BackgroundBoth impairment and sex differences in social cognition and neurocognition have been documented in schizophrenia. However, whether sex differences exist in the association between social cognition and neurocognition are not known. We aimed to investigate the contribution of areas of neurocognition to theory of mind and hostility bias, representing social cognition, according to sex in early course schizophrenia.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, we assessed neurocognition using the Japanese version of the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia and assessed the ToM and (...) hostility bias subdomains of social cognition using the Social Cognition Screening Questionnaire in 131 participants diagnosed with schizophrenia within 5 years of onset. Sex differences were analyzed using t-tests. The associations of neurocognitive subdomains with ToM and hostility bias according to sex were analyzed using multiple regression analysis. Results were adjusted by age, estimated premorbid intelligence quotient, and symptomatology.ResultsNo sex differences were found in ToM or hostility bias. Higher verbal fluency was significantly associated with higher ToM in females, whereas higher executive function was significantly associated with higher ToM in males. Higher verbal fluency was significantly associated with lower hostility bias in females, whereas neurocognition and hostility bias were not significantly associated in males.ConclusionThe results suggest that neurocognition associated with social cognition differ according to sex. These differences should be considered for more effective treatment of social cognition. (shrink)

Après un bref survol de l’esthétique britannique au xxe siècle, les objections de Wollheim à la théorie « idéelle » de l’art, qu’il attribue à Croce et à Collingwood, sont présentées. Dans une deuxième partie, les critiques de Bosanquet à l’endroit de la théorie de Croce sont examinées, pour en conclure qu’on ne peut pas lui attribuer la théorie « idéelle ». Il en va de même pour Collingwood, dont les grandes lignes de son esthétique sont présentées dans la troisième (...) partie, dont le but accessoire est de montrer que sa théorie est par ailleurs plus satisfaisante que celle de Bosanquet ; elle est en réalité très proche de celle de Wollheim, malgré les dires de ce dernier. Dans la conclusion, on revient sur le motif des théories de l’art des idéalistes britanniques, à savoir le rôle social que doit jouer l’oeuvre d’art, pour montrer toute l’actualité de la théorie de Collingwood, pour qui l’oeuvre d’art est le produit non pas de l’artiste seul, mais de l’artiste et de son audience.After a brief survey of British aesthetics in the XXth century, Wollheim’s objections to the ‘ideal’ theory, which he imputes to Croce and Collingwood, are presented. In the second part, Bosanquet’s critique of Croce’s theory is presented in order to show that one cannot attribute to him the ‘ideal’ theory. The same goes for Collingwood, whose aesthetic theory is sketched in the third part, which argues accessorily that it is more satisfactory than Bosanquet’s ; it is in fact, his own claims to the contrary notwithstanding, rather close to Wollheim’s. The conclusion comes back to the central motivation for British Idealist theories of art, namely that the work of art has a social role to play, in order to show the actuality of Collingwood, who viewed the work of art not as the product of the artist alone, but from the artist and the audience alike. (shrink)

In particular, as we shall see, Collingwood is often dismissed as having held an indefensible, outmoded ‘ideal’ theory, according to which the work of art is primarily ‘mental’, while his potential role in current debates is simply ignored. I will argue that this view is largely mistaken.

The title of Marnie Hughes-Warrington's study, 'How Good an Historian Shall I Be?', is taken from a 1930 pam-phlet by Collingwood, in which, assuming that 'there are as many historians as there are human beings', he inferred that 'the question is not 'Shall I be an historian or not?' but How good an historian shall I be?'' . Hughes-Warrington takes this to be 'probably the most important question we can ask' . Indeed, she believes that 'historical education' is 'a duty (...) that we all must bear for our sake and for the sake of civilisation' . Hughes-Warrington thus situates proper histori-cal education within the wider process of civilization; this leitmotif being taken from Collingwood, for whom educa-tion is the means 'by which a civilisation keeps itself alive from one generation to the next'. (shrink)

In this chapter, Kobayashi and Marion first provide reasons to reject the many readings of Collingwood that sought to draft him as a participant in the Hempel-Dray debate about the status of covering laws in history. After all, this debate was not part of Collingwood’s context and, although one can pry from his writings a contribution to it, one may simply, by doing so, misunderstand what he was up to. In the second part, they present the Gabbay-Woods Schema for abductive (...) reasoning, as it occurs in the context of inquiry, as triggered by an ignorance problem, and as being ‘ignorance preserving’. They then argue that this allows us better to see the point of Collingwood’s ‘logic of questions and answers’, as derived from his own practice in archaeology, and his use of the ‘detective model of the historian’, as opposed to merely focussing on understanding what ‘re-enactment’ could mean as a contribution to the Hempel-Dray debate. (shrink)