 1995). By contrast, normal individuals automatically allow stereotypes, prejudices, self-interests and the like to influence their understanding a person’s behavior (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999). More generally still, humans can easily misunderstand unfamiliar symbolic actions or rituals if they rely too much on their own socio-cultural expertise (Gadamer, 2004). Given the importance of action understanding in every domain of human life and society, and in light of the complexities that surround it, a comprehensive scientific understanding of this capacity is needed. Apart from satisfying intellectual curiosity, such insight would serve to improve our action understanding and mitigate several forms of misunderstanding. Indeed, in studying action understanding, "we as scientists are engaged in the very process that is central to our concerns" (Gergen & Semin, 1990, p. 1). Scholars are increasingly dissatisfied with mono-disciplinary approaches to understanding human action. Such one-sidedness can rest upon various motives. For example, "hermeneutic interpretations" of action understanding tend to emphasize historical and cultural influences while overlooking that ultimately such influences depend upon individual cognitive processes.1 This has led to a critique of the assumption that humans are born as a "blank slate" and that culture is solely responsible for all cognitive contents. However, such critique easily slides into an overemphasis on the biology of human nature and a denial of socio-cultural influences on cognition (Pinker, 2003). Fortunately, recent interdisciplinary endeavors have shown that an interdisciplinary approach is preferable when investigating complex functions like action understanding. Such research often involves developing a new "interdiscipline" such as cultural psychology (Bruner, 1990) or combining insights from the social sciences and psychology (Shore, 1996; Sperber, 1996). Evidence shows that throughout human evolution there have been mutual influences between biological and cognitive processes that shape human capacities and socio-cultural influences on those processes (Bogdan, 2003; Donald, 1991; Tomasello, 1999). In addition to these interdisciplinary investigations, computational sciences and artificial intelligence research are developing computer models of human understanding that allow new types of experiments and simulations (Churchland, 1995). Such insights underscore the necessity and fruitfulness of disciplinary boundary crossing and require that various disciplinary methods, concepts and theories be combined in innovative ways.

[1]  Stephen P. Stich,et al.  Folk Psychology: Simulation or Tacit Theory? , 1992 .

[2]  M. Donald Origins of the modern mind , 1991 .

[3]  T. Chartrand,et al.  THE UNBEARABLE AUTOMATICITY OF BEING , 1999 .

[4]  M. Iacoboni Mirroring People: The New Science of How We Connect with Others , 2008 .

[5]  S. Blakemore,et al.  Social cognitive neuroscience: where are we heading? , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[6]  C. Craver Explaining the Brain: Mechanisms and the Mosaic Unity of Neuroscience , 2007 .

[7]  J. Dupré In Defence of Classification , 2001 .

[8]  Richard Kearney,et al.  From Text to Action: Essays in Hermeneutics II , 1991 .

[9]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Philosophy in the flesh : the embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought , 1999 .

[10]  G. Miller The cognitive revolution: a historical perspective , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[11]  P. Ricoeur,et al.  Time and Narrative , 1989 .

[12]  Shaun Gallagher,et al.  Understanding others through primary interaction and narrative practice , 2008 .

[13]  Z. Nadasdy,et al.  Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age , 1995, Cognition.

[14]  Steven Shapin,et al.  The Scientific Revolution , 1997 .

[15]  Frank Van Overwalle,et al.  Understanding others' actions and goals by mirror and mentalizing systems: A meta-analysis , 2009, NeuroImage.

[16]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  Motor resonance as a function of narrative time: Further tests of the linguistic focus hypothesis , 2010, Brain and Language.

[17]  William Bechtel,et al.  Discovering Complexity: Decomposition and Localization as Strategies in Scientific Research , 2010 .

[18]  J. Klein,et al.  Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice. , 1991 .

[19]  Oliver Sacks,et al.  An Anthropologist on Mars: Seven Paradoxical Tales , 1995 .

[20]  A. Goldman,et al.  Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[21]  R. Byrne,et al.  Priming primates: Human and otherwise , 1998, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[22]  M. Keestra The Diverging Force of Imitation: Integrating Cognitive Science and Hermeneutics , 2008 .

[23]  R. Blank Review of Jean-Pierre Changeux and Paul Ricoeur. 2000. What Makes Us Think? A Neuroscientist and Philosopher Argue about Ethics, Human Nature, and the Brain , 2002, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

[24]  S. Reyna Connections: Brain, Mind and Culture in a Social Anthropology , 2002 .

[25]  R. Byrne Imitation without intentionality. Using string parsing to copy the organization of behaviour , 1999, Animal Cognition.

[26]  William Bechtel,et al.  The challenge of characterizing operations in the mechanisms underlying behavior. , 2005, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[27]  G. Northoff,et al.  Culture-sensitive neural substrates of human cognition: a transcultural neuroimaging approach , 2008, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[28]  Michael A. Arbib,et al.  From grasping to complex imitation: mirror systems on the path to language , 2008 .

[29]  Elisabeth Pacherie,et al.  Narrators and comparators: the architecture of agentive self-awareness , 2007, Synthese.

[30]  M. Tomasello The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition , 2000 .

[31]  Bradd Shore,et al.  Culture in Mind: Cognition, Culture, and the Problem of Meaning , 1996 .

[32]  Jodie A. Baird,et al.  Infants parse dynamic action. , 2001, Child development.

[33]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? , 2002 .

[34]  H. Gadamer,et al.  Truth and Method , 1960 .

[35]  Nick Chater,et al.  Introduction: The importance of imitation , 2005 .

[36]  Models of Man: Philosophical Thoughts on Social Action , 1977 .

[37]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  Partitioning the domain of social inference: dual mode and systems models and their alternatives. , 2007, Annual review of psychology.

[38]  J. Zacks,et al.  Using movement and intentions to understand human activity , 2009, Cognition.

[39]  C. Craver Explaining the Brain: Mechanisms and the Mosaic Unity of Neuroscience , 2007 .

[40]  D. Dennett The Intentional Stance. , 1987 .

[41]  Sabrina M. Tom,et al.  The Neural Correlates of Motor Skill Automaticity , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[42]  B. Tversky,et al.  Hierarchical encoding of behavior: translating perception into action. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[43]  P. Machamer,et al.  Thinking about Mechanisms , 2000, Philosophy of Science.

[44]  D. Sperber,et al.  Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach , 1998 .

[45]  J. Beatty,et al.  Why Do Biologists Argue like They Do? , 1997, Philosophy of Science.

[46]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Designing sociable robots , 2002 .

[47]  S. Cowley,et al.  Foundationalism and neuroscience; silence and language , 2009 .

[48]  Daniel D. Hutto Folk Psychological Narratives: The Sociocultural Basis of Understanding Reasons , 2012 .

[49]  Carolyn Haynes,et al.  Targeted Assessment Rubric: An Empirically Grounded Rubric for Interdisciplinary Writing , 2009 .

[50]  Rick Szostak,et al.  Classifying Science: Phenomena, Data, Theory, Method, Practice , 2005 .

[51]  W. Wimsatt Re-Engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings: Piecewise Approximations to Reality , 2007 .

[52]  Allen F. Repko,et al.  Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory , 2011 .