1,749 research outputs found
The interactive Turn in Social Cognition Research:A Critique
No full textProponents of the so-called “interactive turn in social cognition research” maintain that mainstream research on social cognition has been fundamentally flawed by its neglect of social interaction, and that a new paradigm is needed in order to redress this shortcoming. We argue that proponents of the interactive turn (“interactionists”) have failed to properly substantiate their criticisms of existing research on social cognition. Although it is sometimes unclear precisely what these criticisms of existing theories are supposed to target, we sketch two possibilities: interactionists can either accept the primary explanandum addressed by mainstream social cognition research—namely mindreading—and claim that interactionism contributes some hitherto neglected but necessary component of a successful explanans, or they can argue that mainstream research has focused on a misconceived explanandum. We argue that interactionist claims of both sorts are problematic
Interaction and Social Cognition:A Comment on Auvray et al.'s Perceptual Crossing Paradigm
No full textThe past few years have seen the emergence of interaction as a central topic within social cognition research. This has involved an increasing interest in the development of ecological, interactive contexts for the empirical study of social cognition, and also in theoretical reflection upon the relationship between interaction and social cognition. One particularly prominent contribution to this trend has been Auvray, Lenay, & Stewart's (2006, 2009) minimalist perceptual crossing experiment (as well as follow-up studies conducted by Di Paolo, Ezequiel, Rohde and Iizuka (2008) and Froese and Di Paolo (2010, 2011a). The experiment provides an elegant illustration of the complexity of the relationship between social cognition and the interactive settings in which it usually occurs, and has proven to be a fruitful basis for the articulation of theoretical options for conceptualizing that relationship. In this contribution, we criticize one particular theoretical option that has recently been advanced by theorists working within the enactivist tradition (e.g. De Jaegher, Di Paolo, & Gallagher, 2010; Froese & Di Paolo, 2010), who maintain that the results of the experiment corroborate the claim that interaction can play a constitutive role in social cognition. We disagree that the results of the experiment support this claim, and defend the more moderate interpretation that the role of interaction in this experiment is best conceived as that of providing scaffolding for social judgments and thereby simplifying the tasks performed by the individual participants
Mindreading as social expertise
No full textIn recent years, a number of approaches to social cognition research have emerged that highlight the importance of embodied interaction for social cognition (Reddy, How infants know minds, 2008; Gallagher, J Conscious Stud 8:83-108, 2001; Fuchs and Jaegher, Phenom Cogn Sci 8:465-486, 2009; Hutto, in Seemans (ed.) Joint attention: new developments in psychology, philosophy of mind and social neuroscience, 2012). Proponents of such 'interactionist' approaches emphasize the importance of embodied responses that are engaged in online social interaction, and which, according to interactionists, present an alternative to mindreading as a source of social understanding. We agree that it is important to take embodied interaction seriously, but do not agree that this presents a fundamental challenge to mainstream mindreading approaches. Drawing upon an analogy between embodied interaction and the exercise of expert skills, we advocate a hierarchical view which claims that embodied social responses generally operate in close conjunction with higher-level cognitive processes that play a coordinative role, and which are often sensitive to mental states. Thus, investigation of embodied responses should inform rather than conflict with research on mindreading. © 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
CCDC 1021140: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination
No full textRelated Article: F.K. Larsen, J. Overgaard, M. Christensen, G.J. McIntyre, G. Timco, R.E.P. Winpenny|2014|Acta Crystallogr.,Sect.B:Struct.Sci.,Cryst.Eng. and Mat.|70|932|doi:10.1107/S205252061401917
CCDC 1021139: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination
No full textRelated Article: F.K. Larsen, J. Overgaard, M. Christensen, G.J. McIntyre, G. Timco, R.E.P. Winpenny|2014|Acta Crystallogr.,Sect.B:Struct.Sci.,Cryst.Eng. and Mat.|70|932|doi:10.1107/S205252061401917
CCDC 1021143: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination
No full textRelated Article: F.K. Larsen, J. Overgaard, M. Christensen, G.J. McIntyre, G. Timco, R.E.P. Winpenny|2014|Acta Crystallogr.,Sect.B:Struct.Sci.,Cryst.Eng. and Mat.|70|932|doi:10.1107/S205252061401917
CCDC 1021141: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination
No full textRelated Article: F.K. Larsen, J. Overgaard, M. Christensen, G.J. McIntyre, G. Timco, R.E.P. Winpenny|2014|Acta Crystallogr.,Sect.B:Struct.Sci.,Cryst.Eng. and Mat.|70|932|doi:10.1107/S205252061401917
CCDC 1021138: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination
No full textRelated Article: F.K. Larsen, J. Overgaard, M. Christensen, G.J. McIntyre, G. Timco, R.E.P. Winpenny|2014|Acta Crystallogr.,Sect.B:Struct.Sci.,Cryst.Eng. and Mat.|70|932|doi:10.1107/S205252061401917
- …
