[Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: neuroscience
Carole Bloch
csbloch at gmail.com
Tue Mar 2 08:43:36 GMT 2021
Dear Yetta and Everyone,
For several years, I have worked with my husband, George Ellis on trying to
counter the insistence on reductionist neuroscience evidence which is so
stridently used to justify early literacy teaching in African and South
African settings. (We did visit you, Yetta and Ken at some point and talked
about this whole issue and later George visited and talked to Peter Fries
too).
In response to your recent interchange, George, who has now spent many
years looking at aspects of how the brain works, makes the following
comments, which we hope are useful...
All best,
Carole
Neuroimaging is an important part of the study of brain function, and has
led to interesting discoveries regarding what parts of the brain are
involved in what activity (some of which was known long before brain
imaging studies were done), but it does indeed have the limitations
mentioned in the interesting discussion below. However I'd like to raise
some wider concerns. There is more to neuroscience than brain imaging, and
Carole and I have written a review of this, and the hopefully final version
to be published is now available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.03240.
In contrast to the reductive view of neuroscience that is proposed by
Dehaene and many others to support the skills based view of literacy
education, there is now a major movement developing an integrative view of
neuroscience which supports meaning based approaches to literacy teaching.
We emphasize the following features in our paper:
First, perception is an active, contextually based predictive process,
based in detection of errors in hierarchical predictions of sensory data
and action outcomes.
Reading and writing are particular cases of this process. Not all text need
be read; words can be filled in due to context.
Second, emotions play a key role in underlying cognitive functioning.
Innate affective systems underlie and shape all brain functioning,
including communicating by speech and writing. Negative and positive emotions
impact learning outcomes.
Third, there is not the fundamental difference between
listening/speaking and reading/ writing that is often alleged on the basis
of evolutionary arguments. They are both social and cultural practices
learnt through social processes. There is no LAD as claimed by Chomsky.
Writing is not an unnatural act, in contrast to speaking.
Fourth, brain function is not fundamentally based in a rule-based way of
responding to data. It is a neural network of huge dimensions, whose
natural mode of operation is statistical pattern recognition and
prediction, based on non-local storage of data. It is a Bayesian predictive
machine, continually updating expectations.
You do not have to read every letter in a word to identify the word, you
can predict it from context. The rule based view of linguistics proposed by
Chomsky is an attempt to capture these statistical patterns in a set of
rigid rules. It is only partially successful.
Fifth, like listening, reading is a non-linear contextually shaped
psycho-social process of conveying meaning in a specific context, shaped by
current knowledge.
One of the two neural routes to reading does not involve explicit decoding
processes, and can be activated from the earliest years.
The brain imaging studies only affect the last statement. The existence of
the dorsal and ventral pathways allowing direct and indirect access to
meaning is now commonly agreed, and was established by such imaging
studies. But those studies have major limitations. With a very few
exceptions, they study brain activity when phonemes, single words, or
pseudo words are studied. They do not study the reading of meaningful text,
when all the brain areas related to meaning get activated, as well as the
motor areas. When you image meaningful brain activity ("ecologically valid
studies") you find for example that the claimed Visual Word Form Area is
simply not dedicated solely to word recognition as claimed by Dehaene.
The demands of throwing huge sums of money to obtain ever more detailed
brain scanning images is reminiscent of what is happening in the Human
Genome project. But having huge amounts of data does not necessarily ensure
enlightenment. What would be useful is brain scanning when meaningful text
is read. Imaging that happens when pseudo words are read does not cut it.
But as stated below. "It will light up like a Christmas tree".
What we say in our paper strongly supports some of the comments made below.
George
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Colin Harrison <Colin.Harrison at nottingham.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 at 16:29
Subject: [Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: neuroscience
To: david.olson at utoronto.ca <david.olson at utoronto.ca>, RHOF RHOF <
reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
Cc: Shaaron Ainsworth <Shaaron.Ainsworth at nottingham.ac.uk>
Hi Colleagues
I was asked for a citation to Shaaron Ainsworth's paper on fMRI imaging. We
had a valuable chat, and she has very kindly sent us three references, for
which I provide links below. Thanks to everyone for your participation on
this thread.
These are some of the key points that come out of the three papers:
- fMRI does not measure brain activity in real time: it is a ‘sluggish,
indirect measure of neural activity’, based on blood oxygen-level dependent
(BOLD) data (Ashby, 2002), which provides approximately 140,000 data points
over the three-dimensional cortical area for each scan, commonly collected
once every two seconds over a period of up to half an hour, depending on
the experimental task. It is important to understand that BOLD data lags a
3-5 seconds behind the neural activity that causes changes in BOLD
activity.
- The grey and red ‘photographs’ that we commonly see of presumed neural
activity are not fMRI images: they are representations of data generated by
researchers using statistical generalisations.
- there is a massive amount of pre-processing before a ‘smoothed-out’
representation of neural activity can be analysed: this is due to noise
caused from miniscule head movements, differences between participants’
neuroanatomical brain structure, and distortions in the magnetic field of
the fMRI, but it is also a function of the statistical decisions made by
the researcher.
- New statistical techniques are being developed that can search for
task related patterns of activity, (broadly derived from different types of
factor analysis) that attempt to locate clusters of parallel-processing
neural activity. But with hundreds of possible clusters in each scan, and
perhaps 900 scans from a single participant in an experimental run, the
processing and interpretation challenges are seriously complex.
- It has been estimated that even using only the most common suite of
analytical parameters, every fMRI image that is published is only one of
about a thousand possible images that could have been generated from the
same data. In determining the nature of the image that we see, the
statistical decisions made by the researcher are as important as the data.
- fMRI research is not accepted by all psychologists as a stable basis
for making confident claims about cognition; it’s been called ‘the new
phrenology’ by some.
I asked Shaaron Ainsworth what she thought about my saying ‘current
fMRI research is precisely as valuable as papers in the 1970s on quantum
mechanics- i.e. they are unproven theories- but unlike CERN, we haven't yet
built our equivalent of the Large Hadron Collider for brain research.’
Her reply was ‘But what we need is not a more powerful fMRI machine to give
us better data. What we lack, and what they clearly do have at CERN, is a
community of practice that agrees on how to process and interpret the
massive amounts of data that are generated, in ways that are widely
accepted. That is what is needed to move the field forward.’
Best regards
Colin
1. A valuable background paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285245634_An_introduction_to_fMRI
2. This one talks about common problems – frmi is not a photograph of a
lit-up brain:
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~adinar/Adinas_homepage/CV_files/neuroimages%20like%20photographs.pdf
3. This one is about the brain of a dead salmon and the dangers of poor
fMRI work
https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/140/8/e53/4032512
------------------------------
*From:* david.olson at utoronto.ca <david.olson at utoronto.ca>
*Sent:* 23 February 2021 16:58
*To:* Colin Harrison <ttach at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>
*Subject:* Re: [Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: neuroscience
It is to be published this summer by CUP with the title: Making sense:
What it means to understand.
Best, David
Quoting Colin Harrison <Colin.Harrison at nottingham.ac.uk>:
> Hi David
>
> Always good to hear from you.
>
> Thanks for your positive response to my posting, and for the offer
> of your paper (or just a citation- these days our libraries seem to
> be able to pull over any published paper that has ever been made
> available electronically). I'd very much like to read it.
>
> Best regards
>
> Stay well,
>
> Colin
> ________________________________
> From: david.olson at utoronto.ca <david.olson at utoronto.ca>
> Sent: 22 February 2021 19:49
> To: Colin Harrison <ttach at exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: neuroscience
>
> Dear Colin:
>
> Good. You may remember our man who could write but not read. He
could recognize letters and name them and slowly work out what the word was.
> But he could not recognize words and consequently insisted that he coould
not really read. His name was Howard Engel, now deceased and he
> wrote a book with the above. An fMRI showed a big hole in the cortex. We
publish the study in a brain journal. I could did up the reference
> if you are interested. Meanwhile, we have to do the research on reading
and cannot pass it over to the brain sciences or the
> computational sciences either, I think. David Olson
>
> title.Quoting Colin Harrison <Colin.Harrison at nottingham.ac.uk>:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> Thanks so much for sharing some great insights on neuroscience.
>>
>> Here is my one cent's worth (or to be more forward-looking,
>> 0.00000017463588 Bitcoins-worth).
>>
>> Here at the University of Nottingham, we are justly proud of
>> Professor Sir Peter Mansfield's Nobel Prize-winning work to develop
>> MRI in the 1970s, and of course our Psych department has worked with
>> the Med School and Physics departments on fMRI brain imaging. One
>> important fact to note is that the latest hardware delivers no fewer
>> than 400,000 pieces of imaging data a second, and it can produce a
>> 'slice' of multicoloured imaging showing neurone activity in any
>> plane. Our colleague Professor Shaaron Ainsworth, does a telling
>> presentation that shows an image of the brain activity of a person
>> who is reading, and guess what? As we expect, there are lovely
>> highlighted spots in the left superior temporal and bilateral
>> supplementary motor regions, etc, etc, but hold your applause-
>> Shaaron then showed other 'slices', from the same instant of
>> imaging, and these suggested that during one instant (not even 'one
>> second') of 'reading' there are about fifty areas of the brain that
>> are active, and they are all flashing like an over-decorated house
>> at Christmas. In other words, you can use the 'slice' you prefer,
>> and then superimpose multiple shots of the same area, to increase
>> the 'activity' profile, and then create your own 'simplified' image
>> for your presentation...
>>
>> In an interesting Damascene conversion, Prof Ahmad Hariri at Duke
>> has questioned 15 years' worth of his own publications on MRI,
>> basically revealing that when you do replication studies, even with
>> the same participants, you not only get different results, you get
>> correlations that are not only weak, they are
>> poor<
https://today.duke.edu/2020/06/studies-brain-activity-aren%E2%80%99t-useful-scientists-thought
>.
He went so far as to say "The bottom line is that task-based fMRI in its
current form can't tell you what an individual's
brain activation will look like from one test to the next".
>>
>> So of course fMRI will continue to be valuable for generating
>> hypotheses about cognition and learning, but with Hariri, I would
>> suggest that at present such research is precisely as valuable as
>> papers in the 1970s on quantum mechanics- i.e. they are unproven
>> theories- but unlike CERN, we haven't yet built our equivalent of
>> the Large Hadron Collider for brain research.
>>
>> David, you now have a nickel, or a total of 0.0000008731794
>> Bitcoins. O darn it, by now those bitcoins are probably now worth 6
>> cents!
>>
>> As ever,
>>
>> Colin
>>
>> From:
>> <reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:
reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>> on behalf of P
>> Pearson
>> <ppearson at berkeley.edu<mailto:ppearson at berkeley.edu>>
>> Date: Saturday, 20 February 2021 at 04:57
>> To: Carol D Lee <cdlee at northwestern.edu<mailto:cdlee at northwestern.edu>>
>> Cc: Shirley B Heath
>> <sbheath at stanford.edu<mailto:sbheath at stanford.edu>>, reading hall of
>> fame
>> <reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:
reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>>
>> Subject: [Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: Walter MacGinitie
>>
>> Interesting perspective from Carol in response to Shirley's concern
>> that neuroscience is lined up on the context-free cognitive side of
>> the ledger and will end up casting doubt on sociocultural and
>> sociocognitive understandings of literacy and language.
>>
>> Because I have been working on a project (the NAEP Reading
>> Assessment Framework) in which this very issue is prominent, I have
>> been, through Carol, introduced to a completely different
>> neuroscience perspective from the one that those of us in reading
>> research see so prominently displayed in the so-called Science of
>> Reading debate, which is focused on the neuroscience (read FMRI)
>> research demonstrating that even (maybe especially) expert readers
>> recode orthographic representations into a phonemic/phonological
>> representation in the journey to a semantic representation of meaning.
>>
>> The neuroscience perspective that Carol has brought to my intention
>> is well documented in the Science of Learning and Development
>> literature that is carefully reviewed in several papers by Carol and
>> others AND featured prominently in the 2018 How People Learn II
>> volume. The fundamental move in these accounts is to demonstrate
>> that context, culture, and situation actually shape the physical and
>> neural processes that learners use in the search for coherent
>> understandings of phenomena, including those inscribed in text.
>>
>> So rather than think of neuroscience as aligned with a narrower view
>> of cognitive, language, and literacy development, we should think
>> of neuroscience as reflecting the same tensions we encounter in
>> developmental and pedagogical accounts of these three phenomena.
>>
>> That's my 2 cents worth in support of Carol's. And endorsement
>> would bring us up to a nickel.
>>
>> Pdp
>>
>> P David Pearson 510 543 6508
>> ppearson at berkeley.edu<mailto:ppearson at berkeley.edu>
>>
>> On Feb 19, 2021, at 6:41 PM, Carol D Lee
>> <cdlee at northwestern.edu<mailto:cdlee at northwestern.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>> So I always find interesting these generational distinctions between
>> who is old guard and not. At 75 I like to push elderhood, except
>> when I talk to Edmund Gordon, who will turn 100 in June, for whom
>> I'm still a youngin. However, because I didn't enter the academy
>> until I was in my mid-forties, I guess I'm somewhere in that in
>> between generational space.
>>
>> So thinking in response to Shirley's comments --- I think emerging
>> work in the neurosciences opens up interesting opportunities for
>> more traditional language and literacy folks, just as the cognitive
>> revolution and attention to the role of schema played a useful role
>> in research around reading comprehension. The uptake of that
>> cognitive work was less so taken up by strict cognitive
>> psychologists. In the same vein, emerging findings from the
>> neurosciences have deep implications for the practice of reading or
>> the practice of teaching others to comprehend texts, it is not
>> likely that they will be the folks to take up the implications of
>> that work. Dan Schwartz co-authored several articles a few years
>> ago on the limitations of basic research in the neurosciences around
>> brain functioning for the teaching of mathematics.
>>
>> I think the task of the emerging generation of language, literacy
>> and culture researchers is to spread their wings to understand the
>> basic research in relevant areas of the neurosciences, spread their
>> wings to understand fundamental propositions in the field of human
>> development, and then to test empirically the implications of
>> foundational work in these areas.
>>
>> I have been deeply interested in the last decade in the implications
>> of physiological processes we inherit from our evolution as a
>> species for what it means on the ground to think about the design of
>> robust learning environments - in my own area with regard to
>> literacy. I initially begin to explore these ideas in my 2010 AERA
>> Presidential Address. That was the time when Dick Anderson and I
>> were great dance partners at my presidential party !!!! Since that
>> time I've spread my wings to co-author a handbook chapter with two
>> folks in the neurosciences (Andy Meltzoff and Pat Kuhl). Boundary
>> crossing is challenging but really interesting.
>>
>> So Shirley I don't think the neurosciences will take over our field.
>> Rather I think they will make substantive contributions to our
>> understanding of the sheer complexity of text comprehension, but we
>> need to support and encourage upcoming generations to learn to cross
>> intellectual borders.
>>
>> My 2 cents!
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Carol D. Lee, Ph.D.
>> Professor Emeritus
>> School of Education and Social Policy
>> Northwestern University
>>
>> Member, National Academy of Education
>> Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
>> Fellow, American Educational Research Association
>> Fellow, National Conference on Language and Literacy
>> President-Elect, National Academy of Education
>> Member, Reading Hall of Fame
>>
>>
>>
>> From:
>> <reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:
reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>> on behalf of
Shirley_Brice_Heath
>> Heath
>> <sbheath at stanford.edu<mailto:sbheath at stanford.edu>>
>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2021 at 4:34 PM
>> To: Richard Anderson
>> <csrrca at illinois.edu<mailto:csrrca at illinois.edu>>, "Leu, Donald"
>> <donald.leu at uconn.edu<mailto:donald.leu at uconn.edu>>
>> Cc: reading hall of fame
>> <Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:
Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>>
>> Subject: [Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: Walter MacGinitie
>>
>> You are so right, for he was such a gentleman, ever ready to help
>> younger scholars. I first met him in that role after I began seeing
>> my work interpreted as related to reading research. He seemed
>> puzzled by that, as was I in many ways, but he was so helpful to me
>> and many other scholars.
>>
>> Yes, I see the "old guards" leaving us with greater frequency than
>> we could have imagined. What we do not know is what will replace
>> what we now think of as the "old guard" along with their ideas. I
>> predict it will be neuroscience research with more and more
>> revelations about how the brain works in both oral language and in
>> written texts. That work now appears in many different journals, so
>> we will see further division within that field, all to our
>> advantage in learning more about the many miracles of just how we
>> learn by taking in information from very varied sources.
>>
>> Thanks to all willing to share memories about the full humanity of
>> the "old guard." What will happen now that much of the research on
>> reading and related activities has gone to neuroscience will be
>> increasing divisions within that field. Keeping up will get harder
>> and harder, for sure. My fear is that those working within
>> departments with titles such as "language, literacy, and culture"
>> will begin to feel either left behind or pushed in new and exciting
>> (though challenging) directions. I wonder if others are seeing
>> similar patterns within their departments and among their colleagues
>> in the age bracket of 40s-60s.
>>
>> Best to all, and thanks for the memories!
>>
>> Shirley
>> ________________________________
>> From:
>> reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:
reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk> <
reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:
reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>> on behalf of
Richard
>> Anderson
>> <csrrca at illinois.edu<mailto:csrrca at illinois.edu>>
>> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 1:59 PM
>> To: Leu, Donald <donald.leu at uconn.edu<mailto:donald.leu at uconn.edu>>
>> Cc: reading hall of fame
>> <Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:
Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>>
>> Subject: [Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: Walter MacGinitie
>>
>> I first met Walter MacGinitie in the late 1950s at a conference for
>> graduate students held at Northwestern. He represented Teachers
>> College. I represented Harvard. Another person I got to know at the
>> conference was Gordon Bower, then a grad student at Yale. My first
>> job was at New York University. We saw Walter and Ruth a couple of
>> times in New York and I saw him at conferences in subsequent years.
>> With the passing of Walter and other giants in the field, it seems
>> we are at the end of an era. Or maybe just the end of my era.
>>
>> Dick
>>
>> Richard C Anderson
>> University Scholar and Professor Emeritus, University of Illinois
>> Member, National Academy of Education
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 2:53 PM Leu, Donald
>> <donald.leu at uconn.edu<mailto:donald.leu at uconn.edu>> wrote:
>> Sadly, I report that another member, Walter MacGinitie, has passed.
>> I never knew Walter personally, only his important work, but word
>> travels among members of the environmental communities concerned
>> about the San Juan Islands of Washington. Walter lived on San Juan
>> Island and he and his wife, Ruth, hadgifted 13 acres of important
>> land to the San Juan Preservation Trust, an organization that my
>> wife and I, as boaters who enjoy the islands, contribute to. A
>> tribute recently appeared in the SJPT newsletter:
>>
https://sjpt.org/remembering-walter-macginitie/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/sjpt.org/remembering-walter-macginitie/__;!!DZ3fjg!uaQMx0MjECCG-H9dbMd8mJz9YP89SfkKyjksfaPQBvoVAsBA_a_1YG6sVnuNLOFe$
>
>>
>> Be well.
>>
>> Don
>>
>> --
>> Donald J. Leu, Ph.D.
>> "Every one of us is given the gift of life, and what a strange gift
>> it is. If it is preserved jealously and selfishly, it impoverishes
>> and saddens. But if it is spent for others, it enriches and
>> beautifies."
>> -- Geraldine Ferraro.
>> Acceptance speech at the 1984 Democratic Party National Convention.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
>>
>> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
>>
>> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
>>
>> attachment.
>>
>>
>>
>> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
>>
>> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
>>
>> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
>>
>> where permitted by law.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
>>
>> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
>>
>> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
>>
>> attachment.
>>
>>
>>
>> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
>>
>> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
>>
>> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
>>
>> where permitted by law.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
>>
>> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
>>
>> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
>>
>> attachment.
>>
>>
>>
>> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
>>
>> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
>>
>> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
>>
>> where permitted by law.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
>> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
>> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
>> attachment.
>>
>> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
>> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
>> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
>> where permitted by law.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Reading-hall-of-fame mailing list
>> Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:
Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
>> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/reading-hall-of-fame
>>
>>
>>
>> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
>> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
>> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
>> attachment.
>>
>> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
>> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
>> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
>> where permitted by law.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
> attachment.
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
>
This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
attachment.
Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
where permitted by law.
_______________________________________________
Reading-hall-of-fame mailing list
Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/reading-hall-of-fame
--
George Ellis
Mathematics Department, University of Cape Town
tel: (27) (21) 650 2339
cell: (27) (82) 499 7171
webpage:http://www.math.uct.ac.za/prof-george-ellis-0
<http://www.math.uct.ac.za/mam/staff/ellis>
Book on top down causation: http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783662498071
Book on nature/nurture issue:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/beyond-evolutionary-psychology/4731C143A9557767DC37A59526F1F525#fndtn-information
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/reading-hall-of-fame/attachments/20210302/e829fef6/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Reading-hall-of-fame
mailing list