<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>K-REx Community: Psychology</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/2097/1260</link>
    <description />
    <textInput>
      <title>The Community's search engine</title>
      <description>Search the Channel</description>
      <name>search</name>
      <link>http://krex.ksu.edu/dspace/simple-search</link>
    </textInput>
    <item>
      <title>There is no evidentiary silver bullet for the frequency adaptation hypothesis</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/2097/1295</link>
      <description>Title: There is no evidentiary silver bullet for the frequency adaptation hypothesis&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Brase, Gary L.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Abstract: Special design criteria are largely unable to discriminate between claims that specific competencies in judgements under uncertainty are a result of an adaptation for representing naturally sampled frequencies, or due only to inherent properties of such a format. Because divisions between these perspectives are thin, evidence via additional criteria are persuasive only in combination, using inference to the best available explanation.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Description: Commentary reacting to article, Adaptationism–how to carry out an exaptationist program by Paul W. Andrews, Steven W. Gangestad and Dan Matthews. Link to the original article is included.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:21:47 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Functional clothes for the emperor</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/2097/1294</link>
      <description>Title: Functional clothes for the emperor&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Brase, Gary L.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Abstract: A more complete and balanced theoretical framework for social psychology, as recommended in the target article, must include functional explanations of processes – moving beyond enumerations of processes and their properties.  These functional explanations are at a different, and complementary, level from process descriptions.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Description: Commentary on target article</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:14:52 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The key role of prefrontal cortex structure and function</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/2097/1291</link>
      <description>Title: The key role of prefrontal cortex structure and function&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Brase, Gary L.; Raffone, Antonino&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Abstract: The tension between focusing on species similarities versus species differences (phylogenetic versus adaptationist approaches) recurs in discussions about the nature of neural connectivity and organization following brain expansion. Whereas Striedter suggests a primary role for response inhibition, other possibilities include dense recurrent connectivity loops. Computer simulations and brain imaging technologies are crucial in better understanding actual neuronal connectivity patterns&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Description: Commentary on target article</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:08:23 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Omissions, conflations, and false dichotomies: Conceptual and empirical problems with the Barbey &amp; Sloman account.</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/2097/1290</link>
      <description>Title: Omissions, conflations, and false dichotomies: Conceptual and empirical problems with the Barbey &amp; Sloman account.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Brase, Gary L.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Abstract: Both the theoretical frameworks that organize the first part of Barbey &amp; Sloman's (B&amp;S's) target article and the empirical evidence marshaled in the second part are marked by distinctions that should not exist (i.e., false dichotomies), conflations where distinctions should be made, and selective omissions of empirical results - within the very studies discussed - that create illusions of theoretical and empirical favor.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:53:45 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

