Corrigendum to “common knowledge, coordination, and the logic of self-conscious emotions” [Evolution and Human Behavior volume 39, issue 2, march 2018, pages 179–190]

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 405
Author(s):  
Kyle A. Thomas ◽  
Peter DeScioli ◽  
Steven Pinker
Philosophies ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 12
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Magnani

Research on autonomy exhibits a constellation of variegated perspectives, from the problem of the crude deprivation of it to the study of the distinction between personal and moral autonomy, and from the problem of the role of a “self as narrator”, who classifies its own actions as autonomous or not, to the importance of the political side and, finally, to the need of defending and enhancing human autonomy. My precise concern in this article will be the examination of the role of the human cognitive processes that give rise to the most important ways of tracking the external world and human behavior in their relationship to some central aspects of human autonomy, also to the aim of clarifying the link between autonomy and the ownership of our own destinies. I will also focus on the preservation of human autonomy as an important component of human dignity, seeing it as strictly associated with knowledge and, even more significantly, with the constant production of new and pertinent knowledge of various kinds. I will also describe the important paradox of autonomy, which resorts to the fact that, on one side, cognitions (from science to morality, from common knowledge to philosophy, etc.) are necessary to be able to perform autonomous actions and decisions because we need believe in rules that justify and identify our choices, but, on the other side, these same rules can become (for example, as a result of contrasting with other internalized and approved moral rules or knowledge contents) oppressive norms that diminish autonomy and can thus, paradoxically, defeat agents’ autonomous capacity “to take ownership”.


2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle A. Thomas ◽  
Peter DeScioli ◽  
Steven Pinker

2011 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-136

Arthur J. Robson of Simon Fraser University reviews “The Bounds of Reason: Game Theory and the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences” by Herbert Gintis. The EconLit Abstract of the reviewed work begins, “Explores how key concepts from the behavioral sciences can complement game theory in providing insights into human behavior. Discusses decision theory and human behavior; game theory--basic concepts; game theory and human behavior; rationalizability and common knowledge of rationality; extensive for….”


Author(s):  
Karvita B. Ahluwalia ◽  
Nidhi Sharma

It is common knowledge that apparently similar tumors often show different responses to therapy. This experience has generated the idea that histologically similar tumors could have biologically distinct behaviour. The development of effective therapy therefore, has the explicit challenge of understanding biological behaviour of a tumor. The question is which parameters in a tumor could relate to its biological behaviour ? It is now recognised that the development of malignancy requires an alteration in the program of terminal differentiation in addition to aberrant growth control. In this study therefore, ultrastructural markers that relate to defective terminal differentiation and possibly invasive potential of cells have been identified in human oral leukoplakias, erythroleukoplakias and squamous cell carcinomas of the tongue.


1975 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-75
Author(s):  
RALPH H. TURNER
Keyword(s):  

1975 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-171
Author(s):  
SONIA F. OSLER
Keyword(s):  

1975 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 432-432
Author(s):  
RICHARD F. THOMPSON
Keyword(s):  

1975 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
BRENDAN MAHER
Keyword(s):  

PsycCRITIQUES ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ed Glenn
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document