Defenses against goodness

This paper examines the fantasies and conflicts of analysands who avoid the experience and expression of positive reactions to the goodness of others and who hide feelings that would elicit that goodness. Envious wishes to spoil good objects, attachments to bad objects, defenses against gratitude and dependence, negative therapeutic reactions, and other such conflictual developments can help forestall depressive anxiety in these analysands. They dread abandoning narcissistic, omnipotent, sadomasochistic, and persecutory paranoidschizoid positions, and fear moving toward the mature depressive position, with its burdens of seemingly intolerable guilt, concern, felt ambivalence, and vulnerability to humiliation and disappointment.     

From indifference to goodness

In this paper, delivered as the 1995 Philip Hallie Memorial Lecture at Wesleyan University's College of Letters, the author reflects on Hallie's philosophical legacy and introduces clinical pragmatism as a method for moral problem-solving in medicine and medical ethics. director of medical ethics at The New York Hospital, and associate for medicine at the Hastings Center.     

Moore on beauty and goodness

The Journal of Value Inquiry -     

Power-ing up neo-aristotelian natural goodness

Something is good insofar as it achieves its end, so says a neo-Aristotelian view of goodness. Powers/dispositions are paradigm cases of entities that have an end, so say many metaphysicians. A question therefore arises, namely, can one account for neo-Aristotelian goodness in terms of an ontology of powers? This is what I shall begin to explore in this paper. I will first provide a brief explication of both neo-Aristotelian goodness and the metaphysics of powers, before turning to investigate whether one can give an account of neo-Aristotelian goodness in terms of powers. I will suggest that the answer to this question is yes.

     

Stimulus-specific processing consequences of pattern goodness

Two issues concerning the effects of visual pattern goodness on information processing time were investigated: the role of memory vs. encoding and the role of individual stimulus goodness vs. stimulus similarity. A sequential “same-different” task was used to provide differentiation of target item or memory effects from display item or encoding effects. Experiment 1 used four alternative stimuli in each block of trials. The results showed that good patterns were processed faster than poor patterns for both “same” and “different” responses. Furthermore, the goodness of the target item had a greater effect on reaction time than did the goodness of the display item, indicating that memory is more important than encoding in producing faster processing of good stimuli. Effects of interstimulus similarity on processing time were minimal, although isolation of good stimuli in a similarity space could explain many of the results. Experiment 2 replicated the results of Experiment 1, despite the fact that differences in similarity space had been minimized by using only two alternative stimuli in each block. In addition, the speed of processing a “same” pair was essentially independent of the particular alternative stimulus in a block. These results suggest that in this task, there is a processing advantage for good stimuli that is stimulus specific, with the effect operating primarily in memory.     

Pattern goodness and speed of encoding

Two experiments attempted to resolve a conflict in the literature about whether good patterns are encoded faster than poor patterns in speeded classification tasks. The results showed clear effects of goodness on the memory component of such tasks, but no effect on speed of encoding. The conflicts appear to be due in part to varying encoding requirements of different tasks.     

John Balguy on rightness and moral goodness

The Journal of Value Inquiry -     

Figural goodness effects in perception and memory

There is an apparent contradiction concerning configurational effects in visual information processing. Some studies have shown that when an array is organized into a “good” or unitary Gestalt, analysis of a single part of it is facilitated, while others have shown “good” arrays to impede search for a part. The three experiments reported here support the proposition that goodness of form can facilitate performance when memory is used, but that goodness impairs strictly perceptual search for a part of an array. These experiments compare detection of a single feature in faces (unitary figures) and nonfaces. They show that when the face or nonface is presented before the target feature (and must be held in memory), performance is better for faces than for nonfaces. When the target is presented before the face or nonface and perceptual search is required, faces give worse performance than nonfaces. Implications for perceptual phenomena, including the object-superiority and word-superiority effects, are discussed.     

Context and goodness in a focusing task

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics - In a focusing task, people respond positively to one stimulus and negatively to all other stimuli that occur. The task has been called focusing in...     

Figural goodness and the predictability of figural elements

All 126 patterns composed of five dots distributed over the cells of a 3 by 3 matrix were examined for the predictability of their elements. The predictability of a given dot in a given pattern was measured as the percentage of Ss who indicated that dot as one “implied or suggested” by the subpattern composed of the remaining four dots of the pattern. The dots comprising a figurally good five-dot pattern were generally more predictable, one from the others, than the dots comprising a poor pattern. This finding accords with the Gestaltist conception of a good figure as one whose elements are well organized, and it is the state of affairs required by Garner’s hypothesis that better figures are perceived to have fewer alternatives than poorer figures. A mechanism mediating the prediction of an element of a pattern from the other elements was suggested.     

Figural goodness and internal structure in perceptual discrimination

The time required for 24 Ss to sort four decks of cards composed of 5-dot figures (Garner & Clement, 1963) was measured. A deck consisted of 32 cards: 4 each of 8 patterns. There were 4 sets of figures: Sets AI and A2 had identical amount and form of redundancy; so also did BI and 82. Sets BI and B2, having more uncertainty in simple contingencies and having negative interaction terms, required significantly more time to sort than Sets AI and A2, All sets differed in mean ratings of figural goodness, (Garner & Clement, 1963). Even when amount and form of redundancy are held constant, the figural goodness of the individual figures constituting the set influence the discriminability, Sets consisting of good or simpler figures are easier to sort.