Revenge of the Philosophical Mole: Another Response to David Miller on Nationality

ABSTRACT David Miller has written extensively on the ethical value of the nation. A satisfactory response to Miller's ideas on nationalism requires an assessment of the whole range of his writings on the subject. After stating the outlines of Miller's conception of 'nationality', I evaluate the most important arguments for and against any attribution of ethical importance to the nation. Finally, I assess Miller's commitment to conational ethical priority in the context of duties of justributive justice. My main conclusions are as follows. (i) Miller's conservative strategy of justification is unacceptable, and a critical strategy suggests several plausible arguments for valuing national attachments. These arguments are not conclusive, however, (ii) In so far as Miller's position depends on real historical connections between persons, it is susceptible to the objection from historical myth. (iii) Miller offers an unexpected and ultimately unsuccessful response to the claim that national sentiments are partial and hence biased, (iv) Miller provides no good reason to believe that the duties of distributive justice are owed in the first instance to conationals.     

David Miller on Immigration Policy and Nationality

abstract   David Miller's recent statement of the case for restrictive immigration policies can plausibly be construed as an application of a 'liberal nationalist' position. The paper first addresses Miller's critique of distributive justice arguments for open borders, which relies on nationality as determinative of the scope of distributive justice and as giving rise to national collective responsibility. Three interpretations of his main positive reason for restricting immigration, which concerns the importance of a shared public culture, are then discussed: culture as having valuable social functions, as a context of choice, and as an object of self-determination. The paper assesses the plausibility of Miller's nationalist arguments, and concludes that they are either implausible or peculiarly weak compared to other considerations in favour of restrictions. Several of the arguments may alternatively be construed as non-nationalist, and it is argued that Miller's arguments are more plausible when considered as such. The broader implication is that, even if the concern with nationality is relevant and legitimate in other areas of politics, it is, perhaps surprisingly, either inappropriate or insignificant in relation to immigration policy.     

Manifestability and Semantic Realism

Abstract: This paper provides a critical discussion of Alexander Miller's recent attack on antirealist arguments against semantic realism that are based on manifestability requirements. Miller attempts to defend semantic realism against Wright-Hale arguments from manifestability. He does so in reliance on a McDowell type assertion-truth platitude. This paper argues in both general terms and in relation to the details of Miller's argument, that attempts to defend semantic realism while accepting a Dummettian-Wittgensteinian framework on theories of meaning, are misconceived and likely to fail, as I believe is true in Miller's case. Semantic realism is best defended within a context of metaphysical realism, and naturalistic-causal theories of meaning and explanation.     

Forced Choices and Self-Defence

ABSTRACT This paper is a reply to three objections raised by Seumas Miller against a 'forced-choice'account of the morality of self-defence. It is argued that Miller's first objection rests on a misconception of how the forced-choice account is supposed to work; that his second objection is simply mistaken; and that his third objection overlooks how the forced-choice account explicitly accommodates the moral difference between self-defence and 'other-defence.'Finally, it is suggested that Miller's entire approach is defective in its failure to examine the principle of justice which underlies the forced-choice account, and whether it applies to standard self-defence situations.     

Do attention and decision follow perception Comment on Miller

In response to Miller's discussion of global precedence, I argue that (a)although perceptual precedence is not the only explanation for asymmetric interference, in some cases it is the most reasonable one; (b) since global precedence does not entail that local and global information cannot interact in their effects on responses, the finding that they do is not incompatible with global precedence; (c) it is dubious that attention or decision are applied just to the resultant of perception rather than determining it or constituting part of it. However, I share some of Miller's doubts about the unique contribution of asymmetric interference data in deciding the issue of global precedence.     

The evolutionary selection of human races: A response to Miller

Miller's (1993, Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 665–675) theory of the origin of “the African Personality” is not new. The focus on testosterone as a mediator of male-male agonistic interaction and strong sexuality has been a component of the r-K analysis of human race differences from the outset. Several aspects of Miller's paper are discussed.     

Re-evaluation of Wolpe and Dollard/Miller

The major inadequacy in both Wolpe's and Dollard and Miller's learning-theory approach to therapy, is an oversimplified view of “stimulus” and “response”. Dollard and Miller's analysis of conventional psychotherapy accurately reflects the heavy emphasis on verbal mediation of emotional and instrumental responses in psychotherapy. Wolpe's work, on the other hand, belongs to a different tradition: his techniques involve direct intervention, by a variety of means, into the behaviour patterns to be eliminated, and direct training of new behaviour patterns. The debate over the relative merits of verbal versus non-verbal approaches to therapy has been confounded by a debate over ethical or philosophical attitudes.     

WHOSE INTERESTS ARE THEY,ANYWAY?

This review both praises Richard Miller's book--a thoughtful, judicious, and comprehensive analysis of bioethics for the pediatric age group, notably the first effort worthy of the name--and points out the work still to be done in this area, work firmly based in and illuminated by Miller's ground-breaking thesis. Specifically, the book rightly compels us to recognize obligations of beneficence as primary and to refocus on the child's basic interests, rather than putative "best" interests. There remains much to be done in defining and discerning basic interests and in distinguishing whose interests are on the table when decisions are being made for seriously ill and dying children.     

What’s magic about magic numbers? Chunking and data compression in short-term memory

Short term memory is famously limited in capacity to Miller's (1956) magic number 7±2-or, in many more recent studies, about 4±1 "chunks" of information. But the definition of "chunk" in this context has never been clear, referring only to a set of items that are treated collectively as a single unit. We propose a new more quantitatively precise conception of chunk derived from the notion of Kolmogorov complexity and compressibility: a chunk is a unit in a maximally compressed code. We present a series of experiments in which we manipulated the compressibility of stimulus sequences by introducing sequential patterns of variable length. Our subjects' measured digit span (raw short term memory capacity) consistently depended on the length of the pattern after compression, that is, the number of distinct sequences it contained. The true limit appears to be about 3 or 4 distinct chunks, consistent with many modern studies, but also equivalent to about 7 uncompressed items of typical compressibility, consistent with Miller's famous magical number.     

The Problem of Verisimilitude and Counting Partially Identical Properties

In this paper I propose a solution to the qualitative version of David Miller's verisimilitude reversal argument. Miller (1974) shows that verisimilitude rankings are relative to language choice and hence, are not objective. My solution stems from a reply to an earlier solution proposed by Eric Barnes (1991). Barnes argues that the verisimilitude reversal problem can be solved by revealing an epistemic dimension. I show that Miller's problem cannot be solved by side-stepping foundational metaphysical claims as his epistemic solution suggests. Rather, a substantive metaphysical basis grounds identity relations among properties. The problem of verisimilitude cannot be solved without embracing the fundamental metaphysical distinctions between basic and composite properties that ground the relationship of partial identity among properties.     

S-R compatibilities depend on eccentricity of responding hand

Bauer and Miller (1982) demonstrated that when responding on the body midline with the right hand, subjects react faster when the pairing between horizontally oriented stimuli (an X to the left or right of fixation) and vertically oriented responses (an up or down finger movement) is left-down, right-up (“anti-clockwise”) but when responding with the left hand, the converse pairing was faster. The present experiments tested whether those preferences held for responses other than on the body midline. Unimanual reaction times for clockwise and anti-clockwise S-R pairings were determined for both hands at the midline and 30 and 60 cm to the left or right. Hand position determined both the direction and extent of the compatibility preference; at eccentric positions the right hand preferred clockwise pairings and the left anticlockwise, the converse of that found by Bauer and Miller. The results extend Bauer and Miller's finding, raise problems for theories of S-R compatibility, and further reveal that the state of the action system “sets up” perception.     

More Triviality

This paper uses the framework of Popper and Miller's work on axiom systems for conditional probabilities to explore Adams' thesis concerning the probabilities of conditionals. It is shown that even very weak axiom systems have only a very restricted set of models satisfying a natural generalisation of Adams' thesis, thereby casting severe doubt on the possibility of developing a non-Boolean semantics for conditionals consistent with it.     

The inner speech of behavioral regulation: Intentions and task performance strengthen when you talk to yourself as a You

People often talk to themselves using the first‐person pronoun (I), but they also talk to themselves as if they are speaking to someone else, using the second‐person pronoun (You). Yet, the relative behavioral control achieved by I and You self‐talk remains unknown. The current research was designed to examine the potential behavioral advantage of using You in self‐talk and the role of attitudes in this process. Three experiments compared the effects of I and You self‐talk on problem solving performance and behavioral intentions. Experiment 1 revealed that giving self‐advice about a hypothetical social situation using You yielded better anagram task performance than using I. Experiment 2 showed that using You self‐talk in preparation for an anagram task enhanced anagram performance and intentions to work on anagrams more than I self‐talk, and that these effects were mediated by participants' attitudes toward the task. Experiment 3 extended these findings to exercise intentions and highlighted the role of attitudes in this effect. Altogether, the current research showed that second‐person self‐talk strengthens both actual behavior performance and prospective behavioral intentions more than first‐person self‐talk. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

WHY I AM AN ACCOMMODATIONIST AND PROUD OF IT

There is a strong need of a reasoned defense of what was known as the “independence” position of the science–religion relationship but that more recently has been denigrated as the “accommodationist” position, namely that while there are parts of religion—fundamentalist Christianity in particular—that clash with modern science, the essential parts of religion (Christianity) do not and could not clash with science. A case for this position is made on the grounds of the essentially metaphorical nature of science. Modern science functions because of its root metaphor of the machine: the world is seen in mechanical terms. As Thomas Kuhn insisted, metaphors function in part by ruling some questions outside their domain. In the case of modern science, four questions go unasked and hence unanswered: Why is there something rather than nothing? What is the foundation of morality? What is mind and its relationship to matter? What is the meaning of it all? You can remain a nonreligious skeptic on these questions, but it is open for the Christian to offer his or her answers, so long as they are not scientific answers. Here then is a way that science and religion can coexist.     

The American Girl: Playing with the Wrong Dollie?

This essay explores the American Girl Just Like You doll through a variety of feminist lenses. It was inspired by my experiences chaperoning my friend Grace (aged eleven) to the American Girl Store in New York City, and returning to the store to shop for my own doll. I returned to the store because I was not sure why I was so extremely disturbed by this doll. The doll is not emaciated, not overtly sexy, and marketed along with outfits that supposedly send girls the message that they can achieve their goals. She comes in a variety of skin, eye, and hair colors, and the line is therefore marketed as racially and ethnically sensitive. I argue that although the Just Like You line appears to be empowering and racially sensitive on a superficial level, an in‐depth feminist analysis indicates that it is not. In fact, the Just Like You line is highly problematic from a feminist perspective.     

The role and treatment of irresponsibility in dysfunctional relationships

This article explores the role of personal responsibility in dysfunctional relations. The premise is that the stances one or both partners take with regard to their relationship responsibilities predict the success or failure of that relationship. The four parts of this article include a definition of responsibility, a delineation of four crucial areas of relationship responsibility, a listing of irrational beliefs that block responsibility, and an outline of irresponsibility treatment.Responsibility is a unique concept. It can only reside and inhere in a single individual. You may share it with others, but your portion is not diminished. You may delegate it, but it is still with you. You may disclaim it, but you cannot divest yourself of it. Admiral Hyman Rickover     

Testing a bilinear domain-specific model of acculturation and enculturation across generational status

This study attempted to replicate Miller's (2007) finding that a bilinear domain-specific model of Asian American acculturation demonstrated superior model fit when compared to unilinear and bilinear domain-generic models. Current confirmatory factor analytic tests of competing acculturation models in a cross-validation sample of 306 participants were consistent with Miller's findings. In addition, this study provided novel findings regarding the nature of the acculturation process by testing the bilinear domain-specific model across 1st and 2nd generation samples. Specifically, the generational status moderator hypothesis-that a unilinear model of acculturation would be most appropriate for 1st generation individuals and a bilinear model of acculturation would be most appropriate for 2nd generation individuals-was tested with 494 1st and 2nd generation Asian Americans. Contrary to the assumptions of the generational status moderator hypothesis, present findings demonstrated the appropriateness of the bilinear domain-specific model for both 1st and 2nd generation Asian Americans. Present findings also revealed a pattern of shared and unique relationships between cultural orientations and acculturation domains across generations. Implications for research and counseling are explored.     

Are Risk‐Taking Persons Less Religious? Risk Preference,Religious Affiliation,and Religious Participation in Taiwan

The "risk-preference" thesis is a controversial topic in the sociology of religion. Thus far, cross-cultural empirical research on risk preference and religiosity has been meager. This study attempts to replicate Miller's ( Miller, Alan S. 2000 . Going to hell in Asia: The relationship between risk and religion in a cross cultural setting.   Review of Religious Research 42(1):5–18) study for Taiwanese society, using data from the 2007 Taiwan Social Change Survey (TSCS). Logistic regression results show that for the Taiwanese (1) risk preference has little estimated net effect on religious affiliation, but (2) the relationship between risk preference and frequency of religious participation is statistically significant.     

The real symmetry problem(s) for wide-scope accounts of rationality

You are irrational when you are akratic. On this point most agree. Despite this agreement, there is a tremendous amount of disagreement about what the correct explanation of this data is. Narrow-scopers think that the correct explanation is that you are violating a narrow-scope conditional requirement. You lack an intention to x that you are required to have given the fact that you believe you ought to x. Wide-scopers disagree. They think that a conditional you are required to make true is false. You aren’t required to have any particular attitudes. You’re just required to intend to x or not believe you ought to x. Wide-scope accounts are symmetrical insofar as they predict that you are complying with the relevant requirement just so long as the relevant conditional is true. Some narrow-scopers object to this symmetry. However, there is disagreement about why the symmetry is objectionable. This has led wide-scopers to defend their view against a number of different symmetry objections. I think their defenses in the face of these objections are, on the whole, plausible. Unfortunately for them, they aren’t defending their view against the best version of the objection. In this paper I will show that there is a symmetry objection to wide-scope accounts that both hasn’t been responded to and is a serious problem for wide-scope accounts. Moreover, my version of the objection will allow us to see that there is at least one narrow-scope view that has been seriously underappreciated in the literature.     

Acting in perspective: the role of body and language as social tools

We investigated how the reach-to-grasp movement is influenced by the presence of another person (friend or non-friend), who was either invisible (behind) or located in different positions with respect to an object and to the agent, and by the perspective conveyed by linguistic pronouns (“I”, “You”). The interaction between social relationship and relative position influenced the latency of both maximal fingers aperture and velocity peak, showing shorter latencies in the presence of a non-friend than in the presence of a friend. However, whereas the relative position of a non-friend did not affect the kinematics of the movement, the position of a friend mattered: latencies were significantly shorter with friends only in positions allowing them to easily reach for the object. Finally, the investigation of the overall reaching movement time showed an interaction between the speaker and the pronoun: participants reached the object more quickly when the other spoke, particularly if she used the “I” pronoun. This suggests that speaking, and particularly using the “I” pronoun, evokes a potential action. Implications of the results for embodied cognition are discussed.