[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xmca] Valsiner and pseudoconcepts
Milda is working in Finland. So fi
Denise
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
Behalf Of ulvi icil
Sent: 09 August 2010 16:19
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Valsiner and pseudoconcepts
oulu.vi or oulu.fi Denise
2010/8/9 Denise Newnham <dsnewnham@bluewin.ch>
> Dear Larry. This is a bit off track so I am addressing you personally. I
> am
> attaching an article that I received recently by Artin Goncu and wonder if
> you know the works of Milda Bredikyte? Her work on children's play and
> imagination or going beyond the zpd is very interesting to my mind. Her
> email is mild.bredikyte@oulu.vi
>
> Will be back later with a pdf of a chapter of Valsiner's 2007 book where
he
> discusses deduction etc
>
> Denise
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Larry Purss
> Sent: 08 August 2010 15:45
> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Valsiner and pseudoconcepts
>
> Hi Mike and Denise and Michael [and others engaged in this expanding
> conversation]
>
> Mike, this topic's multi-voicedness has definitely gone ballistic and I've
> been sent into orbit. However, without coordinates I'm confused about
which
> constellation I'm circling. Hard to get my bearings when moving at warp
> speed.
>
> I struggle with reading and understanding Peirce, but I do recognize the
> depth and profound intuitive insights which he generates from a lifetime
of
> reflecting.
>
> Valsiner's "translation" of Peirce's concept "abduction" as ABSOLUTELY
> FOUNDATIONAL to the other generative functions of "inferencing" [deduction
> and induction] articulates the ABSOLUTE CENTRALITY OF IMAGINATION as
> implicated in the formation of mind, "self" "culture" "history".
>
> Your mentioning the influence of prior discussions about LSV and
> imagination
> [and playworlds] led me back to a CHAT discussion in 2006 on these topics.
> In that thread you were discussing John Dewey's Chapter 1 of "Art &
> Experience"
>
> Within that thread on Dewey the topic of "learning by expanding" was being
> discussed and you posted the following quote from Dewey.
>
> "... if life continues and in continuing it expands there is an overcoming
> of factors of opposition and conflict; there is a transformation of them
> into different aspects of a higher powered and more SIGNIFICANT life. The
> marvel of organic, of vital, adaptation through expansion (instead of by
> contraction and passive accomodation) actually takes place. Here in germ
> are
> balance and harmony attained through rhythm. Equilibrium comes about not
> mechanically and inertly but out of and because of tension." (p.13)
>
> Mike, I decided to repost this quote you previously posted to express the
> centrality of this theme of abduction and imagination for Peirce, Dewey,
> and
> Mead.
> Michael mentioned the central value of instrumental pragmatism was in the
> empirical putting into practice abductive processes. However as I read
> Valsiner's translation of Peirce I want to suggest that instrumental
> pragmatism is GROUNDED IN IMAGINATION [abduction] and without imagination
> there is no LEARNING BY EXPANDING.
>
> I believe Mead's contribution to pragmatism was his focus on expanding
SELF
> formation and developing the "agentic capacity" to ACTUALIZE imaginal
> expansions within a community of dialogical inquiry. What Mead brings to
> the conversation is a focus on "intersubjectivity" and SHARED imagination
> as the ground of emerging subjectivity. The terms "perspective-taking"
and
> "social acts" and "SIGNIFICANT [shared] SYMBOLS" are key concepts in his
> emphasis on learning by EXPANDING. Coordinating multiple perspectives is
> the procedural process of abduction [as I understand abduction from
> Valsiner's translation]
>
> Denise,
> I want to once more thank you for Valsiner's article which I hope EXPANDS
> our learning in our playworld. When I asked for other readings
contrasting
> "mind reading" and "non-mind reading" theories I had no idea of the orbit
I
> would be sent into.
>
> Larry
>
> This
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 10:21 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Denis
> > This time of year (in northern hemisphere) everyone is moving around in
> > every which direction. And when lots of people get into the discussion.
> > multi-voicedness goes ballistic!!
> >
> > Will read Valsiner on abduction with interest. Mulling over the
> abduction/
> > imagination connection which intuitively works, although I had not
> connect
> > the two ideas before (the influence, too, of prior discussions about LSV
> > and
> > imagination).
> >
> > Sure a lot of threads entangled here. very interesting.
> > mike
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Denise Newnham <dsnewnham@bluewin.ch>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Michael,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I wrote to Jaan about your question as no where was it clearly
> stipulated
> > > in
> > > the earlier works and he has just replied so I forward his words and
> text
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Denise
> > >
> > > Dear Denise,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Good question! In 1998 I was somewhat naively optimistic about Peirce
> > cand
> > > abduction (see Pizarroso & V 2009 on overcoming that optimism).
> > >
> > > But the 1998 quote from my book is indeed an embryonic form of what
> later
> > > (2001 in Potsdam, and more thoroughly in my 2007 book CULTURE IN MINDS
> > AND
> > > SOCIETIES became clear-- words as POINT-LIKE CONCEPTS cannot be the
> > highest
> > > level of semiotic mediation as they would close up further creativity
> of
> > > meaning-making. So Vygotsky was basically limited.
> > >
> > > Instead, the pseudo-concept translates in my terminology into
> field-type
> > > sign (Level 4 in my system of semiotic mediation)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jaan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > On
> > > Behalf Of Michael Glassman
> > > Sent: 05 August 2010 15:22
> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > Subject: RE: [xmca] Valsiner and pseudoconcepts
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Denise,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I was wondering, does Valsiner have an argument as to how and why
> > > pseudo-concepts actally aids in Peirces ilogic of abduction. I am
> > > currently
> > > under the impresson that abduction is primarily about hypothesis
> > generation
> > > - the ability to develop new hypotheses in response to unique
problems.
> > So
> > > I'm wondering what role pseudo-concepts, if we are going by Vygotsky's
> > > definition, might play in all this.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _____
> > >
> > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Denise Newnham
> > > Sent: Thu 8/5/2010 5:26 AM
> > > To: ablunden@mira.net; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
> > > Subject: RE: [xmca] Valsiner and pseudoconcepts
> > >
> > > Hello Andy, the reference as you saw to pseudoconcepts is in his book
> > 'The
> > > guided mind' 1998 and the other is : The development of the concept of
> > > development: Historical and epistemological perspectives. In W. Damon,
> &
> > R.
> > > Lerner(Eds), Handbook of child psychology. 5th Ed. VOl.1. Theoretical
> > > models
> > > of human development (pp. 189-232). New York: Wiley.
> > >
> > > I quote (1998): 'Vygotsky and his colleagues (Luria would be the
> closest
> > > example) attributed and overly idealized role to the role of concepts
> in
> > > human reasoning. The role fitted with his emphasis on the hierarchy of
> > > mental functions (i.e. higher mental functions regulating lower ones),
> > yet
> > > by this exaggerated emphasis the focus on the process of semiogenesis
> is
> > > actually diminished. In contrast, it could be claimed that
> > pseudo-concepts
> > > (i.e. specific unified conglomerates of concept and complex qualities)
> > are
> > > the core (and highest form) of human psychological functioning. The
> claim
> > > would fit with the unity of representational fields (of Karl Buhler,
> > > described and extended earlier) and with the central focus of
abduction
> > > (rather than induction or deduction) in the process of making sense
> > (along
> > > the lines of Pierce).
> > >
> > > I read you paper 'when is a concept really a concept' and heard that
> > there
> > > was a debate on XMCA but as I was not connected at that time have not
> > heard
> > > or read this debate.
> > >
> > > Denise
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > On
> > > Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> > > Sent: 05 August 2010 10:22
> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > Subject: [xmca] Valsiner and pseudoconcepts
> > >
> > > Can you give us the full reference for "see Valsiner,
> > > 1997d", Denise, and maybe even the context? I just find it
> > > incredible that someone could know as much about Vygotsky as
> > > Valsiner does and place pseduoconcepts at the top of the
> > > development hierarchy.
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > > Denise Newnham wrote:
> > > > Dear Larry and others,
> > > >
> > > > I am new to this game so perhaps am doing something out of turn so
if
> > so
> > > let
> > > > me know. Larry I read your reply and this extract below made me
think
> > of
> > > > Valsiner's work on semiotic mediators and concepts where he states
> that
> > > > pseudoconcepts (1998, p.278-279) should be placed at the top to the
> > > > developmental hierarchy as the hierarchy should be seen as 'open to
> > > changes
> > > > or formation of intrasensitive order- [see Valsiner, 1997d]' (2001,
> p.
> > > > 85).This brings ot my mind Markova's discussion on the spontaneous
of
> > > > intuitive in knowledge formation (2003) and I think that Cole's
fifth
> > > > dimension attests to this argument. There is an interesting paper by
> > > > Galligan (2008) "using Valsiner" on the web.
> > > >
> > > > Denise
> > > >
> > > > 'These reflections of linking up multiple perspectives lead to the
> > > > developmental question of how socially situated microgenetic
> > experiences
> > > > get "generalized" into "higher" levels of organization that organize
> > > > experience across situations [and organize the relation of the
> "lower"
> > > and
> > > > "higher"
> > > > functions]?'
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > > On
> > > > Behalf Of Larry Purss
> > > > Sent: 04 August 2010 19:04
> > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Call For Papers: Special Issue
> on
> > > > Mindreading, Review of Philosophy and Psychology
> > > >
> > > > Hi Leif and Katerina
> > > >
> > > > Leif,
> > > > I have recently read Daniel Stern's latest book "The Present Moment"
> > and
> > > I
> > > > agree that he has a fascinating perspective on the topic of
> > "engagement"
> > > > that emphasizes a "non-mind reading interpretation" of engaging with
> > > > others. I will look up his earlier work discussing Vygotsky and
> Glick.
> > > It
> > > > is also interesting that you mention Joseph Glick. Glick's articles
> on
> > > > Werner are also fascinating as they suggest that Werner was also
> > focused
> > > on
> > > > "microgenesis" as central to developmental accounts.
> > > >
> > > > Katerina,
> > > > I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "accept metaphor" but
generally
> I
> > > > accept metaphor as a central way of understanding "human science" as
> > > > interpretive and "perspectival". As I read Glick's interpretation
> of
> > > > Werner's microgenetic developmental theory, I was also REFLECTING on
> > Mike
> > > &
> > > > Natalia's focus on the microgenetic social situation of development,
> > and
> > > > also my attempt to link these perspectives with neo-Meadian notions
> of
> > > > social ACTS [interchangeability of actual social positions]. These
> > > > reflections of linking up multiple perspectives lead to the
> > developmental
> > > > question of how socially situated microgenetic experiences get
> > > > "generalized" into "higher" levels of organization that organize
> > > experience
> > > > across situations [and organize the relation of the "lower" and
> > "higher"
> > > > functions]?
> > > >
> > > > Glick's article "Werner's Relevance for Contemporary Developmental
> > > > Psychology" points out that Werner thought developmental processes
> got
> > > > organized "at one of three different levels: the sensorimotor, the
> > > > perceptual, or the symbolic." (p.562) Metaphor organizes experience
> at
> > > the
> > > > 3rd symbolic level and at this level we can have metaphoric models
of
> > > "mind"
> > > > [for example: conversation, text, computers, dance, orchestra, etc.]
> > > > However, this still leaves us with questioning the RELATIONAL
> process
> > of
> > > > linking language and metaphor to the other levels of organization at
> > the
> > > > sensorimotor and perceptual levels.
> > > > Stern, Reddy, Werner, Glick, Gillespie & Martin, Mike and Natalia,
> and
> > > > others are exploring the possible dynamic fluidity of the capacity
> for
> > > > organizing and structuring the 3 levels of experience that may be
> more
> > > > reciprocal [and possibly simultaneous assemby] than a linear
> > teleological
> > > > dynamic. The question becomes, how central are the sensorimotor and
> > > > perceptual ways of "constructing" or "forming" experience once
social
> > > > situations of development are symbolic [and metaphorical]? As
Glick
> > > points
> > > > out, Werner believed these language and symbolic functions "undergo
a
> > > > differentiation process from deeper sensorimotor roots." (p.562)
> > However
> > > > these deeper roots are NOT TRANSCENDED but continue to organize
> > > experience.
> > > > The notion of "leading activity" implies an INVARIANT linear process
> > > where
> > > a
> > > > specific leading activity DOMINATES each stage of development. An
> > > > alternative perspective emphasizes the fluidity of these "leading
> > > > activities" as continuing to remain central for development. For
> > > > example functions such as "affiliation" are not only dominant in one
> > > > specific stage of developmentand then recede into the background,
but
> > > > ACTUALLY continue to ACTIVELY organize experience [depending on the
> > > societal
> > > > microgenetic situation of development]. Whether the previous
> "leading
> > > > activity" recedes or remains active is dependent, not on the stage
of
> > > > development [age determined] but rather on the particular social
> > > situation
> > > > of development. Mike's point that particular school contexts
> correlate
> > > with
> > > > particular ages of students allows 2 alternative models of
> development.
> > > > Stage theory that is age "determined" or layered development that is
> > > > socially situated [schools CONSTRAIN affiliative activity which
> recedes
> > > into
> > > > the background] If the 2nd alternative guided how we structured
> > schools
> > > and
> > > > affiliation and interchangeability of social positions was VALUED,
> > > identity
> > > > and concept development would be altered.
> > > > My personal fascination, working in schools, is the idea of the
> > > possibility
> > > > of creating institutional structures which promote the
> > > "interchangeability
> > > > of social positions in social acts" and how to facilitate social
> spaces
> > > > which nurture this interchangeability. An example of this is the
> > creation
> > > of
> > > > the 5th dimension METAPHORICAL SPACES where interchangeability of
> > > positions
> > > > is fluid and dynamic and leads to the development of "agentic
> capacity"
> > > > where ALL participants experience being recognized and experiencing
> > > OTHERS
> > > > RESPONDING to their recognition. This affiliative activity is
> > formative
> > > of
> > > > particular "identity" characteristics [communal self] and also
> "concept
> > > > development" formed within microgenetic moments of development. The
> > > reason
> > > I
> > > > appreciate neo-Meadian accounts of development are
> > > > there privileging the centrality of ACTUAL INTERCHANGEABILITY of
> social
> > > > positions [which simultaneously organize and regulate sensorimotor,
> > > > perceptual, and symbolic experiences]. I also believe this "ideal"
> of
> > > > actual interchangeability is fundamentally affiliative and
dialogical
> > as
> > > the
> > > > participants openly share perspectives. This also creates social
> > > > spaces where cognitive development [and reflective capacity] is
> > nurtured
> > > and
> > > > "grown" [cultured]
> > > >
> > > > Larry
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Katerina Plakitsi
> > > <kplakits@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Larry, with "trans situated" do you mean that you accept
"metaphor",
> > > which
> > > >> is been considered as a constructivist argument?
> > > >> Katerina Plakitsi
> > > >> Assistant Professor of Science Education
> > > >> Department of Early Childhood Education
> > > >> School of Education
> > > >> University of Ioannina
> > > >> 45110
> > > >> Greece
> > > >> tel.: +302651005771 office
> > > >> fax: +302651005842
> > > >> tel.: +6972898463 mobile
> > > >> e-mail: kplakits@cc.uoi.gr
> > > >> http://users.uoi.gr/kplakits
> > > >> http://users.uoi.gr/5conns
> > > >> http://erasmus-ip.uoi.gr <http://erasmus-ip.uoi.gr/>
> > > >> http://www.edife.gr/school/5oschool.html
> > > >>
> > > >> --------------------------------------------------
> > > >> From: "Larry Purss" <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 8:43 PM
> > > >> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > >> Subject: Re: [xmca] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Call For Papers: Special Issue
> on
> > > >>
> > > >> Mindreading, Review of Philosophy and Psychology
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Martin
> > > >>> This topic of "mind-reading" vs "non-mind reading" models of
young
> > > >>> infants
> > > >>> CAPACITY for attending to and ENGAGING with other "minds"
[persons]
> > is
> > > a
> > > >>> fascinating topic which has been discussed previously in CHAT
> > > >>> conversations
> > > >>> on this listserve.
> > > >>> I recently read V. Reddy's book which recommends a 2nd person
> > societal
> > > >>> interactional microgenetic model of non-mind reading. I have
> sympathy
> > > for
> > > >>> this particular perspective. However, I would like to read more
> > widely
> > > on
> > > >>> this particular topic.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Do you or others on this listserve have any recommendations for
> > further
> > > >>> articles which engage with the pros and cons of the various
models
> > in
> > > a
> > > >>> spirit similar to the proposed intent of the special issue of the
> > > Review
> > > >>> of
> > > >>> Philosophy and Psychology?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'm curious about the various theories of young infants capacity
> for
> > > >>> engaging with others within sociogenesis, ontogenesis, and
> > > microgenesis.
> > > >>> However, I'm also interested in how the various models of
"infants
> > > >>> engaging
> > > >>> with others" become transformed in the transition to
> > > >>> TRANS-situational understandings [the development of "higher"
> mental
> > > >>> functions.]
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Larry
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Begin forwarded message:
> > > >>>>> From: Victoria Southgate <v.southgate@bbk.ac.uk>
> > > >>>>> Date: August 2, 2010 4:22:07 AM GMT-05:00
> > > >>>>> To: cogdevsoc@virginia.edu
> > > >>>>> Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Call For Papers: Special Issue on
> Mindreading,
> > > >>>> Review of Philosophy and Psychology
> > > >>>>> Social Cognition: Mindreading and Alternatives
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Special issue of the Review of Philosophy and Psychology
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Guest Editors:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Daniel D Hutto, University of Hertfordshire
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Mitchell Herschbach, University of California, San Diego
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Victoria Southgate, University of London
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> CALL FOR PAPERS
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Deadline for submissions: 1 December 2010
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Human beings, even very young infants, exhibit remarkable
> > capacities
> > > >>>>> for
> > > >>>> attending to, and engaging with, other minds. A prevalent account
> of
> > > > such
> > > >>>> abilities is that they involve "theory of mind" or "mindreading":
> > the
> > > >>>> ability to represent mental states as mental states of specific
> > kinds
> > > >>>> (i.e.,
> > > >>>> to have concepts of "belief," "desire," etc.) and the contents of
> > such
> > > >>>> mental states. A number of philosophers and psychologists
question
> > the
> > > >>>> standard mindreading and wider representationalist framework for
> > > >>>> characterizing and explaining our everyday modes and methods of
> > > >>>> understanding other people. One possibility is that infants may
be
> > > >>>> exhibiting sophisticated yet non-conceptual, and possibly
> > > >>>> non-representational, mind tracking abilities that do not equate
> to
> > > any
> > > >>>> sort
> > > >>>> of mindreading.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Proponents on both sides of this debate must adequately
> accommodate
> > > >>>> recent work in developmental psychology. Experiments involving a
> > > variety
> > > >>>> of
> > > >>>> nonverbal tasks - e.g., the "violation of expectation" paradigm
> and
> > > >>>> anticipatory looking tasks, as well as nonverbal tasks involving
> > more
> > > >>>> active
> > > >>>> responses -suggest that young infants can understand others'
> goals,
> > > >>>> intentions, desires, knowledge/ignorance, and beliefs. Perhaps
> most
> > > >>>> prominent are studies suggesting infants as young as 13 months of
> > age
> > > > are
> > > >>>> selectively responsive to the false beliefs of others, well
before
> > > they
> > > >>>> are
> > > >>>> able to reliably pass standard verbal false belief tasks around 4
> > > years
> > > >>>> of
> > > >>>> age.
> > > >>>>> This special issue of the Review of Philosophy and Psychology
> aims
> > to
> > > >>>> create a dialogue between the mindreading and non-mindreading
> > > approaches
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>> basic social cognition. Contributors are asked to clarify their
> > > >>>> theoretical
> > > >>>> commitments; explain how their accounts compare with rivals; and
> how
> > > > they
> > > >>>> propose to handle the emerging empirical data, particularly that
> > from
> > > >>>> human
> > > >>>> developmental psychology. Themes and questions to be addressed
> > include
> > > >>>> but
> > > >>>> are not limited to:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> - Infants as young as 13 months old display a systematic
> > > >>>> sensitivity to the beliefs of others. Does it follow that they
> must
> > be
> > > >>>> operating with a concept of belief, or indeed, any concepts at
> all?
> > > >>>>> - Normally developing children become able to attribute
> false
> > > >>>> beliefs to others between the ages of 3 and 5. Does it follow
that
> > > they
> > > >>>> must
> > > >>>> be operating with a "theory of mind" or the equivalent?
> > > >>>>> - What does mental attribution minimally involve? What
> > exactly
> > > >>>> distinguishes mindreading from non-mindreading approaches to
early
> > > > social
> > > >>>> cognition? Are there theoretical reasons to prefer one over the
> > other?
> > > >>>>> - What exact roles are mental representations thought to
> play
> > > in
> > > >>>> mindreading approaches? What kind of mental representations might
> be
> > > >>>> involved? Can a principled dividing line be drawn between
> > > >>>> representational
> > > >>>> and non-representational approaches?
> > > >>>>> - How precisely should we understand the explicit/implicit
> > > >>>> distinction as invoked by certain theorists?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Invited contributors
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> - José Luis Bermúdez, Texas A&M University
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> - Pierre Jacob, Institut Jean Nicod
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> - Andrew Meltzoff, University of Washington
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Important dates
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> - Submission deadline: 1 December 2010
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> - Target publication date: July 2011
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> How to submit
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Prospective authors should register at:
> > > >>>> https://www.editorialmanager.com/ropp to obtain a login and
> select
> > > >>>> "Social
> > > >>>> Cognition: Mindreading and Alternatives" as an article type to
> > submit
> > > a
> > > >>>> manuscript. Manuscripts should be no longer than 8,000 words.
> > > > Submissions
> > > >>>> should follow the author guidelines available on the journal's
> > > website:
> > > >>>> http://www.springer.com/13164 Any questions? Please email the
> > guest
> > > >>>> editors: d.d.hutto@herts.ac.uk, mherschb@ucsd.edu,
> > > v.southgate@bbk.ac.uk
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> About the journal
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> The Review of Philosophy and Psychology (ISSN: 1878-5158; eISSN:
> > > >>>> 1878-5166) is a peer-reviewed journal published quarterly by
> > Springer
> > > > and
> > > >>>> focusing on philosophical and foundational issues in cognitive
> > > science.
> > > >>>> The
> > > >>>> aim of the journal is to provide a forum for discussion on topics
> of
> > > >>>> mutual
> > > >>>> interest to philosophers and psychologists and to foster
> > > >>>> interdisciplinary
> > > >>>> research at the crossroads of philosophy and the sciences of the
> > mind,
> > > >>>> including the neural, behavioural and social sciences.
> > > >>>>> The journal publishes theoretical works grounded in empirical
> > > > research
> > > >>>> as well as empirical articles on issues of philosophical
> relevance.
> > It
> > > >>>> includes thematic issues featuring invited contributions from
> > leading
> > > >>>> authors together with articles answering a call for paper.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Editorial board
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Editor-in-Chief: Dario Taraborelli, Surrey. Executive Editors:
> > > Roberto
> > > >>>> Casati, CNRS; Paul Egré, CNRS, Christophe Heintz, CEU.
> > > >>>>> Scientific advisors: Clark Barrett, UCLA; Cristina Bicchieri,
> Penn;
> > > > Ned
> > > >>>> Block, NYU; Paul Bloom, Yale; John Campbell, Berkeley; Richard
> > > Breheny,
> > > >>>> UCL;
> > > >>>> Susan Carey, Harvard; David Chalmers, ANU; Martin Davies, ANU;
> > > Vittorio
> > > >>>> Girotto, IUAV; Alvin Goldman, Rutgers; Daniel Hutto,
> Hertfordshire;
> > > Ray
> > > >>>> Jackendoff, Tufts; Marc Jeannerod, CNRS; Alan Leslie, Rutgers;
> Diego
> > > >>>> Marconi, Turin; Kevin Mulligan, Geneva; Alva Noë, Berkeley;
> > > Christopher
> > > >>>> Peacocke, Columbia; John Perry, Stanford; Daniel Povinelli,
> > > >>>> Louisiana-Lafayette; Jesse Prinz, CUNY; Zenon Pylyshyn, Rutgers;
> > Brian
> > > >>>> Scholl, Yale; Natalie Sebanz, Nijmegen; Corrado Sinigaglia,
Milan;
> > > Barry
> > > >>>> C.
> > > >>>> Smith, Birkbeck; Elizabeth Spelke, Harvard; Achille Varzi,
> Columbia;
> > > >>>> Timothy
> > > >>>> Williamson, Oxford; Deirdre Wilson, UCL
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Dr. Victoria Southgate
> > > >>>>> Wellcome Trust Research Career Development Fellow
> > > >>>>> Centre for Brain and Cognitive Development
> > > >>>>> Henry Wellcome Building
> > > >>>>> Birkbeck, University of London
> > > >>>>> Malet Street
> > > >>>>> London, WC1E 7HX.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>> xmca mailing list
> > > >>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > >>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>> xmca mailing list
> > > >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >>>
> > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > >> xmca mailing list
> > > >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > *Andy Blunden*
> > > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/<http://home.mira.net/~andy/<http://home.mira.
net/%7Eandy/>
> >
> > >
> > > Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
> > > Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca