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)-921-7771harnad@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