“Know-How, procedural knowledge, and choking under pressure”

Abstract

I examine two explanatory models of choking: the representationalist model and the anti-representationalist model. The representationalist model is based largely on Anderson's ACT model of procedural knowledge and is developed by Masters, Beilock and Carr. The antirepresentationalist model is based on dynamical models of cognition and embodied action and is developed by Dreyfus who employs an antirepresentational view of know-how. I identify the models' similarities and differences. I then suggest that Dreyfus is wrong to believe representational activity requires reflection and attention. I also argue that the representationalist model of choking is preferable, since some embodied actions require appeals to representations, something not available to Dreyfus's anti-representational model.

Neurocognitive mechanisms of the flow state

“…Further success of EEG in identifying markers of flow may provide opportunities for training flow experiences (see Cheron, 2016), due to previous success with EEG in neurofeedback training (Ring et al, 2015). This conceptualisation of flow based on automation is appealing and indeed seems sufficiently entrenched to have permeated areas like philosophy; from the ancient Chinese concept of 'wu-wei' (Slingerland, 2014) to Dreyfus' anti-representationalist account of choking and coping under pressure (see Dreyfus, 2007;Gottlieb, 2015). Automated processes provide benefits for action and are a hallmark of expertise (Fitts & Posner, 1967;Singer, 2002), so whilst the mechanism of hypofrontality may be questionable (based on neuroimaging and mental effort findings, see below), the benefits of automated action for avoiding conscious disruption of well-learned movement sequences are clear.…”

Police officers giving evidence: Understanding the enablers and challenges of performance

“…Our findings suggest that this is demonstrated by a combination of poor listening skills and a defensive, less flexible or adaptive cognitive framework developed in anticipation of the trial. This can occur when ‘stress or pressure’ negatively affects performance (Gottlieb, 2015: 361). This study also noted a negative anticipatory narrative of giving evidence, which may be resulting in officers attending court anxious and defensive.…”