Matt Jones

Mathematical developments in probabilistic inference have led to optimism over the prospects for Bayesian models of cognition. Our target article calls for better differentiation of these technical developments from theoretical contributions. It distinguishes between Bayesian Fundamentalism, which is theoretically limited because of its neglect of psychological mechanism, and Bayesian Enlightenment, which integrates rational and mechanistic considerations and is thus better positioned to advance psychological theory. The commentaries almost uniformly agree that mechanistic grounding is critical to the success of the Bayesian program. Some commentaries raise additional challenges, which we address here. Other commentaries claim that all Bayesian models are mechanistically grounded, while at the same time holding that they should be evaluated only on a computational level. We argue this contradictory stance makes it difficult to evaluate a model's scientific contribution, and that the psychological commitments of Bayesian models need to be made more explicit

The prominence of Bayesian modeling of cognition has increased recently largely because of mathematical advances in specifying and deriving predictions from complex probabilistic models. Much of this research aims to demonstrate that cognitive behavior can be explained from rational principles alone, without recourse to psychological or neurological processes and representations. We note commonalities between this rational approach and other movements in psychology – namely, Behaviorism and evolutionary psychology – that set aside mechanistic explanations or make use of optimality assumptions. Through these comparisons, we identify a number of challenges that limit the rational program's potential contribution to psychological theory. Specifically, rational Bayesian models are significantly unconstrained, both because they are uninformed by a wide range of process-level data and because their assumptions about the environment are generally not grounded in empirical measurement. The psychological implications of most Bayesian models are also unclear. Bayesian inference itself is conceptually trivial, but strong assumptions are often embedded in the hypothesis sets and the approximation algorithms used to derive model predictions, without a clear delineation between psychological commitments and implementational details. Comparing multiple Bayesian models of the same task is rare, as is the realization that many Bayesian models recapitulate existing (mechanistic level) theories. Despite the expressive power of current Bayesian models, we argue they must be developed in conjunction with mechanistic considerations to offer substantive explanations of cognition. We lay out several means for such an integration, which take into account the representations on which Bayesian inference operates, as well as the algorithms and heuristics that carry it out. We argue this unification will better facilitate lasting contributions to psychological theory, avoiding the pitfalls that have plagued previous theoretical movements.

This chapter looks at the evolution of CorporateSocial responsibility in the Indian context and explores the conceptualization of Brand Valuation in an attempt to correlate the two. The chapter looks at the pre and post-mandate era of CorporateSocial responsibility as practiced in India and identifies how and why the regulator’s outlook changed over time. The chapter deduces the implications of CorporateSocial responsibility for brands and branding as a managerial process and what constitutes Responsible brands. It looks at some of the major Brand Valuation methodologies prevalent and identifies the gaps therein; specifically how the aspect of CorporateSocial responsibility which intuitively looks relevant to branding has largely remained untouched. The chapter presents the case for including Social responsibility as an antecedent for Brand Valuation.

The article evaluates how knowledge workers in new-age businesses in developing economies conceptualize and practise acts of individual social responsibility (ISR) vis-à-vis the corporate social responsibility (CSR) endeavours of the companies for which they work. The study aims to differentiate between the values that drive ISR and CSR in such organizations. On one hand, the study targets young information technology professionals between the ages of 25 and 35 years exploring the individual motivations for socially responsible behaviour, and it looks at CSR managers responsible for strategizing and implementing CSR portfolio, representing the organizational imperatives of CSR behaviour and practice on the other. The study concludes with a conceptualization of how the convergence or otherwise of motivations between ISR and CSR in such organizations are defined and what are their determinants, with the derivative managerial implications for firms in developing economies in the context of managing the relatively younger workforce’s participation in their CSR efforts.

This article considers how networked large urban screens can act as a platform for the creation of an experimental transnational public sphere. It takes as a case study a specific Australia-Korea cultural event that linked large screens in Federation Square, Melbourne, and Tomorrow City, Incheon, 1 through the presentation of SMS-based interactive media art works. The article combines theoretical analyses of global citizenship, mobility, digital technologies, and networked public space with empirical analyses of audience response research data collected during the screen event. The central argument is that large public screens can offer a strategic site for examining transformations in the constitution of public agency in a digitized, globalized environment. The idea of ‘aesthetic cosmopolitanism’ is finally proposed as a conceptual framework for understanding how new forms of transnational public agency in mediated public spaces might operate.