Weak data,strong conclusions: Some comments on Howard,Bailey and Newman's use of the psychopathy checklist

In a recent paper Howard, Bailey and Newman described their experiences with a 15-item version of Hare's research scale for the assessment of psychopathy. They administered the checklist and several MMPI-derived scales to 50 consecutive admissions to Broadmoor Hospital. Psychiatric diagnoses were used to assign the patients to one of four clinical groups: Schizophrenic, Personality Disorder, Mixed and Affective Disorder. They reported that the Psychopathy Checklist was far better than the MMPI variables in discriminating among groups, but that it lacked clinical specificity because half of the schizophrenics were misclassified as ‘psychopaths’. However, we argue that serious methodological problems, including the use of poorly defined and inadequate criterion groups, make it impossible to draw any useful conclusions from the study.     

The Connolly Occupational Interests Questionnaire: Some psychometric data and comments on its use in counselling

Normative data from the Connolly Occupational Interests Questionnaire (COIQ) is reported for polytechnic students and for fifth and lower-sixth forms at a selective high school. The mean profiles show that the COIQ differentiates effectively between course groups. Further data is presented which supports the inherent viability of the inventory in terms of item characteristics and counselling applications.     

Functional analysis methodology: Some closing comments

Functional analysis methodologies have emerged as powerful tools in research on the assessment and treatment of severe behavior disorders. Although the defining feature of these approaches is the systematic identification of environmental determinants of behavior, research methodology has varied widely with respect to the arrangements used to demonstrate experimental control as well as the types of variables subject to analysis. This commentary summarizes methodological and conceptual issues that have been raised in current research and offers some suggestions for their resolution.     

Some comments on Lehrer semantics

Lehrer Semantics, as it was devised by Adrienne and Keith Lehrer, is imbedded in a comprehensive web of thought and observations of language use and development, communication, and social interaction, all these as empirical phenomena. Rather than for a theory, I take it for a ??model?? of the kind which gives us guidance in how to organize linguistic and language-related phenomena. My comments on it are restricted to three aspects: In 2 I deal with the question of how Lehrerian sense can be empirically distinguished from Lehrerian reference as a precondition for the claim that sense relationships are in general more stable than reference relations. It seems that this very claim must already be presupposed for doing the respective empirical investigation. But in 3, I argue for the option to interpret the Lehrers?? concept of sense resp. sense vectors as intension concepts, by which move one may gain a generalized concept, so-to-say ??graded analyticity??, containing Carnapian strict analyticity for language systems as the extreme case of sense vectors with maximum value. Such graded sense may also be empirically investigated in the case of normal languages. In 4, I plead for my view that what the Lehrers take for communal languages are really collections of family-resembling idiolects of individual speakers and hypotheses of individual speakers about the idiolects of their fellow speakers. This move should free us from the fiction of, and sterile discussions about, the ??true?? meanings of words, but nevertheless keep normal language communication possible. As a concluding remark I propose in 5 to have both: normal languages from an empirical point of view, and codified languages from a logical reconstructionist one.     

Studying judgement: Some comments and suggestions for future research

Three general issues emerge from the preceding papers: a confusion between judgement and related activities such as decision making, problem solving, and attitudes; differences in the underlying assumptions about the nature of judgement; and different approaches for testing the adequacy of theories human judgement. The implications of these issues for studying human judgement processes and for future research priorities in this area are briefly discussed.     

Perception,Expression, and the Continuity of Being: Some Intersections between Nishida and Gadamer

This article draws on Nishida’s ontology to shed light on some problems with Gadamer’s concept of dialogical truth. This form of truth relies on the claim that self and world ‘belong together’ as aspects of a single, unitary phenomenon, one which is made manifest in language. This view has difficulty, however, accounting for the expression in language of that which is distorted, mistaken, or untruthful. To get past these difficulties, I suggest that we turn to the more dynamic and developmental vision of the continuity of being found in Nishida’s work. One can cultivate or neglect this relational continuity, and so achieve or fail to achieve it in its fullest forms. I argue that we can cultivate our perceptual capacity along similar lines, bringing the self and world together into a kind of harmony so that the expression of such perceptions comes to be the expression of truth.