Fortunately, DST also provides orga- nized ways of analyzing a system and defining the scope of a research question. Specifi- cally, if components are strongly coupled, we have to care about them and their interactions as a set because they all matter for the behavior or cognition in question. If, however, components are weakly coupled, then we can study each more independently (at least within context). A “subsystem” in DST, therefore, is defined as a collection of strongly coupled components that function as an integrated system, actively resisting per- turbations from, for instance, external inputs, and showing only weak coupling to other components (Sch € oner, 1995). Thus, while scientific examination requires carving the sys- tem into analyzable subsystems, the joints used to carve a dynamic system are defined relative to the specific behavior or phenomenon under examination; they are the places where a behavioral analysis suggests weak coupling among components. Such joints are not always readily apparent. For instance, one might think that learning names for hierar- chically nested categories might be immune to perceptual-level processes, but this was not the case with the SCE.