Read on Twitter
'Formal, on the other hand, brings formal concepts and tools from mathematics and knowledge about computational principles.'
I can access Verbal but not Formal (yet?
). Here's to a journey towards theoretical modeling. Step 1: https://psyarxiv.com/r2zqy
https://twitter.com/IrisVanRooij/status/1282600235420856321
I can access Verbal but not Formal (yet?
). Here's to a journey towards theoretical modeling. Step 1: https://psyarxiv.com/r2zqy https://twitter.com/IrisVanRooij/status/1282600235420856321
Step 2: Breathe. Recover from the intimidation brought by Figure 1. 
'According to the influential tri-level framework proposed by David Marr (1982) capacities can be analyzed at three different levels: the computational level, the algorithmic level, and the implementational level.'
Is computational level the highest level of explanation?
Is computational level the highest level of explanation?
Oh this reminds me of https://psyarxiv.com/rybh9/
https://twitter.com/o_guest/status/1282250400444317696?s=19
https://twitter.com/o_guest/status/1282250400444317696?s=19
This also reminds me of a friend (a mathematician) who told me that he would ideally teach more theory than programming. I think I now understand why. I'm also reminded that I only learned (-ish) algorithmic level of analysis when I took one of those MITx courses.
'The theoretical modeler’s tools are mathematical concepts, formal expressions, and notational conventions... one can already get quite far with the basics in set theory, functions and logic.'
College Algebra seems useful now (Mong, I'm still bitter you almost failed me!
).
College Algebra seems useful now (Mong, I'm still bitter you almost failed me!
).
Again, I can hear my mathematician friend emphasising proof methods! It's unfortunate that others seem to undervalue proofs. I hope this improves eventually given how important proofs are (or so I've been told ). Mong, you taught us proofs but you didn't frame it this well!
). Mong, you taught us proofs but you didn't frame it this well!
'Verbal’s intuitions and Formal’s questions vary from dialogue to dialogue, and hence the developed theoretical models differ as well.'
Dialogue 1 just explained the loci of breakdown when I code! MITx, please teach this paper! …https://computationalcognitivescience.github.io/socialpsychtutorial/
Dialogue 1 just explained the loci of breakdown when I code!
MITx, please teach this paper! …https://computationalcognitivescience.github.io/socialpsychtutorial/
Oh okay! Dialogue 1 initially matches my intuitions. Dialogue 2 seems to offer a more efficient formalization (i.e., computational-level model)! Does it? Still thinking...
[I need a break now. I will resume when my mind recovers.]
[I need a break now. I will resume when my mind recovers.
]
