[Xmca-l] Re: FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissière et al.

[Alfredo Jornet Gil]

Certainly, Anne-Nelly, the work you just shared would be relevant for that commentary,
Alfredo



________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly <Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch>
Sent: 20 June 2019 11:53
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissière et al.

It would be great to have someone from XMCA who would comment and enrich
this debate (on these days I am not available to do it).
The underlying model in this upcoming article seems to rely mostly on
conformity, monological approaches, etc. In the paper (attached here) we
offer a completely different approach, much more inspired by dialogism,
cultural historical theory, and a serious account of the activity that the
child indulges in when answering.
Hoping to read you on these issues.

Anne-Nelly

Prof. emer. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont
Institut de psychologie et éducation
Faculté des lettres et sciences humaines
Université de Neuchâtel
Espace Tilo-Frey 1   CH 2000 Neuchâtel (Switzerland)
http://www.unine.ch/ipe/publications/anne_nelly_perret_clermont





-----Message d'origine-----
De : <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of David H Kirshner
<dkirsh@lsu.edu>
Répondre à : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Date : jeudi, 20 juin 2019 à 11:35
À : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Objet : [Xmca-l]  FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissière et al.

>I'm reading through this upcoming article in BBS which takes as its
>primary problem, acquisition of culture.
>BBS solicits commentaries on each article, and these are reviewed and
>then published along with it.
>As there is not a single reference to Vygotsky or cultural historical
>theory in the article, I thought someone on XMCA might want to submit a
>commentary.
>David
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: em.bbs.0.63fdcc.ab9f6a4c@editorialmanager.com
><em.bbs.0.63fdcc.ab9f6a4c@editorialmanager.com> On Behalf Of Behavioral
>and Brain Sciences
>Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 1:46 AM
>To: David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu>
>Subject: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissière et al.
>
>Dear Dr. Kirshner:
>
>We are writing you to announce that BBS has just accepted an article for
>open peer commentary in BBS. The article was already reviewed, and we are
>now accepting commentary proposals. If you are interested in writing a
>commentary, you are welcome to submit a short proposal (see instructions
>below). No action is required if you aren't interested.
>
>Please DO NOT submit a full commentary article unless you are formally
>invited---AFTER you submit a commentary *proposal*. We will review all
>commentary proposals and issue invitations in August. Also, please be
>aware that we typically receive far more commentary proposals than we can
>accommodate with formal invitations. When choosing invitations, we
>balance over multiple factors, including the interest of the commentary
>itself, the commentator's expertise, whether the commentator's work has
>been discussed in the target article, and other considerations.
>
>NOW PROCESSING COMMENTARY PROPOSALS ON:
>
>Target Article: Thinking Through Other Minds: A Variational Approach to
>Cognition and Culture
>
>Authors: Samuel P. L. Veissière, Axel Constant, Maxwell J. D. Ramstead,
>Karl J. Friston, and Laurence J. Kirmayer
>
>Deadline for Commentary Proposals: Tuesday July 9, 2019
>
>Abstract: The processes underwriting the acquisition of culture remain
>unclear. How are shared habits, norms, and expectations learned and
>maintained with precision and reliability across large-scale
>sociocultural ensembles? Is there a unifying account of the mechanisms
>involved in the acquisition of culture? Notions such as 'shared
>expectations', the 'selective patterning of attention and behaviour',
>'cultural evolution', 'cultural inheritance', and 'implicit learning' are
>the main candidates to underpin a unifying account of cognition and the
>acquisition of culture; however, their interactions require greater
>specification and clarification. In this paper, we integrate these
>candidates using the variational (free energy) approach to human
>cognition and culture in theoretical neuroscience. We describe the
>construction by humans of social niches that afford epistemic resources
>called cultural affordances. We argue that human agents learn the shared
>habits, norms, and expectations of their culture through immersive
>participation in patterned cultural practices that selectively pattern
>attention and behaviour. We call this process "Thinking through Other
>Minds" (TTOM) - in effect, the process of inferring other agents'
>expectations about the world and how to behave in social context. We
>argue that for humans, information from and about other people's
>expectations constitutes the primary domain of statistical regularities
>that humans leverage to predict and organize behaviour. The integrative
>model we offer has implications that can advance theories of cognition,
>enculturation, adaptation, and psychopathology. Crucially, this formal
>(variational) treatment seeks to resolve key debates in current cognitive
>science, such as the distinction between internalist and externalist
>accounts of Theory of Mind abilities and the more fundamental distinction
>between dynamical and representational accounts of enactivism.
>
>
>Keywords: Cognition and culture; Variational free energy principle;
>Social learning; Epistemic Affordances; Cultural affordances; Niche
>construction; Embodiment; Enactment
>
>
>Download Target Article Preprint:
>
>(Depending on your browser, the PDF will either load in a separate
>window, from which you can download the PDF, or will download directly to
>your computer.)
>
>https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.camb
>ridge.org%2Fcore%2Fservices%2Faop-cambridge-core%2Fcontent%2Fview%2F9A1039
>9BA85F428D5943DD847092C14A%2FS0140525X19001213a.pdf%2Fthinking_through_oth
>er_minds_a_variational_approach_to_cognition_and_culture.pdf&amp;data=02%7
>C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47
>d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995231679&amp;sdata=WSKHJ3Jeqft8ZFCC
>ROdHFfWbjlOHw9Sb71L3KhWsdZI%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
>
>COMMENTARY PROPOSALS *MUST* INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING
>
>1. Name of the target article for which you are submitting a commentary
>proposal.
>
>2. All authors, including any possible co-authors, listed at the top of
>your submission document.
>
>3. What aspect of the target article or book you would anticipate
>commenting on.
>
>4. The relevant expertise you would bring to bear on the target article
>or book.
>
>Please number these sections in your proposal: 1., 2., 3., 4.
>
>EDITORS' NOTES ON WRITING YOUR PROPOSAL
>
>In addition to the open "Call for Commentary Proposals," we invite
>commentators who do not submit proposals‹these include reviewers of the
>paper, scholars whose work is discussed in the paper, and commentators
>suggested by the authors. (Obviously, these can be overlapping sets.)
>Once we subtract this set, only about 20 submitted proposals from the
>Call for Commentary Proposals can be invited to write a commentary.
>
>Commentary selection is necessarily multifactorial. It must be balanced
>to a degree across the various fields of cognitive science, point of view
>of the article, and several other aspects of academic diversity. The
>number of proposals can vary widely, however, depending on the topic, the
>range is from 15 to 150! In the latter case, when we can accept only a
>little over 1 in 10 of the proposals, a few things will facilitate a
>positive reading of a proposal, and hopefully acceptance, given the
>constraints:
>
>1. The proposal for the commentary should not be longer than the
>commentary, 1,000 words. 100-500 is optimal, and we value succinctness.
>On the other hand, "I intend to comment on X aspect of the target
>article" is not enough.  Are you for it, against it, or extending it?
>
>2. Under no circumstances should proposers simply write a commentary and
>submit it to us.
>
>3. Proposers should clearly state what aspect of the target article they
>intend to comment on.  It's quite obvious when proposers are using the
>commentary forum only to promote their own research and not engage with
>the target article. Such proposals are routinely declined.
>
>4. Concerning "the relevant expertise you would bring to bear": While the
>editors have a generally good idea of who is active in the fields of the
>target article, we must cover a wide range and may be unaware of the
>people who have been most productive and influential in a given area, or
>the scholars who have engaged in heated debate with the authors in the
>past. So, the editors will be greatly helped if every proposer states
>their position in the field and lists between 2-10 relevant publications,
>again succinctly. On the other side of the spectrum, under no
>circumstances should an entire CV be included.
>
>5. BUT Š it's not all about articles previously published, or position in
>the field. It's not necessary to have published in the area, and it's not
>necessary to have a current academic appointment.  We make efforts to
>include proposals coming both from established figures and total
>newcomers. An engaging idea elicited by the article, an illuminating
>application of the target article concept to an allied field, or a truly
>clever riposte is often all that's needed.
>
>6. Being a co-author on multiple proposals directed to one target article
>will almost certainly remove one set of your co-authors or the other from
>contention altogether, which will put you in an unpleasant game theoretic
>situation with your colleagues. Do this carefully, if at all.
>
>7. We make our choices mostly on quality and fit, but we do want to open
>up BBS to as many individuals as possible. If you've written one or more
>other commentaries recently, your odds of having another one accepted
>will correspondingly go down, though not to zero.
>
>HOW TO SUBMIT A COMMENTARY PROPOSAL VIA THE ONLINE SUBMISSION SYSTEM
>
>If you would like to nominate yourself for potential commentary
>invitation, you must submit a commentary proposal via our BBS Editorial
>Manager site:
>
>1. Log-in to your BBS Editorial Manager account as an author:
>
>https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edito
>rialmanager.com%2Fbbs&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c
>1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C6369643709
>95241675&amp;sdata=Me%2BTvDa2hmuk1zs6kUOoZJ97ZL4AoHx6ZfevwWTP34Q%3D&amp;re
>served=0
>
>Username: DKirshner-489
>Password: You will also need to enter your password. If you have
>forgotten it, you may click Send Login Details.
>
>If you do not have an account, please visit the site and register.
>
>2. Submit New Manuscript
>
>Within your author main menu please select Submit New Manuscript.
>
>3. Select Article Type
>
>Choose the article type of your manuscript from the pull-down menu.
>Commentary proposal article types are temporarily created for each
>accepted target article or book. Only select the commentary proposal
>article type that you wish to submit a proposal on. For example:
>"Commentary Proposal (Veissière)"
>
>4. Enter Title
>
>Please title your proposal submission by indicating the relevant first
>author name of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary
>Proposal on Veissière"
>
>5. Add Co-Authors
>
>If you are proposing to write a commentary with any co-authors, the
>system will not allow you to enter their information here. Instead,
>include their names at the top of the commentary proposal document you
>upload. These potential co-authors need not contribute to the commentary
>proposal itself.
>
>6. Attach Files
>
>The only required submission Item is your commentary proposal in .DOC(X)
>or .RTF format. In the description field please add the first author name
>of the target article or book. For example: "Commentary Proposal on
>Veissière"
>
>7. Approve Your Submission
>
>Editorial Manager will process your commentary proposal submission and
>will create a PDF for your approval. On the "Submissions Waiting for
>Author's Approval" page, you can view your PDF, edit, approve, or remove
>the submission. (You might have to wait several minutes for the blue
>"Action" menu to appear, allowing you to approve.) Once you have Approved
>the Submission, the PDF will be sent to the editorial office.
>
>**It is VERY important that you check and approve your commentary
>proposal manuscript as described above. Otherwise, we cannot process your
>submission.**
>
>8. Editorial Office Decision
>
>At the conclusion of the commentary proposal period, the editors will
>review all the submitted commentary proposals. An undetermined number of
>commentary proposals will be approved and those author names will be
>added to the final commentary invitation list. At that time you will be
>notified of the decision. If you are formally invited to submit a
>commentary, you will be asked to confirm your intention to submit by the
>commentary deadline.
>
>Note: Before the commentary invitations are sent, the copy-edited and
>revised target article will be posted for invitees.
>
>Please do not write a commentary unless you have received an official
>invitation!
>
>BEING REMOVED FROM THE CALL EMAIL LIST
>
>If you DO NOT wish to receive call for commentary proposals in the
>future, please reply to bbsjournal@cambridge.org, and type "remove" in
>the subject line.
>
>SUGGESTING COMMENTATORS AND NOMINATING BBS ASSOCIATES
>
>To suggest others as possible commentators, or to nominate others for BBS
>Associateship status, please email bbsjournal@cambridge.org.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Gennifer Levey
>Managing Editor, BBS
>Cambridge University Press
>bbsjournal@cambridge.org
>https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.
>cambridge.org%2Fbbs&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1c
>ea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995
>241675&amp;sdata=Kuhexo7D3NNwBEWnA6b%2Bl%2BNRak4NiNZvcJVslKbNRsQ%3D&amp;re
>served=0
>https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbbs.edmgr
>.com%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b8
>7aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&amp;s
>data=M7ajsvG4zNo5%2FQ%2BmTH3x6MM%2FItcA%2FQa6jYt8cfzIBlQ%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
>__________________________________________________
>In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we
>remove your personal registration details at any time.  (Use the
>following URL:
>https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.edit
>orialmanager.com%2FBBS%2Flogin.asp%3Fa%3Dr&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu
>.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8
>%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&amp;sdata=r%2Fxx85sR5XRuoNOT2Y4835WgFULamaLG
>c40foi86umQ%3D&amp;reserved=0). Please contact the publication office if
>you have any questions.
>