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.     

Why Doesn't Everyone Work to Prevent Nuclear War? A Decision Theory Analysis

The general lack of action to prevent nuclear war, despite widespread belief that such a war is likely to occur and knowledge of its catastrophic consequences, can be traced to a sense that individual action does not matter. The absence of perceived differential outcomes for action can also prevent the discrimination of real threats. Therefore, education about the nuclear threat is not likely to be effective unless accompanied by efforts to establish a sense of personal efficacy.     

Why do we SLIP to the basic level? Computational constraints and their implementation.

The authors introduce a new measure of basic-level performance (strategy length and internal practicability; SLIP). SLIP implements 2 computational constraints on the organization of categories in a taxonomy: the minimum number of feature tests required to place the input in a category (strategy length) and the ease with which these tests are performed (internal practicability). The predictive power of SLIP is compared with that of 4 other basic-level measures: context model, category feature possession, category utility, and compression measure, drawing data from other empirical work, and 3 new experiments testing the validity of the computational constraints of SLIP using computer-synthesized 3-dimensional artificial objects.     

Why do children lack the flexibility to innovate tools?

Despite being proficient tool users, young children have surprising difficulty in innovating tools (making novel tools to solve problems). Two experiments found that 4- to 7-year-olds had difficulty on two tool innovation problems and explored reasons for this inflexibility. Experiment 1 (N = 51) showed that children’s performance was unaffected by the need to switch away from previously correct strategies. Experiment 2 (N = 92) suggested that children’s difficulty could not easily be explained by task pragmatics or permission issues. Both experiments found evidence that some children perseverated on a single incorrect strategy, but such perseveration was insufficient to explain children’s tendency not to innovate tools. We suggest that children’s difficulty lies not with switching, task pragmatics, or behavioral perseveration but rather with solving the fundamentally “ill-structured” nature of tool innovation problems.     

When are nonwords easy to see?

The influences of presentation mode (mixed vs. blocked trials) and target variability on the detection of targets in words and in random letter strings were examined. The results indicated that there was a substantial word superiority effect in mixed lists of words and nonwords, but that this effect was eliminated when pure lists of words and nonwords were compared. Also, target variability affected the shape of the serial position curve. When subjects searched repeatedly for a single target, the serial position curve had only a significant linear component. However, when the identity of the target varied from trial to trial, the serial position curve had a significant quartic component (i.e.. it was M-shaped). These results were interpreted in terms of strategies and feature learning.     

When Are Clients Ready to Terminate?

Termination of psychotherapy has received less attention in the research literature than other aspects of the treatment process. This paper presents a structured framework emphasizing observable markers to indicate when termination with a client is appropriate during cognitive behavioral treatment. The 7 criteria that indicate when a client is ready for termination are: (a) decrease in symptoms as assessed by sound measures; (b) decrease in symptoms that is stable and maintained for 8 weeks; (c) decrease in functional impairment; (d) evidence that the decrease in symptoms is not a spontaneous remission, such as lower symptoms associated with the use of new skills; (e) usage of the new skills, particularly at times or on themes of former vulnerability; (f) sense of pride regarding the new skills, in contrast to initial doubt regarding whether the techniques would work; and (g) carryover of decrease in symptoms to other areas. A case report and discussion regarding the clinical application of the framework is presented.     

When Do Replies to the Evolutionary Debunking Argument Against Moral Realism Beg the Question?

Some proponents of the evolutionary debunking argument against moral realism believe that replies that assume substantive moral claims beg the question. In this paper, I give a new account of what's wrong with such replies. On this account, many realists beg the question when they rely on substantive moral claims in their replies to the argument, but naturalists do not. While this account generalizes to some other domains, it allows perceptual and inductive realism to remain undebunked.     

Why Does Time Seem to Pass?

According to the B‐theory, the passage of time is an illusion. The B‐theory therefore requires an explanation of this illusion before it can be regarded as fully satisfactory; yet very few B‐theorists have taken up the challenge of trying to provide one. In this paper I take some first steps toward such an explanation by first making a methodological proposal, then a hypothesis about a key element in the phenomenology of temporal passage. The methodological proposal focuses on the representational content of the element of experience by virtue of which time seems to pass. The hypothesis involves the claim that the experience of change involves the representation of something enduring, rather than perduring, through any change.     

Why are therapists indifferent to research?

In counselling and psychotherapy there is a serious research—practice gap. Why should research on the therapeutic process have such little impact? Five related factors are considered: (i) epistemology—reliance on experiential/personal knowledge; (ii) preciousness—reliance on nonaxiomatic truths; (iii) lack of theoretical rigour—looseness with which constructs are construed; (iv) non-Popperian logic—tendency to work within a theory and defend it; and (v) personalisation of theory—evaluation seen as criticism. The result is a proliferation of therapies rather than a refinement of therapy.     

Why the gap? Practice and policy in civil commitment hearings.

The failure of civil commitment procedures to meet statutory requirements is one of the more reliable findings in the applied social sciences. Most states now require specific legal procedures and behavioral standards for involuntary hospitalization. Nonetheless, empirical studies have demonstrated that commitment hearings are rarely adversarial and clinical concerns continue to take precedence over legal issues. These findings are analyzed in the context of three related issues: the grounds for commitment that are used in civil commitment hearings, the particular difficulties of recommitment hearings, and the shortcomings of the national policy of deinstitutionalization. The authors conclude that a primary cause of the gap between legal standards and actual practice is the absence of viable, less restrictive alternatives to inpatient treatment.