Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:48:42.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Getting by with a little help from our friends

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2018

Enoch Lambert  and
Daniel C. Dennett
Enoch Lambert
Affiliation:
Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155. Enoch.lambert@gmail.comDaniel.dennett@tufts.eduhttp://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/
Daniel C. Dennett
Affiliation:
Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155. Enoch.lambert@gmail.comDaniel.dennett@tufts.eduhttp://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We offer two kinds of constructive criticism in the spirit of support for Doris's socially scaffolded pluralism regarding agency. First: The skeptical force of potential “goofy influences” is not as straightforward as Doris argues. Second: Doris's positive theory must address more goofy influences due to social processes that appear to fall under his criteria for agency-promoting practices. Finally, we highlight “arms race” phenomena in Doris's social dynamics that invite closer attention in further development of his theory.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e48
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Baron, R. (2005) So right it's wrong: Groupthink and the ubiquitous nature of polarized group decision making. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 37:219–53. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37004-3.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. (2008) Influence: Science and practice, 5th edition. Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., Vincent, J. E., Lewis, S. K., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D. & Darby, B. L. (1975) Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31:206–15.Google Scholar
Doris, J. M. (2015b). Talking to our selves: Reflection, ignorance, and agency. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E. & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006) Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science 17(12):1068–74.Google Scholar
Hall, L., Johansson, P. & Strandberg, T. (2012) Lifting the veil of morality: Choice blindness and attitude reversals on a self-transforming survey. PLoS ONE 7(9):e45457. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045457.Google Scholar
Janis, I. L. (1982) Groupthink, 2nd edition. Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Keltner, D., Van Kleef, G. A., Chen, S. & Kraus, M. W. (2008) A reciprocal influence model of social power: Emerging principles and lines of inquiry. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 40:151–92.Google Scholar
Milgram, S. (1974) Obedience to authority: An experimental view. Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. & Zavalloni, M. (1969) The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 12:125–35.Google Scholar
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. & Sherif, C. (1961) Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers cave experiment. University of Oklahoma Institute of Group Relations.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. (2009) Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P. & Flament, C. (1971) Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology 1:149–77.Google Scholar