Methods,minds, memory,and kinds

ABSTRACT

The acquisition of a skill, or knowledge-how, on the one hand, and the acquisition of a piece of propositional knowledge on the other, appear to be different sorts of epistemic achievements. Does this difference lie in the nature of the knowledge involved, marking a joint between knowledge-how and propositional knowledge? Intellectualists say no: All knowledge is propositional knowledge. Anti-intellectualists say yes: Knowledge-how and propositional knowledge are different in kind. What resources or methods may we legitimately and fruitfully employ to adjudicate this debate? What is (or are) the right way(s) to show the nature of the knowledge knowers know? Here too there is disagreement. I defend the legitimacy of the anti-intellectualist appeal to cognitive neuroscientific findings against a recent claim that anti-intellectualists conflate the scientific categories of procedural and declarative knowledge with the mental kinds of skill (knowledge-how) and propositional knowledge, respectively. I identify two kinds of arguments for this claim and argue that neither succeeds.     

The Specificity of the Interpersonal‐Psychological Theory of Suicidal Behavior for Identifying Suicidal Ideation in an Online Sample

The interpersonal‐psychological theory of suicidal behavior suggests that the combination of perceived burdensomeness and thwarted belongingness predicts suicidal ideation. However, the specificity of this prediction to suicidal ideation has not been tested. This study examined whether these constructs were consistently associated with different characteristics of suicidal ideation, and whether they were associated with mental health problems more broadly, in an online sample of 1,352 Australian adults. Findings indicated that the interaction between perceived burdensomeness and thwarted belongingness was associated only with suicidal ideation and consistent across multiple characteristics of ideation. The study broadly supported the specificity of the IPTS.     

TO NOD OR NOT TO NOD: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION AND STATUS IN FEMALE AND MALE COLLEGE STUDENTS

Gender studies show that women and men communicate using different styles, but may use either gender style if there are situational status differences. Considering the universal gesture of head nodding as a submissive form of expression, this study investigated head nodding by observing female and male college students in positions of subordinate and equal status. We observed head nodding ( N = 452) in classroom interactions between professor–student and student–student dyads. Overall, women nodded more than men and students nodded more to professors speaking than peers speaking. In addition, female and male students nodded equally to professors speaking, but men nodded less to peers speaking than did women. Thus, both men and women attended to the status and not the gender of the speaker. Future research using varying contexts should further examine the effects of dominance, context, and gender.