Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0489271 = product of:
  0.07339065 = sum of:
    0.05296654 = weight(_text_:social in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05296654 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
    0.020424107 = product of:
      0.040848214 = sum of:
        0.040848214 = weight(_text_:22 in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040848214 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Anthropological inquiry suggests that all societies classify animals and plants in similar ways. Paradoxically, in the same cultures that have seen large advances in biological science, citizenry's practical knowledge of nature has dramatically diminished. Here we describe historical, cross-cultural and developmental research on how people ordinarily conceptualize organic nature (folkbiology), concentrating on cognitive consequences associated with knowledge devolution. We show that results on psychological studies of categorization and reasoning from "standard populations" fail to generalize to humanity at large. Usual populations (Euro-American college students) have impoverished experience with nature, which yields misleading results about knowledge acquisition and the ontogenetic relationship between folkbiology and folkpsychology. We also show that groups living in the same habitat can manifest strikingly distinct behaviors, cognitions and social relations relative to it. This has novel implications for environmental decision making and management, including commons problems.

Date

23. 1.2022 10:22:18

0.046526365 = product of:
  0.13957909 = sum of:
    0.13957909 = weight(_text_:social in 2146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13957909 = score(doc=2146,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.69660133 = fieldWeight in 2146, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2146)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Vgl. Original unter: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627315005243: "Morais Tavares, R., A. Mendelsohn, Y.Grossman, C.H. Williams, M. Shapiro, Y. Trope u. D. Schiller: A Map for Social Navigation in the Human Brain" in. Neuron 87(2015) no.1, S,231-243. [Deciphering the neural mechanisms of social behavior has propelled the growth of social neuroscience. The exact computations of the social brain, however, remain elusive. Here we investigated how the human br ain tracks ongoing changes in social relationships using functional neuroimaging. Participants were lead characters in a role-playing game in which they were to find a new home and a job through interactions with virtual cartoon characters. We found that a two-dimensional geometric model of social relationships, a "social space" framed by power and affiliation, predicted hippocampal activity. Moreover, participants who reported better social skills showed stronger covariance between hippocampal activity and "movement" through "social space." The results suggest that the hippocampus is crucial for social cognition, and imply that beyond framing physical locations, the hippocampus computes a more general, inclusive, abstract, and multidimensional cognitive map consistent with its role in episodic memory.].

0.020807223 = product of:
  0.06242167 = sum of:
    0.06242167 = weight(_text_:social in 4473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06242167 = score(doc=4473,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 4473, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4473)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

"Overflowing inboxes, endlessly topped up by incoming emails. Constant alerts, notifications and text messages on your smartphone and computer. Infinitely scrolling streams of social-media posts. Access to all the music ever recorded, whenever you want it. And a deluge of high-quality television, with new series released every day on Netflix, Amazon Prime and elsewhere. The bounty of the internet is a marvellous thing, but the ever-expanding array of material can leave you feeling overwhelmed, constantly interrupted, unable to concentrate or worried that you are missing out or falling behind. No wonder some people are quitting social media, observing "digital sabbaths" when they unplug from the internet for a day, or buying old-fashioned mobile phones in an effort to avoid being swamped. This phenomenon may seem quintessentially modern, but it dates back centuries, as Ann Blair of Harvard University observes in "Too Much to Know", a history of information overload. Half a millennium ago, the printing press was to blame. "Is there anywhere on Earth exempt from these swarms of new books?" moaned Erasmus in 1525. New titles were appearing in such abundance, thousands every year. How could anyone figure out which ones were worth reading? Overwhelmed scholars across Europe worried that good ideas were being lost amid the deluge. Francisco Sanchez, a Spanish philosopher, complained in 1581 that 10m years was not long enough to read all the books in existence. The German polymath Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz grumbled in 1680 of "that horrible mass of books which keeps on growing"."

0.020807223 = product of:
  0.06242167 = sum of:
    0.06242167 = weight(_text_:social in 5260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06242167 = score(doc=5260,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 5260, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5260)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Es handelt sich hier um einen aus Krankheitsgründen nicht gehaltenen und erweiterten Beitrag zu einer Podiumsdiskussion auf der diesjährigen iConference in Sheffield (März 2018), die unter dem Titel "Curating the Infosphere" den Ansatz von Luciano Floridi zu einer umfassenden philosophisch-logischen Informationswissenschaft kritisch diskutierte. Während Floridi an seinem sehr weitreichenden Konzept der PI (Philosophy of Information) auf der Basis seiner GDI (General Definition of Information) arbeitet, ist außerhalb unseres Feldes die Social Epistemology der BibliothekswissenschaftlerInnen Margeret Egan und Jesse Shera wieder in den Blick der Erkenntnistheorie geraten. Ferner ist zu beobachten, dass sich andere Wissenschaften in großem Maße des Phänomens Information bemächtigen und es in ihr Wissenschaftsgebäude einbauen. Der vorliegende Text ist ein Plädoyer, genauer hinzuschauen, worum es der Informationswissenschaft ursprünglich ging und dafür, dass sie bei dem großen transdisziplinären Projekt mitwirken sollte, das andere Wissenschaften betreiben.

0.0045386907 = product of:
  0.013616072 = sum of:
    0.013616072 = product of:
      0.027232144 = sum of:
        0.027232144 = weight(_text_:22 in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027232144 = score(doc=3335,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)