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

[David H Kirshner]

The forthcoming BBS article presents a theory of acquisition of culture based around our capacity for “Thinking through Other Minds” (TTOM).
This is not a simplistic Theory of Mind (TOM) perspective that attributes strong inferential prowess to the individual agent to figure out the propositional contents of another’s mind. Rather we come to perceive things through the same lens as other members of our culture: “The main role of others in this kind of social learning is to direct attention rather than to convey specific semantic content (Tomasello 2014). In effect, social learning involves immersion in local contexts through what we call regimes of attention and imitation that direct human agents to engage differentially in forms of shared intentionality. We have argued that such regimes of attention play a central role in the enculturation of human agents (Ramstead, Veissière, and Kirmayer 2016). Indeed, human beings seem particularly specialized for such forms of social learning (Sterelny 2012)” (p. 23).

The theory is based on the Variational Free-Energy Principle (FEP) which I take to be at odds with sociocultural perspectives because its processes are incremental, hence without the possibility of crises that mark Vygotsky’s viewpoint:

The generative model functions as a point of reference in a cyclical (action-perception) process that allows the organism to engage in active inference. Internal states of the agent (e.g., the states of its brain) encode a recognition density; that is, a probability distribution or Bayesian belief about the current state of affairs and contingencies causing sensory input. This (posterior) belief is encoded by neuronal activity, synaptic efficacy, and connection strength (Friston 2010). The mathematical formulation behind the FEP claims that all of these internal brain states change in a way to minimise variational free energy. By construction, the variational free energy is always greater than a quantity known as surprisal, self-information or, more simply, surprise in information theory. This means that minimising free energy minimises surprise, which can be quantified as the negative logarithm of the probability that ‘a creature like me’ would sample ‘these sensations’. (pp. 30-31).

This notion of ‘a creature like me’ plays into the theory in a central way. Interestingly, though, the bias toward our own kind is not a primitive construct in this system—we’re born with an emotional bond to our kind as a reflection of our dependence. Rather, it’s a result of how immersion in our home culture plays out in the statistical regularities we encounter: “The reliance on social and cultural affordances co-constructed with and maintained by other people makes it important for us to distinguish between those who think like us and those whose thinking is either systematically different from our own or else unfamiliar and, hence, unpredictable – and inherently surprising. This distinction marks off domains of in-group and out-group, with corresponding epistemic authority. Regimes of attention then make the right kinds of social solicitations stand out in context, thereby allowing the learning of socially relevant affordances in a given cultural niche, community or local world. ” (p. 24).

The theory accounts for extension of culture, not just reproduction. This extensive quality insinuates itself into the theory through an imperative for novelty that balances the conservative minimizing of “surprise” references above: “The FEP deals with the issue of novelty seeking behaviour by formalising action as being in the game of maximising the epistemic value of action (or epistemic affordance). In essence, free energy minimizing agents seek to sample the world in the most efficient way possible. Since the information gain (i.e., salience) is the amount of uncertainty resolved, it makes good sense for the agent to selectively sample regions of environment with high uncertainty, which will yield the most informative observations” (p. 39).

A strength of this theory is that it uses one set of constructs to account for ontogenesis as well as for broader time scales of cultural change: “The exploitation of regimes of attention – encoded in the niche – is especially useful to track regularities unfolding over longer time scales of the history of a community, whose variability would be harder to assess over the timescale of an individual’s perceptual and procedural learning” (p. 42). This can include even “the temporal scale of human cultural co-evolution. The 7R variant of the DRD4 gene (which encodes the D4 subtype of the dopamine receptor) appears to have become more widespread 50,000 years ago at a time of great migrations and a revolution in hunting technology among early Homo Sapiens” (p. 40).

What’s more, the theory is specified to the level of representation in computational theory, and a level that is empirically testable: We have designed TTOM as a guide for the production of testable models in related domains. While TTOM per se would be difficult to test (due to its generality), one can derive specific, integrative models from TTOM to study specific forms of socio-cultural dynamics” (p. 60).

A crucial difference between TTOM and sociocultural theory is that while TTOM represents culture, it doesn’t directly represent social engagement. Crisis in Vygotsky’s work is enabled and resolved through mutual appropriation as it plays out the level of individual engagement in social processes. One might object to TTOM (or any other computationally realized theory?) on ethical grounds, as dehumanizing. But beyond ideology it must be disturbing to XMCAers that sociocultural theory perspectives are not figured into an extensive theoretical treatment of acquisition of culture. BBS’s system of published commentaries provides for a possible corrective.

David


From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> On Behalf Of David H Kirshner
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 10:02 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] RE: Re: FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissière et al.

I've now read the 17-page introduction which outlines the theory, “Thinking through Other Minds” (TTOM).
They describe "selective patterning of salience and attention as the main process behind enculturation, which in turn enables the engagement of human agents with the sets of possible actions (or cultural affordances) that make up their local world" (p. 15).
This places their work in a line of research based on cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience (though it is worth pointing out that the authors are not pursuing a cognitivist explanation based on the Theory Theory position that we build up explicit hypotheses about the declarative content of other's minds).
Their approach seems to stress the ways in which new members of cultural community come to coordinate their perceptual apparatus with normative patterns of the community--a kind of seamless absorption of neophytes.
This would seem to be in direct contrast to the focus of sociocultural theory on periods of crisis that overcome disjunctions between the basic focus and orientation of the neophyte to the broader culture.
But I've read far enough to know whether their theory accounts for higher mental functions, so it is not clear the extent to which sociocultural theory may still prove complementary to the approach outlined in the article.
David


-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> On Behalf Of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 8:09 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissière et al.

Thanks, Alfredo.
I remain at the disposal of who would like to work on it.
Anne-Nelly

-----Message d'origine-----
De : <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no<mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>> Répondre à : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>> Date : jeudi, 20 juin 2019 à 14:55 À : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>> Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: FW: BBS Call for Commentary Proposals: Veissière et al.

>Certainly, Anne-Nelly, the work you just shared would be relevant for
>that commentary, Alfredo
>
>
>
>________________________________________
>From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly
><Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch<mailto: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)
>https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.un<http://www.un>
>ine.ch%2Fipe%2Fpublications%2Fanne_nelly_perret_clermont&amp;data=02%7C
>01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7C0ea4e20deb904bde665e08d6f580c318%7C2d4dad3f50ae
>47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636966330710069506&amp;sdata=czF8vgXexZh
>bw0fpJ0A2ZRA%2FpVO5vYyZQXR1AiqeefY%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of David H Kirshner
><dkirsh@lsu.edu<mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>> Répondre à : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
><xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>> Date : jeudi, 20 juin 2019 à 11:35 À :
>"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto: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<mailto:em.bbs.0.63fdcc.ab9f6a4c@editorialmanager.com>
>><em.bbs.0.63fdcc.ab9f6a4c@editorialmanager.com<mailto: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<mailto: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://www.cam<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cam&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Cc25a54f4980f464f762908d6f5f52f4f%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C0%7C636966830755787633&sdata=I%2FBaRWbIoUVThuZ2JK8beHj%2FFz%2FAjqoTFJ3pl6aCn%2BM%3D&reserved=0>
>>b
>>ridge.org%2Fcore%2Fservices%2Faop-cambridge-core%2Fcontent%2Fview%2F9A
>>103
>>9
>>9BA85F428D5943DD847092C14A%2FS0140525X19001213a.pdf%2Fthinking_through
>>_ot
>>h
>>er_minds_a_variational_approach_to_cognition_and_culture.pdf&amp;data=
>>02%
>>7
>>C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50
>>ae4
>>7
>>d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995231679&amp;sdata=WSKHJ3Jeqft8
>>ZFC
>>C
>>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:
>>
>>http://www.edit<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edit&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Cc25a54f4980f464f762908d6f5f52f4f%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C0%7C636966830755787633&sdata=idBqs2Jwfjq3y4ddNVlFNIi31Dyysr5fasZAlYaj84s%3D&reserved=0>
>>o
>>rialmanager.com%2Fbbs&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b
>>104
>>c
>>1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964
>>370
>>9
>>95241675&amp;sdata=Me%2BTvDa2hmuk1zs6kUOoZJ97ZL4AoHx6ZfevwWTP34Q%3D&am
>>p;r
>>e
>>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<mailto: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<mailto:bbsjournal@cambridge.org>.
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Gennifer Levey
>>Managing Editor, BBS
>>Cambridge University Press
>>bbsjournal@cambridge.org<mailto:bbsjournal@cambridge.org>
>>http://journals
>>.
>>cambridge.org%2Fbbs&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b10
>>4c1
>>c
>>ea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C63696437
>>099
>>5
>>241675&amp;sdata=Kuhexo7D3NNwBEWnA6b%2Bl%2BNRak4NiNZvcJVslKbNRsQ%3D&am
>>p;r
>>e
>>served=0
>>http://bbs.edmg<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbbs.edmg&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Cc25a54f4980f464f762908d6f5f52f4f%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C0%7C636966830755797620&sdata=qcJC2wFZAYk0waiF87HycUQ4dya2iC4mIp8cAFvrSV8%3D&reserved=0>
>>r
>>.com%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6
>>f3b
>>8
>>7aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&a
>>mp;
>>s
>>data=M7ajsvG4zNo5%2FQ%2BmTH3x6MM%2FItcA%2FQa6jYt8cfzIBlQ%3D&amp;reserv
>>ed=
>>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://www.edi<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.edi&data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%40lsu.edu%7Cc25a54f4980f464f762908d6f5f52f4f%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8%7C0%7C0%7C636966830755797620&sdata=rq1WN74ZH3zHqmu7bceXiN3dYJ%2BlWyAlTNbpH9VxNzM%3D&reserved=0>
>>t
>>orialmanager.com%2FBBS%2Flogin.asp%3Fa%3Dr&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cdkirsh%4
>>0ls
>>u
>>.edu%7Ce1f5a84b1b104c1cea6708d6f3b87aa9%7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f4
>>66f
>>8
>>%7C0%7C1%7C636964370995241675&amp;sdata=r%2Fxx85sR5XRuoNOT2Y4835WgFULa
>>maL
>>G
>>c40foi86umQ%3D&amp;reserved=0). Please contact the publication office
>>if you have any questions.
>>
>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190623/c0a6713d/attachment.html