Search

People display recognizably characteristic behavioral patterns across time and situations, with a given degree of regularity. These patterns may justify the attribution of personality traits. It is arguably the commonsense view that the proper explanation of these behavioral regularities is given by intrinsic properties of the agent's psychology. In this paper, I argue for an externalistic view of the causal basis of personality-characteristic behaviors. According to the externalistic view, the relevant behavioral regularities are better understood as the result of a systematic interaction between features internal to the agent and environmental-situational factors. Moreover, if the premise is granted that people are typically able to exercise a certain degree of control over the environmental-situational conditions they find themselves in, the resulting picture is of active sort of externalism, as people may at times engage in selection and manipulation of environmental-situational conditions as a way of managing their own behavioral tendencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agents are generally committed to performing actions based on religious beliefs, even when these are not obviously adaptive. What could explain this fact? The cognitivist hypothesis explains this commitment on the basis of internal cognitive mechanisms. But some have noted the importance of taking into consideration the contexts in which religious beliefs are transmitted, such as rituals: the cultural learner commits herself to a given religious belief when she witnesses displays based on that belief in appropriate situations. In this paper, I argue that we can strengthen this insight by focusing on the shared character of the rituals that facilitate religious belief transmission. First, I present the traditional explanatory hypothesis regarding the origins of religious belief. Second, I sketch three objections that put limits to that model's explanatory power. Third, I explore a hypothesis which accounts for the context of belief transmission and then argue for the necessity of refining it so as to accommodate pertinent explanatory demands. Finally, I present the interactionist model of social cognition as a way to account for the shared character of religious rituals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]