Dispositions and Bogus Counterexamples: Reply to Lee

This paper discusses Lee’s argument that Lewis’s reformed conditional analysis of dispositions is preferable to the simple conditional analysis of dispositions. Lee’s argument is basically that there are some examples that can be adequately handled by Lewis’s analysis but cannot by the simple conditional analysis of dispositions. But I will reveal that, when carefully understood, they spell no trouble for the simple conditional analysis of dispositions, failing to serve a motivating role for Lewis’s analysis.     

Multiple Factors and Multiple Mechanisms Determine the Quality of Conscious Experiences: A Reply to Anzulewicz and Wierzchoń

In this Letter to the Editor, we seize the opportunity to respond to the recent comments by Anzulewicz and Wierzchoń, and further clarify and extend the scope of our original paper. We re‐emphasize that conscious experiences come in degrees, and that there are several factors that determine this degree. Endorsing the suggestions of Anzulewicz and Wierzchoń, we discuss that besides low‐level attentional mechanisms, high‐level attentional and non‐attentional mechanisms might also modulate the quality of conscious experiences.     

Masculinity,Femininity, and Multiple Regression: A Reply to Holmbeck

We respond to Holmbeck's (this issue) criticism of our work. Holmbeck is correct to observe that we mislabel the hierarchical regression analyses that we actually performed in Zeldow et al. (1985, 1987) as stepwise regressions. We also reported some correlation coefficients in Zeldow et al. (1985) which were incorrect. However, further speculation by Holmbeck that alternate analyses would "dramatically" alter our results and that we are guilty of various interpretive errors are shown to be wrong. Most of Holmbeck's conclusions about the potential misuses of multiple regression analyses in androgyny research are supported. However, the substantive conclusions of our earlier articles remain unchanged.     

Detecting Faking on the Rorschach: Computer Versus Expert Clinical Judgment: A Reply to Cohen

Cohen's contributions (this issue) to the dialogue through his critique of our study (Kahn, Fox, & Rhode, 1988) is confusing and Tends to cloud, rather than clarify the issues, The main problem with his analysis is that it is based on several inaccurate representations of what is stated in our study, resulting in spurious conclusions.     

Bifactor Models of Personality and College Student Performance: A Broad Versus Narrow View

Research in the area of personality traits and academic performance has been supported by consistent meta‐analytic evidence demonstrating positive relationships between Conscientiousness and grade point average (GPA). However, academic performance is not solely a function of GPA but also a number of other important intellectual, interpersonal and intrapersonal behaviours. This wider criterion space opens up the possibility for many personality factors and their underlying facets to relate to academic performance. Using bifactor latent variable modelling, the current study investigates the six‐factor HEXACO model of personality, along with their 24 underlying facets, for predicting students' academic performance. Model results reveal interpretable and meaningful relationships between both broad factors and narrow personality facets in predicting college student outcomes. Implications for measurement, modelling and prediction are discussed. Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology     

Sensitivity has Multiple Heterogeneity Problems: a Reply to Wallbridge

Philosophia - In this paper, I defend the heterogeneity problem for sensitivity accounts of knowledge against an objection that has been recently proposed by Wallbridge in Philosophia (2016b). I...     

Revisiting the Tropic of Value: Reply to Rabinowicz and Rønnow‐Rasmussen*

In this paper, I defend the view that the values of concrete objects and persons are reducible to the final values of tropes. This reductive account has recently been discussed and rejected by Rabinowicz and R0nnow‐Rasmussen (2003). I begin by explaining why the reduction is appealing in the first place. In my rejoinder to Rabinowicz and R0nnow‐Rasmussen I defend trope‐value reductionism against three challenges. 1 focus mainly on their central objection, that holds that the reduction is untenable since different evaluative attitudes have, ontologically speaking, different objects. I grant that this may well be so, but argue that the objection is based on an unwarranted, loose reading of the notion ‘value for its own sake’. On the more reasonable strict reading, it is plausible to maintain that tropes are the sole ontological category that can properly be ascribed final value.     

Impasse and Resonance Across Multiple Relational Realms: Reply to Commentaries

In my response to the commentaries by Anthony Bass, Irwin Hirsch, and Margaret Crastnopol, I focus on conscious and unconscious factors that open or close potential space across relational realms, including that of analyst and patient, parent and child. I then extend these notions to the supervisory relationship. I describe how these issues affected the writing process for me, and explore the impact that writing has had on the ongoing treatment with my patient. I consider too the ways in which shame travels intersubjectively, shutting down transitional space and interfering with aliveness, authenticity, and creativity.