PJDM, professional judgement and decision making. I speak with Professor Dave Collins about PJDM and the concept of 'It depends' coaching. The most simple and complex principle, or a mere cop out?
Thanks Jon, this was a really insightful conversation that cuts through much of the adversarial binary positioning that emerges on other platforms. Ecologically informed practice does not exclude instruction any more than information processing excludes representative practice.
Thanks Dave, appreciate the feedback. I absolutely agree. The concept of PJDM can be applied to an ecological informed practice. The dichotomised debates often miss the practicalities of coaching and the fact coaching is a complex multi faceted process. Thanks again
He expressed clear cognitivist accounts of learning and control, most notably predictive processing. This places much of learning as taking place more so within abstract cognitive models and less so in a change in perceptual relationship between learner and learning environment.
Direct perception is excluded by predictive processing, and it's not something "that works," because it's an account that grounds a set of functions and not a description/label of the functions themselves. In other words, it's presented here as a method when it is not a method at all but a theoretical position.
I think the critique of predictive processing here might overlook some important nuances. While PP is often associated with cognitivist approaches that emphasise internal models, it doesn’t necessarily exclude the dynamic, embodied interaction between the learner and the environment. In fact, PP posits that perception and action are intertwined processes aimed at minimising prediction errors, which inherently involves continuous adaptation to environmental changes. This perspective suggests that learning is not just about abstract cognitive models but also about engaging with the world in an embodied way. Hence why this perspective is not really associated with traditional cognitivism.
Not really, there’s a bit more to it. More contemporary PP views see it as being fully enactive. A lot of push back to PP/AIF frameworks suggest it as being internalistic or brain driven (a la IP). This isn’t the case. I posted a short piece by Ines Hipolito a few weeks back which looks at embodied skilful action through an active inference lens. Julian Kiverstein and others have written similar papers from an active inference perspective. Worth a look, massively interesting.
Thanks Jon, this was a really insightful conversation that cuts through much of the adversarial binary positioning that emerges on other platforms. Ecologically informed practice does not exclude instruction any more than information processing excludes representative practice.
Thanks Dave, appreciate the feedback. I absolutely agree. The concept of PJDM can be applied to an ecological informed practice. The dichotomised debates often miss the practicalities of coaching and the fact coaching is a complex multi faceted process. Thanks again
Gelatinous cognitivism
Cognitive psychology, for sure. Cognitivism, I’m not so sure!
He expressed clear cognitivist accounts of learning and control, most notably predictive processing. This places much of learning as taking place more so within abstract cognitive models and less so in a change in perceptual relationship between learner and learning environment.
Direct perception is excluded by predictive processing, and it's not something "that works," because it's an account that grounds a set of functions and not a description/label of the functions themselves. In other words, it's presented here as a method when it is not a method at all but a theoretical position.
I think the critique of predictive processing here might overlook some important nuances. While PP is often associated with cognitivist approaches that emphasise internal models, it doesn’t necessarily exclude the dynamic, embodied interaction between the learner and the environment. In fact, PP posits that perception and action are intertwined processes aimed at minimising prediction errors, which inherently involves continuous adaptation to environmental changes. This perspective suggests that learning is not just about abstract cognitive models but also about engaging with the world in an embodied way. Hence why this perspective is not really associated with traditional cognitivism.
So behavior is driven, in part, by internal predictive processes?
Not really, there’s a bit more to it. More contemporary PP views see it as being fully enactive. A lot of push back to PP/AIF frameworks suggest it as being internalistic or brain driven (a la IP). This isn’t the case. I posted a short piece by Ines Hipolito a few weeks back which looks at embodied skilful action through an active inference lens. Julian Kiverstein and others have written similar papers from an active inference perspective. Worth a look, massively interesting.
If it's not internally driven, what's doing the processing, and what's being processed?