Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article


Posted by RGEurope on 07 Apr 2011 at 01:27 GMT

Neuroscientific research related to what the authors call 'value systems' from disciplines such as psychology, sociology, etc. is indeed of interest. The relevance of a biological component confirming the theoretical constructs in most hierarchical value systems theories will strenghten the idea of value-systems. As such the insights from this paper is relevant and might inspire others for further research.

The article fails to convince that 'value-systems' are indirectly assessed and the (sometimes questionable and in many publications discussed) reliability of fMRI remains unaddressed. The relation with 'the hierarchy of complexity' (e.g. Commons) is unfounded and seems flawed.
How the words-list was chosen and validated is either superficial and dangerously flawed or there is more to say than what has been written in the paper.

The style is adequate but it is annoying that too many concepts are just thrown in, without clear source or definition references. Some of the references may promise more than suggested in the text. (The references to words-list of Clare W. Graves)

Competing interests declared: I do make extensive use of ECLET, the theory referred to in reference 11;
and ECLET is currently my pet-research subject.