harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) (02/23/88)
The following are the abstracts of 2 forthcoming articles on which BBS [Behavioral and Brain Sciences -- An international, interdisciplinary journal of Open Peer Commentary, published by Cambridge University Press] invites self-nominations by potential commentators. (Please note that the editorial office must exercise selectivity among the nominations received so as to ensure a strong and balanced cross-specialty spectrum of eligible commentators. The procedure is explained after the abstract.) ----- ABSTRACT #1: Numerical Competence in Animals: Definitional Issues, Current Evidence and a New Research Agenda Hank Davis & Rachel Perusse University of Guelph Numerical competence in animals has enjoyed renewed interest recently, but there is still confusion about the definition of numerical processes. "Counting" has been applied to phenomena remote from its meaning in the human case. We propose a consistent theoretical framework and vocabulary for evaluating numerical competence. Relative numerousness judgments, "subitizing," counting and estimation are the principal processes involved. Ordinality, cardinality and transitivity judgments also play a role. Our framework can handle a variety of recent experimental situations. Some evidence of generalization and transfer is needed to demonstrate higher order ability such as counting; otherwise one only has "protocounting" even if all other alternatives have been excluded. ----- ABSTRACT #2: Developmental Explanation and the Ontogeny of Birdsong Nature/Nurture Redux Timothy Johnston University of North Carolina, Greensboro The view that behavior can be partitioned into inherited and acquired components remains widespread and influential, especially in the study of birdsong development. This target article criticizes the growing tendency to diagnose songs, elements of songs, or precursors of songs (song templates) as either innate or learned on the basis of isolation-rearing experiments. Such experiments offer only a crude analysis of the contribution of experience to song development and provide no information at all about genetic effects, despite arguments to the contrary. Because developmental questions are so often posed in terms of the learned/innate dichotomy, the possible role of nonobvious contributions to song development has been largely ignored. An alternative approach, based on Daniel Lehrman's interactionist theory of development, gives a better sense of the issues that remain to be addressed in studies of song development and provides a more secure conceptual foundation. ----- This is an experiment in using the Net to find eligible commentators for articles in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS), an international, interdisciplinary journal of "open peer commentary," published by Cambridge University Press, with its editorial office in Princeton NJ. BBS publishes important and controversial interdisciplinary articles in psychology, neuroscience, behavioral biology, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, linguistics and philosophy. Articles are rigorously refereed and, if accepted, are circulated to a large number of potential commentators around the world in the various specialties on which the article impinges. Their 1000-word commentaries are then co-published with the target article as well as the author's response to each. The commentaries consist of analyses, elaborations, complementary and supplementary data and theory, criticisms and cross-specialty syntheses. Commentators are selected by the following means: (1) BBS maintains a computerized file of over 3000 BBS Associates; the size of this group is increased annually as authors, referees, commentators and nominees of current Associates become eligible to become Associates. Many commentators are selected from this list. (2) The BBS editorial office does informal as well as formal computerized literature searches on the topic of the target articles to find additional potential commentators from across specialties and around the world who are not yet BBS Associates. (3) The referees recommend potential commentators. (4) The author recommends potential commentators. We now propose to add the following source for selecting potential commentators: The abstract of the target article will be posted in the relevant newsgroups on the net. Eligible individuals who judge that they would have a relevant commentary to contribute should contact the editor at the e-mail address indicated at the bottom of this message, or should write by normal mail to: Stevan Harnad Editor Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 Nassau Street, Room 240 Princeton NJ 08542 (phone: 609-921-7771) "Eligibility" usually means being an academically trained professional contributor to one of the disciplines mentioned earlier, or to related academic disciplines. The letter should indicate the candidate's general qualifications as well as their basis for wishing to serve as commentator for the particular target article in question. It is preferable also to enclose a Curriculum Vitae. (This self-nomination format may also be used by those who wish to become BBS Associates, but they must also specify a current Associate who knows their work and is prepared to nominate them; where no current Associate is known by the candidate, the editorial office will send the Vita to approporiate Associates to ask whether they would be prepared to nominate the candidate.) BBS has rapidly become a widely read read and highly influential forum in the biobehavioral and cognitive sciences. A recent recalculation of BBS's "impact factor" (ratio of citations to number of articles) in the American Psychologist [41(3) 1986] reports that already in its fifth year of publication (1982) BBS's impact factor had risen to become the highest of all psychology journals indexed as well as 3rd highest of all 1300 journals indexed in the Social Sciences Citation Index and 50th of all 3900 journals indexed in the Science Citation index, which indexes all the scientific disciplines. Potential commentators should send their names, addresses, a description of their general qualifications and their basis for seeking to comment on this target article in particular to the address indicated earlier or to the following e-mail address: harnad@mind.princeton.edu [Subscription information for BBS is available from Harry Florentine at Cambridge University Press: 800-221-4512] -- Stevan Harnad harnad@mind.princeton.edu (609)-921-7771
harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Stevan Harnad) (11/16/88)
Below is the abstract of two forthcoming target articles to appear in Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS), an international, interdisciplinary journal providing Open Peer Commentary on important and controversial current research in the biobehavioral and cognitive sciences. To be considered as a commentator or to suggest other appropriate commentators, please send email to (specifying the article in question): harnad@confidence.princeton.edu or write to: BBS, 20 Nassau Street, #240, Princeton NJ 08542 [tel: 609-921-7771] ____________________________________________________________________ (1) ARE SPECIES INTELLIGENT? Jonathan Schull Haverford College Haverford PA 19041 KEYWORDS: animal behavior; artificial intelligence; cognitive science; evolution; intelligence; natural selection; parallel distributed processing; punctuated equilibria; species Plant and animal species are information-processing entities of such complexity, integration and adaptive competence that it may be scientifically fruitful to consider them intelligent. This is suggested by the analogy between learning (in organisms) and evolution (in species) and by recent developments in evolutionary science, psychology and cognitive science. Species are now described as spatiotemporally localized individuals in an expanded hierarchy of biological entities. Intentional and cognitive abilities are now ascribed to animal, human and artificial intelligence systems which process information adaptively and exhibit problem solving abilities. The structural and functional similarities between such species are extensive, although these are usually obscured by population-genetic metaphors (which have nonetheless contributed much to our understanding of evolution). In this target article I use Sewell Wright's notion of the "adaptive landscape" to compare the performance of evolving species with those of intelligent organisms. With regard to their adaptive achievements and the kinds of processes by which they are attained, biological species compare very favorably with intelligent animals in virtue of interactions between populations and their environments, between ontogeny and phylogeny, and between natural, interdemic, and species selection. Whatever the answer, addressing the question of whether species are intelligent could help refine our concepts of intelligence and of species and could open new lines of empirical and theoretical inquiry in many disciplines. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (2) GENETIC SIMILARITY THEORY J. Philippe Rushton Psychology Department University of Western Ontario KEYWORDS: Sociobiology; Inclusive Fitness; Kin Selection; Assortative Mating; Dyad Formation; Ethnocentrism; Friendship; Behavior Genetics; Altruism; Group Selection A new thoery of attraction and liking based on kin selection suggests that people detect genetic similarity in others in order to give preferential treatment to those who are most similar to themselves. Empirical and theoretical support comes from (1) the inclusive-fitness theory of altruism, (2) kin-recognition studies in animals raised apart, (3) assortative mating studies, (4) favoritism in families, (5) selective similarity among friends, and (6) ethnocentrism. Specific tests of the theory indicate that (a) sexually interacting couples who produce a child together are genetically more similar to each other in terms of blood antigens than they are to either sexually interacting couples who fail to produce a child together or to randomly paired couples from the same sample; (b) similarity between marriage partners is greatest on the more genetically influenced sets of anthropometric, cognitive, and personality characteristics; (c) after the death of a child, parental grief intensity is correlated with the child's similarity to the parent; (d) long term male friendship pairs are more similar to each other in blood antigens than they are to random dyads from the same sample; and (e) similarity among best friends is greatest on the more genetically influenced sets of attitudinal, personality and anthropometric characteristics. Possible mechanisms are discussed. These findings may provide a biological basis for ethnocentrism and group selection. -- Stevan Harnad INTERNET: harnad@confidence.princeton.edu harnad@princeton.edu srh@flash.bellcore.com harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu harnad@princeton.uucp BITNET: harnad@pucc.bitnet CSNET: harnad%mind.princeton.edu@relay.cs.net (609)-921-7771