Hi Gregg,
Here's a link to the article (says it's 2011, though). And yeah, it does seem quite similar to the JH. Once it was brought to his attention, he should have cited you.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.dan.sperber.fr_wp-2Dcontent_uploads_2009_10_MercierSperberWhydohumansreason.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=a988ty0jVu-JGxCHbKDiXhUMLOac90BMODAz46ctiss&s=atnB35doCi6B_uKcFJP2r364QZuIyW9l8vrINlzKWIg&e=
~ Jason
On Sunday, May 27, 2018, 11:14:36 AM EDT, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
#yiv2930072028 #yiv2930072028 -- _filtered #yiv2930072028 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2930072028 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2930072028 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv2930072028 #yiv2930072028 p.yiv2930072028MsoNormal, #yiv2930072028 li.yiv2930072028MsoNormal, #yiv2930072028 div.yiv2930072028MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New serif;}#yiv2930072028 a:link, #yiv2930072028 span.yiv2930072028MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2930072028 a:visited, #yiv2930072028 span.yiv2930072028MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2930072028 p.yiv2930072028msonormal0, #yiv2930072028 li.yiv2930072028msonormal0, #yiv2930072028 div.yiv2930072028msonormal0 {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New serif;}#yiv2930072028 p.yiv2930072028xmsonormal, #yiv2930072028 li.yiv2930072028xmsonormal, #yiv2930072028 div.yiv2930072028xmsonormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New serif;}#yiv2930072028 span.yiv2930072028EmailStyle22 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv2930072028 .yiv2930072028MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv2930072028 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv2930072028 div.yiv2930072028WordSection1 {}#yiv2930072028
Many thanks, Joe. My current thinking is that maybe I will do a review of the book on my blog. I will offer some reflections about the similarities and differences in our approaches.
Here is the exchange that followed (and we have not had any more exchanges):
From: Hugo Mercier [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 10:32 PM
To: Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
Subject: Re: Argumentative Theory and Justification Hypothesis
That was an interesting read!
I think an important differences is that your theory is part of a much broader one about the mind and consciousness, whereas we've tried to be more pointed and only talk about one cognitive mechanism (albeit an important one). We're also stressing more, I guess, the 'reception' side of the story: how reasoning is used not only to produce arguments, but also to evaluate them.
Thanks for sending the papers
take care
hugo
Hi Hugo,
Thanks for taking the time to check out what I sent. I agree with your assessment of the differences. If there are any major developments in your work please let me know.
Best,
Gregg
>>>
From: tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Joseph Michalski
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2018 11:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Argumentative Theory and Justification Hypothesis
Dear Gregg et al.:
From a scientific perspective, the JH actually helps answer the very question you're posing! Plus, it's hard to claim an "original, new" theory if one ends up citing the work of someone else that has framed a similar argument for the past 15 years. The list here has enough experts, though, to comment on the psychological mechanisms at play. I'll comment on the sociological mechanism, i.e., the distinct nature of "status." The challenges of securing and maintaining status, especially in the context of scientific discovery (or any promotion of ideas) is fraught with danger, since status is essentially a zero-sum resource (I gain status at your expense - most dramatically if one thinks about the unique status one has in a monogamous relationship with one's partner, which also explains why "cheating" is especially egregious). I've attached a paper from last year where I outline a general theory of lethal punishment, which outlines the core logic of the importance of status and links that to the logic to the structural foundations of human interactions.
On the more practical side of your question, Gregg, you'll note that I cite extensively the two original authors of the two main theoretical arguments I'm making: Milner and Black. I was always taught that that's an integral part of what we do as scholars. Plus, I've always felt that citing others' work actuallyenhances the credibility of what I'm arguing in showing a certain continuity of thinking within a broader community. Of course, I have no illusions about winning a Nobel prize or authoring a best-seller that will make me famous! But the bottom line is that it's intellectually dishonest not to credit ideas as appropriate, especially if known. Curiously, did Hugo ever get back to you?
Footnote: status (or reputation) = incredibly fragile. A breach in the form of plagiarizing ideas or not acknowledging those who have expressed them previously is one of the "cardinal sins" that actually destroys reputations. Look at how severely we police plagiarism among our students. At my institution, anyone caught has to walk around on campus in perpetuity with a scarlet "P" (for Prynne?) on their clothing...
Best, -Joe
Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
Acting Academic Dean/Associate Academic Dean
King’s University College at Western University
266 Epworth Avenue
London, Ontario, Canada N6A 2M3
Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
Fax: (519) 433-0353
Email: [log in to unmask]
______________________
eiπ + 1 = 0
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2018 10:27 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: FW: Argumentative Theory and Justification Hypothesis
Hi TOK Society,
I have a question for you. It has to do with how much one should insist on being cited. On the one hand, one does not want to be a whiner, and many, many people have the experience that their ideas don’t get the citations or attention that they deserve. I certainly have felt that and have tried to CALM MO it and be careful as to not to be egotistical.
At the same time, it is not appropriate, I don’t think, to be completely ignored and that is what I feel has occurred. So here is the story:
In 2013, I saw an article in a prominent journal, Brain and Behavior Sciences that offered a new theory on the evolution of reasoning that framed it in terms of argumentation and persuasion. Namely, the authors argued that we humans were evolved reasoners so that we could persuade others in arguments. As soon as I saw the article, I contacted the first author, Hugo Mercier, and shared with him my frame. We had a few exchanges (see below).
Well, I just picked up a 2017 book,The Enigma of Reason, that offers an “original, new” theory on why and how humans reason. The central thesis is an evolutionary psychology framework where “reason has two main functions, that of producing reasons for justifying oneself and that of producing arguments to convince others. These two functions rely on the same kind of reasons and are closely related.” (p. 8). The focus is on how reason giving is crucial in social arrangements and for social influence. I am cited nowhere in the book.
I am curious as to what the authors’ justification is for not citing my work. It is one thing to not be aware; I can grant that. But to be contacted by me and to be given the justification framework which has been in print since 2003 and to move one’s theory from a focus on argumentation to a more central focus on justification and not cite existing work just seems to violate basic rules of academic knowledge production.
Would welcome thoughts.
Best,
Gregg
From: Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 8:44 AM
To: Hugo Mercier <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: RE: Argumentative Theory and Justification Hypothesis
Thanks, Hugo. Look forward to it.
G
______________________________________________________________________
Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
Professor
Director, C-I Doc Program
Department of Graduate Psychology
216 Johnston Hall
MSC 7401
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807
(540) 568-7857 (phone)
(540) 568-4747 (fax)
Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.
Check out my Theory of Knowledge blog at Psychology Today at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=a988ty0jVu-JGxCHbKDiXhUMLOac90BMODAz46ctiss&s=LdUrci0jxf4EzjqUUlPmcLW9nfd8hM6ubQ9b5F4JRy0&e=
From: Hugo Mercier [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 11:26 PM
To: Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
Subject: Re: Argumentative Theory and Justification Hypothesis
Hi Gregg,
Thanks a lot for sending this, I'll give the papers a look as soon as possible and get back to you!
Cheers,
Hugo
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi Hugo,
A while back I read your B&BS article on a human theory of reasoning, and I have been meaning to write since then because I had a similar idea that might be of interest to you. It is called the "Justification Hypothesis" and posits that human reasoning evolved because language created the adaptive problem of "reason giving" (aka justifying, which of course overlaps much with arguing). I employ an evolutionary argument and use the lens to understand modern research similar to the work you have done.
Attached are two articles. I particularly recommend scanning the chapter on the JH to get a feel for where our ideas might intersect. I would be happy to discuss this further if you are interested.
Best,
Gregg
______________________________________________________________________
Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
Professor
Director, C-I Doc Program
Department of Graduate Psychology
216 Johnston Hall
MSC 7401
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807
(540) 568-7857 (phone)
(540) 568-4747 (fax)
Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.
Check out my Theory of Knowledge blog at Psychology Today at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=a988ty0jVu-JGxCHbKDiXhUMLOac90BMODAz46ctiss&s=LdUrci0jxf4EzjqUUlPmcLW9nfd8hM6ubQ9b5F4JRy0&e=
--
Hugo Mercier
CNRS Researcher
L2C2 -- Lyon
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sites.google.com_site_hugomercier_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=a988ty0jVu-JGxCHbKDiXhUMLOac90BMODAz46ctiss&s=assytUBoxkcpqioi-_yEkrLuFZL5xxaUQB7XZ2bXJtY&e=
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link:http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link:http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] click the following link:http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
