Accountably Other: Trust,Reciprocity and Exclusion in a Context of Situated Practice

The first part of this paper makes five points: First, the problem of Otherness is different and differently constructed in modern differentiated societies. Therefore, approaches to Otherness based on traditional notions of difference and boundary between societies and systems of shared belief will not suffice; Second, because solidarity can no longer be maintained through boundaries between ingroup and outgroup, social cohesion has to take a different form; Third, to the extent that Otherness is not a condition of demographic, or belief based, exclusion in modern societies, but rather something that happens to people otherwise available to one another in interaction, othering is a processthat occurs over the course of interaction, turn by turn, not a set of beliefs or a state of mind; Fourth, othering may be supported by accounts and narratives, and these may exist before the fact – or be articulated after the fact. But, over the course of an ongoing interaction, beliefs and narratives do not explain what goes wrong with practices; Fifth, practices require reciprocity and trust. Therefore, practices require a morestringent form of morality – not a less stringent form – and moresocial cohesion – not less – than traditional society.The second part of the paper illustrates these five points with an extended analysis of a cross-race interaction in which accounts are invoked, reciprocity breaks down, and participants are rendered as Accountable Others.     

The allure of connectionism reexamined

There is currently a debate over whether cognitive architecture is classical or connectionist in nature. One finds the following three comparisons between classical architecture and connectionist architecture made in the pro-connectionist literature in this debate: (1) connectionist architecture is neurally plausible and classical architecture is not; (2) connectionist architecture is far better suited to model pattern recognition capacities than is classical architecture; and (3) connectionist architecture is far better suited to model the acquisition of pattern recognition capacities by learning than is classical architecture. If true, (1)–(3) would yield a compelling case against the view that cognitive architecture is classical, and would offer some reason to think that cognitive architecture may be connectionist. We first present the case for (1)–(3) in the very words of connectionist enthusiasts. We then argue that the currently available evidence fails to support any of (1)–(3).     

Generic planning: Research results and applications

Older approaches to planning lack the capacity to be responsive to complexity. A new philosophy supporting a new mode of practice could improve significantly the capacity of society to cope with complexity in design, planning, and policy making. The new philosophy and practice must be generic; in other words, it must be divorced in its philosophy and approach from any particular kind of planning activity. It must emphasize the capacity to enhance the work of groups in designing new conceptual structures whether they be plans, policies, or tangible products. John N. Warfield is University Professor and director of the Institute for Advanced Study in the Integrative Sciences at George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, 22030. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and a recipient of the IEEE Centennial Medal in 1984. His booksSocietal Systems andA Science of Generic Design present theoretical and empirical results relevant to issues of coping with complexity.     

Predictors of Improvement in Pediatric Chronic Migraine: Results from the Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Amitriptyline Trial

Explore predictors of improvement in headache days and migraine-related disability through a secondary analysis of the cognitive-behavioral therapy plus amitriptyline trial in children and adolescents (Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT00389038). Participants were 135 youth aged 10–17 years old diagnosed with chronic migraine. Predictor variables included group assignment (treatment or control), baseline scores from depression and quality of life measures, and demographic variables. Criterion variables included headache days and migraine-related disability. Higher baseline depression scores were indicative of more days with headache post-treatment regardless of group assignment. Family income at the higher-end of the low-income range was significantly associated with less migraine-related disability regardless of group assignment (Household Income: HINC-01 in The United States Census Bureau. Bureau, U, 2020). Results from this secondary analysis identify depression symptoms and family income as predictors that can impact headache frequency and migraine-related disability. Self-reported symptoms of depression and family income are important factors to consider as part of the biopsychosocial model of care.