Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T13:39:25.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

More “us,” less “them”: An appeal for pluralism – and stand-alone computational theorizing – in our science of social groups

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2022

David Pietraszewski Open the ORCID record for David Pietraszewski [Opens in a new window]
David Pietraszewski*
Affiliation:
Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany davidpietraszewski@gmail.com https://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/en/staff/david-pietraszewski
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The target article is an appeal to allow explicit computational theorizing into the study of social groups. Some commentators took this proposal and ran with it, some had questions about it, and some were confused or even put off by it. But even the latter did not seem to outright disagree – they thought the proposal was mutually exclusive with some other enterprise, when in fact it is not. Unfortunately, scientists studying social groups have not yet avoided the thread-bare trope of the blind men studying the different parts of the elephant: We see mutual exclusivity when we should see complementarity. I hope we can all take the next steps of examining how the different enterprises and approaches within our area of research might all fit together into a unified whole.

Type
Author's Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e127
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Balliet, D., Tybur, J. M., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2017). Functional interdependence theory: An evolutionary account of social situations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21, 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316657965.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruner, J. S. (1957). On perpetual readiness. Psychological Review, 64, 123–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J., & Austin, G. A. (1956). A study of thinking. Wiley.Google Scholar
Chase, I. D. (1985). The sequential analysis of aggressive acts during hierarchy formation: An application of the “jigsaw puzzle” approach. Animal Behavior, 1985, 86–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner's verbal behavior. Language, 35, 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 1–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cikara, M. (2021). Causes and consequences of coalitional cognition. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conroy-Beam, D., Ghezae, I., & Pietraszewski, D. (2021). A sufficiency test of the alliance hypothesis of race. Talk presented at Human Behavior and Evolution Society (Virtual).Google Scholar
Dennett, D. (1995). Darwin's dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1985). The mind's new science. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Heisenberg, W. (1983). Encounters with Einstein: And other essays on people, places, and particles. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962/1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Maloney, L. T., & Brainard, D. H. (2010). Color and material perception: Achievements and challenges. Journal of Vision, 10(9), 19–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. Henry Holt and Co.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1961). Steps toward artificial intelligence. Proceedings of the IRE, 49, 8–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minsky, M. (1974). A framework for representing knowledge. Artificial Intelligence. Memo No. 306.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (2011). The society of mind, Fall 2011. MIT OpenCourseWare. retrieved from: https:www.youtube.com/watch?v=−pb3z2w9gDg&list=PLUl4u3cNGP61E-vNcDV0w5xpsIBYNJDkU.Google Scholar
Pietraszewski, D. (2013). What is group psychology? Adaptations for mapping shared intentional stances. In Banaji, M. & Gelman, S. (Eds.), Navigating the social world: What infants, children, and other species can teach us (pp. 253–257). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pietraszewski, D. (2016). How the mind sees coalitional and group conflict: The evolutionary invariances of coalitional conflict dynamics. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37, 470–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pietraszewski, D. (2020a). The evolution of leadership: Leadership and followership as a solution to the problem of creating and executing successful coordination and cooperation enterprises. The Leadership Quarterly, 31, 101299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pietraszewski, D. (2020b). Intergroup processes: Principles from an evolutionary perspective. In Van Lange, P., Higgins, E. T., & Kruglanski, A. W. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 373–391). Guilford.Google Scholar
Pietraszewski, D., & Schwartz, A. (2014). Evidence that accent is a dedicated dimension of social categorization, not a byproduct of coalitional categorization. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pietraszewski, D., & Wertz, A. E. (2021). Why evolutionary psychology should abandon modularity. Perspectives in Psychological Science doi: 10.1177/1745691621997113Google ScholarPubMed
Strayer, F. F., & Noel, J. M. (1986). The prosocial and antisocial functions of preschool aggression. In Zahn-Waxler, C., Cummings, E. M., & Iannotti, R. (Eds.), Altruism and aggression: Biological and social origins (pp. 107–131). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, S. E., Fiske, S. T., Etcoff, N. L., & Ruderman, A. J. (1978). Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 778–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Rooij, I., & Baggio, G. (2021). Theory before the test: How to build high-verisimilitude explanatory theories in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 682–697.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiner, N. (1948/1961). Cybernetics: Or control and communication in the animal and the machine (2nd ed.). MIT Press.Google Scholar