Führt die evolutionäre Erkenntnistheorie in einen Relativismus?

This essay is a discussion of Eve-Marie Engels' view on Evolutionary Epistemology (EE). In the first part two of the main doctrines of EE are criticized: (1.) that validity of human knowledge is to be explained as the result of evolutionary adaptation; yet (2.), that human cognitive capacities had been adequate to our ancestors life conditions but fail in relevant situations of modern world. In the second part the concept of reality underlying EE's adaptational view is discussed and compared with Jean Piaget's concept of reality. Finally, it is held that some of the questions recently raised by proponents of EE, far from being new, have been dealt with already in historical epistemology.

---

Diese Arbeit entstand im Rahmen des Projekts Nr. 11-2224.87 des Schweizerischen Nationalfonds.     

Better explaining the benefits why AI? Analyzing the impact of explaining the benefits of AI-supported selection on applicant responses

Despite the increasing popularity of AI-supported selection tools, knowledge about the actions that can be taken by organizations to increase AI acceptance is still in its infancy, even though multiple studies point out that applicants react negatively to the implementation of AI-supported selection tools. Therefore, this study investigates ways to alter applicant reactions to AI-supported selection. Using a scenario-based between-subject design with participants from the working population (N = 200), we varied the information provided by the organization about the reasons for using an AI-supported selection process (no additional information vs. written information vs. video information) in comparison to a human selection process. Results show that the use of AI without information and with written information decreased perceived fairness, personableness perception, and increased emotional creepiness. In turn, perceived fairness, personableness perceptions, and emotional creepiness mediated the association between an AI-supported selection process, organizational attractiveness, and the intention to further proceed with the selection process. Moreover, results did not differ for applicants who were provided video explanations of the benefits of AI-supported selection tools and those who participated in an actual human selection process. Important implications for research and practice are discussed.     

BIOLOGY: WHAT ONE NEEDS TO KNOW

Abstract. Biology on this planet represents an astonishing experiment in carbon-based chemistry which, over billions of years, has generated billions of species adapted to countless major and minor fluctuations in ecological circumstances. In one sense there is no way to generalize about biology. While biological activities can all be ultimately explained by physical laws (like everything else in the universe), it is the emergent intensely particular properties of organisms that most interest us. This essay represents an attempt to describe some of the more prominent patterns that emerge from the sea of biological particularities, patterns that present many opportunities for religous reflection.     

Selection history-driven signal suppression

ABSTRACT

The control of attention is influenced by current goals, physical salience, and selection history. Under certain conditions, physically salient stimuli can be strategically suppressed below baseline levels, facilitating visual search for a target. It is unclear whether such signal suppression is a broad mechanism of selective information processing that extends to other sources of attentional priority evoked by task-irrelevant stimuli, or whether it is particular to physically salient perceptual signals. Using eye movements, in the present study we highlight a case where a former-target-colour distractor facilitates search for a target on a large percentage of trials. Our findings provide evidence that the principle of signal suppression extends to other sources of attentional priority beyond physical salience, and that selection history can be leveraged to strategically guide attention away from a stimulus.     

Identification of the targeted performance dimensions and self-promotion in interviews: investigations of uncharted waters

ABSTRACT

Previous research on interviewees’ ability to identify criteria (ATIC) found that interview performance is positively related to the degree to which interviewees identify the targeted performance criteria in a selection interview. Similarly, the use of self-promotion as an impression management tactic is also positively related to interview performance. The present study extended this research and used multilevel analyses to investigate whether intraindividual variation concerning identification of the performance criteria and the use of self-promotion is related to within-person performance fluctuations across interview questions. Furthermore, we also tested whether correct identification of the performance dimensions moderates the effects of self-promotion behaviour on interview performance. In a simulated selection interview, we found that ATIC and self-promotion were indeed positively related to interview performance on the between-person level (i.e., for the entire interview). However, no moderator effect was found. Furthermore, on the within-person level interviewees’ performance was better concerning questions for which they were better at identifying the performance criteria but worse concerning questions for which they used more self-promotion. Thus, identification of the targeted dimensions and self-promotion have diverging effects on the level of specific interview questions. Finally, we discuss implications for research and practice.     

Four Faces of Fair Subject Selection

Abstract

Although the principle of fair subject selection is a widely recognized requirement of ethical clinical research, it often yields conflicting imperatives, thus raising major ethical dilemmas regarding participant selection. In this paper, we diagnose the source of this problem, arguing that the principle of fair subject selection is best understood as a bundle of four distinct sub-principles, each with normative force and each yielding distinct imperatives: (1) fair inclusion; (2) fair burden sharing; (3) fair opportunity; and (4) fair distribution of third-party risks. We first map out these distinct sub-principles, and then identify the ways in which they yield conflicting imperatives for the design of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the recruitment of participants. We then offer guidance for how decision makers should navigate these conflicting imperatives to ensure that participants are selected fairly.     

‘Grandpa,Do You Like Roller Coasters?’: Identifying Age‐Appropriate Personality Indicators

Personality development research heavily relies on the comparison of scale means across age. This approach implicitly assumes that the scales are strictly measurement invariant across age. We questioned this assumption by examining whether appropriate personality indicators change over the lifespan. Moreover, we identified which types of items (e.g. dispositions, behaviours, and interests) are particularly prone to age effects. We reanalyzed the German Revised NEO Personality Inventory normative sample (N = 11,724) and applied a genetic algorithm to select short scales that yield acceptable model fit and reliability across locally weighted samples ranging from 16 to 66 years of age. We then examined how the item selection changes across age points and item types. Emotion‐type items seemed to be interchangeable and generally applicable to people of all ages. Specific interests, attitudes, and social effect items—most prevalent within the domains of Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Openness—seemed to be more prone to measurement variations over age. A large proportion of items were systematically discarded by the item‐selection procedure, indicating that, independent of age, many items are problematic measures of the underlying traits. The implications for personality assessment and personality development research are discussed. © 2019 European Association of Personality Psychology