Element contents
Human Cognitive Diversity
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2025
Summary
We humans are diverse. But how to understand human diversity in the case of cognitive diversity? This Element discusses how to properly investigate human behavioural and cognitive diversity, how to scientifically represent, and how to explain cognitive diversity. Since there are various methodological approaches and explanatory agendas across the cognitive and behavioural sciences, which can be more or less useful for understanding human diversity, a critical analysis is needed. And as the controversial study of sex and gender differences in cognition illustrates, the scientific representations and explanations put forward matter to society and impact public policy, including policies on mental health. But how to square the vision of human cognitive diversity with the assumption that we all share one human nature? Is cognitive diversity something to be positively valued? The author engages with these questions in connection with the issues of neurodiversity, cognitive disability, and essentialist construals of human nature.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781009496407Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 04 September 2025
References
Ainsworth, C. (2015). Sex redefined: The idea of two sexes is simplistic. Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that. Nature, 518(7539): 288–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amundson, R. (2000). Against normal function. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 31(1): 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amundson, R. and Lauder, G. V. (1994). Function without purpose: The uses of causal role functions in evolutionary biology. Biology and Philosophy, 9(4): 443–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, E. (1995). Knowledge, human interests, and objectivity in feminist epistemology. Philosophical Topics, 23(2): 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, M. L. (2014). After Phrenology: Neural Reuse and the Interactive Brain, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreou, C. (2006). Getting on in a varied world. Social Theory and Practice, 32(1): 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, A. P. (2009). The organizational-activational hypothesis as the foundation for a unified theory of sexual differentiation of all mammalian tissues. Hormones and Behavior, 55(5): 570–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, C. J. (2019). Essence in the Age of Evolution: A New Theory of Natural Kinds, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bao, Y. and Pöppel, E. (2012). Anthropological universals and cultural specifics: Conceptual and methodological challenges in cultural neuroscience. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(9): 2143–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, E. (2016). The Minority Body: A Theory of Disability, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S. (2002). The extreme male brain theory of autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6): 248–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The Essential Difference: Male And Female Brains and the Truth about Autism, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Becker, J. B., Berkley, K. J., Geary, N. et al., eds. (2007). Sex Differences in the Brain: From Genes to Behavior, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleier, R. (1984). Science and Gender: A Critique of Biology and Its Theories on Women, 2nd ed., New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Bluhm, R. (2012). Beyond neurosexism: Is it possible to defend the female brain? In Bluhm, R., Jacobson, A. J., and Maibom, H. L., eds., Neurofeminism: Issues at the Intersection of Feminist Theory and Cognitive Science. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 230–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bluhm, R. (2020). Neurosexism and our understanding of sex differences in the brain. In Crasnow, S. and Intemann, K., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge, pp. 316–27.Google Scholar
Boorse, C. (1997). A rebuttal on health. In Humber, J. M. and Almeder, R. F., eds., What Is Disease? Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, pp. 1–134.Google Scholar
Brigandt, I. (2005). The instinct concept of the early Konrad Lorenz. Journal of the History of Biology, 38(3): 571–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brigandt, I. (2009). Natural kinds in evolution and systematics: Metaphysical and epistemological considerations. Acta Biotheoretica, 57(1–2): 77–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brigandt, I. (2015a). Evolutionary developmental biology and the limits of philosophical accounts of mechanistic explanation. In Braillard, P.-A. and Malaterre, C., eds., Explanation in Biology: An Enquiry into the Diversity of Explanatory Patterns in the Life Sciences. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 135–73.Google Scholar
Brigandt, I. (2015b). Social values influence the adequacy conditions of scientific theories: Beyond inductive risk. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 45(3): 326–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brigandt, I. (2022a). Engaging with science, values, and society: Introduction. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 52(3): 223–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brigandt, I. (2022b). How to philosophically tackle kinds without talking about “natural kinds”. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 52(3): 356–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brigandt, I. (2024a). Biological species. In Koslicki, K. and Raven, M., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Essence in Philosophy. New York: Routledge, pp. 276–90.Google Scholar
Brigandt, I. (2024b). Evolutionstheorie und Naturalismus. In Zichy, M., ed., Handbuch Menschenbilder. Wiesbaden: Springer, pp. 601–20.Google Scholar
Brigandt, I. and Rosario, E. (2020). Strategic conceptual engineering for epistemic and social aims. In Burgess, A., Cappelen, H., and Plunkett, D., eds., Conceptual Engineering and Conceptual Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 100–24.Google Scholar
Brigandt, I., Villegas, C., Love, A. C., and Nuño de la Rosa, L. (2023). Evolvability as a disposition: Philosophical distinctions and scientific implications. In Hansen, T. F., Houle, D., Pavličev, M., and Pélabon, C., eds., Evolvability: A Unifying Concept in Evolutionary Biology? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M. J. (2020). Science and Moral Imagination: A New Ideal for Values in Science, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. R., Dickins, T. E., Sear, R., and Laland, K. N. (2011). Evolutionary accounts of human behavioural diversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1563): 313–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buchanan, A. and Powell, R. (2018). The Evolution of Moral Progress: A Biocultural Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buller, D. J. (2005). Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Buller, D. J. (2006). Evolutionary psychology: A critique. In Sober, E., ed., Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology, 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 197–214.Google Scholar
Burgess, A., Cappelen, H., and Plunkett, D., eds. (2020). Conceptual Engineering and Conceptual Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, R. (2023). Empire of Normality: Neurodiversity and Capitalism, London: Pluto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chekroud, A. M., Ward, E. J., Rosenberg, M. D., and Holmes, A. J. (2016). Patterns in the human brain mosaic discriminate males from females. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(14): E1968.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheon, B. K., Im, D.-M., Harada, T. et al. (2011). Cultural influences on neural basis of intergroup empathy. NeuroImage, 57(2): 642–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chiang, J. J., Saphire-Bernstein, S., Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., and Taylor, S. E. (2012). Cultural differences in the link between supportive relationships and proinflammatory cytokines. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(5): 511–20.Google Scholar
Chiao, J. Y., ed. (2009). Cultural Neuroscience: Cultural Influences on Brain Function, Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Chiao, J. Y., Cheon, B. K., Pornpattananangkul, N., Mrazek, A. J., and Blizinsky, K. D. (2013). Cultural neuroscience: Understanding human diversity. In Gelfand, M. J., Chiu, C.-y., and Hong, Y.-y., eds., Advances in Culture and Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–77.Google Scholar
Choudhury, S. and Kirmayer, L. J. (2009). Cultural neuroscience and psychopathology: Prospects for cultural psychiatry. In Chiao, J. Y., ed., Progress in Brain Research: Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 263–83.Google Scholar
Choudhury, S. and Slaby, J. (2012). Critical Neuroscience: A Handbook of the Social and Cultural Contexts of Neuroscience, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chung, W. C. J. and Auger, A. P. (2013). Gender differences in neurodevelopment and epigenetics. Pflügers Archiv – European Journal of Physiology, 465(5): 573–84.10.1007/s00424-013-1258-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clune-Taylor, C. (2020). Is sex socially constructed? In Crasnow, S. and Intemann, K., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge, pp. 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. B. (2009). Many forms of culture. American Psychologist, 64(3): 194–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, A. B. and Hill, P. C. (2007). Religion as culture: Religious individualism and collectivism among American Catholics, Jews, and Protestants. Journal of Personality, 75(4): 709–42.10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00454.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, D. and Kitayama, S., eds. (2019). Handbook of Cultural Psychology, 2nd ed., New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, D., Nisbett, R. E., Bowdle, B. F., and Schwarz, N. (1996). Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor: An “experimental ethnography.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5): 945–60.10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.945CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curley, J. P., Jensen, C. L., Mashoodh, R., and Champagne, F. A. (2011). Social influences on neurobiology and behavior: Epigenetic effects during development. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36(3): 352–71.10.1016/j.psyneuen.2010.06.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daniels, N. (1987). Justice and health care. In VanDeVeer, D. and Regan, T., eds., Health Care Ethics: An Introduction. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, pp. 290–325.Google Scholar
Dar-Nimrod, I. and Heine, S. J. (2011). Genetic essentialism: On the deceptive determinism of DNA. Psychological Bulletin, 137(5): 800–18.10.1037/a0021860CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Greck, M., Shi, Z., Wang, G. et al. (2012). Culture modulates brain activity during empathy with anger. NeuroImage, 59(3): 2871–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Melo-Martín, I. and Intemann, K. (2018). The Fight against Doubt: How to Bridge the Gap Between Scientists and the Public, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devitt, M. (2008). Resurrecting biological essentialism. Philosophy of Science, 75(3): 344–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doan, M. D. and Fenton, A. (2013). Embodying autistic cognition: Towards reconceiving certain “autism-related” behavioral atypicalities as functional. In Anderson, J. L. and Cushing, S., eds., The Philosophy of Autism. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 47–71.Google Scholar
Dokumacı, A. (2023). Activist Affordances How Disabled People Improvise More Habitable Worlds, Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, H. E. (2009). Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.10.2307/j.ctt6wrc78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downes, S. M. (2016). Confronting variation in the social and behavioral sciences. Philosophy of Science, 83(5): 909–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dussauge, I. and Kaiser, A. (2012). Re-queering the brain. In Bluhm, R., Jacobson, A. J., and Maibom, H. L., eds., Neurofeminism: Issues at the Intersection of Feminist Theory and Cognitive Science. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 121–44.Google Scholar
Eichler, M. (1988). Nonsexist Research Methods: A Practical Guide, Boston, MA: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Eliot, L. (2009). Pink Brain, Blue Brain: How Small Differences Grow into Troublesome Gaps – and What We Can Do about It, New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Eliot, L. (2011). The trouble with sex differences. Neuron, 72(6): 895–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elliott, K. C. (2017). A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190260804.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, K. C. (2022). Values in Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, K. C. and McKaughan, D. J. (2014). Nonepistemic values and the multiple goals of science. Philosophy of Science, 81(1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, B. J. and Boyce, W. T. (2008). Biological sensitivity to context. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(3): 183–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, B. J., Boyce, W. T., Belsky, J., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., and van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2011). Differential susceptibility to the environment: An evolutionary-neurodevelopmental theory. Development and Psychopathology, 23(1): 7–28.10.1017/S0954579410000611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Else-Quest, N. M. and Hyde, J. S. (2020). Implementing intersectionality in psychology with quantitative methods. In Crasnow, S. and Intemann, K., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge, pp. 340–52.Google Scholar
Fausto-Sterling, A. (1992). Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men, revised edition, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2012). Sex/Gender: Biology in a Social World, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, C. and Plaisance, K. S. (2010). Socially relevant philosophy of science: An introduction. Synthese, 177(3): 301–16.10.1007/s11229-010-9855-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenton, A. and Krahn, T. (2007). Autism, neurodiversity and equality beyond the “normal.” Journal of Ethics in Mental Health, 2(2): 1–6.Google Scholar
Fernández, A. L. and Evans, J., eds. (2022). Understanding Cross-Cultural Neuropsychology: Science, Testing, and Challenges, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fincher, C. L., Thornhill, R., Murray, D. R., and Schaller, M. (2008). Pathogen prevalence predicts human cross-cultural variability in individualism/collectivism. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275(1640): 1279–85.Google ScholarPubMed
Fine, C. (2010). Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference, New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Fine, C. (2017). Testosterone Rex: Myths of Sex, Science, and Society, New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Fine, C., Dupré, J., and Joel, D. (2017). Sex-linked behavior: Evolution, stability, and variability. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(9): 666–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flynn, J. R. (2007). What Is Intelligence? Beyond the Flynn Effect, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gannett, L. (2004). The biological reification of race. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55(2): 323–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gatzke-Kopp, L. M. (2016). Diversity and representation: Key issues for psychophysiological science. Psychophysiology, 53(1): 3–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelfand, M. J., Chiu, C.-y., and Hong, Y.-y., eds. (2013). Advances in Culture and Psychology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, M. T. (1974). A radical solution to the species problem. Systematic Zoology, 23: 536–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, S. F., Bosch, T. C. G., and Ledon-Rettig, C. (2015). Eco-Evo-Devo: Developmental symbiosis and developmental plasticity as evolutionary agents. Nature Reviews Genetics, 16(10): 611–22.10.1038/nrg3982CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffiths, P. E. (2001). Genetic information: A metaphor in search of a theory. Philosophy of Science, 68: 394–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, P. E. (2002). What is innateness? The Monist, 85: 70–85.10.5840/monist20028518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurian, M. and Stevens, K. (2005). The Minds of Boys: Saving Our Sons from Falling behind in School and Life, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Hacker-Wright, J. (2009). What is natural about Foot’s ethical naturalism? Ratio, 22(3): 308–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I. (1999). The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Halpern, D. F. (2012). Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities, 4th ed., New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, C. (2008). Cognition and Sex Differences, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-1-137-01967-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, S. J. (2016). DNA Is Not Destiny: The Remarkable, Completely Misunderstood Relationship Between You and Your Genes, New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Heine, S. J., Dar-Nimrod, I., Cheung, B. Y., and Proulx, T. (2017). Essentially biased: Why people are fatalistic about genes. In Olson, J. M., ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, pp. 137–92.Google Scholar
Henrich, J. (2020). The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous, New York: Picador.Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., and Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3): 61–83.10.1017/S0140525X0999152XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herrnstein, R. J. and Murray, C. (1994). The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Hoffman, G. (2012). What, if anything, can neuroscience tell us about gender differences? In Bluhm, R., Jacobson, A. J., and Maibom, H. L., eds., Neurofeminism: Issues at the Intersection of Feminist Theory and Cognitive Science. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 30–55.10.1057/9780230368385_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1978). A matter of individuality. Philosophy of Science, 45: 335–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1986). On human nature. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1986(2): 3–13.Google Scholar
Hüttemann, A. and Kaiser, M. I. (2018). Potentiality in biology. In Engelhard, K. and Quante, M., eds., Handbook of Potentiality. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 401–28.Google Scholar
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6): 581–92.10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyde, J. S., Bigler, R. S., Joel, D., Tate, C. C., and van Anders, S. M. (2019). The future of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary. American Psychologist, 74(2): 171–93.10.1037/amp0000307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intemann, K. (2015). Distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate values in climate modeling. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 5(2): 217–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaarsma, P. and Welin, S. (2012). Autism as a natural human variation: Reflections on the claims of the neurodiversity movement. Health Care Analysis, 20(1): 20–30.10.1007/s10728-011-0169-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joel, D. (2011). Male or female? Brains are intersex. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 5: 57.10.3389/fnint.2011.00057CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joel, D. (2021). Beyond the binary: Rethinking sex and the brain. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 122: 165–75.10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.11.018CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joel, D., Berman, Z., Tavor, I. et al. (2015). Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(50): 15468–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joel, D. and Fausto-Sterling, A. (2016). Beyond sex differences: New approaches for thinking about variation in brain structure and function. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1688): 20150451.10.1098/rstb.2015.0451CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joel, D., Persico, A., Salhov, M. et al. (2018). Analysis of human brain structure reveals that the brain “types” typical of males are also typical of females, and vice versa. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12: 399.10.3389/fnhum.2018.00399CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joel, D. and Vikhanski, L. (2019). Gender Mosaic: Beyond the Myth of the Male and Female Brain, London: Endeavour.Google Scholar
Jordan-Young, R. M. (2010). Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jordan-Young, R. M. and Rumiati, R. I. (2012). Hardwired for sexism? Approaches to sex/gender in neuroscience. Neuroethics, 5(3): 305–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, A., Haller, S., Schmitz, S., and Nitsch, C. (2009). On sex/gender related similarities and differences in fMRI language research. Brain Research Reviews, 61(2): 49–59.10.1016/j.brainresrev.2009.03.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaplan, J. M. (2010). When socially determined categories make biological realities. The Monist, 93(2): 283–99.10.5840/monist201093216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, J. M. and Winther, R. G. (2013). Prisoners of abstraction? The theory and measure of genetic variation, and the very concept of “race.” Biological Theory, 7(4): 401–12.10.1007/s13752-012-0048-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, S. J. (1990). The medical construction of gender: Case management of intersexed infants. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16(1): 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H. S. and Sasaki, J. Y. (2014). Cultural neuroscience: Biology of the mind in cultural contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1): 487–514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kitayama, S., Ishii, K., Imada, T., Takemura, K., and Ramaswamy, J. (2006). Voluntary settlement and the spirit of independence: Evidence from Japan’s “northern frontier.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(3): 369–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kitayama, S. and Park, J. (2010). Cultural neuroscience of the self: Understanding the social grounding of the brain. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5(2–3): 111–29.10.1093/scan/nsq052CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kõiv, R. (2023). Genetically caused trait is an interactive kind. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 13(3): 31.10.1007/s13194-023-00527-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kourany, J. A. (2010). Philosophy of Science after Feminism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kronfeldner, M. (2018). What’s Left of Human Nature? A Post-Essentialist, Pluralist, and Interactive Account of a Contested Concept, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/11606.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kronfeldner, M., Roughley, N., and Toepfer, G. (2014). Recent work on human nature: Beyond traditional essences. Philosophy Compass, 9(9): 642–52.10.1111/phc3.12159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lester, B. M., Tronick, E., Nestler, E. et al. (2011). Behavioral epigenetics. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1226(1): 14–33.10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06037.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewontin, R. C., Rose, S., and Kamin, L. (1984). Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature, New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Lloyd, E. A. (1995). Objectivity and the double standard for feminist epistemologies. Synthese, 104(3): 351–81.10.1007/BF01064505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry, Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9780691209753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Losin, E. A. R., Dapretto, M., and Iacoboni, M. (2010). Culture and neuroscience: Additive or synergistic? Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5(2–3): 148–58.10.1093/scan/nsp058CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mameli, M. (2024). Why Human Nature Matters: Between Biology and Politics, London: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martínez Mateo, M., Cabanis, M., Loebell, N. C. d. E., and Krach, S. (2012). Concerns about cultural neurosciences: A critical analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(1): 152–61.10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.05.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martínez Mateo, M., Cabanis, M., Stenmanns, J., and Krach, S. (2013). Essentializing the binary self: Individualism and collectivism in cultural neuroscience. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7: 289.10.3389/fnhum.2013.00289CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Massa, M. G., Aghi, K., and Hill, M. J. (2023). Deconstructing sex: Strategies for undoing binary thinking in neuroendocrinology and behavior. Hormones and Behavior, 156: 105441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masuda, T., Batdorj, B., and Senzaki, S. (2020). Culture and attention: Future directions to expand research beyond the geographical regions of WEIRD cultures. Frontiers in Psychology, 11: 1394.10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01394CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masuda, T., Gonzalez, R., Kwan, L., and Nisbett, R. E. (2008). Culture and aesthetic preference: Comparing the attention to context of East Asians and Americans. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(9): 1260–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1959). Darwin and the evolutionary theory in biology. In Meggers, B. J., ed., Evolution and Anthropology: A Centennial Appraisal. Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. M., Arnold, A. P., Ball, G. F., Blaustein, J. D., and De Vries, G. J. (2012). Sex differences in the brain: The not so inconvenient truth. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(7): 2241–47.10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5372-11.2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, M. M., Auger, A. P., Bale, T. L. et al. (2009). The epigenetics of sex differences in the brain. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(41): 12815–23.10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3331-09.2009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, M. M., Nugent, B. M., and Lenz, K. M. (2017). Neuroimmunology and neuroepigenetics in the establishment of sex differences in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18: 471.10.1038/nrn.2017.61CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCauley, R. N. and Henrich, J. (2006). Susceptibility to the Müller-Lyer illusion, theory-neutral observation, and the diachronic penetrability of the visual input system. Philosophical Psychology, 19(1): 79–101.10.1080/09515080500462347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGowan, P. O., Sasaki, A., and Roth, T. L. (2014). The social environment and epigenetics in psychiatry. In Peedicayil, J., Grayson, D. R., and Avramopoulos, D., eds., Epigenetics in Psychiatry. Boston, MA: Academic Press, pp. 547–62.Google Scholar
Meynell, L. (2020). What’s wrong with (narrow) evolutionary psychology. In Crasnow, S. and Intemann, K., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge, pp. 303–15.Google Scholar
Müller, G. B. (2003). Embryonic motility: Environmental influences and evolutionary innovation. Evolution & Development, 5(1): 56–60.10.1046/j.1525-142X.2003.03009.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nado, J. (2021). Conceptual engineering, truth, and efficacy. Synthese, 198(Suppl 7): S1507–S27.10.1007/s11229-019-02096-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, N. C. (2018). Model Behavior: Animal Experiments, Complexity, and the Genetics of Psychiatric Disorders, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226546117.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbett, R. E. (2005). The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently … and Why, London: Nicholas Brealey.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E. (2009). Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count, New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., and Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2): 291–310.10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.291CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511841286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674061200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odenbaugh, J. (2017). Nothing in ethics makes sense except in the light of evolution? Natural goodness, normativity, and naturalism. Synthese, 194(4): 1031–55.10.1007/s11229-015-0675-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Packer, M. J. and Cole, M. (2023). The challenges to the study of cultural variation in cognition. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 14(2): 515–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, A. R. (2012). Developmental plasticity and the origin of novel forms: Unveiling cryptic genetic variation via “use and disuse.” Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution, 318(6): 466–79.10.1002/jez.b.21447CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Panofsky, A., Dasgupta, K., and Iturriaga, N. (2021). How White nationalists mobilize genetics: From genetic ancestry and human biodiversity to counterscience and metapolitics. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 175(2): 387–98.10.1002/ajpa.24150CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pigliucci, M. (2001). Phenotypic Plasticity: Beyond Nature and Nurture, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.10.56021/9780801867880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. A. (2002). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2008). The Sexual Paradox: Men, Women and the Real Gender Gap, New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
Plaisance, K. S. and Elliott, K. C. (2021). A framework for analyzing broadly engaged philosophy of science. Philosophy of Science, 88(4): 594–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potochnik, A. (2012). Feminist implications of model-based science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 43(2): 383–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powledge, T. M. (2011). Behavioral epigenetics: How nurture shapes nature. BioScience, 61(8): 588–92.10.1525/bio.2011.61.8.4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quartz, S. R. (1999). The constructivist brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(2): 48–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Qureshi, I. A. and Mehler, M. F. (2010). Genetic and epigenetic underpinnings of sex differences in the brain and in neurological and psychiatric disease susceptibility. In Savic, I., ed., Sex Differences in the Human Brain, Their Underpinnings and Implications. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 77–95.10.1016/B978-0-444-53630-3.00006-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qureshi, I. A. and Mehler, M. F. (2014). An evolving view of epigenetic complexity in the brain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1652): 20130506.10.1098/rstb.2013.0506CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Read, J., Bentall, R. P., and Fosse, R. (2009). Time to abandon the bio-bio-bio model of psychosis: Exploring the epigenetic and psychological mechanisms by which adverse life events lead to psychotic symptoms. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale, 18(4): 299–310.10.1017/S1121189X00000257CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richardson, R. C. (2007). Evolutionary Psychology as Maladapted Psychology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/7464.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, S. S. (2017). Plasticity and programming: Feminism and the epigenetic imaginary. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 43(1): 29–52.10.1086/692446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, S. S. (2022). Sex contextualism. Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology, 14: 2.10.3998/ptpbio.2096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridley, R. (2019). Some difficulties behind the concept of the “Extreme male brain” in autism research. A theoretical review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 57: 19–27.10.1016/j.rasd.2018.09.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rippon, G. (2019). The Gendered Brain: The New Neuroscience that Shatters the Myth of the Female Brain, London: Bodley Head.Google Scholar
Robert, J. (2004). Embryology, Epigenesis, and Evolution: Taking Development Seriously, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511498541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouder, J. and Haaf, J. M. (2021). Are there reliable qualitative individual differences in cognition? Journal of Cognition, 4(1): 46.10.5334/joc.131CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roughgarden, J. (2004). Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ruigrok, A. N. V., Salimi-Khorshidi, G., Lai, M.-C. et al. (2014). A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structure. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 39: 34–50.10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.12.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rutten, B. P. F. and Mill, J. (2009). Epigenetic mediation of environmental influences in major psychotic disorders. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 35(6): 1045–56.10.1093/schbul/sbp104CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sax, L. (2017). Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know about the Emerging Science of Sex Differences, 2nd ed., New York: Harmony Books.Google Scholar
Schiebinger, L. (1999). Has Feminism Changed Science? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.7788/figurationen.1999.0.0.50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schienke, E. W., Baum, S. D., Tuana, N., Davis, K. J., and Keller, K. (2011). Intrinsic ethics regarding integrated assessment models for climate management. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(3): 503–23.10.1007/s11948-010-9209-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schulz, A. W. (2023). Explaining human diversity: The need to balance fit and complexity. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 14(2): 457–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seghier, M. L. and Price, C. J. (2018). Interpreting and utilising intersubject variability in brain function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(6): 517–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shattuck-Heidorn, H. and Richardson, S. S. (2019). Sex/gender and the biosocial turn. Scholar & Feminist Online, 15(2). https://sfonline.barnard.edu/sex-gender-and-the-biosocial-turn.Google Scholar
Silvers, A. (1998). A fatal attraction to normalizing: Treating disabilities as deviations from “species-typical” functioning. In Parens, E., ed., Enhancing Human Traits: Ethical and Social Implications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 95–123.Google Scholar
Silvers, A. (2003). On the possibility and desirability of constructing a neutral conception of disability. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 24(6): 471–87.10.1023/B:META.0000006924.82156.5bCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, E. A. (2011). Endless forms: Human behavioural diversity and evolved universals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1563): 325–32.10.1098/rstb.2010.0233CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snibbe, A. C. and Markus, H. R. (2005). You can’t always get what you want: Educational attainment, agency, and choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4): 703–20.10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.703CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sober, E. (1980). Evolution, population thinking, and essentialism. Philosophy of Science, 47(3): 350–83.10.1086/288942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Springer, K. W., Stellman, J. M., and Jordan-Young, R. M. (2012). Beyond a catalogue of differences: A theoretical frame and good practice guidelines for researching sex/gender in human health. Social Science & Medicine, 74(11): 1817–24.10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.033CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stephens, N. M., Markus, H. R., and Townsend, S. S. M. (2007). Choice as an act of meaning: The case of social class. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5): 814–30.10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, N. M., Townsend, S. S. M., Markus, H. R., and Phillips, L. T. (2012). A cultural mismatch: Independent cultural norms produce greater increases in cortisol and more negative emotions among first-generation college students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(6): 1389–93.10.1016/j.jesp.2012.07.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterelny, K. (2012). The Evolved Apprentice, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262016797.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterelny, K. (2018). Skeptical reflections on human nature. In Hannon, E. and Lewens, T., eds., Why We Disagree about Human Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 108–26.Google Scholar
Stotz, K. (2006). With “genes” like that, who needs an environment? Postgenomics’s argument for the “ontogeny of information.” Philosophy of Science, 73(5): 905–17.10.1086/518748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stotz, K. and Griffiths, P. E. (2018). A developmental systems account of human nature. In Hannon, E. and Lewens, T., eds., Why We Disagree about Human Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 58–75.Google Scholar
Suárez, J. (2023a). Masking, extrinsicness, and the nature of dispositions: The role of niche signals in muscle stem cells. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 13(2): 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suárez, J. (2023b). What is the nature of stem cells? A unified dispositional framework. Biology & Philosophy, 38(5): 43.10.1007/s10539-023-09930-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sultan, S. E. (2015). Organism and Environment: Ecological Development, Niche Construction, and Adaptation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199587070.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabery, J. (2023). Tyranny of the Gene: Personalized Medicine and Its Threat to Public Health, New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Tang, Y., Zhang, W., Chen, K. et al. (2006). Arithmetic processing in the brain shaped by cultures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(28): 10775–80.10.1073/pnas.0604416103CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The Gurian Institute, Bering, S., and Goldberg, A. (2009). It’s a Baby Girl! The Unique Wonder and Special Nature of Your Daughter from Pregnancy to Two Years, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Thompson, M. (1995). The representation of life. In Hursthouse, R., Lawrence, G., and Quinn, W., eds., Virtues and Reasons: Philippa Foot and Moral Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 206–46.Google Scholar
Thompson, M. (2008). Life and Action: Elementary Structures of Practice and Practical Thought, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2019). Becoming Human: A Theory of Ontogeny, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Tooby, J. and Cosmides, L. (2015). Conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychology. In Buss, D. M., ed., The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 5–67.10.1002/9780470939376.ch1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tooley, U. A., Bassett, D. S., and Mackey, A. P. (2021). Environmental influences on the pace of brain development. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 22(6): 372–84.10.1038/s41583-021-00457-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toyokawa, S., Uddin, M., Koenen, K. C., and Galea, S. (2012). How does the social environment “get into the mind?” Epigenetics at the intersection of social and psychiatric epidemiology. Social Science & Medicine, 74(1): 67–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tramacere, A. and Bickle, J. (2024). Neuroepigenetics in philosophical focus: A critical analysis of the philosophy of mechanisms. Biological Theory, 19(1): 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremain, S. L., ed. (2023). The Bloomsbury Guide to Philosophy of Disability, London: Bloomsbury.10.5040/9781350268937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uddin, M., Bustamante, A., and Toyokawa, S. (2014). Epigenetic epidemiology of psychiatric disorders. In Peedicayil, J., Grayson, D. R., and Avramopoulos, D., eds., Epigenetics in Psychiatry. Boston, MA: Academic Press, pp. 101–27.Google Scholar
Ursache, A. and Noble, K. G. (2016). Neurocognitive development in socioeconomic context: Multiple mechanisms and implications for measuring socioeconomic status. Psychophysiology, 53(1): 71–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uskul, A. K., Kitayama, S., and Nisbett, R. E. (2008). Ecocultural basis of cognition: Farmers and fishermen are more holistic than herders. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(25): 8552–56.10.1073/pnas.0803874105CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valian, V. (2014). Interests, gender, and science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(2): 225–30.10.1177/1745691613519109CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valles, S. A. (2019). Philosophy of Population Health: Philosophy for a New Public Health Era, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Valles, S. A. (2021). A pluralistic and socially responsible philosophy of epidemiology field should actively engage with social determinants of health and health disparities. Synthese, 198(10): 2589–611.10.1007/s11229-019-02161-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Anders, S. M. (2013). Beyond masculinity: Testosterone, gender/sex, and human social behavior in a comparative context. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 34(3): 198–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Anders, S. M. (2015). Beyond sexual orientation: Integrating gender/sex and diverse sexualities via sexual configurations theory. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(5): 1177–213.10.1007/s10508-015-0490-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Anders, S. M., Schudson, Z. C., Abed, E. C. et al. (2017). Biological sex, gender, and public policy. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4(2): 194–201.10.1177/2372732217720700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Anders, S. M., Steiger, J., and Goldey, K. L. (2015). Effects of gendered behavior on testosterone in women and men. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(45): 13805–10.10.1073/pnas.1509591112CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vickers, A. L. and Kitcher, P. (2003). Pop sociobiology reborn: The evolutionary psychology of sex and violence. In Travis, C. B., ed., Evolution, Gender, and Rape. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 139–68.Google Scholar
Vogeley, K. and Roepstorff, A. (2009). Contextualising culture and social cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(12): 511–6.10.1016/j.tics.2009.09.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, N. (2021a). A horizon of possibility: Some notes on neuroqueer theory. In Walker, N., ed., Neuroqueer Heresies: Notes on the Neurodiversity Paradigm, Autistic Empowerment, and Postnormal Possibilities. Fort Worth, TX: Autonomous Press, pp. 169–91.Google Scholar
Walker, N. (2021b). Neuroqueer Heresies: Notes on the Neurodiversity Paradigm, Autistic Empowerment, and Postnormal Possibilities, Fort Worth, TX: Autonomous Press.Google Scholar
Walker, I. and Read, J. (2002). The differential effectiveness of psychosocial and biogenetic causal explanations in reducing negative attitudes toward “mental illness.” Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 65(4): 313–25.10.1521/psyc.65.4.313.20238CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, G., Mao, L., Ma, Y. et al. (2012). Neural representations of close others in collectivistic brains. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(2): 222–29.10.1093/scan/nsr002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ward, Z. B. (2022). Cognitive variation: The philosophical landscape. Philosophy Compass, 17(10): e12882.10.1111/phc3.12882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasserman, D. and Aas, S. (2023). Disability: Definitions and models. In E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman, eds., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2023 edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/disability/.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. (2017). A Constructive Critical Assessment of Feminist Evolutionary Psychology, Dissertation, University of Waterloo. https://hdl.handle.net/10012/12772.Google Scholar
West-Eberhard, M. J. (2003). Developmental Plasticity and Evolution, Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195122343.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitman, D. W. and Agrawal, A. A. (2009). What is phenotypic plasticity and why is it important? In Whitman, D. W. and Ananthakrishnan, T. N., eds., Phenotypic Plasticity of Insects: Mechanisms and Consequences. Enfield: Science, pp. 1–63.Google Scholar
Woodcock, S. (2006). Philippa Foot’s virtue ethics has an Achilles’ heel. Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie, 45(3): 445–68.10.1017/S0012217300001013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wouters, A. (2003). Four notions of biological function. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 34(4): 633–68.10.1016/j.shpsc.2003.09.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, A. and Hankinson Nelson, L. (2007). Coming to terms with the values of science: Insights from feminist science scholarship. In Kincaid, H., Dupré, J., and Wylie, A., eds., Value-Free Science? Ideals and Illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 58–86.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195308969.003.0005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zawidzki, T. W. (2013). Mindshaping: A New Framework for Understanding Human Social Cognition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, L., Zhou, T., Zhang, J. et al. (2006). In search of the Chinese self: An fMRI study. Science in China Series C, 49(1): 89–96.10.1007/s11427-004-5105-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA
The PDF of this Element
complies with version 2.1 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved
user experiences and achieves the intermediate
(AA)
level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.