On Evolutionary Ecology and Evolutionary Archaeology: Some Common Ground?

2000 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 427
Author(s):  
Neff
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Evolutionary Ecology ◽  
Evolutionary Archaeology

On Evolutionary Ecology, Selectionist Archaeology, and Behavioral Archaeology

1999 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack M. Broughton ◽  
James F. O'Connell
Keyword(s):  
Evolutionary Ecology ◽  
Evolutionary Archaeology ◽  
Behavioral Evolution ◽  
American Archaeology ◽  
Behavioral Archaeology ◽  
Research Programs ◽  
Scientific Approach

To promote a dialogue between competing but potentially compatible approaches in American archaeology, Schiffer (1996) examined the relationships between two distinct research programs: "behavioral" archaeology and evolutionary archaeology. An approach grounded in evolutionary ecology was not included in that analysis. In this paper, we reply to Schiffer's call for dialogue by outlining the relationships, as we see them, between evolutionary ecology, selectionist archaeology, and behavioral archaeology. We conclude that evolutionary ecology holds the greatest promise as a scientific approach for the investigation of important problems in human behavioral evolution.

scholarly journals Basic Incompatibilities between Evolutionary and Behavioral Archaeology

1998 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 485-498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. O'Brien ◽  
R. Lee Lyman ◽  
Robert D. Leonard
Keyword(s):  
Human Behavior ◽  
Behavioral Change ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Mechanisms Of Change ◽  
Historical Contingency ◽  
Evolutionary Archaeology ◽  
Behavioral Archaeology ◽  
Past Behavior ◽  
Fundamental Reason

Schiffer (1996) recently proposed that, despite some incompatibilities, considerable common ground exists between behavioral archaeology and evolutionary, or selectionist, archaeology. He concludes that there is no fundamental reason why the two approaches cannot work in concert to explain human behavioral change. There are, however, several important reasons why the two programs, at least as currently conceived, cannot work together in any thoroughly integrated fashion. Although both programs employ inference, behavioral archaeology conflates the distinct roles of configurational and immanent properties, searches for nomothetic answers to questions about human behavior, overlooks historical contingency when inferring and explaining the nature of past behavior, and in some cases seems to fall back on vitalism as the mechanism of change. Evolutionary archaeology employs immanent properties inferentially, explicitly acknowledges the importance of the historical contingencies of configurational properties, explains human behavior as being time- and spacebound, and calls upon selection and drift (transmission) as the mechanisms of change. Any attempt to integrate the two approaches must begin by addressing these basic differences.

Talking Across Cultures in Early Intervention: Finding Common Ground to Meet Children's Communication Needs

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 79-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth D. Peña ◽  
Christine Fiestas
Keyword(s):  
Early Intervention ◽  
Cultural Values ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Cultural Orientation ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Provider Perspectives ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Communication Needs ◽  
Caregiver Role

Abstract In this paper, we explore cultural values and expectations that might vary among different groups. Using the collectivist-individualist framework, we discuss differences in beliefs about the caregiver role in teaching and interacting with young children. Differences in these beliefs can lead to dissatisfaction with services on the part of caregivers and with frustration in service delivery on the part of service providers. We propose that variation in caregiver and service provider perspectives arise from cultural values, some of which are instilled through our own training as speech-language pathologists. Understanding where these differences in cultural orientation originate can help to bridge these differences. These can lead to positive adaptations in the ways that speech-language pathology services are provided within an early intervention setting that will contribute to effective intervention.

Spatial Representations as an Emergent Feature of Perceptual Processing

2010 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 161-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edmund Wascher ◽  
C. Beste
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Event Related Potentials ◽  
Vertical Axis ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Integrated Network ◽  
Perceptual Maps ◽  
Emergent Feature ◽  
Related Potentials ◽  
Selection Of

Spatial selection of relevant information has been proposed to reflect an emergent feature of stimulus processing within an integrated network of perceptual areas. Stimulus-based and intention-based sources of information might converge in a common stage when spatial maps are generated. This approach appears to be inconsistent with the assumption of distinct mechanisms for stimulus-driven and top-down controlled attention. In two experiments, the common ground of stimulus-driven and intention-based attention was tested by means of event-related potentials (ERPs) in the human EEG. In both experiments, the processing of a single transient was compared to the selection of a physically comparable stimulus among distractors. While single transients evoked a spatially sensitive N1, the extraction of relevant information out of a more complex display was reflected in an N2pc. The high similarity of the spatial portion of these two components (Experiment 1), and the replication of this finding for the vertical axis (Experiment 2) indicate that these two ERP components might both reflect the spatial representation of relevant information as derived from the organization of perceptual maps, just at different points in time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document