Saul Saul yes. educational psychology, where i’m getting these terms from, use their own specialized terminology and its from where the majority of research i’m finding is in.
i’ve been looking at various little rosetta stones to bridge between the worlds and i appreciate learning now that cohesion is formal and coherence is functional. Thank you!!
As i am far more comfortable in the world of cognitive science, this should be a nice bridge to get from educational psych to psych and as i seem to recall that “functional speech” tends to relate to such things as diagnosing schizophrenia a tie in to cognitive science isn’t far away.
Saul Saul we must both be seeking a theoretical basis that is harmonic with our own internal intuitions.
i’m navigating similar waters and still unsure where i’ll end up but it does get closer.
For example, i made a decision a few months ago to make my own tentative axiom and assume that each of these systems are ultimately functionally equivalent at 80%+ overlap and that i should be able to find ways to slide back and forth as needed, assuming that an ultimate view (which may seem or may not ever come together in a singular theory) would likely be a middle out, top down, bottom up.
ultimately i’ll probably choose but as i’m navigating waters that are populated with things i’ve been avoiding (computational theory of mind, educational psychology and the occasional essentialism) i’m having to swallow my taste preferences with the assumption that i’ll get through to the other side into familiar waters.
At some point when i find whatever it is i’m seeking with this research, i’ll likely choose or create something that is attuned best with my natural thinking to work from within.
but for now i’m attempting steps into the unfamiliar and seeing how i do and where i end up.
As you know many these waters in ways that i don’t, you continue to be a tremendous help with notes like these and i appreciate it greatly.