koglist March 2011

koglist@maillist.ttk.hu

13 participants
33 discussions

[koglist] [CDC Seminars] ANNOUNCEMENT: CDC Seminar, Sabina Pauen, March 9, 5 PM

by Marian Chen

The next talk in the CDC seminar series will be given by: Sabina Pauen, University of Heidelberg Date: March 9, 2011, 5 PM Location: Cognitive Development Center at CEU, Hattyú u. 14, 3rd floor *Learning categories from observing others - A case of natural pedagogy?* Abstract: Can infants understand that another person expresses interest for a specific category of objects (rather than for an individual exemplar)? My talk will provide evidence suggesting that this is the case. All experiments to be presented follow the same general paradigm: An actor is sitting behind two small boxes located left and right in front of her. On each box, a 3-D object is placed. On the one side, this object represents an animal and on the other side, it represents a vehicle. (These two global categories were chosen because we already know that even 4 months olds can discriminate them) The actor turns towards one of the two objects and looks at it with an interested facial expression. Infants see a total of 11 different scenes that follow this script. In each scene, a new pair of exemplars is presented, with the side of the animal / vehicle counterbalanced across trials. On the first 10 trials, the actor always turns towards the same kind of object, but at test, she turns toward the exemplar of the contrasting category. To check whether infants realized that the person changed the category of interest during the last trial, we compared the mean looking time on the 10th and the 11th trial. A significant increase in looking time was interpreted as indicating that infants realized the change in category of interest. Using this paradigm, we tested infants ranging from 7 to 12 months, analyzing not only their looking time at test but also their looking patterns (i.e. gaze following, checking). Furthermore, we systematically manipulated social cues indicating the actors’ interest (i.e. contrasting scenes involving gaze information only with scenes including reaching behavior as well). We also ran a study replacing the actor by a desk-lamp turning towards the target and flashing it. With respect to the theory of natural pedagogy, two further studies seem of special interest: In one experiment, the actor did not establish eye-contact with the child before turning towards the target. In the other study, two actors were presented simultaneously, each focusing on one specific category, but exchanging their focus of interest at test. In my talk, I will describe the above-mentioned studies in more detail. In addition, implications of our findings for the theory of natural pedagogy as well as some promising lines of future research involving our paradigm will be discussed. _______________________________________________ Subscribe by sending an empty mail to seminars-subscribe(a)cdc.ceu.hu Unsubscribe by sending an empty mail to seminars-unsubscribe(a)cdc.ceu.hu

15 years, 2 months

[koglist] invitation to a talk on`Art and Rhetoric`by Peter Goldie - March 8th, 4.30 PM

by Krisztina Biber

The CEU Department of Philosophy cordially invites you to a talk (as part of its Departmental Colloquium series) by Peter Goldie (University of Manchester) on Art and Rhetoric Tuesday, 8 March, 2010, 4.30 PM, Zrinyi 14, Room 412 ABSTRACT Some art aims to persuade the viewer or audience of certain ethical or political views—Picasso’s Guernica is an example. I aim to consider the quasi-rhetorical persuasive powers which art of this kind has that are analogous to the persuasive powers of rhetoric proper, as found in oratory. I will ask what we can learn about the persuasive powers of art from thinking about it as quasi-rhetoric. Peter Goldie is The Samuel Hall Chair in Philosophy at The University of Manchester. His main philosophical interests are in the philosophy of mind, ethics and aesthetics, and particularly in questions concerning value and how the mind engages with value. He is the author of The Emotions: A Philosophical Exploration (OUP 2000), and On Personality (Routledge, 2004), and co-author of Who’s Afraid of Conceptual Art? (Routledge 2010). Forthcoming from OUP in 2011 are two co-edited volumes: Empathy: Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives; and The Aesthetic Mind. He is writing a book for OUP on narrative thinking and emotion.

15 years, 2 months

[koglist] BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Guala

by Behavioral and Brain Sciences

Dear Dr. Qwerty: When a target article or recent book has been accepted for BBS Open Peer Commentary, the editorial office sends out the Call for Commentary Proposals to thousands of people. Commentary proposals help the editors craft a well-balanced commentary invitation list. Please DO NOT submit a commentary article unless you are formally invited. If this target article interests you as a possible subject for commentary, please download the full un-copyedited preprint to see if you would like to *propose* a commentary. If you are interested, carefully follow the instructions below the target article information. Please keep in mind that we are not asking you to submit a commentary article -- but rather, a short proposal in order to be considered as an invited author after the proposal deadline. Also be aware that we typically receive far more commentary proposals than we can accommodate with formal invitations. NOW PROCESSING COMMENTARY PROPOSALS ON: Target Article: "Reciprocity: Weak or Strong? What Punishment Experiments Do (and Do Not) Demonstrate" Author: Francesco Guala Deadline for Commentary Proposals: March 22, 2011 Abstract: Economists and biologists have proposed a distinction between two mechanisms - "Strong" and "Weak" Reciprocity - that may explain the evolution of human sociality. Weak Reciprocity theorists emphasize the benefits of long-term cooperation and the use of low-cost strategies to deter free riders. Strong Reciprocity theorists in contrast claim that cooperation in social dilemma games can be sustained by costly punishment mechanisms, even in one-shot and finitely repeated games. To support this claim, they have generated a large body of evidence concerning the willingness of experimental subjects to punish uncooperative free riders at a cost for themselves. In this paper I distinguish between a "narrow" and a "wide" reading of the experimental evidence. Under the narrow reading, punishment experiments are just useful devices to measure psychological propensities in controlled laboratory conditions. Under the wide reading, they replicate a mechanism that supports cooperation also in "real-world" situations outside the laboratory. I argue that the wide interpretation must be tested using a combination of laboratory data and evidence about cooperation "in the wild". In spite of some often-repeated claims, there is no evidence that cooperation in the small egalitarian societies studied by anthropologists is enforced by means of costly punishment. Moreover, studies by economic and social historians show that social dilemmas in the wild are typically solved by institutions that coordinate punishment, reduce its cost, and extend the horizon of cooperation. The lack of field evidence for costly punishment suggests important constraints about what forms of cooperation can or cannot be sustained by means of decentralised policing. Keywords: Reciprocity; Punishment; Cooperation; Experiments; Evolution. Download Target Article Preprint: http://journals.cambridge.org/BBSJournal/Call/Guala_preprint COMMENTARY PROPOSALS *MUST* INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING 1. What aspect of the target article or book you would anticipate commenting on. 2. The relevant expertise you would bring to bear on the target article or book. Please include names and affiliations of your co-authors, if applicable, in the text of your commentary proposal. SUGGESTING COMMENTATORS AND NOMINATING BBS ASSOCIATES Commentators must be BBS Associates, or suggested by a BBS Associate. If you are not a BBS Associate, please follow the instructions below. To suggest others as possible Commentators, or to nominate others for BBS Associateship status, please email bbsjournal(a)cambridge.org. http://journals.cambridge.org/BBSJournal/Inst/Assoc HOW TO SUBMIT A COMMENTARY PROPOSAL If you would like to nominate yourself for potential commentary invitation, you must submit a Commentary Proposal via our BBS Editorial Manager site: 1. Log-in as Author Username: CQwerty-545 Password: Qwerty875632 Log-in to your BBS Editorial Manager account as an author: http://www.editorialmanager.com/bbs If you do not have an account, please visit the site and register. You can also submit a request for missing username and password information if you have an existing account. 2. Submit New Manuscript Within your author main menu please select Submit New Manuscript. 3. Select Article Type Choose the article type of your manuscript from the pull-down menu. Commentary Proposal article types are temporarily created for each accepted target article or book. Only select the Commentary Proposal article type that you wish to submit a proposal on. For example: "Commentary Proposal (Guala)" 4. Enter Title Please title your proposal submission by indicating the relevant first author name of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary Proposal on Guala" 5. Add Co-Authors If you are proposing to write a commentary with any co-authors, the system will not allow you to enter their information here. Instead, include their names in the commentary proposal document you upload. These potential co-authors need not contribute to the Commentary Proposal itself. 6. Attach Files The only required submission Item is your Commentary Proposal in MSWord or RTF format. In the Description field please add the first author name of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary Proposal on Guala" 7. Approve Your Submission Editorial Manager will process your Commentary Proposal submission and will create a PDF for your approval. On the "Submissions Waiting for Author's Approval" page, you can view your PDF, edit, approve, or remove the submission. (You might have to wait several minutes for the blue "Action" menu to appear, allowing you to approve. Once you have Approved the Submission, the PDF will be sent to the editorial office. **It is VERY important that you check and approve your Commentary Proposal manuscript as described above. Otherwise, we cannot process your submission.** 8. Editorial Office Decision At the conclusion of the Commentary Proposal period, the editors will review all the submitted Commentary Proposals. An undetermined number of Commentary Proposals will be approved and those author names will be added to the final commentary invitation list. At that time you will be notified of the decision. If you are formally invited to submit a commentary, you will be asked to confirm your intention to submit by the commentary deadline. Note: Before the commentary invitations are sent, the copy-edited and revised target article will be posted for invitees. In the case of Multiple Book Review, invitees will be sent a copy of the book to be commented upon if requested. With Multiple Book Reviews, it is the book, not the précis article that is the target of commentary. Please do not write a commentary unless you have received an official invitation! BEING REMOVED FROM THE CALL EMAIL LIST If you DO NOT wish to receive Call for Commentary Proposals in the future, please reply to bbsjournal(a)cambridge.org, and type "remove" in the subject line. Sincerely, Ralph DeMarco Editorial Administrator, BBS Associate Editor, STM Journals Cambridge University Press 32 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10013-2473 Tel 001 212.337.5016 bbsjournal(a)cambridge.org http://journals.cambridge.org/bbs http://bbs.edmgr.com/

15 years, 2 months

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

koglist March 2011