title: Arguing with the cognitivists.
abstract: A number of cognitivists have claimed that it is somehow illegitimate for those people who do not accept that cognitions are the only cause of human behavior to enter into debate on the issue. Their argument appears to be that it is not possible to develop an argument without making use of the sort of cognition described by Bandura [Bandura (1995) Comments on the crusade against the causal efficacy of human thought, Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 26, 179-190] and others, nor is it possible to influence other people without attempting to change their cognitive model of the topic, and therefore the mere fact of arguing is enough to disprove the non-cognitivists' position. This paper argues that argument is not dependent on an inner monologue but is a behavioral process; and attempting to persuade others does not necessitate a belief in a central causal role for cognitions. It is quite possible to engage in academic debate without adopting a dualist model of the human being, and, by extension, it is quite possible to explain a wide range of complex human activities without recourse to the limiting models of contemporary cognitive psychology.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia. lee@psychology.newcastle.edu.au
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Lee
mesh_terms: D001527:Behaviorism; D019336:Cognitive Science; D006801:Humans; D019222:Mind-Body Relations, Metaphysical; D008960:Models, Psychological; D010565:Persuasive Communication