Theories mischaracterize human understanding, indicating a need for alternative interactive frameworks.
Shiffrin, Stigler, and Keil worry that science frequently falls victim to an illusion of understanding. We take their argument a step further, arguing that psychological scientists often fundamentally mischaracterize human understanding as rooted in internally represented theories of any kind. We propose an alternative, interactive notion of understanding.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Myers et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: