The paradox of normal neuropsychological function in schizophrenia

Mounting evidence suggests that compromised neurocognitive function is a core feature of schizophrenia. However, some studies have found neuropsychologically normal schizophrenia patients. To address this apparent contradiction, we blindly rated individual neuropsychological profiles of 75 schizophrenia patients and 91 control participants on the basis of methods developed by L. J. Seidman, S. V. Faraone, W. S. Kremen, J. R. Pepple, M. J. Lyons, and M. T. Tsuang (1993). Almost one-quarter of the patients were classified as neuropsychologically within normal limits (WNL). Despite significantly worse neuropsychological performance, WNL patients had higher estimated premorbid ability than did controls. Compared to a subset of controls matched on overall neuropsychological function, WNL patients had higher estimated premorbid ability and current IQs. Our results favor the view that even neuropsychologically normal schizophrenia patients have compromised cognitive function relative to their presumed expected or premorbid level of intellectual ability.     

Taken by surprise: The paradox of the surprise test revisited

A teacher announced to his pupils that on exactly one of the days of the following school week (Monday through Friday) he would give them a test. But it would be a surprise test; on the evening before the test they would not know that the test would take place the next day. One of the brighter students in the class then argued that the teacher could never give them the test. It can't be Friday, she said, since in that case we'll expect it on Thurday evening. But then it can't be Thursday, since having already eliminated Friday we'll know Wednesday evening that it has to be Thursday. And by similar reasoning we can also eliminate Wednesday, Tuesday, and Monday. So there can't be a test!The students were somewhat baffled by the situation. The teacher was well-known to be truthful, so if he said there would be a test, then it was safe to assume that there would be one. On the other hand, he also said that the test would be a surprise. But it seemed that whenever he gave the test, it wouldn't be a surprise.Well, the teacher gave the test on Tuesday, and, sure enough, the students were surprised.     

McTaggart's paradox and Smith's tensed theory of time

Since McTaggart first proposed his paradox asserting the unreality of time, numerous philosophers have attempted to defend the tensed theory of time against it. Certainly, one of the most highly developed and original is that put forth by Quentin Smith. Through discussing McTaggart's positive conception of time as well as his negative attack on its reality, I hope to clarify the dispute between those who believe in the existence of the transitory temporal properties of pastness, presentness and futurity, and those who deny their existence. We shall see that the debate centers around the ontological status of succession and the B-relations of earlier and later. I shall argue that Smith's tensed theory fails because he cannot account for the sense in which events have their tensed properties successively, and he cannot account for the direction of time.     

A human laboratory test of eysenck's theory of incubation: A search for the resolution of the neurotic paradox

A number of recent attempts have been made by neobehaviorists to resolve the neurotic paradox by incorporating a nontraditional learning principle. Eysenck's concept of incubation represents one of these attempts and is the subject matter of this paper. Incubation theory states that under certain conditions exposure to a fear-provoking conditioned stimulus (CS) can result in a substained growth of fear. This concept is used to explain extreme avoidance (symptom) maintenance in extinction. To test this theory, three conditions identified by Eysenck and considered critical to the development of incubation were manipulated in a classical conditioning paradigm: unconditioned stimulus (UCS) intensity, duration of CS exposure, and individual differences in neuroticism/introversion. Both physiological and self-report fear measures were taken. Results indicated that, contrary to incubation theory, fear extinguished in all groups. Long durations of CS exposure were found to be more effective than brief exposure in reducing fear of highly fearful subjects. Clinical implications for therapies using fear exposure such as flooding and implosion were discussed, as well as the resolution of the neurotic paradox via established learning principles.     

The theory of the estimation of test reliability

The theoretically best estimate of the reliability coefficient is stated in terms of a precise definition of the equivalence of two forms of a test. Various approximations to this theoretical formula are derived, with reference to several degrees of completeness of information about the test and to special assumptions. The familiar Spearman-Brown Formula is shown to be a special case of the general formulation of the problem of reliability. Reliability coefficients computed in various ways are presented for comparative purposes.     

The incarnation and the knowability paradox

The best defense of the doctrine of the Incarnation implies that traditional Christianity has a special stake in the knowability paradox, a stake not shared by other theistic perspectives or by non-traditional accounts of the Incarnation. Perhaps, this stake is not even shared by antirealism, the view most obviously threatened by the paradox. I argue for these points, concluding that these results put traditional Christianity at a disadvantage compared to other viewpoints, and I close with some comments about the extent of the burden incurred.     

矛盾视角下调节焦点在领导力领域的应用

根据调节焦点理论, 个体在追求目标和选择行动策略的过程中存在两种调节焦点：促进型调节焦点的个体以利益最大化为目标, 倾向用“接近式”的方式达成目标; 防御型调节焦点的个体以损失最小化为目标, 倾向用“避免式”的方式达成目标。近年来, 调节焦点理论在领导力领域的研究中得到了广泛应用, 但关于两种调节焦点之间的关系及两者共同作用的研究却十分稀少。在回顾调节焦点在领导力领域研究的应用现状的基础上, 本文指出了矛盾视角的必要性和可行性, 并基于矛盾理论, 提出了未来研究的发展方向。     

The paradox of the question

What is the best question to ask an omniscient being? The question is intriguing; is it also paradoxical? We discuss several versions of what Ned Markosian calls “the paradox of the question” and suggest solutions to each of those puzzles. We then offer some practical advice about what do if you ever have the opportunity to query an omniscient being.