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 Zhuangzi on Coping with Society

Stories in the Zhuangzi detailing expert artisans and other extraordinary people are often read as celebrations of “skills” or “knacks.” In this paper, I will argue that they would be more accurately understood as “coping” stories. Taken as a celebration of one’s “skill” or “knack” they transform the Zhuangzi into an implicit advocate of conforming to, or even identifying with, one’s social roles. I will argue that the stories of artisans and extraordinarily skilled people are less about cultivating one’s talents so as to “find one’s calling,” better fulfill social expectations, or achieve oneness with Dao, than they are concerned with developing strategies for coping with natural and social contingencies. Read in this way, there is much to learn from the Zhuangzi when reflecting on contemporary social and political issues, especially those related to meritocratic hubris.     

The Effects of Attentional Focus Instructions and Task Difficulty in a Paced Fine Motor Skill

Abstract

An external focus of attention is considered superior to an internal focus for learning and performance. However, findings specific to changing the task difficulty are inconsistent. The present study used a reciprocal aiming task to determine the effects of attentional focus on motor performance using speed-accuracy paradigm. We constrained timing to examine how internal and external focus of attention influenced accuracy when task difficulty changes. The results indicated greater accuracy on the right target and greater consistency on both targets for the external focus condition, regardless of task difficulty. Our results uniquely demonstrated how instruction modified a speed-accuracy task.     

Reducing Proactive Interference in Motor Tasks

Abstract

Changing automatized movement patterns often leads to initial performance decrements caused by proactive interference. In this study, we scrutinized whether proactive interference could be reduced by inhibiting the to-be-changed movement pattern by means of a physical movement constraint and verbal inhibition instructions, and whether any of the two interventions may be superior. Skilled typists typed short texts as fast and accurately as possible on a regular QWERTZ keyboard. After baseline measures, a new rule prohibiting the use of the left index finger was introduced. Subsequently, participants took part in either a verbal instruction or an additional motor restriction intervention phase. Results revealed that the original rule change was successful in inducing proactive interference in skilled typists. Most importantly, the two interventions similarly reduced proactive interference both immediately following the rule change and after ten practice sessions. We conclude that reducing proactive interference by means of physical motor restrictions and verbal instructions may be equally effective.     

The unwelcoming experience of abusive supervision and the impact of leader characteristics: turning employees into poor organizational citizens and future quitters

ABSTRACT

Over three studies (i.e., two 2 × 2 experiments and a multi-source field study), we examine the relationship between abusive supervision, leader characteristics, and organizational inclusion on employee outcomes. Drawing on the group value theory of organizational justice and multiple needs theory of organizational justice, we argue that abusive supervision is counterproductive to making employees feel welcome. Specifically, we demonstrate that abusive supervision demoralizes employees’ feelings of organizational inclusion. Additionally, we draw upon research that suggests that the display of hostility inherent in abusive supervision can be perceived differently when it comes from a strategic versus impulsive source. We build upon this reasoning to examine and explain how leader characteristics might alter the effect of abusive supervision on organizational inclusion. More specifically, we suggest that leader political skill (i.e., strategic source) and leader neuroticism (i.e., impulsive source) act as moderators of the relationship between abusive supervision and organizational inclusion. We integrate organizational justice and inclusion theories to demonstrate that abusive supervision can be interpreted as an unwelcoming experience that ultimately has the ability to turn employees into poor organizational citizens (i.e., decrease engagement of OCBs) and future quitters (i.e., increase of turnover intentions). Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.