Is the Free Market Acceptable to Everyone?

In this paper we take issue with two central claims that John Tomasi makes in Free Market Fairness (2012). The first claim is that Rawls’s difference principle can better be realized by free market institutions than it can be by state interventionist regimes such as property-owning democracy or liberal socialism. We argue that Tomasi’s narrow interpretation of the difference principle, which focuses largely on wealth and income, leaves other goods (such as control of the workplace and access to economic assets) worryingly unsatisfied. The second claim is that a wide set of economic liberties ought to be protected because they realize responsible ‘self-authorship.’ We argue that this claim also fails because, crucially, whether economic liberties serve individuals in pursuing their ambitions will depend on the nature of those ambitions and how the use of those liberties by others would affect their pursuit of them. If an expansion of liberty is good for us in some ways, but bad in others, we need to assess whether, all things considered, we would be better off with or without such expanded economic rights. We argue that the expansion Tomasi proposes is likely to fail this test.     

Conscious Parenting: A Qualitative Study on Swedish Parents’ Motives to Participate in a Parenting Program

Triple P is a parenting program that aims to prevent behavioral, emotional, and developmental problems in children. Because Triple P is a new parenting program in Sweden, it is important to see how parents felt about the intervention. The aim of this study was to find out why parents of preschool children chose to participate in Triple P in Sweden, what they thought of the Triple P curriculum, and how the program related to their parenting philosophy in general. This is a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with seven mothers and three fathers who participated in Triple P. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and were analysed using Malterud’s method of Systematic Text Condensation. Parents chose to participate in Triple P for several reasons: they wanted to learn more about the intervention; they had specific problems that they sought help for; or they felt encouraged to participate due to advertisements and recommendations from friends. Of the Triple P curriculum, the participants especially enjoyed the “directed discussion” technique, the positive reinforcement sections, and the instructions on how to communicate effectively with their child by staying calm, close, and maintaining eye contact. It was important for many of the parents to feel validated and respected, and they liked having discussions with the preschool teacher rather than being told what to do. Parents in this Swedish sample generally liked and selectively used the strategies they learned from participating in Triple P, depending on how well these fit with their own parenting experiences and philosophy.     

Do Parents Benefit From Help When Completing a Self-Guided Parenting Program Online? A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Triple P Online With and Without Telephone Support

In response to recent increases in the dissemination of Web-based parenting supports, an important consideration is whether the core benefits of self-directed participation in online parenting interventions are counterbalanced by issues such as high dropout and noncompletion rates commonly reported within the Internet intervention literature. This study outlines a randomized controlled trial of Triple P Online, a Web-based variant of the Triple P—Positive Parenting Program, delivered with varied levels of support scaffolding. Participants were 183 parents of children between 1 and 8 years of age with concerns about their child’s behavior and at least one area of disadvantage or family difficulty. Participants were randomized to self-directed Triple P Online, telephone-supported Triple P Online, or a wait-list control. Primary outcomes measured at baseline, postintervention, and 5-month follow-up were negative parenting styles and child behavior problems. Secondary outcomes included parent confidence, anger, and adjustment; relationship quality; program engagement; and parent satisfaction. Self-directed participants showed short-term treatment effects, including reductions in overall negative parenting and frequency of child behavior problems, while practitioner support led to greater improvements in negative parenting and intensity of difficult child behaviors. Participants in the supported condition were also more likely to complete modules and reported greater program satisfaction. At follow-up, 50% of outcomes for the self-directed condition were significantly better than the control, while 94% of outcomes were significantly better than the control in the practitioner-supported condition. Although self-directed online approaches to parenting intervention are promising, this research highlights how minimal support can improve effective engagement and enhance outcomes for families.     

Is light in pictures presumed to come from the left side?

For good ecological reasons humans assume that the illumination in pictures comes from overhead rather than from below. Recent work has also raised the possibility that the preferred angle of illumination is between 20 degrees and 30 degrees to the left of vertical, although the ecological basis for that is obscure. We describe two studies of this question. In study 1, twenty subjects looked in free, unrestricted vision, at a picture of a single 'bubble' which appeared either convex if the illumination was from above, or concave if the illumination was from below. There was no evidence in study 1 that illumination from the left produced a different appearance from illumination from the right, the preferred angle of illumination being 0.5 degrees to the right of vertical. In study 2, on forty subjects, there was fast presentation (200 ms) of an array of 16 bubbles, one of which, the target, was illuminated from the opposite direction to the others, and hence 'popped out' from the display, appearing concave if the others were convex, or vice-versa. The preferred angle of illumination for detection of the target was about 14 degrees to the left of vertical in study 2. The estimates from studies 1 and 2 did not differ significantly, and when combined gave a preferred angle of 9 degrees to the left of vertical. The reasons for the seeming discrepancy between studies 1 and 2, or the smaller overall effect than that found in previous studies are not clear since the methodologies seem equivalent. In both studies 1 and 2 there was a highly significant association between the direction of spontaneous head tilt and preferred direction of illumination, and this factor has not previously been taken into account in studies of the phenomenon. Contrary to the study of Sun and Perona (1998, Nature Neuroscience 1 183-184), there was no association with handedness or other measures of functional lateralisation.     

Is the holocaust relevant to sociobiology?

Sociobiologists have emphasized that altruism and benevolent behavior are part of the genetic repertoire of most animals and certainly of man. They have constructed a theory of ethics as a biological phenomenon without reference to the concept of evil. It is concluded here however, that holocaust behavior is not equivalent to the natural manifestation of an incompletely tamed animal flashing its teeth. Biologists have been too rigid in trying to equate ethical behavior with social behavior. The added dimension of ethical behavior is a special kind of sensitivity to the needs of others, just as evil is the total lack of it. The evolution of this moral sense may itself have important selective value for the human species, whose survival depends on creating maximal diversity in its gene pool.     

Is the Argument from Marginal Cases Obtuse?

Elizabeth Anderson claims that the argument from marginal cases is 'the central argument' behind the claim that nonhuman animals have rights. But she thinks, along with Cora Diamond, that the argument is 'obtuse'. Two different meanings could be intended here: that the argument from marginal cases is too blunt or dull to dissect the reasons why it makes sense to say that nonhuman animals have rights or that the argument from marginal cases is insensitive regarding nonrational human beings (the marginal cases of humanity). The purpose of the present article is to argue that, despite Anderson's and Diamond's nuanced and perceptive treatments of the argument from marginal cases, this argument is not obtuse in either sense of the term.     

Behavioral Outcomes of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy and Triple P—Positive Parenting Program: A Review and Meta-Analysis

We conducted a review and meta-analyses of 24 studies to evaluate and compare the outcomes of two widely disseminated parenting interventions—Parent-Child Interaction Therapy and Triple P-Positive Parenting Program. Participants in all studies were caregivers and 3- to 12-year-old children. In general, our analyses revealed positive effects of both interventions, but effects varied depending on intervention length, components, and source of outcome data. Both interventions reduced parent-reported child behavior and parenting problems. The effect sizes for PCIT were large when outcomes of child and parent behaviors were assessed with parent-report, with the exclusion of Abbreviated PCIT, which had moderate effect sizes. All forms of Triple P had moderate to large effects when outcomes were parent-reported child behaviors and parenting, with the exception of Media Triple P, which had small effects. PCIT and an enhanced version of Triple P were associated with improvements in observed child behaviors. These findings provide information about the relative efficacy of two programs that have received substantial funding in the USA and Australia, and findings should assist in making decisions about allocations of funding and dissemination of these parenting interventions in the future.

The Importance of Program Evaluation: How Can it be Applied to Diverse Genetics Education Settings?

The role of a genetic counselor often entails providing education to patient, community and/or health professional groups. While counseling supervision assists genetic counselors to be reflective about their clinical work and to enhance clinical skills, evaluation is a rather analogous process in the provision of education. Program evaluation of education activities can be applied to provide information about the needs of the target group (needs assessment), the delivery of the program (process evaluation) as well as determining the extent to which the education activity has met its intended aims (summative evaluation). Evaluation assists the educator to assess the impact of their program and provides an evidence base about genetics education. Although program evaluation can be a complex activity, the tools are ones that can be used by individuals to evaluate single or simple education activities. The components of evaluation are discussed with reference to genetic counseling practice and three very different examples of actual evaluations are provided to illustrate the diversity of evaluation strategy and programs to which it can be applied.     

Is the hand to speech what speech is to the hand?

Interference between the manual and the verbal performance on two types of concurrent verbal-manual tasks was studied on a sample of 48 female right-handers. The more complex verbal task (storytelling) affected both hands significantly, the less complex (essentially phonemic) task affected only the right hand, with insignificant negative influence on the left-hand performance. No significant reciprocal effects of the motor task on verbalization were found.     

Promoting Optimal Parenting and Children’s Mental Health: A Preliminary Evaluation of the How-to Parenting Program

Parenting quality is widely accepted as a primary predictor of children’s mental health. The present study examined the effectiveness of a parenting program in fostering optimal parenting and child mental health. The selected program was How to talk so kids will listen & listen so kids will talk (How-to Parenting Program). This program was selected because its content corresponds closely to what the parenting style literature suggests is optimal parenting (i.e., includes structure, affiliation and autonomy support). Eleven groups of six to twelve parents were conducted in 7 local grade schools. The program, offered by two trained leaders, consisted of eight weekly sessions and taught a total of 30 skills. A total of 82 parents completed questionnaires both prior to and after the program. Participants’ children between eight and 12 years old (N = 44) completed questionnaires at school, at both assessment points. Repeated measures ANOVAs using parent reports indicated that structure, affiliation and autonomy support were increased after the program, compared to baseline. The level of child internalizing and externalizing problems also decreased significantly. Importantly, children reports confirmed that parental autonomy support increased from pre to post-test and child-reported well-being improved as well. The preliminary evidence from this pre-test versus post-test repeated measures design suggests that the How-to Parenting Program is effective in improving parenting style and in promoting children’s mental health and that future evaluation research examining the potential of this program is warranted.     

Is it always fallacious to derive values from facts?

Since the time of David Hume, many philosophers have held that there is a logical Is/Ought gap. According to the doctrine of the Is/Ought gap, there are no valid (i.e., non-fallacious) arguments from purely factual premises about whatis the case to moral or normative conclusions about whatought to be. Occasionally, this doctrine has been challenged, but frequently it has been accepted without argumentation. Charles Pigden has recently argued for a logical Is/Ought gap on the grounds of the conservativeness of logic. I offer a counter-example which shows that Pigden's argument is unsound and that there need be no logical gap between Is-premises and an Ought-conclusion. My counter-example is an argument which is logically valid, has only Is-premises and an Ought-conclusion, and does not purport to violate the conservativeness of logic. Moreover, my argument does not rely, as other alleged counter-examples do, on controversial assumptions from Aristotelian biology about natures or ends, or about institutions such as promise-making.     

Is the conjunction fallacy tied to probabilistic confirmation?

Crupi et al. (2008) offer a confirmation-theoretic, Bayesian account of the conjunction fallacy—an error in reasoning that occurs when subjects judge that Pr(h ₁ & h ₂|e) > Pr(h ₁|e). They introduce three formal conditions that are satisfied by classical conjunction fallacy cases, and they show that these same conditions imply that h ₁ & h ₂ is confirmed by e to a greater extent than is h ₁ alone. Consequently, they suggest that people are tracking this confirmation relation when they commit conjunction fallacies. I offer three experiments testing the merits of Crupi et al.’s account specifically and confirmation-theoretic accounts of the conjunction fallacy more generally. The results of Experiment 1 show that, although Crupi et al.’s conditions do seem to be causally linked to the conjunction fallacy, they are not necessary for it; there exist cases that do not meet their three conditions in which subjects still tend to commit the fallacy. The results of Experiments 2 and 3 show that Crupi et al.’s conditions, and those offered by other confirmation-theoretic accounts of the fallacy, are not sufficient for the fallacy either; there exist cases that meet all three of CFT’s conditions in which subjects do not tend to commit the fallacy. Additionally, these latter experiments show that such confirmation-theoretic conditions are at best only weakly causally relevant to the presence of the conjunction fallacy. Given these findings, CFT’s account specifically, and any general confirmation-theoretic account more broadly, falls short of offering a satisfying explanation of the presence of the conjunction fallacy.