A psychologist’s task is to discover facts about the mind by measuring responses at the level of a person (e.g., reaction times, perceptions, eye or muscle movements, or bodily changes). A neuroscientist’s task is to make similar discoveries by measuring responses from neurons in a brain (e.g., electrical, magnetic, blood flow or chemical measures related neurons firing). Both psychologists and neuroscientists use ideas (in the form of concepts, categories, and constructs) to transform their measurements into something meaningful. The relation between any set of numbers (reflecting a property of the person, or the activation in a set of neurons, a circuit, or a network) and a psychological construct is a psychometric issue that is formalized as a “measurement model.” The relation is also a philosophical act. Scientists (both neuroscientists and psychologists) who make such inferences, but don’t explicitly declare their measurement models, are still doing philosophy, but they are doing it in stealth, enacting certain assumptions that are left unsaid. In “Mind the Gap,” Kievit and colleagues (this issue) take the admirable step of trying to unmask the measurement models that lurk within two well-defined traditions for linking the actions of neurons to the actions of people. They translate identity theory and supervenience theory into popular measurement models that exist in psychometric theory using the logic and language of structural equation modeling. By showing that both philosophical approaches can be represented as models that relate measurements to psychological constructs, Kievit et al. lay bare the fact that all measurement questions are also philosophical questions about how variation in numbers hint at or point to reality. They make the powerful point that translating philosophical assumptions into psychometric terms allows both identity theory and supervenience theory to be treated like hypotheses that can be empirically evaluated and compared in more or less a concrete way. The empirical example offered by Kievit et al. (linking intelligence to brain volume) is somewhat simplistic on both the neuroscience and psychological ends of the equation, and the nitty-gritty details of applying an explicit measurement approach to more complex data remains open, but this article represents a big step forward in negotiating the chasm between measures taken at the level of the brain and those taken at the level of the person. The overall approach is applauded, but a closer look at the details of how Kievit et al. operationalized identity and supervenience theory is in order. In science, as in philosophy, the devil is in the details. In the pages that follow, I highlight a few lurking demons that haunt the Kievit et al. approach. I don’t point out every idea that I take issue with in the article, just as I don’t congratulate every point of agreement. Instead, I focus in on a few key issues in formalizing identity and supervenience theory, with an eye to asking whether they are really all that different in measurement terms, as well as whether standard psychometric models can be used to operationalize each of them equally well. Like Kievit et al., I conclude that a supervenience theory might win the day, but I try to get more specific about a version of supervenience that would successfully bridges the gap between the brain and the mind.

中文翻译：

---

通过心理建构桥接代币身份理论和随附理论

心理学家的任务是通过测量一个人水平的反应（例如，反应时间、知觉、眼睛或肌肉运动或身体变化）来发现有关心灵的事实。神经科学家的任务是通过测量大脑中神经元的反应（例如，电、磁、血流或化学测量相关的神经元放电）来做出类似的发现。心理学家和神经科学家都使用想法（以概念、类别和结构的形式）将他们的测量结果转化为有意义的东西。任何一组数字（反映人的属性，或一组神经元、电路或网络中的激活）与心理结构之间的关系是一个心理测量问题，被形式化为“测量模型”。这种关系也是一种哲学行为。做出此类推论但未明确声明其测量模型的科学家（神经科学家和心理学家）仍在从事哲学工作，但他们正在秘密进行，制定某些未说明的假设。在“Mind the Gap”中，Kievit 及其同事（本期）采取了令人钦佩的步骤，试图揭开潜伏在两个明确定义的传统中的测量模型，这些模型将神经元的行为与人的行为联系起来。他们使用结构方程建模的逻辑和语言将身份理论和随附理论转化为存在于心理测量理论中的流行测量模型。通过表明这两种哲学方法都可以表示为将测量与心理结构联系起来的模型，Kievit 等人。所有测量问题也是关于数字变化如何暗示或指向现实的哲学问题。他们提出了强有力的观点，即将哲学假设转化为心理测量术语，可以将身份理论和随附理论视为可以以或多或少具体方式进行经验评估和比较的假设。Kievit 等人提供的经验例子。（将智力与脑容量联系起来）在等式的神经科学和心理学两端都有些简单化，将显式测量方法应用于更复杂的数据的细节仍然开放，但本文代表了谈判向前迈出的一大步在大脑水平上采取的措施与在人水平上采取的措施之间的鸿沟。总体方法受到称赞，但仔细看看 Kievit 等人的细节。可操作的同一性和随附性理论是有序的。在科学中，就像在哲学中一样，魔鬼在细节中。在接下来的页面中，我重点介绍了一些困扰 Kievit 等人的潜伏恶魔。方法。我不会在文章中指出我反对的每一个想法，就像我不会祝贺每一个同意点一样。相反，我将重点放在形式化身份和随附理论的几个关键问题上，着眼于询问它们在测量方面是否真的完全不同，以及是否可以使用标准的心理测量模型来同样好地操作它们中的每一个. 像基维特等人一样，我得出结论，随附理论可能会赢得胜利，