Cultivating the Places of Knowledge

The discussion of universities anddemocracy has conventionally dealt first andforemost with the curriculum, or with thespirit of openness and tolerance whichcharacterises the scientific inquiry. In thisarticle I have added a discussion of thesituatedness of knowledge and knowledgeproduction, and, consequently, a discussion ofthe situated character of other roles of theuniversity, including the democratic role. Inthe light of the regress of political partiesand traditional popular movements – phenomenawhich seem to be true both as regardsmembership numbers and as regards level ofactivity – the role as a locally andregionally situated meeting place for avitalisation and defence of democracy seems apromising one for the contemporary university.The article has also emphasised the linksbetween culture, social capital (``the socialfabric') in the surrounding society, and theeconomic growth and welfare of the city andregion. With concepts such as Bildung (oreducation), civic competence (or civility), andculture, and I have tried to draw our attentionto the actual ``places of knowledge,' whoseimportance will certainly grow in the years tocome. The care, the cultivation, and thequalification of these places into supportinginfrastructures for cultural life, creativity,industry, and democracy should be seen as acoherent, holistic mission. It needsrecognition, and articulation, by all those whoare interested in the university as asignificant social factor: politicians,industry, the cultural sector, localcommunities, and, obviously, the academiccommunity itself.     

Let us talk about sex: Prototype and personal templates

Among laypersons and even among scientists, little agreement exists about the definition of sex. Using the prototype approach, the current research explored the prototypical structure of sex. Further, it examined important intersexual and intrasexual personal templates. In Study 1, 122 participants produced a list of 80 features for the concept sex, which were rated for typicality by 251 participants in Study 2. Important sex differences with respect to the prototype of sex and correlations with sociosexual orientation were also revealed in Study 2. Study 3 (n = 98) extended these findings by showing that response latencies differ for central versus peripheral features, women versus men, and depend on the sociosexual orientation of the participants.     

Distinguishing Disadvantage from Ill-Being in the Capability Approach

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice - Central capabilitarian theories of well-being focus exclusively on actual opportunities to attain states of being and doing that people have reason to value....     

How do we evaluate future gambles? Experimental evidence on path dependency in risky intertemporal choice

This study reports three experiments which demonstrate path dependency in risky intertemporal choice. Consider a lottery to be resolved and paid in a future time period. One can obtain the present value of this lottery in three different ways: (1) eliciting directly the present certainty equivalent (CE) of the future lottery (direct path); (2) eliciting the future CE and then discounting this amount to the present (risk‐time path); and (3) eliciting the present value of the risky prospect and then determining the CE of this current lottery (time‐risk path). Standard rational choice models such as the discounted expected utility model, assume a multiplicative model, where all three methods mentioned above would yield the same value. We conducted three studies to examine if this is the case: Experiments 1 and 2 were based on a set of matching‐task questions and Experiment 3 used a process‐tracing design to analyze the natural sequence of decision making by the subjects. These three studies show that the evaluation of future gambles is path‐dependent. The present values elicited under the time‐risk and direct paths are, on average, higher than those reported under the risk‐time path. In addition, we found evidence for a two‐stage evaluation of risky future prospects: When evaluating a future gamble, individuals first assess the present value of the gamble (time discounting) and then they determine a certainty equivalent (probability discounting). Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.