Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 19 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acquaintance | Schiffer | I 68 Def acquaintance/belief content/Russell/Schiffer: one is known with an aptitude Q when Q occurs unaccompanied by a way of givenness in a proposition, which is the full content of a belief. >Belief content, >Way of givenness, >Proposition. E.g. redness, e.g. squareness. Problem this is not true for "dog": this is composed of a natural kind, expertise, denoting, genotype, etc. - some of them we do not know from acquaintance. >Natural kinds, >Stereotypes, >Knowledge, >Denotation. |
Schi I St. Schiffer Remnants of Meaning Cambridge 1987 |
| Aggression | Molecular Genetics | Slater I 179 Aggression/Molecular Genetics: for literature examining genetic contributions to the development of aggression and how genetic and environmental factors interact to confer risk see Beisky & Pluess, 2009(1); Dick et al., 2006)(2). >Aggression/Bandura, >Aggression/Developmental psychology, >Bobo doll study/Bandura. Bandura: In assigning participants to control and experimental groups in the Bobo doll study, Bandura et al.(3) recognized that children initially predisposed to aggressive behavior might be more susceptible to imitating novel aggressive behaviors than children not predisposed to aggressive behavior would be and therefore matched children on levels of aggression before randomly assigning them to a control or experimental group. There is now empirical evidence that particular genes confer risk for the development of aggressive behavior, but this genetic risk can be moderated by environmental factors (Caspi et al., 2002(4); Dodge, 2009(5)). For example, variants of the CHRM2 gene are differentially associated with trajectories of externalizing behavior (including aggression), but links between the risky variant of CHRM2 and externalizing are exacerbated for adolescents who affiliate with deviant peers (Latendresse et al., 2011)(6). Dick et al. (2009)(7) demonstrated that adolescents carrying a risky GABRA2 genotype were likely to have persistently high levels of externalizing behavior from early adolescence into adulthood; however GABRA2 genotype interacted with parental monitoring such that the link between GABRA2 and high externalizing behavior was weakened by high levels of parental monitoring. 1. Beisky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond diathesis stress: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 885—908. 2. Dick, D. M., Bierut, L., Hinrichs, A., Fox, L., Buchoiz, K. K., Kramer, J., Kuperman, S., Hasseibrock, V., Schuckit, M., & Almasy, L. (2006). The role of GABRA2 in risk for conduct disorder and alcohol and drug dependence across different developmental stages. Behavior Genetics, 36, 577—590. 3. Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575—582. 4. Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, T. E., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, I. W., Taylor, A., & Poulton, R. (2002). Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297, 851—854. 5. Dodge, K. A. (2009). Mechanisms of gene-environment interaction effects in the development of conduct disorder. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 4, 408—414. 6. Latendresse, S. J., Bates, J. E., Goodmight, J. A., Lansford, J. E., Budde, J. P., Goate, A., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Dick, D. M. (2011). Differential susceptibility to adolescent externalizing trajectories: Examining the interplay between CHRM2 and peer group antisocial behavior. Child Development, 82, 1797—18 14. 7. Dick, D. M., Latendresse, S. J., Lansford, J. E., Budde, J. P., Goate, A., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates J. E. (2009). The role of GABRA2 in trajectories of externalizing behavior across development and evidence of moderation by parental monitoring. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66, 649—657. Jenifer E. Lansford, “Aggression. Beyond Bandura’s Bobo Doll Studies“, in: Alan M. Slater and Paul C. Quinn (eds.) 2012. Developmental Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies. London: Sage Publications |
Slater I Alan M. Slater Paul C. Quinn Developmental Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2012 |
| Altruism | Mayr | I 319 Behavior/Genes/Mayr: genes also contribute to the behavior and personality of man. E.g. mathematical gifts, craftsmanship, musicality, clumsiness. >Genes, >Personality, >Personality traits. I 323 Natural selection: if it only rewards self-interest, how could ethics and, for example, altruism develop? >Selection. Huxley was right with his presumption that the self-interest of the individual somehow contradicted the benefit of society. Cf. >Altruism. 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. Altruism/Comte: Care for the welfare of others. >A. Comte. Altruism/Mayr: is not limited to cases of danger or harm to the altruist. Three things need to be distinguished (already Darwin): Selection/Individual: An individual is the object of selection in three respects: as an individual, as a family member (reproducer), and as member of a social group. The human dilemmas are only to be understood with regard to this triad. I 325 Altruism/Overall Suitability: is found in many animals, especially with parental care and large families. Defense of the offspring by the mother. This behavior is favored by natural selection, since it improves the fitness of the common genotype of the altruist and its beneficiaries. Selection of relatives. Indirectly rather self-serving. Seemingly altruistic. >Altruism. Some authors believe that human ethics replaced altruism directed towards overall suitability. Mayr: I recognize many actions directed toward overall suitability in the behavior of humans: for example mother's love, moral attitude towards strangers. However, only a small part of today's ethics systems. Social animals: possess a remarkable ability to recognize their relatives. I 327 Reciprocal altruism: in solitary animals. Synergy of two non-related animals for mutual benefit. E.g. cleaner wrasse, alliance of two individuals fighting a third. For primates: a kind of consideration: if I help this individual, it will help me. Perhaps a root of human morality. Human/Mayr: all the great achievements of mankind were accomplished by less than one per cent of the total population. Without reward and recognition our society would soon break apart. I 328 Human: The entire history of the hominids is characterized by strong group-selection (already Darwin). I 329 Altruism/Behavior/Mayr: In contrast to individual selection, group selection can reward genuine altruism and other virtues. Ethical behavior is adaptive in humans. >Adaption. Sociality: not all collections of animals are social. E.g. schools of young fish and the huge herds of African ungulates are not. Real altruism: can be extended to non-relatives. For example, baboons. Some hominids must have discovered that larger groups have more chances. I 330 Norms: To be able to apply group norms, the brain had to develop the ability to think. >Norms, >Thinking. Ethics: two conditions for ethical behavior (Simpson, 1969)(2): 1) There are alternatives 2) The alternatives can be assessed 3) The person can decide freely This means that consequences are anticipated and responsibility is assumed. >Responsibility, >Prediction. Ethics/Cause: it is not possible to determine the cause and effect of ethics. >Ethics, >Morals. 1. R. L. Trivers (1985). Social evolution. Menlo Park: Benjamin/Cummings. 2. G. G. Simpson (1969). On the Uniqueness of Man: Biology and Man. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. |
Mayr I Ernst Mayr This is Biology, Cambridge/MA 1997 German Edition: Das ist Biologie Heidelberg 1998 |
| Behavior | Mayr | I 319 Behavior/Genes/Mayr: genes also contribute to the behavior and personality of man. E.g. mathematical gifts, craftsmanship, musicality, clumsiness. >Genes, >Personality, >Personality traits. I 323 Natural selection: if it only rewards self-interest, how could ethics and, for example, altruism develop? >Selection. Huxley was right with his presumption that the self-interest of the individual somehow contradicted the benefit of society. Cf. >Altruism. 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. Altruism/Comte: Care for the welfare of others. >A. Comte. Altruism/Mayr: is not limited to cases of danger or harm to the altruist. Three things need to be distinguished (already Darwin): Selection/Individual: An individual is the object of selection in three respects: as an individual, as a family member (reproducer), and as member of a social group. The human dilemmas are only to be understood with regard to this triad. I 325 Altruism/Overall Suitability: is found in many animals, especially with parental care and large families. Defense of the offspring by the mother. This behavior is favored by natural selection, since it improves the fitness of the common genotype of the altruist and its beneficiaries. Selection of relatives. Indirectly rather self-serving. Seemingly altruistic. >Altruism. Some authors believe that human ethics replaced altruism directed towards overall suitability. Mayr: I recognize many actions directed toward overall suitability in the behavior of humans: for example mother's love, moral attitude towards strangers. However, only a small part of today's ethics systems. Social animals: possess a remarkable ability to recognize their relatives. I 327 Reciprocal altruism: in solitary animals. Synergy of two non-related animals for mutual benefit. E.g. cleaner wrasse, alliance of two individuals fighting a third. For primates: a kind of consideration: if I help this individual, it will help me. Perhaps a root of human morality. Human/Mayr: all the great achievements of mankind were accomplished by less than one per cent of the total population. Without reward and recognition our society would soon break apart. I 328 Human: The entire history of the hominids is characterized by strong group-selection (already Darwin). I 329 Altruism/Behavior/Mayr: In contrast to individual selection, group selection can reward genuine altruism and other virtues. Ethical behavior is adaptive in humans. >Adaption. Sociality: not all collections of animals are social. E.g. schools of young fish and the huge herds of African ungulates are not. Real altruism: can be extended to non-relatives. For example, baboons. Some hominids must have discovered that larger groups have more chances. I 330 Norms: To be able to apply group norms, the brain had to develop the ability to think. >Norms, >Thinking. Ethics: two conditions for ethical behavior (Simpson, 1969)(2): 1) There are alternatives 2) The alternatives can be assessed 3) The person can decide freely This means that consequences are anticipated and responsibility is assumed. >Responsibility, >Prediction. Ethics/Cause: it is not possible to determine the cause and effect of ethics. >Ethics, >Morals. 1. R. L. Trivers (1985). Social evolution. Menlo Park: Benjamin/Cummings. 2. G. G. Simpson (1969). On the Uniqueness of Man: Biology and Man. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. |
Mayr I Ernst Mayr This is Biology, Cambridge/MA 1997 German Edition: Das ist Biologie Heidelberg 1998 |
| 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 |
| Concepts | Schiffer | I 63 Def Individual concept/Naturally/Russell: "the P" that is the property of unambiguously having P - nothing else has it - may contain yourself and the present moment. >Individual concept. Definite description: the thing that is now R (relation) for me = reduction to thoughts de re. >Description, >Definite description. (EP) (Emily instantiates the P and the B (Ralph The proposition >Individuation, >Uniqueness, cf. >One. I 66 Problem/Schiffer: that is not sufficient for believing that something is a dog, because you can believe that something belongs to a biological genotype, without believing that it is a dog. >Elm Trees/Beech Trees. Wrong: "species of these things" - could be mammal, pet, male, spaniel etc. >Reference class. Complete content: is never of biological nature: it does not work with children. - E.g. shepherd dog is more wolf-like than a poodle. I 68 Not a metalingual individual concept: "What experts call a dog": 1) not manageable 2) no property that only dogs have. |
Schi I St. Schiffer Remnants of Meaning Cambridge 1987 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Intelligence | Neurobiology | Corr I 336 Intelligence/Openness/Neurobiology: Openness/Intellect is the only Big Five trait consistently positively associated with intelligence, and one study found it to be the only Big Five trait associated with performance on a battery of working memory and cognitive control tests (DeYoung, Peterson and Higgins 2005)(1), all of which had been validated through neuroimaging and brain lesion studies as indices of dorsolateral prefrontal cortical function. >Openness, >Five-factor model, >Big Five, >Working memory, >Peformance. Dopamine may be involved in Openness/Intellect (DeYoung, Peterson and Higgins 2005(1); Harris, Wright, Hayward et al. 2005(2)); dopamine strongly modulates the function of lateral prefrontal cortex (Arnsten and Robbins 2002(3)) and has been linked to individual differences in fluid intelligence and working memory through genomics, pharmacological manipulation and neuroimaging (e.g., Volkow 1998(4); Mattay, Goldberg, Fera et al. 2003(5)). Corr I 337 Fluid intelligence and working memory seem to be related primarily to the aspect of Openness/Intellect that can be described as Intellect, whereas crystallized or verbal intelligence is associated not only with Intellect but also with the artistic and contemplative traits that characterize the Openness aspect of the domain (DeYoung, Peterson and Higgins 2005(1); DeYoung, Quilty and Peterson 2007)(6). >Creativity. 1. 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 2. Harris, S. E., Wright, A. F., Hayward, C., Starr, J. M., Whalley, L. J. and Deary, I. J. 2005. The functional COMT polymorphism, Val158Met, is associated with logical memory and the personality trait intellect/imagination in a cohort of healthy 79 year olds, Neuroscience Letters 385: 1–6 3. Arnsten, A. F. T. and Robbins, T. W. 2002. Neurochemical modulation of prefrontal cortical function, in D. T. Stuss and R. T. Knight (eds.), Principles of frontal lobe function, pp. 51–84. New York: Oxford University Press 4. Volkow, N. D., Gur, R. C., Wang, G.-J., Fowler, J. S., Moberg, P. J., Ding, Y.-S., Hitzemann, R., Smith, G. and Logan, J. 1998. Association between decline in brain dopamine activity with age and cognitive and motor impairment in healthy individuals, American Journal of Psychiatry 155: 344–9 5. Mattay, V. S., Goldberg, T. E., Fera, F., Hariri, A. R., Tessitore, A., Egan, M. F., Kolachana, B., Callicott, J. H. and Weinberger, D. R. 2003. Catechol O-methyltransferase val158-met genotype and individual variation in the brain response to amphetamine, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100: 6186–91 6. DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C. and Peterson, J. B. 2007. Between facets and domains: ten aspects of the Big Five, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93: 880–96 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 |
| Observation | Comparative Psychology | Corr I 275 Observation/comparative psychology/personality/Gosling: To address concerns about the existence of personality in animals, Gosling, Lilienfeld and Marino (2003(1); see also Gosling and Vazire 2002(2)) recently adopted three criteria from the debate concerning the existence of personality in humans (Kenrick and Funder 1988)(3): (1) assessments by independent observers must agree with one another; (2) those assessments must predict behaviours and real-world outcomes; and (3) observer ratings must be shown to reflect genuine attributes of the individuals rated, not just the observers’ implicit theories about how personality traits co-vary. Corr I 276 Ad (1) Studies of humans rating other humans typically elicit inter-observer agreement correlations in the region of .50 (e.g., Funder, Kolar and Blackman 1995)(4), supporting the idea that humans agree with their ratings of one another and providing a standard by which judgements of animals can be evaluated. There is now a substantial corpus of research showing that observers agree strongly in their ratings of animals. Gosling (2001(5)) summarized the findings from twenty-one rating studies of animal personality; the mean inter-observer agreement correlation was .52, matching the magnitude of consensus correlations from human research. Ad (2) E.g. Personality traits have been shown to predict specific behaviours (e.g., Pederson, King and Landau 2005)(6), occupational success (e.g., Maejima Inoue-Murayama, Tonosaki et al. 2006)(7), and health outcomes. Corr I 277 Ad (3) The factors obtained from behavioural codings resemble factors obtained from observer ratings, suggesting that both methods assess the same underlying constructs (Gosling and John 1999)(8). Overall, the findings suggest that the structure of personality ratings is based, at least in part, on real attributes of the individuals being rated. Animal personality/observation/differences: The concept of animal personality is tightly tied to the existence of individual differences; that is, a personality trait can be identified only if individuals vary on that trait. >Animals, >Animal studies, >Animal models, >Animal language, >Personality, >Personality traits, >S.D. Gosling, >K. Sterelny, >J. Proust, >D. Radner. 1. Gosling, S. D., Lilienfeld, S. O. and Marino, L. 2003. Personality, in D. Maestripieri (ed.), Primate psychology: the mind and behaviour of human and nonhuman primates, pp. 254–88. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 2. Gosling, S. D. and Vazire, S. 2002. Are we barking up the right tree? Evaluating a comparative approach to personality, Journal of Research in Personality 36: 607–14 3. Kenrick, D. T. and Funder, D. C. 1988. Profiting from controversy: lessons from the person-situation debate, American Psychologist 43: 23–34 4. Funder, D. C. Kolar, D. C. and Blackman, M. C. 1995. Agreement among judges of personality: interpersonal relations, similarity, and acquaintance, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69: 656–72 5. Gosling, S. D. 2001. From mice to men: what can we learn about personality from animal research?, Psychological Bulletin 127: 45–86 6 .Pederson, A. K., King, J. E. and Landau, V. I. 2005. Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) personality predicts behaviour, Journal of Research in Personality 39: 534–49 7. Maejima, M., Inoue-Murayama, M., Tonosaki, K., Matsuura, N., Kato, S., Saito, Y., Weiss, A., Murayama, Y. and Ito, S. 2006. Traits and genotypes may predict the successful training of drug detection dogs, Applied Animal Behaviour Science 0168–1591 8. Gosling, S. D. and John, O. P. 1999. Personality dimensions in non-human animals: a cross-species review, Current Directions in Psychological Science 8: 69–75 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 |
| Openness | Neurobiology | Corr I 336 Intelligence/Openness/Neurobiology: Openness/Intellect is the only Big Five trait consistently positively associated with intelligence, and one study found it to be the only Big Five trait associated with performance on a battery of working memory and cognitive control tests (DeYoung, Peterson and Higgins 2005)(1), all of which had been validated through neuroimaging and brain lesion studies as indices of dorsolateral prefrontal cortical function. >Openness, >Big Five, >Five-factor model, >Working memory, >Peformance. Dopamine may be involved in Openness/Intellect (DeYoung, Peterson and Higgins 2005(1); Harris, Wright, Hayward et al. 2005(2)); dopamine strongly modulates the function of lateral prefrontal cortex (Arnsten and Robbins 2002(3)) and has been linked to individual differences in fluid intelligence and working memory through genomics, pharmacological manipulation and neuroimaging (e.g., Volkow 1998(4); Mattay, Goldberg, Fera et al. 2003(5)). Corr I 337 Fluid intelligence and working memory seem to be related primarily to the aspect of Openness/Intellect that can be described as Intellect, whereas crystallized or verbal intelligence is associated not only with Intellect but also with the artistic and contemplative traits that characterize the Openness aspect of the domain (DeYoung, Peterson and Higgins 2005(1); DeYoung, Quilty and Peterson 2007)(6). >Creativity. 1. 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 2. Harris, S. E., Wright, A. F., Hayward, C., Starr, J. M., Whalley, L. J. and Deary, I. J. 2005. The functional COMT polymorphism, Val158Met, is associated with logical memory and the personality trait intellect/imagination in a cohort of healthy 79 year olds, Neuroscience Letters 385: 1–6 3. Arnsten, A. F. T. and Robbins, T. W. 2002. Neurochemical modulation of prefrontal cortical function, in D. T. Stuss and R. T. Knight (eds.), Principles of frontal lobe function, pp. 51–84. New York: Oxford University Press 4. Volkow, N. D., Gur, R. C., Wang, G.-J., Fowler, J. S., Moberg, P. J., Ding, Y.-S., Hitzemann, R., Smith, G. and Logan, J. 1998. Association between decline in brain dopamine activity with age and cognitive and motor impairment in healthy individuals, American Journal of Psychiatry 155: 344–9 5. Mattay, V. S., Goldberg, T. E., Fera, F., Hariri, A. R., Tessitore, A., Egan, M. F., Kolachana, B., Callicott, J. H. and Weinberger, D. R. 2003. Catechol O-methyltransferase val158-met genotype and individual variation in the brain response to amphetamine, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100: 6186–91 6. DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C. and Peterson, J. B. 2007. Between facets and domains: ten aspects of the Big Five, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93: 880–96 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 |
| Reaction Range | Jensen | Slater I 124 Reaction range/genetic theories/psychology/Jensen: the genetic concept of “reaction range,” [indicates] the observation that the same genotype can give rise to rather different observable traits in different environments. Jensen (1969(1) discussed this problem on pages 63-64. Another problem is, that different genotypes may show different reaction ranges: some may be more buffered than others from environmental circumstances. [Jensen] noted that this implies that heritability estimates may vary for subgroups within population groups, specifically pointing out that no estimates of the heritability of intelligence were available to African-American groups, and that samples that included European-Americans of the same lower SES (socioeconomic status) level as many African-Americans were not sufficiently relevant, as the SES measure might not reflect racial differences in the environmental conditions that actually impact development of intelligence and/or academic performance. >Intelligence tests/Jensen, >Heritability/Jensen. 1. Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 3, 1–123. Wendy Johnson: „How Much Can We Boost IQ? Updated Look at Jensen’s (1969) Question and Answer“, in: Alan M. Slater & Paul C. Quinn (eds.) 2012. Developmental Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies. London: Sage Publications |
Slater I Alan M. Slater Paul C. Quinn Developmental Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2012 |
| 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 |
| 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 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Block, Ned | Schiffer Vs Block, Ned | I 40 Psychofunctionalism/Block: (naming by Block 1980a): is supposed to be a scientific cognitive psychological theory (BlockVsFolk psychology. SchifferVsPsychofunctionalism/SchifferVsBlock: 1. If there is such a scientific theory that identifies each belief characteristic of a functional property, then this theory is neither known nor formulated yet devised. So Block has to say that there must be a theory Ts that nobody ever thought of so that Bel = BelTs. This theory could not define belief, but discover its reference. The idea would be: Def belief that p/Ts: be a token of the Z-type, having the Ts correlated functional role of BelTs.(p). I.e. the role that will be indexed by (the proposition) p in Ts. Schiffer: this would be a necessary truth, but one that would be only a postieriori knowable after the theory Ts would be brought up. SchifferVsBlock: why on earth must the reference or extension of a belief E.g. that bugs are mortal, be revealed by a theory that no one knows? VsSchiffer: one could argue, in the same way, E.g. as it was eventually discovered that dogs have this and that genotype (set of genes). ((s) meaning empirically) SchifferVsVs: 1. scientists cannot discover this! Science/Philosophy/Schiffer: thesis: Scientists cannot discover that to be a dog = to be from a particular genotype (set of genes). Science: might only determine all phenotypic (appearancewise) and behavioral features of the past, present and future, with which we identify dogs, but to derive a property-identity with the genotype from this, we need a philosophical theory that a) contains a completion from to be a dog = to be from this and that genotype, if... and b) contains in connection with the scientific discovery that I 41 to be a dog = to be from this and that genotype. ((s) no additional condition). SchifferVsBlock/SchifferVsPsychofunctionalism: if there were a philosophical theory of this strength, it is unknown to me. It could take the form of a meaning theory for "dog". Problem: the theories that have been developed by Kripke/Putnam for natural-.species terms, are unsuitable for belief predicates. SchifferVsPsychofunctionalism: has no more credibility than the credibility that there is a correct semantic theory of belief predicates that contains, along with a scientific psychological theory Ts Bel = BelTs. Problem: There is not the slightest reason to assume that such a semantic theory for belief predicates exists. 2. VsBlock: that a psychological theory can determine the extension for "believes", it has to be able to use the word! Problem: it is unlikely that the ultimately correct cognitive theory will work with folk psychological concepts! ((s) But it must be translatable into everyday language (> universalism of everyday language). The functional architecture may simply be too rich and fine. (Churchland 1981, Stich 1983, Dennett 1986). SchifferVsUniversalism of everyday language: the everyday language concepts may be too blunt. Some authors/Schiffer: might be inclined to say: "then there is just nothing, which corresponds to belief." SchifferVs: it misses the ultimate in our everyday language psychological terms. (see below 6.4). I 42 3. SchifferVsPsychofunctionalism: even if a scientific theory on functional states of belief has to quantify, we have to probably not construct it as a relation to propositions. Psychology / Schiffer: a scientific psychological theory (cognitive) is quantifying over functions of external indices for functional roles on internal physical states, external indices: do not have to be propositions but can also be phrases or formulas. Even uninterpreted formulas! (see below) 1. Thesis: if propositions are good indices for a functional theory, then phrases or interpreted formulas of a formal language could be it just as well. (Field, 1978, Loar 1981). 2. Content/cognitive psychology/attribution/belief/Schiffer: the psychological theory probably needs nothing more than uninterpreted formulas, not even sentences (not propositions anyway). ((s) belief or belief attribution could be explained scientifically without the use of content). Psychology/belief/Field: (1978, 102): if psychology describes the laws that lead from input to belief and from belief to action, then semantic characterizations of belief are superfluous. (see also Field 1986b, Fodor 1980, Loar 1981, Schiffer 1981a, Stich 1983). I 44 4. SchifferVsBlock/SchifferVsPsychofunctionalism: it is absurd to assume that there is a single theory about beliefs and desires that is weak enough that is applicable to all kinds of believers, and at the same time strong enough to establish a functional property for each belief. Such a theory would have to uniformly explain the belief settings of such diverse people as normal adults, children, natives and disabled. Problem: for this a necessary condition to believe something would be needed ((s) stronger/weaker/(s): strong theory: defines details. Weak: is applicable to many). 5. SchifferVsBlock/SchifferVsPsychofunctionalism: E.g. Twin earth, E.g. Arthritis: to explain these cases we need a sufficient condition to believe something. Twin Earth/TE/Arthritis/Schiffer: we need sufficient conditions for belief, so that the Ts-correlated functional roles are held by Ralph but not by Twin Earth Ralph and by Alfred in w but not in w’ where the use of "arthritis" is correct. |
Schi I St. Schiffer Remnants of Meaning Cambridge 1987 |
| Psychofunctionalism | Schiffer Vs Psychofunctionalism | I 40 Psychofunctionalism/Block: (naming by Block 1980a): should be a scientific cognitive psychological theory (BlockVsFolk psychology). SchifferVsPsychofunctionalism/SchifferVsBlock: 1. If there is such a scientific theory that identifies each belief property of a functional property, then this theory is neither known nor formulated yet devised. So Block must say that there must be a theory Ts nobody ever thought of so that Bel = BelTs. This theory could not define belief, but discover its reference. The idea would be: Def belief that p/Ts: to be a token of the z-type, that has the Ts-correlated functional role of BelTs.(p). That means the role that is indexed by (the proposition) p in Ts. Schiffer: this would be a necessary truth, but one that would be only a posteriori knowable after the theory Ts was excavated. Science: might just might find all phenotypic (apparition moderate) and behavioral features of the past, present and future, with which we identify dogs, but to derive a property-identity with the genotype from it, we need a philosophical theory that a) contains a completion of to be a dog = to be of this and that genotype, if... and b) includes in connection with the scientific discovery that I 41 to be a dog = to be of this and that genotype. ((s) without additional condition). SchifferVsBlock/SchifferVsPsychofunctionalism: if there should be a philosophical theory of this strength, it is not known to me. It could take the form of a meaning theory for "dog". Problem: the theories developed by Kripke/Putnam for natural-.type concepts, are unsuitable for belief predicates. (…+…) |
Stephen Schiffer I St. Schiffer Remnants of Meaning Cambridge (MIT) 1987 |
| |||
The author or concept searched is found in the following 2 theses of the more related field of specialization.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Natural Kind | Kripke, S.A. | Schiffer I 56 natural way / Kripke / Putnam: it seems reasonable to assume that the element-ness is determined in a natural way by empirically established internal structures. I 277 Not all biologists agree that natural kinds are determined by the genotype. Staln I 79 natural kind/ Kripke (1972) names for natural kinds express essential properties. Names for species are referential terms - unlike regular expressions for properties. |
|
| Genotype | Schiffer, St. | I 40 Science/Philosophy/Schiffer: Thesis: scientists cannot even discover that a dog can be = of a certain genotype (totality of genes). Science: could only perhaps identify all the phenotypic and behavioural traits of the past, present and future with which we identify dogs, but to derive a trait identity with the genotype from it, we need a philosophical theory that (a) contains a complement of to be a dog = of that and that genotype, if... and (b) in conjunction with the scientific discovery, implies that I 41 to be a dog = of that and that genotype. ((s) without additional condition). |
|
| |||