Science for loss and damage. Findings and propositions

The debate on “Loss and Damage” (L&D) has gained traction over the last few years. Supported by growing scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change amplifying frequency, intensity and duration of climate-related hazards as well as observed increases in climate-related impacts and risks in many regions, the “Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage” was established in 2013 and further supported through the Paris Agreement in 2015. Despite advances, the debate currently is broad, diffuse and somewhat confusing, while concepts, methods and tools, as well as directions for policy remain vague and often contested. This book, a joint effort of the Loss and Damage Network—a partnership effort by scientists and practitioners from around the globe—provides evidence-based insight into the L&D discourse by highlighting state-of-the-art research conducted across multiple disciplines, by showcasing applications in practice and by providing insight into policy contexts and salient policy options. This introductory chapter summarises key findings of the twenty-two book chapters in terms of five propositions. These propositions, each building on relevant findings linked to forward-looking suggestions for research, policy and practice, reflect the architecture of the book, whose sections proceed from setting the stage to critical issues, followed by a section on methods and tools, to chapters that provide geographic perspectives, and finally to a section that identifies potential policy options. The propositions comprise (1) Risk management can be an effective entry point for aligning perspectives and debates, if framed comprehensively, coupled with climate justice considerations and linked to established risk management and adaptation practice; (2) Attribution science is advancing rapidly and fundamental to informing actions to minimise, avert, and address losses and damages; (3) Climate change research, in addition to identifying physical/hard limits to adaptation, needs to more systematically examine soft limits to adaptation, for which we find some evidence across several geographies globally; (4) Climate risk insurance mechanisms can serve the prevention and cure aspects emphasised in the L&D debate but solidarity and accountability aspects need further attention, for which we find tentative indication in applications around the world; (5) Policy deliberations may need to overcome the perception that L&D constitutes a win-lose negotiation “game” by developing a more inclusive narrative that highlights collective ambition for tackling risks, mutual benefits and the role of transformation

The Relationship between Biology and Psychology

Kandel (2006) started his career interested in becoming a psychoanalyst, and turned to biology in what he describes as at the time a naïve wish to find the basis for the id, ego, and superego in the brain. Although committed to reductionism, that is, an effort to understand the biological processes involved in all psychological phenomena, I do not read him as denying the value of studying phenomena at the psychological level. Rather than fighting a battle for scientific hegemony, psychologists and biologists, biopsychologists and behavioral neuroscientists, and those who go by other names might best focus their efforts on a multilevel approach to understanding the phenomena of interest to them. For me, the intriguing question of the relation between biology and psychology is whether phenomena observed at one level can drive new questions to be asked at another level or questions to be asked in a different way. For example, can observations concerning consciousness and the unfolding of self lead to new questions about the organization of brain structures (Damasio, 1994)) or, conversely, can the discovery of mirror neurons (Gallese, Fadiga, Fogassi, & Rizzolatti, 1996) lead to our asking different questions about the development of consciousness and self? This seems to me to be truly the area in which work at the psychological and biological levels can enhance one another and go beyond battles concerning the value of reductionism and discipline imperialism.Relacje między biologią a psychologią Kandel (2006) started his career interested in becoming a psychoanalyst, and turned to biology in what he describes as at the time a naïve wish to find the basis for the id, ego, and superego in the brain. Although committed to reductionism, that is, an effort to understand the biological processes involved in all psychological phenomena, I do not read him as denying the value of studying phenomena at the psychological level. Rather than fighting a battle for scientific hegemony, psychologists and biologists, biopsychologists and behavioral neuroscientists, and those who go by other names might best focus their efforts on a multilevel approach to understanding the phenomena of interest to them. For me, the intriguing question of the relation between biology and psychology is whether phenomena observed at one level can drive new questions to be asked at another level or questions to be asked in a different way. For example, can observations concerning consciousness and the unfolding of self lead to new questions about the organization of brain structures (Damasio, 1994)) or, conversely, can the discovery of mirror neurons (Gallese, Fadiga, Fogassi, & Rizzolatti, 1996) lead to our asking different questions about the development of consciousness and self? This seems to me to be truly the area in which work at the psychological and biological levels can enhance one another and go beyond battles concerning the value of reductionism and discipline imperialism

Kolejne uwagi na temat relacji psychologia–biologia

In concluding this response, I must say that at times I have found myself uncomfortable juxtaposing psychology and psychological with biology and biological, as if one precludes the other or the two are in competition with one another. There is much in psychology that is biological and, as Wolski suggests, much in biology that is psychological. As Strelau suggests, rather than being viewed as in competition with one another or as one having hegemony over the other, it seems most profitable to view phenomena as capable of being understood at different levels with utility in the conduct of research on the relations among levels

Personality : theory and research

xvi, 569 p.; 24 cm

Psikologi Kepribadian : Teori Dan Penelitian

xii,652 hlm.;Ilus.:19x26 c

Psikologi kepribadian: teori dan penelitian

Buku ini memasuki arena psikologi, memahami teori-teori utama baik yang klasik maupun yang kontemporer, dan memadukan antara teori dan penelitian yang disebut sebagai pengayaan teori atau studi kasus

Psikologi Kepribadian; Teori dan Penelitian

ix,406 hal;ilu