Developmental Roots: How Developmental Psychology Can Inform Psychology Discussion TARA C. CALLAGHAN St. Francis Xavier University The preceding papers serve as a testimony to the strength of developmental psychology in providing insight into the workings of human psychology. We have seen a range of influences, from methodological to theor- etical, all having an important impact on general psychological understanding and de- bate. In this discussion I will attempt 1.0 review the influences that each of the re- searchers has illuminated, and to raise questions that emerge from consideration of (heir papers. JIM BNNS A strong message that comes from Jim's work is that the developmental perspective is a very efficient way to pin down an elusive phenomenon, without having to resort to massive build-up of experiments in the litera- ture. This we saw in his studies of pattern goodness, covert/overt orienting, and visual filtering. Another principle in Jim's work is the understanding that any study of mind must be informed by an understanding of the aueniional processes and their develop- ment. This is true for any process that uses as its first input sensory information. Finally, Jim argues that convergence of operations is necessary in the validation of theories and suggests that perhaps the most powerful method of converging on a phenomenon is through a developmental perspective. Some questions that are raised by this research include asking what is the importance, if any, ol introducing a more natural stimulus envi- CLUILK1I.I[I Psychology/Psychologic canadienne, 'iA.'i ronment into our experiments of attention? Will this increased complexity buy us increased insight, or merely increased chaos? Will the developmental perspective continue to be a potent strategy for clearing up die fog in this more natural experiment? DAVID OLSON An important issue raised by David's research is the acknowledgement of the problem that exists when a theorist has dismissed factors by slating that they are given, and one is trying to validate this theory. Take Fodor's (1987) stand on beliefs for example. Beliefs arc said to exist because the brain is built that way, thus they are innate and uninterest- ing. What David's research has shown us is that developmental work offers a way out of theoretical dead ends. The developing the- ory-of-mind is a view of the germination of the seeds of belief. Though the seeds may be present, at birth, they have surely not sprouted. In showing the emergence of a concept, the experiments on the develop- ment of mind challenge the view that beliefs are uninteresting because they were always there, hidden in the innate structure of the mind. Rather, the work shows that there is a process to be studied. What is most excit- ing for me about the theory of mind research is diat it is offering empirical insight into what is a very ancient philosophical question, that is, how do we describe or explain the interdependence between the mind and the world out there? Insights from philosophy are coupled with those from ncuroscicncc, with those from empirical studies of the child's knowledge of mind, widi those from genetic epistemology, and widi much more beyond. What has emerged from David's integration is a model of the development of representational thought