The indeterminacy of computation

Synthese - Do the dynamics of a physical system determine what function the system computes? Except in special cases, the answer is no: it is often indeterminate what function a given physical...     

Status conferral in intergroup social dilemmas: behavioral antecedents and consequences of prestige and dominance

Bridging the literatures on social dilemmas, intergroup conflict, and social hierarchy, the authors systematically varied the intergroup context in which social dilemmas were embedded to investigate how costly contributions to public goods influence status conferral. They predicted that contribution behavior would have opposite effects on 2 forms of status-prestige and dominance-depending on its consequences for the self, in-group and out-group members. When the only way to benefit in-group members was by harming out-group members (Study 1), contributions increased prestige and decreased dominance, compared with free-riding. Adding the option of benefitting in-group members without harming out-group members (Study 2) decreased the prestige and increased the dominance of those who chose to benefit in-group members via intergroup competition. Finally, sharing resources with both in-group and out-group members decreased perceptions of both prestige and dominance, compared with sharing them with in-group members only (Study 3). Prestige and dominance differentially mediated the effects of contribution behavior on leader election, exclusion from the group, and choices of a group representative for an intergroup competition. Taken together, these findings show that the well-established relationship between contribution and status is moderated by both the intergroup context and the conceptualization of status.     

Effectiveness of Primiparae and Multiparae at Soothing Their Newborn Infants

To examine the effectiveness of new parents at soothing their infants, the authors filmed primiparae (20 mothers, 20 fathers) and, for comparison, multiparae (25 mothers, 25 fathers) during an interaction with their crying 2- to 3-day-old infants. Data were derived from loudness ratings of the infants' distress signals and by measuring the time it took parents to quiet their infants. In addition, specific parental behaviors were coded by microanalysis. From these data, measures of soothing effectiveness and behavioral profiles were derived. Data analyses showed that most primiparae were effective at soothing their infants' cries and that there were no parity effects on measures of soothing effectiveness. However, mothers, regardless of parity, were more effective at quieting their infants than were fathers, and there were significant differences in mothers' and fathers' caregiving behaviors. These data suggest that primiparae are effective at quickly soothing their newborns and that their skill, as measured, does not depend on parenting experience. Moreover, the data point to significant differences in mothers' and fathers' competence at quieting their newborns whether or not they are experienced at parenting.     

The Tractatus and the Riddles of Philosophy*

The notion of the riddle plays a pivotal role in Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. By examining the comparisons he draws between philosophical problems and riddles, this paper offers a reassessment of the aims and methods of the book. Solving an ordinary riddle does not consist in learning a new fact; what it requires is that we transform the way we use words. Similarly, Wittgenstein proposes to transform the way philosophers understand the nature of their problems. But since he holds that these problems are ultimately unsolvable, rather than attempting to solve the riddles of philosophy, he aims to dissolve them.     

The influence of suspect ethnicity and evidence direction on alibi credibility assessment

We investigated whether evidence direction (incriminating versus exonerating) moderated the influence of intergroup bias on alibi credibility assessments. Israeli-Jewish participants (n = 160) assessed the credibility of an alibi statement provided by either an Israeli-Jewish or an Israeli-Arab suspect. Along with the alibi statement, half of the participants were presented with incriminating evidence, while the other half were presented with exonerating evidence. The results indicated that evidence direction influenced credibility assessment regarding both in-group and out-group suspects. Specifically, under incriminating evidence, Israeli-Jewish suspects were perceived as more deceptive than Israeli-Arab suspects, whereas under exonerating evidence, no such differences were found. These results emphasize the significance of group bias in assessing the credibility of alibi statements.     

Using the model statement to elicit verbal differences between truth tellers and liars amongst Arab interviewees: A partial replication of Leal,Vrij, Deeb,and Jupe (2018)

Leal, Vrij, Deeb, and Jupe (2018) found—with British participants—that a model statement elicited (a) more information and (b) a cue to deceit: After exposure to a model statement, liars reported significantly more peripheral information than truth tellers. We sought to replicate these findings with Arabs living in Israel. Truth tellers and liars reported a stand‐out event that they had (truth tellers) or pretended to have (liars) experienced in the last 2 years. Half of the participants were given a model statement in the second phase of the interview. Replicating Leal et al. (2018a), (a) truth tellers reported more core details than liars initially and (b) a model statement resulted in more additional core and peripheral details in the second phase of the interview. Unlike in Leal et al. (2018a), a model statement did not have a differential effect on truth tellers in the current experiment.     

Dynamic multiple-objective optimization of environmental regulation policies

Environmental regulation policies are tested via alternative multi-objective criteria in order to test their efficiency when they are spread over time—that is in a dynamic setting. The implication is carried to the Haifa Bay area in Israel with an extension to the entire country. The results presented in this paper can give decision makers another perspective of their decisions. The implication of their choice on the state(s) of the system through time so they can test the efficiency criterion in each period of the planning horizon. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Inequality in Political Philosophy and in Epidemiology: A Remarriage

In political philosophy and in economics, unfair inequality is usually assessed between individuals, nowadays often on luck‐egalitarian grounds. You have more than I do (through no fault of my own) and that's unfair. By contrast, in epidemiology and sociology, unfair inequality is traditionally assessed between groups. More is concentrated among people of your class or race than among people of mine, and that's unfair. I shall call this difference the egalitarian ‘divorce’. Epidemiologists, and their ‘divorce lawyers’ Paula Braveman, Norman Daniels, and Iris Marion Young, explain that not every inequality between individuals is an inequity. Only inequality between social status groups is unfair. Only such inequality stems from problems like partiality, discrimination, oppression, inequality‐related population health problems, and unfair distribution of prospects. And it alone is actionable. By contrast, inequality between individuals, e.g. in longevity, is natural, inevitable, less important, or otherwise less informative — not unjust. In ‘divorce trial’ mode, I respond to epidemiologists that group inequalities lack the intrinsic disvalue that they ascribe them. They may be instrumentally or contingently bad or wrong, not essentially so. I then shift to ‘remarriage’: although group inequalities lack intrinsic badness or wrongness, for multiple reasons they remain useful to measure.