Who is Afraid of Figure of Speech?

Aristotle's illustrations of the fallacy of Figure of Speech (or Form of Expression) are none too convincing. They are tied to Aristotle's theory of categories and to peculiarities of Greek grammar that fail to hold appeal for a contemporary readership. Yet, upon closer inspection, Figure of Speech shows many points of contact with views and problems that inhabit 20th-century analytical philosophy. In the paper, some Aristotelian examples will be analyzed to gain a better understanding of this fallacy. The case of the Third Man argument and some modern cases lend plausibility to the claim that Figure of Speech is of more interest as a type of fallacy than has generally been assumed. Finally, a case is made for the view that Figure of Speech, though listed among the fallacies dependent upon language, is not properly classified as a fallacy of ambiguity. More likely, it should be looked upon as a type of non sequitur. This has important consequences for the profile of dialogue associated with this fallacy.     

Who speaks? Who looks? Who feels? Point of view in autobiographical narratives1

In this paper, the author aims to substantiate Freud's claim that neurotic illness creates gaps in autobiographical narratives in terms of the narrator's stating and inducing perspectives. He sketches out the role of narrative perspective and the joint taking of a shared perspective by analyst and patient in psychoanalytic therapy. He introduces four ways of representing perspectives in narratives. Three degrees of narrative distortion are exemplifi ed by three excerpts from life narratives and explored in terms of narrative perspective representation. The most comprehensive perspective representation is achieved in the fi rst example by explicitly stating the present perspective of the narrator as well as the past perspective of the story's protagonist by use of mental verbs. In the second narrative, exclusive use of linguistic forms for inducing the protagonist's perspective both overwhelms the narrator and gives the listener an incomplete picture of what happened. Inconsistent motives, denial of responsibility and omission of detail render the third narrative even more diffi cult to follow. The author discusses the clinical signifi cance of this exploratory analysis of perspectives in narratives in terms of claiming responsibility for one's past action and of level of defence mechanisms, and by highlighting the emotional impact on listeners, which the author suggests is the stronger the more perspectives are left out. He discusses analogies to countertransference. The analysis of narrative perspectives offers an approach for systematic research in psychoanalytic practice.     

Who is the Addressee of Philosophical Argumentation?

Chaim Perelman invokes the idea of “universal audience” for explaining the nature of philosophical argumentation as rational rhetoric. As opposed to this view, centuries before Perelman, Socrates argues that philosophy should be conducted as a dialogue between concrete individuals with very specific qualities. The paper presents these different views in order to claim that the philosopher addresses neither a universal audience nor a particular other, but mainly and essentially the philosopher herself/himself. This brings to light the problem of self-deception as a central problem of philosophical thinking. In posing this view the paper uses Nietzsche’s definition of “the will to truth” as the will not to deceive, not even myself.

Who should own the definition of personality?

The averaged judgment of knowledgeable others provides the best available point of reference both for the definition of personality structure in general and for assessing someone's personality in particular. Self-judgments, as in personality questionnaires, are intrinsically deficient because judgment errors cannot be averaged out. The recommended procedure for assessing someone's personality is to give a personality questionnaire, phrased in the third person singular, to those who know the target best. This set may or may not include the target person as a judge.     

Who’s Afraid of Nagelian Reduction?

We reconsider the Nagelian theory of reduction and argue that, contrary to a widely held view, it is the right analysis of intertheoretic reduction. The alleged difficulties of the theory either vanish upon closer inspection or turn out to be substantive philosophical questions rather than knock-down arguments.     

Who stops the sweatshops? Our neglect of the injustice of maldistribution

Researchers have attempted to hold fashion, beauty, and toy industries' promotion of narrow beauty ideals responsible for the injustice of body dissatisfaction. We advocate for reform by calling upon the industries to represent plus‐sized and older models (e.g., on catwalks) as antidotes to narrow beauty ideals, citing evidence that the use of such models are no less profitable. This attempts to address what Fraser ( 1995 ) calls the injustice of misrecognition. This advocacy however not only masks another injustice these industries perpetuate: maldistribution (Fraser, 1995 ), but it can actively worsen it. This is most poignantly exemplified by the 250 million sweatshop workers in the Global South working in these industries. Those of us advocating against these industries' injustices are encouraged to join People and Planet in their campaign to use universities' vast purchasing power for sweatshop reform. This is one small way to advocate against maldistribution, redressing the imbalance.     

Who owns the contour of a visual hole?

Holes are useful in the study of shape, contour curvature, and border ownership. Several authors have suggested that holes have figural or quasi-figural status. I discuss three criteria to test the evidence that holes behave more like figures than like ground: (i) holes perceived as such; (ii) similar performance for holes and figures; (iii) different performance for holes and other ground regions. Using these criteria, I review the literature and conclude that holes do not have figural status in relation to border ownership. I also argue that holes are ideal stimuli to study figure-ground organisation.     

Who Would Claim to Be That,Who Was Not? Evaluations of an Ethnic Validation Procedure

We investigated the fairness implications of a procedure designed to validate ethnic membership. In addition, procedural justifications, or justifications before the procedure were tested as the rationale for the procedure introduced. Of 2 procedural justifications—the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Science Foundation (NSF)—the NSF justification was hypothesized as being perceived as more fair. Results showed that procedures designed to validate ethnic membership were evaluated as unfair under most conditions. Additionally, results indicated that procedural justifications influenced evaluations of the degree of fairness of the procedure. Implications for Lumbee American Indian Federal recognition are discussed.     

Who Fights,Who Flees? An Integration of the LC4MP and Psychological Reactance Theory

ABSTRACT

This study tests the hypothesis that defensive message processing, like defensive behaviors in the real world, has two directions, fight-and-flight. The Limited Capacity Model of Motivated Mediated Message Processing (LC4MP) characterizes defensive message processing by increases in unpleasantness and arousal reports, and accelerated heart rate indicating either a focus on internal processing (internal thoughts) or the active withdrawal of cognitive resources from processing highly arousing and unpleasant media messages. However, the LC4MP has not included direct measures that allow discrimination between fight-and-flight responses. Psychological reactance theory (PRT) predicts defensive responses including anger and counterarguments (reactance) when media messages threaten viewers’ freedom and autonomy. We hypothesized that PRT provides the LC4MP with the appropriate measures (anger and counterarguments) needed to discriminate fight-or-flight responses. Results supported this prediction. Participants (N = 49 adult-smokers) high in defensive and low in appetitive reactivity (risk-avoiders) withdrew from the message (fled: characterized by low anger and counterarguments) while those high in appetitive and low in defensive reactivity (risk-takers) experienced reactance (fought: characterized by high anger and counterarguments) in response to freedom threatening antitobacco messages that are highly arousing and unpleasant. Moreover, both reactance and message withdrawal yielded the same cognitive, emotional, and physiological responses predicted by the LC4MP as indicators of defensive message processing. Theoretical and message design recommendations are discussed.     

Who Are the Next Generation of Genetic Counselors? A Survey of Students

Genetic counseling students were surveyed about their backgrounds, application process to genetic counseling programs, and career motivations and plans. Program directors from 27 accredited programs were asked to distribute 362 surveys to students. Fifty-two survey items assess demographics; sources of support for pursuing a genetic counseling career (information about genetic counseling, encouragement/discouragement from others); career motivations (reasons for applying and for becoming a genetic counselor); and career certainty. Two hundred and thirty-five usable surveys were returned (64.9% usable return rate). Most respondents were Caucasian females (mean age = 25.4 years). About 13% identified as ethnic minorities, and about one-third reported family histories of a genetic condition(s). Most respondents learned about the field in classes, and most were strongly encouraged by family and friends to pursue genetic counseling. Reasons rated as most important for becoming a genetic counselor included helping others and intellectual stimulation. Recruitment, training, and research recommendations are given.     

Who talks? The social psychology of illness support groups

More Americans try to change their health behaviors through self-help than through all other forms of professionally designed programs. Mutual support groups, involving little or no cost to participants, have a powerful effect on mental and physical health, yet little is known about patterns of support group participation in health care. What kinds of illness experiences prompt patients to seek each other's company? In an effort to observe social comparison processes with real-world relevance, support group participation was measured for 20 disease categories in 4 metropolitan areas (New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Dallas) and on 2 on-line forums. Support seeking was highest for diseases viewed as stigmatizing (e.g., AIDS, alcoholism, breast and prostate cancer) and was lowest for less embarrassing but equally devastating disorders, such as heart disease. The authors discuss implications for social comparison theory and its applications in health care.     

Who Started This? Investigating Different Sources of Organizational Change

This study explored whether organizational change had differential effects on perceptions of group leadership and group morale, depending on the source of the change activity. Data on work group leadership and morale was collected in two waves of an employee survey, and data on change activities were collected in the second wave of the survey. When leaders outside of a work group initiated change, employees reported more negative perceptions of their work group leader. However, when the work group leader initiated change, perceptions of that leader tended to be more positive. Finally, change activities initiated by group members did not influence perceptions of work group leadership, but were associated with improved work group morale.     

Who thinks inside of me? Some aspects of Merab Mamardašvili`s theory of consciousness

In this article I look at the methodology of one the most unique figures in Russian philosophy—Merab Mamarda?vili—who was known for his focus on consciousness. According to him, the application of the subject–object dualism to the analysis of consciousness leads to a series of complications. Within the phenomenological framework of intentionality there is an interwining of perspective and object to which this perspective is directed. As soon as we try to apply to consciousness subject–object schemes, then we immediately come across paradoxes. It is impossible to determine consciousness by means of subject–object, not only because it is neither an object nor a subject, but also because consciousness inevitably turns out to be “prior” to such distinctions.     

Who Is a Good Organizational Citizen? Social Perception of Male and Female Employees Who Use Family Leave

In this study, we examined perceptions of the citizenship behaviors of male and female employees who took leave to care for a newborn, a sick child, a sick parent, or who did not take leave. In a 2 (employee gender) × 4 (reason for leave) × 2 (participant gender) experimental design, 242 undergraduate students read a mock personnel file and rated the employee on altruism and generalized compliance. Female employees were not rated differently whether they took leave or not. Male employees who took leave for birth or eldercare were rated less likely to be altruistic at work than their male counterparts who did not take leave and their female counterparts who took leave. There was also a bias against male leave takers for generalized compliance ratings, especially by male evaluators. Future research ideas and implications for organizational practice are discussed.     

Who Delivers Justice? Source Perceptions of Procedural Fairness1

Tyler and Bies (1990) argue that how leaders enact and apply formal procedures can affect perceptions of procedural fairness as much as the formal procedures themselves. This study examined directly the extent to which workers see either formal policies and procedures or their supervisors as the source most responsible for the procedural fairness they receive in their performance evaluations. Group differences in these source perceptions between exempt and nonexempt workers were also explored. Results indicate that workers attribute the responsibility for procedural fairness jointly and independently to both their organization's formal policies and procedures and to their supervisors. Results at the group level of analysis indicate that nonexempt workers perceive formal policies and procedures to be more responsible for procedural fairness than do exempt workers. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Analogues of Ourselves: Who Counts as an Other?

What attributions must any actor make to an other in order to engage in face-to-face interaction with that other? Edmund Husserl's use of “analogues” suggests that actors use their own experiences of themselves as a starting pointin making such attributions. Alfred Schutz and Erving Goffman claim that for face-to-face interaction to occur, an other must be recognized as copresent and reciprocity must be established. I assert here that the means for determining that these conditions have been met will vary. I explore a varietyof actors and in particular their differing identifications of interactionally available others and I take as problematicthe establishment of co-presence and reciprocity. Taking others to be “analogues of ourselves” serves as a useful starting point, but worthy of detailed analysis is howand with whom an actor draws the analogy, under what circumstances it comes in for revision, and the interactional consequences of the decisions made.