REPLY Some Thoughts on
نویسندگان
چکیده
In the target article (Dar-Nimrod & Heine, 2011), we provided a social–cognitive framework which identified genetic essentialist biases and their implications. In their commentaries, Haslam (2011) and Turkheimer (2011) indicated their general agreement with this framework but highlighted some important points for consideration. Haslam suggested that neuroessentialism is a comparable kind of essentialist bias and identified similarities with the genetic essentialism framework. In response, we acknowledge similarities but also identify qualitative and quantitative differences between genetic essentialism and other kinds of essentialist biases. Turkheimer challenged us to extend our discussion to address the question of how should people respond to genetic etiological information, critiqued the use of heritability coefficients, and identified a new construct (1 ! rMZ), which may be termed a free-will coefficient. In response, we emphasize the need to transform interactionist explanations from being empty platitudes to becoming the default conceptual framework; we wholeheartedly accept his critical view of heritability coefficient estimates (but acknowledge a more limited utility for them); and we are intrigued by his conceptual interest in identifying free-will coefficients yet warn against falling into pitfalls similar to those that were stumbled into in the past.
منابع مشابه
How We Think Mādhyamikas Think Reply to Tillemans
In his paper in this Issue, ‘ “How do Mādhyamikas Think?” Revisited’, Tom Tillemans reflects on his paper “How do Mādhyamikas Think?” (2009), itself a reply to earlier work of ours (Deguchi, Garfield, and Priest 2008, Garfield and Priest 2003). There is much we agree with in these non-dogmatic and open-minded papers. Still, we have some disagreements. We begin with a response to Tillemans’ firs...
متن کاملSubstantive thoughts about substantive thoughts: a reply to Galin.
In his commentary, David Galin raises several important issues that deserve to be addressed. In this response, I do three things. First, I briefly discuss the relation between the present work and the metaphoric theories of thought developed by cognitive lin- guists such as Lakoff and Johnson (1998). Second, I address some of the confusions that seem to have arisen about my use of the terms "su...
متن کاملSome Thoughts on Interface Structure(s)
There has recently been a very interesting public exchange of views regarding the relationship between MT and linguistics (Kettunen 1986; Slocum 1986). Kettunen – responding to Slocum's (1985) article – criticises MT for the fact that it sacrifices its reliance on "linguistically sound principles" to the goal of producing acceptable translations cost-effectively. For this reason, "the results m...
متن کاملPyramid Power: A Reply to Commentaries.
Four thoughtful commentaries identify important issues and insights pertaining to the pyramid of needs presented by Kenrick, Griskevicius, Neuberg, and Schaller (2010, this issue). Here, we offer additional thoughts on some of these issues and insights, with an emphasis on the logical implications that result from an evolutionary analysis of fundamental human needs.
متن کاملFurther thoughts on possibilistic previsions: A rejoinder
This is a rejoinder to the comments [19, 20, 22, 27] by a number of authors on my paper [10] about possibilistic previsions. I wish to thank the respondents Serafı́n Moral [19], Romano Scozzafava [20], Lev Utkin [22] and Lotfi Zadeh [27] for their insightful comments on my paper [10]. In this rejoinder, I shall try and address their questions and/or objections individually, and in some detail. L...
متن کامل