Research illuminates the benefits of random practice …

While the distinctiveness hypothesis is based on schema incongruence, ..

Tim Valentine's Research Page - Valentine Moore …

The combined influence on ingroup bias of threat to group distinctiveness and prototypicality as a group member was examined in two studies. It was predicted, in line with social identity theory, that threat to group distinctiveness would lead to more ingroup bias. In addition, on the basis of self-categorization theory it was predicted that protypical and peripheral group members would react differently to a threat to their group distinctiveness. Only group members who define themselves as prototypical group members should be motivated to defend their threatened distinctiveness by engaging in increased ingroup bias. This hypothesis was first supported in a modified minimal group setting in which threat was operationalized as overlapping group boundaries, These results were then replicated in a Second study, using better-established groups, fdr whom distinctiveness threat was manipulated in terms of intergroup similarity. Moreover, some support was found in Study 2 for the prediction that the opportunity to engage in intergroup differentiation can, under restricted conditions, enhance group-related self-esteem. (C) 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Reading Comprehension Skills: Testing the Skills Distinctiveness Hypothesis

POPE JOHN PAUL II EMBRACES EVOLUTION!! - …

AB - This chapter aims to correct two common and related misconceptions in discussions of the epistemology of testimony. The first misconception is that testimonial knowledge is an epistemically distinct kind of knowledge only if there are testimony-specific epistemic principles implicated in the justification of beliefs formed through testimony. The second misconception is that anyone who endorses a reductionist position regarding the epistemic status of testimony, and so denies the existence of testimony-specific epistemic principles, ipso facto ought to be hostile to the hypothesis that testimonial knowledge is epistemically distinctive. The chapter argues against both misconceptions by arguing for the distinctiveness hypothesis in a way that involves no premise any reductionist should want to deny.

N2 - This chapter aims to correct two common and related misconceptions in discussions of the epistemology of testimony. The first misconception is that testimonial knowledge is an epistemically distinct kind of knowledge only if there are testimony-specific epistemic principles implicated in the justification of beliefs formed through testimony. The second misconception is that anyone who endorses a reductionist position regarding the epistemic status of testimony, and so denies the existence of testimony-specific epistemic principles, ipso facto ought to be hostile to the hypothesis that testimonial knowledge is epistemically distinctive. The chapter argues against both misconceptions by arguing for the distinctiveness hypothesis in a way that involves no premise any reductionist should want to deny.


The Impact of Newton's Principia on the Philosophy of Science

Recent studies have shown how fruitful aredaction-critical approach to Q can be. At firstsight such work may appear to be extremelyhypothetical, being based on what some would argue isa very questionable presupposition (the very existenceof Q as a single document). However, the verydistinctiveness of the Q material as shown by therecent redaction-critical studies of Q is in itself anindication that this material did exist as a separateentity at some stage in the development of thesynoptic tradition. Theories about the theology of Q,if successful, may therefore provide support for thehypothesis of the existence of Q. Q may also alert usto the great variety within primitive Christianity. It shows us a version of the Christian faith which isperhaps less cross centered than, say, Paul or Mark;but it is nonetheless real for that.