EQUAL POLITICAL LIBERTIES

Formal guarantees of political equality are compatible with inequalities in the value of political liberties, as individuals may convert their socioeconomic advantages into political advantages. Perhaps the predominant strategy for limiting substantive political inequalities recommends limiting inequalities in the means of acquiring political power for private gain – most notably, economic means. I express a worry that measures instituted to restrict economic inequalities may do more to frustrate the cause of political equality than to further it. I argue that attempts to decrease individuals' means to capture political power will systematically increase their motives to capture political power.     

A META-ANALYSIS OF CONDITIONAL REASONING TESTS OF AGGRESSION

James et al. (2005) reported an estimate of criterion-related validity (corrected only for dichotomization of criteria) of r = .44 across 11 conditional reasoning test of aggression (CRT-Aggression) validity studies. This meta-analysis incorporated a total sample size more than twice that of James et al. Our comparable validity estimate for CRT-Aggression scales predicting counterproductive work behaviors was r = .16. Validity for the current, commercially marketed test version (CRT-A) was lower (r = .10). These validity estimates increased somewhat (into the .24–.26 range) if studies using dichotomous criteria with low base rates were excluded from the meta-analysis. CRT-Aggression scales were correlated r = .14 with measures of job performance. As we differed with James et al. in some of our coding decisions, we reran all analyses using James et al.'s coding decisions and arrived at extremely similar results.     

The Honey Trap: the social and cognitive adequacy of language in educational contexts

ABSTRACT The attack on bidialectal approaches to the teaching of writing mounted by John Honey in The Language Trap is examined and critically discussed. It is argued that Honey confuses the issues of the social and the cognitive adequacy of a particular variety of language. In particular, his critique of bidialectalism, in so far as it is based on a version of verbal deficit theory and/or cognitive relativism, is misconceived. There are valid criticisms to be made of the bidialectal approach, but they centre on the social rather than the cognitive adequacy of different varieties of language. When the critique is formulated in this way, it is more enlightening and less misleading.