scholarly journals Marvel Cinematic Universe Introductions

Author(s):  
Alexander Weiss

Petrinovich’s target article focused on how behavioral science is done, including how it is often done wrong, and how it should be done. I identify another malign influence on behavioral science, which, so far as I know, has, until now, been ignored (I would be happy to be shown that I am wrong on this). To wit, the way that Introductions to papers are written creates a niche that can be exploited for the purposes of promoting one’s work to obtain resources or status, or for self-aggrandizement. I offer a few, probably wrongheaded, suggestions for ending this practice.

2007 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herbert Gintis

My response to commentators includes a suggestion that an additional principle be added to the list presented in the target article: the notion of human society as a complex adaptive system with emergent properties. In addition, I clear up several misunderstandings shared by several commentators, and explore some themes concerning future directions in the unification of the behavioral science.


Biosemiotics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis Noble

Abstract The extensive range and depth of the twenty commentaries on my target article (Noble, 2021) confirms that something has gone deeply wrong in biology. A wide range of biologists has more than met my invitation for “others to pitch in and develop or counter my arguments.” The commentaries greatly develop those arguments. Also remarkably, none raise issues I would seriously disagree with. I will focus first on the more critical comments, summarise the other comments, and then point the way forward on what I view as a necessary and long-overdue transition in the foundations of biology.


2002 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zenon W. Pylyshyn

After thirty years of the current “imagery debate,” it appears far from resolved, even though there seems to be a growing acceptance that a cortical display cannot be identified directly with the experienced mental image, nor can it account for the experimental findings on imagery, at least not without additional ad hoc assumptions. The commentaries on the target article range from the annoyed to the supportive, with a surprising number of the latter. In this response I attempt to correct some misreadings of the target article and discuss some of the ideas and evidence introduced by the commentators – much of which I found helpful, even though they do not alter my basic thesis. I also further develop the idea that the spatial character of images may come from the way they are connected to our immediate or immediately-recalled environment (by attention or by visual indexes) and towards which we may orient while we are imaging, thus leaving the alleged spatial properties of images outside the head and freeing image-representations from having to be displayed on any surface.


2021 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beau R. Sievers ◽  
Thalia Wheatley

Abstract Each target article contributes important proto-musical building blocks that constrain music as-we-know-it. However, neither the credible signaling nor social bonding accounts elucidate the central mystery of why music sounds the way it does. Getting there requires working out how proto-musical building blocks combine and interact to create the complex, rich, and affecting music humans create and enjoy.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beau Sievers ◽  
Thalia Wheatley

Each target article contributes important proto-musical building blocks that constrain music-as-we-know-it. However, neither the credible signaling nor social bonding accounts elucidate the central mystery of why music sounds the way it does. Getting there requires working out how proto-musical building blocks combine and interact to create the complex, rich and affecting music humans create and enjoy.


2009 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-217
Author(s):  
I. P. L. McLaren

AbstractI argue that the dual-process account of human learning rejected by Mitchell et al. in the target article is informative and predictive with respect to human behaviour in a way that the authors' purely propositional account is not. Experiments that reveal different patterns of results under conditions that favour either associative or rule-based performance are the way forward.


2007 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Danielson

Behavioral science, unified in the way Gintis proposes, should affect ethics, which also finds itself in “disarray,” in three ways. First, it raises the standards. Second, it removes the easy targets of economic and sociobiological selfishness. Third, it provides methods, in particular the close coupling of theory and experiments, to construct a better ethics.


2001 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eli Brenner ◽  
Jeroen B. J. Smeets

Stoffregen & Bardy's target article is based on the assumption that our senses' ultimate purpose is to provide us with perfect information about the outside world. We argue that it is often more important that information be available quickly than that it be perfect. Consequently our nervous system processes different aspects of information about our surrounding as separately as possible. The separation is not between the senses, but between separate aspects of our surrounding. This results in inconsistencies between judgments: sometimes because different frames of reference are used. Such inconsistencies are fundamental to the way the information is picked up, however, and hence cannot be avoided with clearer instructions to the subjects.


2010 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Coall ◽  
Ralph Hertwig

AbstractThis response outlines more reasons why we need the integrative framework of grandparental investments and intergenerational transfers that we advocated in the target article. We discusses obstacles – from misconceptions to poor measures – that stand in the way of such a framework and of a better understanding of the effects of grandparenting in the developed world. We highlight new research directions that have emerged from the commentaries, and we end by discussing some of the things in our target article about which we may have been wrong.


2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 205-248
Author(s):  
Doron Teichman ◽  
Kristen Underhill

This Article presents the first comprehensive analysis of the contribution of behavioral science to the legal response to the COVID-19 pandemic. At the descriptive level, the Article shows how different psychological phenomena such as loss aversion and cultural cognition influenced the way policymakers and the public perceived the pandemic, and how such phenomena affected the design of laws and regulations responding to COVID-19. At the normative level, the Article compares nudges (i.e., choice-preserving, behaviorally informed tools that encourage people to behave as desired) and mandates (i.e., obligations backed by sanctions that dictate to people how they must behave). The Article argues that mandates rather than nudges should serve in most cases as the primary legal tool used to regulate behavior during a pandemic. Nonetheless, this Article highlights ways in which nudges can complement mandates.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document