Excerpt: Education has failed to show steady progress because it has shifted back and forth among simplistic positions such as the associationist and rationalist philosophies. Modern cognitive psychology provides a basis for genuine progress by careful scientific analysis that identifies those aspects of theoretical positions that contribute to student learning and those that do not. Radical constructivism serves as the current exemplar of simplistic extremism, and certain of its devotees exhibit an antiscience bias that, should it prevail, would destroy any hope for progress in education.

Open peer commentary on the article “Materialism and Selection Bias: Political Psychology from a Radical Constructivist Perspective” by Björn Goldstein. Abstract: I argue that bias can be reduced but never completely removed, owing to humanity’s incomplete knowledge. A proposal is thus made for research to have more than one paradigmatic approach in order to provide multiple pathways and multiple results for a single research project.

Open peer commentary on the article “Second-Order Science of Interdisciplinary Research: A Polyocular Framework for Wicked Problems” by Hugo F. Alrøe & Egon Noe. Upshot: I critically assess Alrøe and Noe’s plea for a “second-order science of interdisciplinary research” from the perspective of a consistently naturalized philosophy of science, arguing that the latter precludes the “levels view” of science implied by the former. I also suggest we avoid the term “polyocularity” as it perpetuates the persistent bias toward vision in our scientific and philosophical understanding of human perception.

Open peer commentary on the article “Materialism and Selection Bias: Political Psychology from a Radical Constructivist Perspective” by Björn Goldstein. Abstract: Björn Goldstein maintains that mainstream political psychology is biased by a materialist ontology, a position he contrasts with radical constructivism. I argue that the emergent field of behavioral epigenetics upends the conventional opposition of materialist and ideational ontologies and thus offers a more radical and creative perspective on political psychology.

Autopoietic enactivism (AE) has over the last two decades undoubtedly been at the forefront of the “embodiment revolution” in philosophy of mind and cognitive science. It has developed a “radical” and influential account of embodiment which maintains that cognition is constitutively dependent on the living body. AE presents a naturalist but non-reductive framework in which the body can be understood both as an autonomous system and subjective sense-making agent. According to AE this account should serve as the core basis from which to develop a truly embodied cognition paradigm worthy of challenging traditional cognitivism. The paper will present AE’s account of the body in order to examine and critically evaluate it. This evaluation will explore certain conceptual ambiguities and theoretical incongruences which are at the root of two difficulties for AE’s account: (i) it highlights a potential anthropocentric and anthropomorphic bias; and (ii) it is too abstract, synchronic, and does not pay sufficient attention to the historical, sociocultural dimension of embodiment. The paper concludes by drawing from recent work in the sociology of the body to both support this reading of AE and also as a possible means to improve on it.

Key words: anthropomorphism, enactivism, embodied cognitive science, embodiment, sense-making, the body multiple.

Open peer commentary on the article “Materialism and Selection Bias: Political Psychology from a Radical Constructivist Perspective” by Björn Goldstein. Abstract: While there is often good reason to study our world by abstracting properties from its parts to the point where the result can be modelled as mechanisms, there is no need to do so when humans are involved. A scientific method to help them to act has been available for some time.

This article focuses on an artificial life approach to some important problems in machine learning such as statistical discrimination, curve approximation, and pattern recognition. We describe a family of models, collectively referred to as semi-algebraic networks (SAN). These models are strongly inspired by two complementary lines of thought: the biological concept of autopoiesis and morphodynamical notions in mathematics. Mathematically defined as semi-algebraic sets, SANs involve geometric components that are submitted to two coupled processes: (a) the adjustment of the components (under the action of the learning examples), and (b) the regeneration of new components. Several examples of SANs are described, using different types of components. The geometric nature of SANs gives new possibilities for solving the bias/variance dilemma in discrimination or curve approximation problems. The question of building multilevel semi-algebraic networks is also addressed, as they are related to cognitive problems such as memory and morphological categorization. We describe an example of such multilevel models.

Abstract: After clarifying some misunderstandings, I discuss the inescapability of bias in research in more practical terms, followed by an exemplification of why epigenetics does not shatter a materialist ontology. After that I explore gender-related questions in Tamil Nadu, the role of emotions, and what we can expect from being aware of the positionality of a researcher.

Context: Political psychology rests on the assumption of the existence of a world outside and independent of consciousness. This ontological materialism is hardly spoken of within the field, as it is an unchallenged assumption among most psychologists and social scientists, including political scientists. However, the materialist paradigm frames research designs, the interpretation of data and theory building. Also, there is a bias towards psychological universals - the claim that all individual and group psychologies are equal (as compared to cultural psychology, which is critical about universalist claims), which can be understood as a consequence of the discipline’s hidden ontological core assumption. Problem: The purpose of this article is to show how the choice of a certain approach to answer a research question rests on the deeply ingrained beliefs of researchers. These beliefs are usually not part of research presentations even though they have tremendous influence on the results of the whole research process. Recipients use these necessarily biased research results as building blocks for the construction of their own realities. Method: The article is an ex-post interpretative summary of my considerations during the designing period of an earlier study in which I researched, from the perspective of political psychology, on what grounds South Indian politicians have positive, negative and ambiguous attitudes towards the “West.” Using this research project as an example, this article is a critical discussion and analysis of the ideological backdrop of political psychology, in particular the belief in a materialist ontology. Results: I argue that, instead of coming closer to any kind of an “objective” understanding of political attitudes, in political psychology we cannot help but invent new stories about the (political) world as long as our beliefs consciously or unconsciously influence our decision making in theorizing and research practice. Implications: The discussion shows exemplarily how in political psychology a researcher’s basic assumption that a physical world outside of consciousness exists determines methodology and justifies a particular set of interpretations. The unproblematized physicalist paradigm makes a researcher in political psychology necessarily a biased researcher. Constructivist content: The article is a description of how a researcher’s subjective perception and construction of the (social) world has consequences for the complete research process. Political psychology is based on the highly problematic assumption of an ontic world that exists independently of a subjective observer. It can serve as a telling example of how the preoccupation with a physicalist world explanation can lead to methodological and interpretative biases.

Key words: Cultural psychology, emotional beliefs, identity, metaphysical idealism, ontological materialism, political psychology, psychological universals, research biases, social constructivism.

Open peer commentary on the article “Materialism and Selection Bias: Political Psychology from a Radical Constructivist Perspective” by Björn Goldstein. Abstract: Goldstein critically assesses assumptions of an ontic world in political psychology research and the role of beliefs in the context of efforts to achieve an “objective” understanding of political attitudes. While I can agree on the importance of radical constructivism and self-reflection in his assessment, I want to argue for further differentiation and clarification with respect to arguments from within radical constructivism and enhanced perspectives beyond.