Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 29 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adaption | Evolutionary Psychology | Corr I 267 Adaption/evolutionary psychology/Figueredo: There are essentially three solutions to the problem of adaptation to environments that are variable or heterogeneous in either time or space (including ‘ecological space’): (1) developmental plasticity, (2) genetic diversity, and (3) spatial migration. According to Brunswikian Evolutionary Developmental (BED) theory, ecologies that are variable over evolutionary time select for organisms that are phenotypically plastic enough to adapt by means of learning over developmental time (Figueredo, Hammond and McKiernan 2006)(1). However, such behavioural development depends critically on the existence of reliable and valid cues that signal which alternative phenotype is optimal under each set of localized conditions in time, space and ecology. >Niches/Figueredo, >Ecology/evolutionary psychology. 1. Figueredo, A. J., Hammond, K. R. and McKiernan, E. C. 2006. A Brunswikian evolutionary developmental theory of preparedness and plasticity, Intelligence 34: 211–27 Aurelio José Figueredo, Paul Gladden, Geneva Vásquez, Pedro Sofio, Abril Wolf and Daniel Nelson Jones, “Evolutionary theories of personality”, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
| Agreeableness | Neuroimaging | Corr I 315 Agreeableness/Neuroimaging/Canli: Agreeableness can be viewed as a trait associated with affective processing (readers interested in Impulsivity are referred to Congdon and Canli (2005)(1)). For example, Agreeableness is associated with greater effort to regulate negative affect (Tobin, Graziano, Vanman et al. 2000)(2). >Affects, >Information processing. This tendency to minimize negative affect is even on display in implicit processing paradigms, suggesting that the regulation of negative affect can be automatic (Meier, Robinson and Wilkowski 2006)(3). >Regulation, >Self-Regulation. One key region appears to be the right lateral prefrontal cortex (LPFC) in the conscious regulation of negative affect (Ochsner, Knierim, Ludlow et al. 2004(4)). However, it was unknown whether this region also activates during implicit emotion regulation, and whether it does so as a function of Agreeableness. We tested this hypothesis using the standard gender discrimination emotional face processing task (Haas, Omura et al. 2007b)(5). >Emotion. 1. Congdon, E. and Canli, T. 2005. The endophenotype of impulsivity: reaching consilience through behavioural, genetic, and neuroimaging approaches. Behavioural and Cognitive Neuroscience Review 4: 262–81 2. Tobin, R. M., Graziano, G., Vanman, E. J. et al. 2000. Personality, emotional experience, and efforts to control emotions, Journal of Personal and Social Psychology 79: 656–69 3, Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D. and Wilkowski, B. M. 2006. Turning the other cheek: Agreeableness and the regulation of aggression-related primes, Psychological Science 17: 136–42 4. Ochsner, K. N., Knierim, K., Ludlow, D. H. et al. 2004. Reflecting upon feelings: an fMRI study of neural systems supporting the attribution of emotion to self and other, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16: 1746–72 5. Haas, B. W., K. Omura, et al. 2007b. Is automatic Haas, B. W., K. Omura, et al. 2007b. Is automatic emotion regulation associated with agreeableness? A perspective using a social neuroscience approach, Psychological Science 18: 130–2 Turhan Canlı,“Neuroimaging of personality“, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
| Animal Studies | Behavioral Genetics | Corr I 292 Animal studies/behavioral genetics/Munafò: [animal studies] offer several attributes useful in genetic research, including short gestation, early puberty and large litters, as well as a greater degree of experimental control, by means of directed mating and environmental control, all of which are valuable when attempting to map the genetic architecture of these traits (Willis-Owen and Flint 2007)(1). The basic experimental design is the analysis of association between genotypic and phenotypic variation in a cross between two inbred strains of rodents (usually, but not necessarily, with contrasting temperament phenotypes). Molecular genetic markers are then used to determine which chromosomal segments segregate with the trait (that is, which chromosomal regions are shared by animals that are phenotypically similar for the trait of interest). Over the past ten years, QTL (quantitative trait loci) putatively related to temperament have been identified on a number of chromosomes, although the molecular nature of these remains unclear. >Animal models. 1.Willis-Owen, S. A. and Flint, J. 2007. Identifying the genetic determinants of emotionality in humans; insights from rodents, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 31: 115–24 Marcus R. Munafò,“Behavioural genetics: from variance to DNA“, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.)2009. The Cambridge handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
| Animal Studies | Molecular Genetics | Corr I 292 Animal studies/molecular genetics/Munafò: The basic experimental design is the analysis of association between genotypic and phenotypic variation in a cross between two inbred strains of rodents (usually, but not necessarily, with contrasting temperament phenotypes). Molecular genetic markers are then used to determine which chromosomal segments segregate with the trait (that is, which chromosomal regions are shared by animals that are phenotypically similar for the trait of interest). Over the past ten years, QTL (quantitative trait loci) putatively related to temperament have been identified on a number of chromosomes, although the molecular nature of these remains unclear. VsMolecular genetics: (1) Genetic mapping identifies a potential functional variant, rather than a gene, and functionally-important variants that affect gene expression may lie some distance away from a gene, or even in the location of an unrelated gene. (2) Experimental design offers only a limited number of recombinants in a single generation (typically, between one and two), so that the resolution to map a specific locus is limited, and may identify regions which can still contain hundreds or perhaps thousands of genes. (3) One potential difficulty in animal studies lies in whether genes identified in animal studies have an orthologue in man (i.e., are functionally related to a human gene, with extensive sequence similarity), although the conservation of much of the genome in rodents and man is one reason for the extensive use of rodents as an animal model of human traits. Solution: one can map in genetically heterogeneous stocks of rodents which are generated from multiple (usually eight) inbred strains which have been successively intercrossed for maximal diversity and maintained over multiple generations through a programme of pseudo-random mating. Since these animals are several generations removed from the original progenitor strains, this offers the potential of mapping a QTL to a limited number of genes, although this requires a substantial increase in marker density, and the analysis is considerably more complex in this case. Marcus R. Munafò,“Behavioural genetics: from variance to DNA“, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.)2009. The Cambridge handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
| Causes | Mayr | I 101 Cause/Bbiology: it can be difficult or even impossible to find the exact the cause for an interaction of complex systems. >Causality, >Effect. I 102 Strict causality: can usually be determined by considering the selected option at each step of the action chain in retrospect. In retrospect, even randomly chosen components can be regarded as causal. >Causal explanation. I 102 Causes/Mayr: Every phenomenon is the result of two causes, an indirect one ("why, genetic program") and an direct one (functional, "how"). I 103 Cause: in the inanimate world there is only one kind of causes, that of the natural laws (often in combination with random processes). >Laws of nature, >Random, >Necessity, >Initial conditions. I 162 Cause: E.g. "Indirect cause": choice of a moderate time of year for the rearing of the offspring. Indirect: abundance of food direct cause: length of days. I 163 Cause/Paul Weiss/Mayr: all biological systems have two sides: they are both causal mechanisms and products of evolution.(1) 165 Cause/Biology: direct: affect the phenotype: morphology and behavior, mechanically, here and now, decoding a genetic code discovery by experiments Indirect: affect the genotype - probabilistic - effective and emerged over long periods of time, emergence and alteration of genetic programs discovery by conclusions from historical representations. >Terminology/Mayr. 1. P. Weiss (1947). The Place of Physiology in the Biological Sciences. In: Federation Proceedings 6, p. 523-525. |
Mayr I Ernst Mayr This is Biology, Cambridge/MA 1997 German Edition: Das ist Biologie Heidelberg 1998 |
| Endophenotype | |||
| Endophenotype | Molecular Genetics | Corr I 298 Endophenotype/molecular genetics/Munafò: The concept of the endophenotype was introduced to psychiatry over thirty years ago by Gottesman and Shields (1973)(1), but its popularity is more recent: there are eight PubMed entries before the year 2000 compared to 150 in the current century. Gottesman and Shields (1973)(1) adapted the term from a 1966 paper that attributed the geographical distribution of grasshoppers to the insects’ ‘endophenotype’ (John and Lewis 1966)(2), a neologism alluding to a phenotype that was microscopic and internal, and therefore obscure to casual observation. Def Endophenotype/Gottesman: Gottesman’s definition of an endophenotype is that it should be heritable, co-segregate with a psychiatric illness, yet be present even when the disease is not (i.e., state independent), and be found in non-affected family members at a higher rate than in the population (Gottesman and Gould 2003)(3). The criterion of state independence was modified to take into account the importance of epigenetic and developmental factors so that the endophenotype can be manifest only at a certain age and/or after a challenge (in the same way that a glucose challenge is used for a glucose tolerance test) (Hasler, Drevets, Gould et al. 2006)(4). Others have added criteria that require endophenotypes to be part of the causal process by which disease arises (Lavori, Krause-Steinrauf, Brophy et al. 2002)(5), or at least be involved in a biologically plausible mechanism of pathogenesis (Castellanos and Tannock 2002(6); Tsuang, Faraone and Lyons 1993)(7), or, following Almasy and Blangero (2001)(8), require that an endophenotype ‘should be continuously quantifiable, should predict disorder probabilistically and should be closer to the site of primary causative agent (whether genetic or environmental) than to diagnostic categories’. It has also been suggested that ‘priority should be given to endophenotypes that are based or anchored in neuroscience’ (Doyle, Faraone, Seidman et al. 2005)(9). 1. Gottesman, I. I. and Shields, J. 1973. Genetic theorizing and schizophrenia, British Journal of Psychiatry 122: 15–30 2. John, B. and Lewis, K. R. 1966. Chromosome variability and geographic distribution in insects, Science 152: 711–21 3. Gottesman, I. I. and Gould, T. D. 2003. The endophenotype concept in psychiatry: etymology and strategic intentions, American Journal of Psychiatry 160: 636–45 4. Hasler, G., Drevets, W. C., Gould, T. D., Gottesman, I. I. and Manji, H. K. 2006. Toward constructing an endophenotype strategy for bipolar disorders, Biological Psychiatry 60: 93–105 5. Lavori, P. W., Krause-Steinrauf, H., Brophy, M., Buxbaum, J., Cockroft, J., Cox, D. R., et al. 2002. Principles, organization, and operation of a DNA bank for clinical trials: a Department of Veterans Affairs cooperative study, Controlled Clinical Trials 23: 222–39 6. Castellanos, F. X. and Tannock, R. 2002. Neuroscience of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: the search for endophenotypes, Nature Neuroscience 3: 617–28 7. Tsuang, M. T., Faraone, S. V. and Lyons, M. J. 1993. Identification of the phenotype in psychiatric genetics, European Archichives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience 243: 131–42 8. Almasy, L. and Blangero, J. 2001. Endophenotypes as quantitative risk factors for psychiatric disease: rationale and study design, American Journal of Medical Genetics 105: 42–44 9. Doyle, A. E., Faraone, S. V., Seidman, L. J., Willcutt, E. G., Nigg, J. T., Waldman, I. D. et al. 2005: Are endophenotypes based on measures of executive functions useful for molecular genetic studies of ADHD?, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46: 774-803 Marcus R. Munafò,“Behavioural genetics: from variance to DNA“, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
| Environment | Developmental Psychology | Slater I 19 Environment/Developmental Psychology: new attention has been directed toward the substantial variability in how children respond to their environments. >Parent-Child Relationship/psychological theories, >Situation/Harlow, >Experiment/Harlow, >Situation/Ainsworth. Many children raised under adverse conditions, ranging from institutions to neglectful or abusive parenting, have shown remarkable recovery in later emotional and cognitive functioning. Child characteristics that contribute to “resilience” have been investigated in a wide range of human and animal studies (Sameroff, 2010)(1). These “child effects” have been conceptualized and measured at the genetic, physiological, and behavioral levels of analysis (Obradovic & Boyce, 2009)(2). Molecular analyses have centered primarily on identifying genetic polymorphisms that increase or reduce the child’s vulnerability to adverse environments. Physiological measures have focused on autonomic or neuroendocrine measures of reactivity to stressful events, while behavioral measures have focused on individual differences in temperament conceived in terms of shy/inhibited or impulsive/aggressive dimensions (Suomi, 2006)(3). Cf. >Environment/Molecular Genetics The ability to measure variability in both the caregiving environment and in children’s susceptibility to environmental exposures has fostered new research on the mechanisms through which early experience affects later adaptation (Meaney, 2010)(4). This dynamic transaction between the child and the caregiving environment is evident in studies of gene/environment interactions associated with psychiatric disorders (Caspi & Moffitt, 2006)(5). Work in rodents has identified how early experience can influence gene expression and produce stable epigenetic modifications that alter individual phenotypes across the lifespan (Roth & Sweatt, 2011(6). 1. Sameroff, A. (2010). A unified theory of development: A dialectic integration of nature and nurture. Child Development, 81, 6–22 2. Obradovic, J., & Boyce, W. T. (2009). Individual differences in behavioral, physiological, and genetic sensitivities to contexts: implications for development and adaptation. Developmental Neuroscience, 31, 300–308. 3. Suomi, S. J. (2006). Risk, resilience, and gene x environment interactions in rhesus monkeys. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1094, 52–62 4. Meaney, M. (2010). Epigenetics and the biological definition of gene × environment interactions. Child Development, 81, 41–79. 5. Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. (2006). Gene-environment interactions in psychiatry: joining forces with neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 583–590 6. Roth, T. L., & Sweatt, J. D. (2011). Annual Research Review: Epigenetic mechanisms and environmental shaping of the brain during sensitive periods of development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, 398–408 Roger Kobak, “Attachment and Early Social deprivation. Revisiting Harlow’s Monkey Studies”, in: Alan M. Slater and Paul C. Quinn (eds.) 2012. Developmental Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies. London: Sage Publications Upton I 50 Environment/Developmental psychology/Upton: Current evidence (…) supports a greater role for the environment in the development of skills [like sitting up, crawling and walking]. Modern theories of motor skill development emphasise the interaction between nature and nurture. (>Nature and nurture). An important approach here is provided by the dynamic systems theory (Thelen, 1995)(1). >Dynamic systems theory/psychological theories. 1. Thelen, E. (1995) Motor development: a new synthesis. American Psychologist, 50: 79–95. |
Slater I Alan M. Slater Paul C. Quinn Developmental Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2012 Upton I Penney Upton Developmental Psychology 2011 |
| Environment | Molecular Genetics | Corr I 296 Environment/molecular genetics/Munafò: Main effects of genotype on personality phenotypes appear to be modest (Munafò, Clark, Moore et al. 2003)(1), as discussed above. >Personality traits/molecular genetics, >Extraversion/molecular genetics. One likely reason which may partially account for this is that genes interact with environmental influences to determine risk of any particular outcome, including personality. A gene × environment interaction occurs when the effect of exposure to an environmental risk factor is conditional upon an individual’s genotype, or vice versa (Caspi, Sugden, Moffitt et al. 2003)(2). Several studies of emotional disorders have tested for possible gene × environment interactions, which themselves may operate via personality traits given the known associations between personality and risk of psychiatric illness (e.g., Neuroticism and major depression). >Neuroticism, >Depression. Most studies of gene × environment interactions to date have focused on the serotonin transporter gene and stressful life events, with contrasting results. In the original study (Caspi, Sugden, Moffitt et al. 2003)(2), the 5-HTTLPR variant moderated the effect of stressful life events on the onset of depression among youngsters. Corr I 297 Problems: One particular difficulty in such studies lies in the accurate specification of environmental effects. While genotype can be ascertained with a high degree of accuracy (subject to appropriate quality control measures), environmental effects are typically ascertained using either self- or parent-report measures. Moreover, the underlying constructs which are so measured (e.g., ‘stressful life events’) may be somewhat vague, and in fact represent a constellation of underlying constructs. >Situations/Mischel, >situations/psychological theories, >Psychological stress. For a recent critical review of gene × environment interactions, see Munafò, Durrant, Lewis and Flint (2009)(3). 1. Munafò, M. R., Clark, T. G., Moore, L. R., Payne, E., Walton, R. and Flint, J. 2003. Genetic polymorphisms and personality in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Molecular Psychiatry 8: 471–84 2. Caspi, A., Sugden, K., Moffitt, T. E., Taylor, A., Craig, I. W., Harrington, H., et al. 2003. Influence of life stress on depression: moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene, Science 301: 386–9 3. Munafò, M. R., Durrant, C., Lewis, G. and Flint, J. 2009. Gene × environment interactions at the serotonin transporter locus, Biological Psychiatry 65: 211–19 Marcus R. Munafò,“Behavioural genetics: from variance to DNA“, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.)2009. The Cambridge handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
| Evolution | Mayr | I 43 Evolution/Mayr: Unit of evolution is the population (or species) and not the gene or the individual. (MayrVsDawkins). >Species, >Genes, >R. Dawkins, >Genes/Dawkins, >Evolution/Dawkins. Def Integron/Mayr: An integron is a system created by integration of subordinate units on a higher level. Integrons evolve by natural selection. They are adapted systems at each level because they contribute to the fitness (suitability) of an individual. >Selection. I 183 Evolution/Mayr: Species is the decisive entity of evolution. I 230 Evolution/Progress/Mayr: Cohesion: an expression of the fact that the system of development has become very narrow. Evolution: proceeds very slowly in large, member-rich species, and very quickly in small peripheral isolated groups. >Speciation, >punctuated equilibrium/Eldredge/Gould. A start-up population with few individuals and therefore little hidden genetic variation can more easily assume a different genotype. Macroevolution: is most strongly determined by the geographical factor (isolation). I 234 Evolution/Mayr: the concepts: 1) Rapid evolution: (transmutationism): type jump. Even after Darwin some researchers (including his friend Huxley) could not accept the concept of natural selection and developed saltationist theories. 2) Transformational evolution (transformationism) gradual change of the ice to the organism. Ignored by Darwin. I 235 3) Variation Evolution (Darwin) I 235 Darwin (early): adaptation modification. Vs: can never explain the enormous variety of organic life, because it does not allow for an increase in the number of species. I 236 Darwin/Mayr: The Origin of Species: 5 Main Theories 1) Organisms are constantly evolving over time (evolution as such). 2) Different species of organisms are derived from a common ancestor. 3) Species multiply over time (speciation) 4) Evolution takes the form of gradual change. (GradualismVsSaltationism). >Gradualism, >Saltationism. 5) The evolutionary mechanism consists in the competition among numerous unique individuals for limited resources that leads to differences in survival and reproduction (natural selection). I 234 Evolution/Mayr: the concepts: 1) Rapid evolution: (transmutationism): type jump. Even after Darwin some researchers (including his friend Huxley) could not accept the concept of natural selection and developed saltationist theories. 2) Transformational evolution (transformationism) gradual change of the ice to the organism. Ignored by Darwin. I 235 3) Variation Evolution (Darwin) I 235 Darwin (early): adaptation modification. Vs: can never explain the enormous variety of organic life, because it does not allow for an increase in the number of species. I 236 Darwin/Mayr: The Origin of Species: 5 Main Theories 1) Organisms are constantly evolving over time (evolution as such). 2) Different species of organisms are derived from a common ancestor. 3) Species multiply over time (speciation) 4) Evolution takes the form of gradual change. (GradualismVsSaltationism). 5) The evolutionary mechanism consists in the competition among numerous unique individuals for limited resources that leads to differences in survival and reproduction (natural selection). >Selection. I 377 Evolution of life: a chemical process involving autocatalysis and a directing factor. Prebiotic selection. Cf. >St. Kauffman. I 237 Pasteur: proofed the impossibility of life in oxygen-rich atmosphere! In 1953, Stanley Miller grew amino acids, urea and other organic molecules in a glass flask by discharging electricity into a mixture of methane, ammonium, hydrogen, and water vapor. I 238 Proteins, nucleic acids: the organisms must form these larger molecules themselves. Amino acids, pyrimidines, puridine do not need to formed by the organisms themselves. I 239 Molecular biology: discovered that the genetic code is the same for bacteria, which do not have nuclei, as in protists, fungi, animals and plants. I 240 Missing link: Archaeopteryx: half bird half reptile. Not necessarily direct ancestor. Speciation: a) dichopatric: a previously connected area is divided by a new barrier: mountain range, inlets, interruption of vegetation. b) peripatrically: new start-up population emerges outside of the original distribution area. c) sympatric speciation: new species due to ecological specialization within the area of distribution. Darwin's theory of gradualism. >Gradualism. I 243 VsGardualism: cannot explain the emergence of completely new organs. Problem: How can a rudimentary wing be enlarged by natural selection before it is suitable for flying? I 244 Darwin: two possible solutions: a) Intensification of the function: E.g. eyes, e.g. the development of the anterior limbs of moles, whales, bats. b) Functional change: E.g. Antennae of daphia (water flea): additional function of the swimming paddle, which is enlarged and modified under selection pressure. E.g. Gould: Feathers probably first for temperature control before any animal could fly. Function/Biology: Functional differences are also related to behavioral patterns, e.g. feather cleaning. Competing theories on evolutionary change I 247 Salationism: Huxley later Bateson, de Vries, (Mendelists). The saltationist emergence of new species only occurs poyploidy and some other forms of chromosomal restructuring (very rare) during sexual reproduction. Teleological theories: assume that nature has a principle: Osbron's arsitogenesis, Chardin's omega principle. Should lead to perfection. >Teilhard de Chardin. Lamarck's Theories: Changes go back to use and non-use, environmental conditions. Until the 1930s! I 248 Def "soft inheritance" (acquired characteristics). Was refuted by genetics. Def "hard inheritance" (so-called "central dogma"): the information contained in the proteins (the phenotype) cannot be passed on to the nucleic acids (the genotype)! (Insight of molecular biology). I 256 Macroevolution: after saltationism, soft heredity and autogenesis, had been refuted with evolution, macroevolution had to be explained more and more as a phenomenon on the level of the population, i.e. as a phenomenon directly attributable to events and processes during microevolution. (Speciation: faster in isolation). (>Gould, Eldredge, 1971(1): "punctuated equilibrium", punctualism.) I 281 New: we know today that the cycles of herbivores elicit those of the predators and not vice versa! Coevolution: E.g. the Yucca moth destroys the plant's ovules by its larvae, but pollens the flowers. 1. N. Eldredge, S. J. Gould: Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: T. Schopf (Ed), Models in Paleobiology, 82-115, San Francisco, (1972). |
Mayr I Ernst Mayr This is Biology, Cambridge/MA 1997 German Edition: Das ist Biologie Heidelberg 1998 |
| Evolutionary Psychology | Buss | Corr II 171 Evolutionary Psychology/EP/Buss/Figueredo: (…) we may envision a mass of people escaping a burning building by different exits: main exits, emergency exits, windows and service doors. Personality is similar. Just as everyone has to escape the burning building in the analogy, so there is the evolutionary imperative to reproduce before death; and just as there are many exits, one can foster successful reproduction by being gregarious and charming as with the social extravert, dogged II 172 and persevering like the exceedingly conscientious, or ingratiating and affiliative like the highly agreeable. Thus, different personality styles and strategies have evolved in competition with one another for the same goal of survival and reproduction, but with different ways and means of adaptation. II 173 [Buss] insists that evolution forges the ‘physiological, anatomical and psychological mechanisms’ that inform choice, inclination, aversion and attraction. II 175 (…) the new science of EP correctly represented emitted behaviours as the product of the interactions between evolved psychological mechanisms and specific stimulus inputs from the environment to which they were finely tuned. II 179 Survival/Reproduction: (…) Buss outlined eight exigencies of survival and reproduction in any adaptive landscape populated by concentrations of conspecifics: (1) successful intrasexual competition, (2) mate selection, (3) successful conception, (4) mate retention, (5) reciprocal dyadic alliance formation, (6) coalition-building and maintenance, (7) parental care and socialization and (8) extra-parental kin investment. There follows a continuation of Buss’s claim that EP is an able arbiter of theory in its ability to impose a biologically informed kind of Occam’s razor upon theoretical claims within personality psychology. II 180 A common misconception regarding the evolution of personality, critiqued by Buss (2011)(1), is that selection acts as a homogenizing force leading to single point of optimality in the phenotype distribution. In contrast, evolutionary theory predicts that the location of this point will vary depending upon the type of selective pressures active, in accordance to the relationship between a trait and its fitness. II 182 The alternative explanations summarized by Buss (1991)(2) for the origins of partially heritable personality characteristics and the retention of individual differences remain as possibilities, but the list of alternatives has been expanded [in a volume edited by Buss and Hawley (2011)(3)]. For example, it has been argued as possible that selective sweeps within the past several thousand years (…) are behind the large variation among humans. Gene flow due to accelerated migration of individuals among human populations is also a contender hypothesis. Balancing selection, whereby multiple phenotypes are adaptive in a complementary way, each in a specific subset of the species niches, has remained as a focus of discussion. >Evolution, >Selection, >Adaptation, >Niches, >Species, >Genes, >Heritability. 1. Buss, D. (2011). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (4th ed.). Hove, UK: Psychology Press. 2. Buss, D. M. (1991). Evolutionary personality psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 459–491. 3. Buss, D. M., & Hawley, P. H. (2011). The evolution of personality and individual differences. New York: Oxford University Press. Figueredo, Aurelio J.; Fernandes, Heitor B. F.; Peñaherrera-Aguirre, Mateo and Hertler, Steven C.: “The Evolution of Personality Revisiting Buss (1991)”, In: Philip J. Corr (Ed.) 2018. Personality and Individual Differences. Revisiting the classical studies. Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne: Sage, pp. 171-190. |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
| Extraversion | Behavioral Genetics | Corr I 288 Extraversion/Behavioral Genetics/Munafò: A (…) major dimension of current theories of human personality reflects approach-related (or positive emotionality) traits which, broadly defined, encompasses novelty-seeking, sensation-seeking, extraversion and impulsivity traits. Extraversion, as measured using the NEO family of instruments (Costa and McCrae 1997)(1) or those derived from Eysenck’s personality taxonomy (Eysenck and Eysenck 1975)(2), reflects gregariousness, sensation-seeking and high levels of activity. Novelty-seeking, as in questionnaires derived from Cloninger’s theory of personality and temperament (Cloninger 1986)(3), reflects sensitivity to novelty and signals of reward. As with Neuroticism and harm avoidance, while Extraversion and novelty-seeking are not identical constructs, they are thought to be intercorrelated (Doyle, Faraone, Seidman et al. 2005)(4), and may both reflect individual differences in different facets of a common underlying neurobiological motivational mechanism. >H.J. Eysenck, >P.T. Costa, >R.R. McCrae, >C.R. Cloninger. 1. Costa, P. T., Jr and McCrae, R. R. 1997: Stability and change in personality assessment: the revised NEO Personality Inventory in the year 2000, Journal of Personality Assessment 68: 86–94 2. Eysenck, H. J. and Eysenck, S. B. G. 1975. Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. London: Hodder and Stoughton 3. Cloninger, C. R. 1986. A unified biosocial theory of personality and its role in the development of anxiety states, Psychiatric Developments 4: 167–226 4. Doyle, A. E., Faraone, S. V., Seidman, L. J., Willcutt, E. G., Nigg, J. T., Waldman, I. D. et al. 2005: Are endophenotypes based on measures of executive functions useful for molecular genetic studies of ADHD?, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46: 774-803 Marcus R. Munafò,“Behavioural genetics: from variance to DNA“, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.)2009. The Cambridge handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
| Extraversion | Molecular Genetics | Corr I 294 Extraversion/motivation/molecular genetics/Munafò: The dopaminergic system is involved in appetitive and motivational behaviours (Comings and Blum 2000)(1), and pharmacological challenge studies indicate a relationship between dopaminergic hyperactivity and reward-seeking, as well as motivational factors associated with both Extraversion and novelty-seeking (Netter 2006)(2), suggesting that these traits may share a common neurobiological basis. The dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) gene is highly polymorphic, although research evaluating behavioural and psychiatric phenotypes has focused largely on a variable number of tandem repeats (VNTR) polymorphism in exon III, and in particular the presence or absence of the seven-repeat (‘long’) allele. See (Asghari, Schoots, Van Kats et al. 1994)(3), (Asghari, Sanyal, Buchwaldt et al. 1995)(4),(Ekelund, Suhonen, Jarvelin et al. 2001(5); Strobel et al. 2002)(6), (Okuyama, Ishiguro, Toru and Arinami 1999(7); Ronai, Barta, Guttman et al. 2001)(8). >Personality traits. 1. Comings, D. E. and Blum, K. 2000. Reward deficiency syndrome: genetic aspects of behavioural disorders, Progress in Brain Research 126: 325–41 2. Netter, P. 2006. Dopamine challenge tests as an indicator of psychological traits, Human Psychopharmacology 21: 91–9 3 .Asghari, V., Schoots, O., Van Kats, S., Ohara, K., Jovanovic, V., Guan, H. C. et al. 1994. Dopamine D4 receptor repeat: analysis of different native and mutant forms of the human and rat genes, Molecular Pharmacology 46: 364–73 4. Asghari, V., Sanyal, S., Buchwaldt, S., Paterson, A., Jovanovic, V. and Van Tol, H. H. 1995. Modulation of intracellular cyclic AMP levels by different human dopamine D4 receptor variants, Journal of Neurochemistry 65: 1157–65 5. Ekelund, J., Suhonen, J., Jarvelin, M. R., Peltonen, L., Lichtermann, D. 2001. No association of the -521 C/T polymorphism in the promoter of DRD4 with novelty seeking, Molecular Psychiatry 6: 618–19 6. Strobel, A., Lesch, K. P., Hohenberger, K., Jatzke, S., Gutzeit, H. O., Anacker, K., Brocke, B. 2002. No association between dopamine D4 receptor gene exon III and -521C/T polymorphism and novelty seeking, Molecular Psychiatry 7: 537–8 7. Okuyama, Y., Ishiguro, H., Toru, M. and Arinami, T. 1999. A genetic polymorphism in the promoter region of DRD4 associated with expression and schizophrenia, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 258: 292–5 8. Ronai, Z., Barta, C., Guttman, A., Lakatos, K., Gervai, J., Staub, M. and Sasvari-Szekely, M. 2001. Genotyping the -521C/T functional polymorphism in the promoter region of dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) gene, Electrophoresis 22: 1102–5 Marcus R. Munafò,“Behavioural genetics: from variance to DNA“, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.)2009. The Cambridge handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
| Features | Dawkins | I 156 Feature/phenotype/gene/Dawkins: any feature such as e.g. a green beard is merely a method by which a gene can "recognize" copies of itself in other individuals. Feature/altruism/Dawkins: according to the thesis that genes try to help copies of themselves in the bodies of others, features are developed. Perhaps a gene for altruism can thus be recognized in altruistic behavior? In fact, relationships are recognized in behavior. For example, the parents' selflessness towards their offspring. |
Da I R. Dawkins The Selfish Gene, Oxford 1976 German Edition: Das egoistische Gen, Hamburg 1996 Da II M. St. Dawkins Through Our Eyes Only? The Search for Animal Consciousness, Oxford/New York/Heidelberg 1993 German Edition: Die Entdeckung des tierischen Bewusstseins Hamburg 1993 |
| Heritability | Behavioral Genetics | Corr I 289 Heritability/Behavioral genetics/Munafò: The calculation of the heritability coefficient rests on several assumptions, such as that genes influence phenotypes in an additive (rather than multiplicative, or interactive) way, and that genotype is not correlated with, and does not interact with, environment. In fact, it is likely that these assumptions do not always hold, and that gene × gene interactions (also known as epistatic genetic influences), gene × environment interactions, and gene – environment correlations do in fact occur. >Personality traits/twin studies. Marcus R. Munafò,“Behavioural genetics: from variance to DNA“, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.)2009. The Cambridge handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
| Individuals | Mayr | I 205 Formation of Individuals/Biology/Mayr: Def Parthenogenesis: Asexuality: in some organisms, individuals develop themselves from the eggs, fertilization is not necessary. E.g. Aphids, plankton crustaceans: here sexual and asexual generations alternate. I 206 Sexuality: increases diversity and thus defense against diseases. I 207 Pangenesis theory: (old) theory, according to which each body cell contributes hereditary material. From Aristotle to the 19th century. PreformationVsEpigenesis (already in Aristotle, then to the nineteenth century). I 208 VsAristotle: Aristotle believed falsely, only female organisms could possess eggs. >Aristotle. I 209 Egg: the actual mammal was discovered only by Karl Ernst von Baer in 1828(1). It was recognized that the ovary is the counterpart to the testis. DNA: discovered by Johann Friedrich Miescher (19th century). I 211 Definition Preformation: Eggs produce individuals of the same species. Therefore it was concluded that egg or sperm is already a miniature of the future organism. Logical consequence: in this organism all future offspring must again be contained in a miniature edition (nesting). Numerous contemporary pictures did show such small miniature humans (homunculi) in the spermatozoon. I 212 Epigenesis: thought that the development came from an entirely unformed mass. "Vis essentialis." Each species has its own peculiar "essential force". This was completely opposed to the uniform forces described by the physicists, e.g. gravitation. Definition Epigenesis: Development during the life history of the individual, in contrast to ontogeny and phylogeny. Nevertheless, the epigenesis prevails in the controversy. Solution only in the 20th century: difference between Definition genotype (genetic constitution of the individual) and Definition phenotype (totality of perceptible characteristics). Cell: how does it come that the nerve cell develops so completely differently as a cell of the digestive tract? I 214 Cell division: Wilhelm Roux (1883)(2) concludes the complex internal differentiation of the cell: Solution: particles must be placed on a thread, and this is divided! Confirmed later. Cell: passes through a differentiation process, only a small part of the genes in the nucleus is active. Cell development: in taxa with regulatory development (e.g. vertebrate animals) there are no fixed early cell lines, but extensive cell migration. Induction (influence of already existing tissues on the development of other tissues) largely determines the specification of the cells. Cell migration: pigment and nerve cells make extensive migrations through the organism. Often they follow clear chemical stimuli. 1. E. v. Baer (1828). Entwickelungsgeschichte der Thiere: Beobachtung und Reflexion. Königsberg: Bornträger. 2. W. Roux (1883). Über die Bedeutung der Kerntheilungsfiguren. Leipzig: Engelmann. |
Mayr I Ernst Mayr This is Biology, Cambridge/MA 1997 German Edition: Das ist Biologie Heidelberg 1998 |
| Information | Kauffman | I 111 Order/Life/Human/Kauffman: the human is the product of two sources of order, not one. >Order/Kauffman, >Life/Kauffman, >Humans. I 112 Information/order/life/emergence/Kauffman: most people assume that DNA and RNA are stable stores of genetic information. However, if life began with collective autocatalysis and later learned to incorporate DNA and genetic code, we must explain how these formations could be subject to hereditary variation and natural selection, even though they did not yet contain a genome! >Genes, >Selection. On the one hand, evolution cannot proceed without matrices copying mechanisms, but on the other hand it is the one that combines the mechanisms. >Evolution. Could an autocatalytic formation evolve without it? Solution: Spatial compartments (spaces divided by membranes) that split are capable of variation and evolution! Solution: Assumption: every now and then random, uncatalysed reactions take place and produce new molecules. The metabolism (conversion, metabolism) would be extended by a reaction loop. Evolution without genome, no DNA-like structure as a carrier of information. >Life/Kauffman. I 114 Catalysis/Autocatalysis/Kauffman: in the case of autocatalytic formations, there is no difference between genotype and phenotype. >Genotype, >Phenotype. Life/emergence/Kauffman: this inevitably leads to the formation of a complex ecosystem. Molecules produced in a primordial cell can be transported into other primordial cells and influence reactions there. Metabolic-based life does not arise as a whole or as a complex structure, but the entire spectrum of mutualism and competition is present from the very beginning. Not only evolution, but also co-evolution. >Co-evolution. I 115 Order/life/emergence/Kauffman: the autocatalytic formations must coordinate the behaviour of several thousand molecules. The potential chaos is beyond imagination. Therefore, another source of molecular order has to be discovered, the fundamental internal homeostasis (balance). Surprisingly simple boundary conditions are sufficient for this. >Beginning I 148 Information/Genes/Kauffman: Question: What mechanism controls the implementation and suppression of certain genetic information? And how do the different cell types know which genes to use and when? J. Monod/Francois Jacob: Mid-1960s: Discovery of an operator that only releases a reaction at a certain point in time. >J. Monod. I 149 Also repressor. A small molecule can "switch on" a gene. I 150 In the simplest case, two genes can suppress each other. Two possible patterns. >Genes. Gene 1 is active and suppresses gene 2 or vice versa. Both cell types would then have the same "genotype", the same genome, but they could realize different gene sets. New horizon of knowledge: unexpected and far-reaching freedom at the molecular level. The addition of the repressor to the operator at different points results in different receptivity to the operator on the DNA. Regulation. I 151 This control mechanism by addition in two different places means complete freedom for the molecules to create genetic circuits of arbitrary logic and complexity. We must first learn to understand such systems. |
Kau II Stuart Kauffman At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity New York 1995 Kauffman I St. Kauffman At Home in the Universe, New York 1995 German Edition: Der Öltropfen im Wasser. Chaos, Komplexität, Selbstorganisation in Natur und Gesellschaft München 1998 |
| Language | Mayr | I 190 Language/Evolution/Mayr: also languages evolve, but not adaptive, but stochastic! E.g. when the Anglo-Saxons colonized the British Isles, they did not have to adapt the language to the climate. The consideration of ecological factors and their effects on the phenotype characterize a Darwinian classification. >Language evolution, >Language use, >Meaning change. I 309 Language/Animals/Mayr: There is no language among animals. Communication systems consist here of exchanging signals. There is no syntax and grammar. >Animal language, >Animals. I 310 Language/brain: could the lack of language be a reason why the Neandertals did not make more use of their brain? >Brain/Deacon, >T. Deacon, >Language/Deacon. Language: evolved from about 300,000 to 200,000 years ago in small groups of hunters and collectors due to a selection advantage. Favorable location for increasing brain size. >Selection, >Brain. |
Mayr I Ernst Mayr This is Biology, Cambridge/MA 1997 German Edition: Das ist Biologie Heidelberg 1998 |
| Personality in Animals | Gosling | Corr I 281 Personality in animals/ethology/Gosling: The most comprehensive review to date of the animal personality literature identified personality studies in sixty-four different non-human species (Gosling 2001)(1). Since that review, studies of personality in numerous other species have emerged, ranging from water striders (Sih and Watters 2005)(2), lizards (Cote and Clobert 2007)(3), and squid (Sinn, Gosling and Moltschaniwskyj 2008)(4), to tropical fish (Brown, Jones and Braithwaite 2005)(5), geese (Kralj-Fiser, Scheiber, Blejec et al. 2007)(6) and orangutans (Weiss, King and Perkins 2006)(7). It should be noted, however, that researchers do not always explicitly use the term ‘personality’. For example, researchers may use terms like ‘behavioural syndromes’, ‘behavioural types’, or ‘temperament’, often not for theoretical reasons reasons but in an effort to avoid the anthropomorphic connotations of a word with ‘person’ in it. Cross-species comparisons: One challenge facing any comparative researcher is determining the degree to which apparently similar traits really are tapping the same underlying trait. How can it be determined that what appears to be boldness in squid or trout or chimpanzees is in any way similar to boldness in humans? for example, the chimpanzee facial display in which the lips are retracted so that clenched teeth are exposed reflects fear, not happiness, as might be assumed by the expression’s apparent similarity to a human smile. To solve this challenge, cross-species researchers can draw on the lessons learned by cross-cultural researchers. Corr I 282 The solution to determining cross-cultural equivalence of anger expressions is examining what comes before and after the expressions, and where possible, looking for commonalities in underlying physiology. When generalizing across species, scientists must consider several dimensions of similarity and difference (Gosling 2001)(1). As a rule, researchers making cross-species comparisons should consider the species’ environmental and social ecologies, their biology, and their phylogenetic relationships with other species, and the importance of these criteria should be weighed according to what phenomenon is being examined. Corr I 283 Origin and function of traits: By examining the existence of traits against a backdrop of known phylogenetic relationships among species, researchers can pinpoint the likely period during which that trait emerged and can use this information to infer the original function of that trait (Fraley, Brumbaugh and Marks 2005(8); Gosling and Graybeal 2007)(9). 1. Gosling, S. D. 2001. From mice to men: what can we learn about personality from animal research?, Psychological Bulletin 127: 45–86 2. Sih, A. and Watters, J. V. 2005. The mix matters: behavioural types and group dynamics in water striders, Behaviour 142: 1417–31 3. Cote, J. and Clobert, J. 2007. Social personalities influence natal dispersal in a lizard, Proceedings of the Royal Society B 274: 383–90 4. Sinn, D. L., Gosling, S. D. and Moltschaniwskyj, N. A. 2008. Development of shy/bold behaviour in squid: context-specific phenotypes associated with developmental plasticity, Animal Behaviour 75: 433–42 5. Brown, C., Jones, F. and Braithwaite, V. 2005. In situ examination of boldness-shyness traits in the tropical poeciliid, Brachyraphis episcopi, Animal Behaviour 70: 1003–9 6. Kralj-Fiser, S. Scheiber, I. B. R., Blejec, A., Moestl, E. and Kotrschal, K. 2007. Individualities in a flock of free-roaming greylag geese: behavioural and physiological consistency over time and across situations, Hormones and Behaviour 51: 239–48 7. Weiss, A., King, J. E. and Perkins, L. 2006. Personality and subjective well-being in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus and Pongo abelii), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90: 501–11 8. Fraley, R. C., Brumbaugh, C. C. and Marks, M. J. 2005. The evolution and function of adult attachment: a comparative and phylogenetic analysis, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89: 808–22 9. Gosling, S. D. and Graybeal, A. 2007. Tree thinking: a new paradigm for integrating comparative data in psychology, Journal of General Psychology 134: 259–77 Samuel D. Gosling and B. Austin Harley, „Animal models of personality and cross-species comparisons“, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.)2009. The Cambridge handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
| Personality System | Neuroscience | Corr I 391 Personality system/neuroscience/Saucier: contemporary neuroscience [has developed] promising theories that posit distinct brain systems or circuits, and then link individual differences in the functioning of these systems/circuits, via psychobiological endophenotypes, to overt personality characteristics. A prime example is the set of theories (e.g., Carver and White 1994(1); Torrubia, Avila, Molto and Caseras 2001(2)), emanating originally from Gray (1983)(3) that set out distinct brain systems for approach (or reward-sensitivity, or behavioural activation) and avoidance (or withdrawal, or threat- or punishment-sensitivity, or behavioural inhibition), sometimes adding a third ‘constraint’ or self-regulation system (Carver 2005(4); cf. Rothbart and Bates 1998(5)). >Personality traits, >Personality, >Self-regulation. 1. Carver, C. S. and White, T. 1994. Behavioural inhibition, behavioural activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67: 319–33 2. Torrubia, R., Avila, C., Molto, J. and Caseras, X. 2001. The Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ) as a measure of Gray’s anxiety and impulsivity dimensions, Personality and Individual Differences 31: 837–62 3. Gray, J. A. 1983. Where should we search for biologically based dimensions of personality?, Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie 42: 163–74 4. Carver, C. S. 2005. Impulse and constraint: perspectives from personality psychology, convergence with theory in other areas, and potential for integration, Personality and Social Psychology Review 9: 312–33 5. Rothbart, M. K. and Bates, J. E. 1998. Temperament, in W. Damon (Series ed.) and N. Eisenberg (Vol. ed.), Handbook of child psychology, vol. III, Social, emotional and personality development, 5th edn, pp. 105–76. New York: Wiley Gerard Saucier, „Semantic and linguistic aspects of personality“, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
| Personality Traits | Behavioral Genetics | Corr I 287 Personality traits//Behavioral Genetics/Munafò: Investigation of the association between DNA variants and psychological phenotypes has the potential to determine which genes influence heritable psychological traits, such as personality (Ebstein, Benjamin and Belmaker 2000(1); Eysenck 1977)(2). Such research has a long history, beginning with the observation that behavioural phenotypes (including personality) tend to show greater similarity between pairs of individuals as genetic similarity increases. Problems: molecular genetic studies have so far been characterized more by the inconsistency of their results than by the provision of novel biological information. Given the large number of candidate genes that can be hypothesized to influence psychological traits, the extent of DNA sequence variation and the numerous, often conflicting, methods of measuring phenotypic variation in psychological and behavioural science, the task of evaluating competing statistical hypotheses is likely to be onerous. (VsMolecular genetics, VsBehavioral genetics). Traits/psychology: Most trait psychologists argue that a small number of factors can be used to account for individual differences in personality. For example, there is strong agreement that the dimensions of Extraversion-Introversion and Neuroticism-Stability are fundamental parts of any personality taxonomy. >Personality traits/psychological theories. Causality: Causal theorists of personality have attempted to go further and associate known neurobiological mechanisms with personality dimensions, measured using a range of instruments. >Causality/Developmental psychology. Behavior: Following Revelle’s typology (Revelle 1995)(3), three fundamental behavioural dimensions have been proposed to correspond to differential activity in neurotransmitter systems (Ebstein, Benjamin Benjamin and Belmaker 2000(1); Munafò, Clark, Moore et al. 2003(4)): dopamine for approach behaviours, serotonin and noradrenaline for avoidance behaviours, and serotonin, noradrenaline and GABA for aggressive or fight-flight behaviours. There is considerable consensus over the construct validity of the first two of these dimensions, but there remains equally considerable debate over the third. 1. Ebstein, R. P., Benjamin, J., Belmaker, R. H. 2000. Personality and polymorphisms of genes involved in aminergic neurotransmission, European Journal of Pharmacology 410: 205–14 2. Eysenck, H. J. 1977. National differences in personality as related to ABO blood group polymorphism, Psychology Reports 41: 1257–8 3. Revelle, W. 1995. Personality processes, Annual Review of Psychology 46: 295–328 4. Munafò, M. R., Clark, T. G., Moore, L. R., Payne, E., Walton, R. and Flint, J. 2003. Genetic polymorphisms and personality in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Molecular Psychiatry 8: 471–84 Marcus R. Munafò,“Behavioural genetics: from variance to DNA“, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.)2009. The Cambridge handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press Corr I 329 Personality traits/Behavioral Genetics: Behaviour genetic analysis has shown that the two meta-traits have genetic origins (Jang et al. 2006)(1), and evidence is accumulating that Stability (>Personality traits/neurobiology) is related to serotonin, whereas Plasticity may be related to dopamine (DeYoung 2006(2); DeYoung, Peterson and Higgins 2002;(3) Yamagata, Suzuki, Ando et al. 2006)(4). Serotonine and dopamine act as diffuse neuromodulators affecting a wide array of brain systems, and their broad influence is consistent with a role in the broadest level of personality structure. 1. Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., Ando, J., Yamagata, S., Suzuki, A., Angleitner, A., Ostendorf, F., Riemann, R. and Spinath, F. 2006. Behavioural genetics of the higher-order factors of the Big Five, Personality and Individual Differences 41: 261–72 2. DeYoung, C. G. 2006. Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91: 1138–51 3. DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B. and Higgins, D. M. 2002. Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: are there neuroses of health? Personality and Individual Differences 33: 533–52 4. Yamagata, S., Suzuki, A., Ando, J., Ono, Y., Kijima, N., Yoshimura, K., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., Livesley, W. J. and Jang, K. L. 2006. Is the genetic structure of human personality universal? A cross-cultural twin study from North America, Europe, and Asia, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90: 987–98 Colin G. DeYoung and Jeremy R. Gray, „ Personality neuroscience: explaining individual differences in affect, behaviour and cognition“, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
| Selection | Mayr | I 65 Natural selection/Mayr: is no random process. (Although coincidence happens in evolution). >Mutation. I 248 Selection/Mayr: is today completely accepted. Two steps: variation and actual selection. 1. Variation: In each generation, recombination, gene flow, random factors and mutations generate a great genetic diversity. The genetic material is "hard" and not "soft", as Darwin assumed. >Randomness, >Necessity. Sexual Reproduction: the parental chromosomes are broken and reassembled. Thus uniqueness of the offspring by recombination. Composition of the genes according to no law! >Genes. I 249 2. Selection: differences in the survival and reproduction of newly formed individuals. >Individuals/Mayr, >Life/Mayr. Even in species producing millions of offspring in each generation, on average, only two of them are needed to maintain population balance. >Species, >Evolution. I 250 Coincidence/Mayr: dominates the variation. Necessity/Mayr: dominates the selection. Selection: there is no "selective force"! I 252 Selection: Bates' discovery of mimicry (1862)(1) in edible and poisonous butterflies: first proof of natural selection. >Mimicry. Benefits/Biology: what is the benefit of the emergence of a characteristic for survival: adaptionist program. Characteristics/Survival: favourable characteristics: Tolerance against adverse climate, better utilisation of food, resistance to pathogens, escape capability. (through sexual reproduction). Selection by females (peacock tail) may be more important than the ability of males to defeat rivals. >Features/Mayr. I 253 Brother and sister rivalry and parental care: affect reproductive success rather than survival. This selection is apparently more important than the concept of sexual selection suggests. I 260 Extinction: 99.9% of all evolutionary lines that once existed on Earth are extinct. Selection: Darwin: "Natural selection is on an hourly basis all over the world to detect the slightest changes".(2) I 261 Selection/MayrVsDarwin: the genetic variation needed to perfect a characteristic may not occur at all! For example, the inner/outer skeleton: vertebrates up to the dinosaur, outer skeleton: the giant crab has remained the largest creature. The difference is determined by the different paths taken by the ancestors, not by the presence of characteristics! I 262 Selection/Mayr: further restriction: interaction in development. The parts of the organism are not independent of each other. No one reacts to the selection without interacting with the other characteristics. Geoffroys, 1818(3): "Law of Balance": Organisms are compromises between competing demands. Selection/Mayr: 3rd Restriction: Ability to non-genetic modification: the more plastic the phenotype (due to flexibility in development) is, the less the force of selection pressure. Plants (and especially microorganisms) have a much greater ability to phenotypic modification (more diverse reaction standard) than animals. Ability for non-genetic adaptation is exclusively genetically controlled! Coincidence: works at every level. I 264 New: whole populations or even species could be the target of the selection. I 265 Soft/hard group selection: Soft group selection: Success through the average selection value of the individuals. This means that each individual selection is also a soft group selection. Hard group selection: the group as a whole has certain adaptive group characteristics that are not simply the sum of the contributions, the advantage of the group is greater than that of the sum of the individual members. >Adaption. Division of labor, cooperation (guardian, search for food). Here the term "group selection" is justified. I 266 Origin of the species: this controversy completely changed the status of so-called species selection: the emergence of a new species seems to contribute very often to the extinction of another species. "Species Exchange," takes place according to strict Darwinian principles. I 279 Definition r-selection: strongly fluctuating, often catastrophically exposed population size, weak intraspecific competition, very fertile. K-Selection: constant population size, strong competition, stable life expectancy. I 280 As population density increases, so too does the influence of adverse factors: competition, food shortages, lack of escape routes, predators, growth slows down. I 317 Could the human being become a superhuman? The odds are not so good here! Not enough selection pressure. Group selection was particularly a thing of the past. Selection/Human: Today, however, in mass society there is no sign of selection for superior genotypes that would allow the human being to rise above its present abilities. Many authors even claim that the human gene pool is decaying. Francis Galton was the first to suggest that one could and should improve humanity with appropriate selection. He coined the term "eugenics". 1. H.W. Bates (1862). Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazon Valley. In: Trans Linn. Soc. London 23. S. 495-566. 2. Ch. Darwin (1859). On the Origin of Species. London: John Murray. 3. E. Geoffroy St. Hilaire (1818). Philosophie anatomique. Paris. |
Mayr I Ernst Mayr This is Biology, Cambridge/MA 1997 German Edition: Das ist Biologie Heidelberg 1998 |
| Similarity | Darwin | Mayr I 190 Similarity: Darwin counts it among the classification criteria, because there is no absolutely direct relationship between branching and divergence. In some trunks, all branches diverge about to the same extent. Language/Evolution: also languages evolve, but not adaptively, but stochastically!E.g. When the Anglo-Saxons colonized the British Isles, they did not have to adapt the language to the climate. The consideration of ecological factors and their effects on the phenotype characterize a Darwinian classification. >Classification. Similarity/Mayr: must be ascertained as a first step, then the genealogy. >Method. |
Mayr I Ernst Mayr This is Biology, Cambridge/MA 1997 German Edition: Das ist Biologie Heidelberg 1998 |
| Sociobiology | Mayr | I 266 Sociobiology/Edward O. Wilson "Sociobiology" (Wilson, 1975). Fired heated controversy about the importance of evolution for social behaviour. Social insects, for example. Uses the term "biological basis" somewhat ambiguously: a) biological basis for behavior (Wilson): genetic disposition contributes to the phenotype of behavior. b) for his politically motivated opponents, this meant "genetically determined". We should probably be degraded to mere machines. But everyone, including Wilson, knows that this is not the case. >E.O. Wilson. (Old system/environment controversy (nature vs nurture)). >Nature vs nurture. Sociobiology/Wilson(1)/Ruse(2): according to their definitions, it should be assumed that the area encompasses all social actions and interactions in animals. This would also include social migration. For example: African ungulates, social migratory birds, migration to spawning sites, etc. However, Wilson and Ruse don not deal with that. I 267 Sociobiology/Wilson/Ruse: Subject: Aggression, sexuality, reproduction strategies of females, altruism, relative selection, parental manipulation, reciprocal altruism. They all increase or decrease reproductive success. Reason for the controversial status of sociobiology: that humans are given little more space than animals. Wilson and Ruse do not call themselves sociobiologists. >Humans, >Animals, >Life, >Evolution. 1. E.O. Wilson (1975). Sociobiology. The new Synthesis. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 2. M. Ruse (1987). Is sociobiology a new paradigm? Philosophy of Science 54 (1):98-104. |
Mayr I Ernst Mayr This is Biology, Cambridge/MA 1997 German Edition: Das ist Biologie Heidelberg 1998 |
| Species | Mayr | Gould I 216 Species/Darwin/Lamarck: Species are no natural units but "purely artificial combinations"... conceptual definitions. >Order, >Systems, >Definitions, >Definability, >Classification. I 217 Species/Ernst MayrVsDarwin/MayrVsLamarck: "Species are a product of evolution and not of the human mind." >Evolution, >Evolution/Mayr. I 179 Definition Species/Mayr: device for protecting balanced, harmonic genotypes. "Biological concept of species" seeks biological reasons for the existence of species. Maybe there are other properties by chance. Biological species concept: 1. Problem: Asexual organisms do not form populations. 2. Problem: Spatial expansion with subspecies. They can become independent species in isolation over time (by acquiring new isolation mechanisms). (polytypical species). I 181 Nominalist concept of species: in nature exclusively individuals, species artificially created by humans (MayrVs: that would be arbitrariness, and nature shows that there is no arbitrariness.). I 182 Evolutionary species concept: temporal dimension, generational series of populations. MayrVs: the concept does not take into account that there are two possible ways of species development: a) Gradual transformation of a stem line into another species without altering the number of species; and b) The reproduction of species through geographical isolation. >Systems, >Definitions, >Definability. I 183 Species/Mayr: is applied to three very different objects or phenomena: 1. The species concept 2. The category species 3. The species taxa Some authors could not differentiate between them, leading to hopeless confusion in literature. Species concept: biological meaning or definition of the word "species". Category Species: certain rank in the Linnéian system. (Other categories: Order, Kingdom, Genus...) Definition Species Taxa: special populations or population groups corresponding to the species definition. They are entities ("individuals") and cannot be defined as such. Individuals cannot be defined, but can only be described and delimited. I 183 Evolution/Mayr: Species is the decisive entity of evolution. Species: a species, regardless of the individuals belonging to it, interacts as a unit with other species in the common environment. I 185 Macrotaxonomy: the classification of species (in higher-level groups) Group: mostly easily recognizable: birds, butterflies, beetles. Downward classification (actual identification). Division (aristotelian), heyday of medicinal botany. E. g. warm-blooded or non-warm-blooded - having or not having feathers. I 192 Organism types: most new types of organisms do not originate from the gradual transformation of a stem line, i. e. an existing type. Rather, a founder species penetrates into a new adaptive zone and is successful there thanks to rapid adaptive changes. For example, the more than 5000 species of songbirds are no more than the variation of a single theme. I 192 Species: the two evolutionary ways to produce a new species: a) gradual change of the phenotype and b) increasing diversity (speciation) are only loosely related. I 192 Selection pressure: may not apply if a founder species enters its very favourable adaptive zone. I 283 Species/Mayr: very conservative estimate of 10 million animal species, of which are ca. 1.5 million described. So about 15% known. Legitimate estimate: 30 million species. Only 5% are known. On the other hand, 99% of all bird species are discovered and described. In many insects, arachnids, low vertebrates probably less than 10%. The same applies to mushrooms, protists and prokaryotes. |
Mayr I Ernst Mayr This is Biology, Cambridge/MA 1997 German Edition: Das ist Biologie Heidelberg 1998 Gould I Stephen Jay Gould The Panda’s Thumb. More Reflections in Natural History, New York 1980 German Edition: Der Daumen des Panda Frankfurt 2009 Gould II Stephen Jay Gould Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes. Further Reflections in Natural History, New York 1983 German Edition: Wie das Zebra zu seinen Streifen kommt Frankfurt 1991 Gould III Stephen Jay Gould Full House. The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin, New York 1996 German Edition: Illusion Fortschritt Frankfurt 2004 Gould IV Stephen Jay Gould The Flamingo’s Smile. Reflections in Natural History, New York 1985 German Edition: Das Lächeln des Flamingos Basel 1989 |
| Terminology | Dawkins | I 27 Def Altruistic/Dawkins: An organism behaves altruistically when it increases the welfare of another at its expense. I 28 Def Well-Being/Dawkins: Well-being is defined as survival chances even if the effect on the actual outlook is so small that it can seem negligible. Egoism/Altruism/Dawkins: oriented on actual behavior, not on intentions. No psychology of motives! I 32 Altruism/Dawkins: Altruism is often falsely attributed: when living creatures actually behave in a way that benefits the "well-being of the species" or "well-being of the group". I 126 Def ESS/Dawkins: an evolutionarilly stable strategy is one that - if the majority of a population adopts it - cannot be overruled by any alternative strategy. ((S) Not defined.) I 447 Narrower Def ESS: a strategy that performs well against copies of itself. It will often encounter copies of itself, since a successful strategy is predominant in a population. I 227 Fitness/Dawkins: The expression should not be used, because it falsely emanates from the individual! Instead, the selfish gene is the only entity that matters! Genes in children are selected because of their ability to override parents, genes in the parents' body vice versa. I 377 Def Extended phenotype/Dawkins: phenotypic effects of a gene are all the effects of a gene on the body in which it sits. But it also affects "the world"! E.g. beavers' dams, birds' nests, shell of the quiver flies (movable cement houses). In difference to the eye as a "miracle of nature", we do not have to attribute these achievements to processes that occur within the mothers' interior. They are achievements of the creating individual. (Usually called "instinct"). I 386 Def haplodiploid: unfertilized eggs develop into males. I.e., e.g., male bark beetles have no father (as is the case with bees and ants). But in the case of the bark beetles something must penetrate the eggs. This task is performed by bacteria. (Parasites). |
Da I R. Dawkins The Selfish Gene, Oxford 1976 German Edition: Das egoistische Gen, Hamburg 1996 Da II M. St. Dawkins Through Our Eyes Only? The Search for Animal Consciousness, Oxford/New York/Heidelberg 1993 German Edition: Die Entdeckung des tierischen Bewusstseins Hamburg 1993 |
| Terminology | Dennett | Fodor IV 139 Def Interpretation Theory/Dennett: thesis: beliefs, desires, etc. are not real (ontologically), but only epistemically useful concepts. Dennett I 520 "Tower of Generation and Testing"/Evolution/Consciousness/Dennett: for a summarizing realization the price of idealization has to be paid. On higher floors we become more efficient in finding new tracks. The ground floor contains the Def Darwinian creatures: (hard wired) that fly out of the test. On the first floor: Baldwin effect: "Plasticity of the phenotype": at birth not completely like the ancestors. Second floor: Def Skinnerian creatures: try blind, reinforcement, next time the creature chooses the right one. Third floor: Def Popperian creatures: have an inner, selected environment, they act foresighted the first time, not coincidentally. |
Dennett I D. Dennett Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, New York 1995 German Edition: Darwins gefährliches Erbe Hamburg 1997 Dennett II D. Dennett Kinds of Minds, New York 1996 German Edition: Spielarten des Geistes Gütersloh 1999 Dennett III Daniel Dennett "COG: Steps towards consciousness in robots" In Bewusstein, Thomas Metzinger Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich 1996 Dennett IV Daniel Dennett "Animal Consciousness. What Matters and Why?", in: D. C. Dennett, Brainchildren. Essays on Designing Minds, Cambridge/MA 1998, pp. 337-350 In Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005 F/L Jerry Fodor Ernest Lepore Holism. A Shoppers Guide Cambridge USA Oxford UK 1992 Fodor I Jerry Fodor "Special Sciences (or The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis", Synthese 28 (1974), 97-115 In Kognitionswissenschaft, Dieter Münch Frankfurt/M. 1992 Fodor II Jerry Fodor Jerrold J. Katz Sprachphilosophie und Sprachwissenschaft In Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995 Fodor III Jerry Fodor Jerrold J. Katz The availability of what we say in: Philosophical review, LXXII, 1963, pp.55-71 In Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995 |
| Terminology | Mayr | I 45 Def genotype: nucleic acids, (total number of genes) Def phenotype: proteins, lipids, macromolecules, (total of characteristics, environmentally dependent). I 43 Def Integron/Mayr: An integron is a system created by integration of subordinate units on a higher level. Integrons evolve by natural selection. They are adapted systems at each level because they contribute to the fitness (suitability) of an individual. I 205 Def Parthenogenesis: Asexuality: in some organisms, individuals develop themselves from the eggs, fertilization is not necessary. E.g. Aphids, plankton crustaceans: here sexual and asexual generations alternate. I 324 Def Altruism: (Trivers, 1985)(1): action that benefits another organism at the expense of the actor, with the costs and benefits being defined as reproductive success. I 175 Def Class/Biology/Mayr: Grouping of entities that are similar and related to each other. Classification: two important functions: a) recovery of information. b) comparative research. Information storage. I 177 Def "Variety": (Linné, even Darwin): Deviations that are slightly smaller than those of a new species. ("typological" or "essential concept of species"). ("Common essence" ("Nature")). I 178 Def Twin species: (discovered only recently: spatially separated, but equally developed, discovered in almost all animal species), forces a new criterion for the delineatation of species: reproductive isolation of populations. I 179 Def Species/Mayr: device for protecting balanced, harmonic genotypes. "Biological concept of species" seeks biological reasons for the existence of species. Maybe there are other properties by chance. I 183 Def Species Taxa: special populations or population groups corresponding to the species definition. They are entities. I 373 Def Similarity: certain characteristics must occur together with other characteristics from which they are logically independent. I 49 Def knowledge/Mayr: facts and their interpretation. I 279 Def r-selection: strongly fluctuating, often catastrophically exposed population size, weak intraspecific competition, very fertile. K-Selection: constant population size, strong competition, stable life expectancy. I 41 Def Reductionism/Mayr: Reductionism considers the problem of explanation fundamentally as solved as soon as the reduction to the smallest components is completed. I 186 Def Feature/Biology/Mayr: a distinguishing feature or attribute. Is arbitrarily chosen by the taxonomists. Often led to very strange "unnatural" groups. At the end of the 18th century, attempts were made to replace the Linné system with a more natural one. I 211 Def Preformation: Eggs produce individuals of the same species. Therefore it was concluded that egg or sperm is already a miniature of the future organism. I 212 Def Epigenesis: Development during the life history of the individual, in contrast to ontogeny and phylogeny. I 219 Def Induction/Biology/Mayr: Influence of already existing tissues on the development of other tissues. By proteins. It is important for almost all organisms. I 349 Def Life/Mayr: Activities of self-developed systems, controlled by a genetic program. Def Life/Rensch(2): Living beings are hierarchically ordered, open systems, predominantly organic compounds, which normally appear as circumscribed, cell-structured individuals of temporally limited constancy. Def Life/Sattler 1986(3): an open system that replicates and regulates itself, shows individuality, and subsists on energy from the environment. MayrVs: all contain superfluous and do not go into the genetic program, which is perhaps the most important. More description than definition. 1. R. L. Trivers (1985). Social evolution. Menlo Park: Benjamin/Cummings. 2. B. Rensch (1968). Biophilosophie. Stuttgart: G. Fischer. S. 54. 3. R. Sattler (1986). Biophilosophy. Berlin: Springer. S. 228. |
Mayr I Ernst Mayr This is Biology, Cambridge/MA 1997 German Edition: Das ist Biologie Heidelberg 1998 |
| Twin Studies | Behavioral Genetics | Corr I 288 Twin studies/behavioral genetics/personality traits/Munafò: the logic of twin studies is that if a behavioural trait is more similar in pairs of MZ (monozygotic) twins than it is in pairs of DZ (dizygotc) twins, then that trait must presumably be under a degree of genetic influence. Corr I 289 The proportion of variation in phenotype that is due to variation in genotype is expressed as the heritability of a trait (h2) – a heritability coefficient of 0.50 means that 50 per cent of the variation in that trait is due to genotypic variation. When we talk about the relative influence of genotype and environment on phenotype we are talking about the relative influence of variability in the former on variability in the latter. Accurate estimates of h2 can be arrived at using structural equation modelling, which assumes that there are three distinct influences on phenotypic variation, comprising additive genetic effects (A), common or shared environmental effects (C), and unique or non-shared environmental effects (E). Such models are often referred to as ACE models. >Heritability/Behavioral genetics. Twin studies consistently report a higher degree of similarity on measures of personality between MZ twins than between DZ twins, suggesting substantial heritability of these traits. For example, data from Canada and Germany (Jang, Livesley and Vernon 2002)(1) on twins who completed the NEO-PI-R indicated correlation coefficients of approximately 0.45 for MZ twins, and 0.20 for DZ twins. 1. Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J. and Vernon, P. A. 1996. Heritability of the big five personality dimensions and their facets, Journal of Personality 64: 577–91 Marcus R. Munafò,“Behavioural genetics: from variance to DNA“, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.)2009. The Cambridge handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deconstructivism | Dennett Vs Deconstructivism | I 155 DNA / Biology: according to some authors the "gene-centered awareness", i.e. the extent to which the DNA determines the phenotype goes too far. DennettVs: that would be an overestimation of the rading mechnanism over the text, as in >deconstructivism. |
Dennett I D. Dennett Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, New York 1995 German Edition: Darwins gefährliches Erbe Hamburg 1997 Dennett II D. Dennett Kinds of Minds, New York 1996 German Edition: Spielarten des Geistes Gütersloh 1999 Dennett III Daniel Dennett "COG: Steps towards consciousness in robots" In Bewusstein, Thomas Metzinger Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich 1996 Dennett IV Daniel Dennett "Animal Consciousness. What Matters and Why?", in: D. C. Dennett, Brainchildren. Essays on Designing Minds, Cambridge/MA 1998, pp. 337-350 In Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005 |
| |||