Baruch College

Mazviita Chirimuuta has written a timely book that reinvigorates a classic argument against mechanical minds: biological naturalism, the view that consciousness and general intelligence depend upon life. A central commitment of this book is a kind of Kantian humility about the prospects for our knowledge of the brain: it holds that because there is a fundamental difference in kind between silicon-based computational “maps” and the biological “territory” of the brain, no scientific model can provide us with knowledge of the “brain-in-itself.” In this commentary, we flesh out two arguments Chirimuuta offers for biological naturalism. We agree with her that these arguments provide support for biological naturalism, but only if she abandons her Kantian humility about our knowledge of the brain and embraces a more dialectical, Hegelian approach to the relationship between scientific models and their targets.

Fix primes $p$ and $\ell$ with $\ell \neq p$. If $(A, \lambda)$ is a $g$-dimensional principally polarized abelian variety, an $(\ell)^{g}$-isogeny of $(A, \lambda)$ has kernel a maximal isotropic subgroup of the $\ell$-torsion of $A$; the image has a natural principal polarization. In this paper we study the isogeny graphs of $(\ell)^{g}$-isogenies of principally polarized superspecial abelian varieties in characteristic $p$. We define three isogeny graphs associated to such $(\ell)^{g}$-isogenies—the big isogeny graph $\mathit{Gr}_{g}(\ell, p)$, the little isogeny graph $\mathit{gr}_{g}(\ell, p)$, and the enhanced isogeny graph $\widetilde{\mathit{gr}}_{g}(\ell, p)$. We apply strong approximation for the quaternionic unitary group to prove both that $\mathit{gr}_{g}(\ell, p)$ and $\mathit{Gr}_{g}(\ell, p)$ are connected and that they are not bipartite. The connectedness of the enhanced isogeny graph $\widetilde{\mathit{gr}}_{g}(\ell, p)$ then follows. The quaternionic unitary group has previously been applied to moduli of abelian varieties in characteristic $p$ (sometimes invoking strong approximation) by Chai, Ekedahl/Oort, and Chai/Oort. The adjacency matrices of the three isogeny graphs are given in terms of the Brandt matrices defined by Hashimoto, Ibukiyama, Ihara, and Shimizu. We study some basic properties of these Brandt matrices and recast the theory using the notion of Brandt graphs. We show that the isogeny graphs $\mathit{Gr}_{g}(\ell, p)$ and $\mathit{gr}_{g}(\ell, p)$ are in fact our Brandt graphs. We give the $\ell$-adic uniformization of $\mathit{gr}_{g}(\ell, p)$ and $\widetilde{\mathit{gr}}_{g}(\ell, p)$. The $(\ell + 1)$-regular isogeny graph $\mathit{Gr}_{1}(\ell, p)$ for supersingular elliptic curves is well known to be Ramanujan. We calculate the Brandt matrices for a range of $g > 1$, $\ell$, and $p$. These calculations give four examples with $g > 1$ where the regular graph $\mathit{Gr}_{g}(\ell, p)$ has two vertices and is Ramanujan, and all other examples we computed with $g > 1$ and two or more vertices were not Ramanujan. In particular, the $(\ell)^g$-isogeny graph is not in general Ramanujan for $g > 1$.

Abstract The intangible nature of organisational social evaluations, such as celebrity, legitimacy, reputation, status, stigma, and trust, challenges their construct validity and measurement. This chapter reviews and integrates extant research on these social evaluations to identify the current state of measurement along with future opportunities and challenges. Social evaluation research is rich with a variety of data collection methodologies. While measurement has shown signs of improvement, overlapping conceptualisations of some social evaluations and their measurement cloud their practical application and managerial relevance. This chapter reviews best practices in construct measurement. In addition, it highlights distinctions among level of measurement, level of analysis, first-order and second-order judgements, and consensus, among others. The chapter revisits the creation and use of rankings tables as well as the availability of archival data. It also describes the varied use of content and sentiment analysis, beginning with media reputation and current approaches to quantifying social evaluations in media and social media coverage. Advances in technology and the growth of social media have fundamentally changed some elements of measurement, providing better tools for both academic research and practice. Yet, overlapping social evaluation construct operationalisations limit the ability to draw distinct conclusions. These difficulties intensify in international and cross-national settings. In addition, shifting and increasingly polarised stakeholder evaluations and institutional environments signal potential change in evaluation criteria and necessary adjustments in measurement and interpretation. The chapter concludes with recommendations for rigorous measurement and directions for future research.

Abstract Philosophers, psychologists and linguists routinely use truth-value judgments as a source of evidence for the meaning of specific expressions. This method presupposes that truth-value judgments track whether what was said corresponds with facts. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that ordinary people’s behavior on the truth-value judgment task is sensitive to a range of factors beyond correspondence with facts. In this paper, we investigate how judgments of truth are influenced by considerations of truthfulness. In a series of three experiments, we present results indicating that the truth-truthfulness entanglement is at the heart of the debate over the semantics of color predicates. We use these findings to challenge contextualism about color predicates. While our substantive contribution is quite targeted, we show that the methodological lessons are likely to generalize broadly to other areas of research in cognitive science.

Abstract This paper illustrates how firms with publicly disclosed political connections use subsidiaries to obtain preferential treatment in land markets. While the headquarters of politically connected listed firms pay land prices comparable to those paid by other firms, their subsidiaries receive discounts of 12.1% – 13.2%. These discounts are more pronounced when land is acquired through less transparent methods, in regions with weaker institutional environments, and among private firms. The anti-corruption campaign launched in 2012 effectively mitigates corruption-related discounts, with the magnitude of the discounts negatively associated with campaign intensity. Additionally, larger discounts for subsidiaries are observed following greater charitable donations, suggesting a reciprocal relationship between firms and officials. Overall, the findings contribute to a broader understanding of how firms with publicly disclosed political ties use complex corporate structures to engage in rent-seeking behavior. JEL Classifications : D73, G38, H7, R30

Fake news—false or misleading information presented as news—now abounds. As information about firms becomes decreasingly credible, can stakeholders make effective use of their influence to drive firms to engage in socially responsible behaviors? We assembled this special issue to explore the extent to which the social evaluations that underpin stakeholder cognition and action have been compromised and to assess how this affects firm behavior in this era of fake news. The five articles comprising this issue elucidate the strategies used to spread fake news and show how it influences stakeholders. They find that emotionality proves effective in spreading and countering fake news. However, even when fake news is successfully countered, a negative residue remains. Fake news is particularly insidious because even when stakeholders know it to be false, they act in ways consonant with it being true. Overall, these articles provide evidence that fake news alters the ways in which stakeholders use social evaluations and harms the ability to use social control to bring business and society into alignment. However, much remains to be done to understand the complicated relationship between business and society in a compromised information environment.

Abstract Industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology has largely ignored organized labor, both in terms of our research interests and as a potential domain of professional practice. Historically, some I-O psychologists have even engaged in antilabor activities. This article aims to make that history more salient to current members of the profession, help us better understand how and why that schism came about, note the adverse effects on our understanding of organizations and contributing to employee well-being and organizational effectiveness, and highlight associated ethical issues. We offer suggestions on how to address the situation, drawing on examples from the field of industrial relations. We also consider the impact of the current antilabor, antidemocratic US government administration. We conclude by offering some suggested prompts for commentaries to the article.