The Importance of Cartesian Triangles: A New Look at Descartes's Ontological Argument

In this paper, I argue that commentators have missed a significant clue given by Descartes in coming to understand his 'ontological' proof for the existence of God. In both the analytic and synthetic presentations of the proof throughout his writings, Descartes notes that the proof works 'in the same way' as a particular geometrical proof. I explore the significance of such a parallel, and conclude that Descartes could not have intended readers to think that the argument consists of some kind of intuition. I argue that for Descartes the attribute of existence is a 'second-order' attribute that is demonstrated to belong to the idea of God on the basis of 'first-order' attributes. The proof, properly understood, is in fact a demonstration. Having brought to light the geometrical parallels between the ontological and geometrical proofs, we have new evidence to resolve the 'intuition versus demonstration' controversy that has characterized much of the discussion of Descartes's ontological argument.     

KNOWLEDGE HAPPENS: WHY ZAGZEBSKI HAS NOT SOLVED THE MENO PROBLEM

I argue that Linda Zagzebski's proposed solution to the Meno Problem faces serious challenges. The Meno Problem, roughly, is how to explain the value that knowledge, as such, has over mere true belief. Her proposed solution is that believings—when thought of more like actions—can have value in virtue of their motivations. This meshes nicely with her theory that knowledge is, essentially, virtuously motivated true belief. Her solution fails because it entails that, necessarily, all knowledge is motivated in a way that resembles the motivation of actions. Crucially, Zagzebski says the value derived from motivation comes from certain laudable feelings—like love of truth (she is explicit that love is a feeling). But there are possible cases of knowledge—probably some of which are actual—in which subjects do not or cannot experience these feelings.     

Gendered Constructions of Power During Discourse About Sexual Harassment: Negotiating Competing Meanings

A qualitative study using same-sex and mixed-sex focus groups and stimulated recall interviews was designed to identify and explore gendered constructions of power during discourse about sexual harassment. It was discovered that the men tended to construct power as hierarchically held by individuals with formal authority. Consequently, they tended to view sexual harassers as managers and supervisors. Women tended to view power as a negotiated process in which power was gained and lost through interactions. Consequently, the women tended to perceive all members of an organization as possible harassers. When these men and women were given an opportunity to discuss these issues during mixed gendered interactions, they failed to recognize the gendered constructions of power. Implications are discussed.     

Comparisons of women with high and low trait impulsivity using behavioral models of response-disinhibition and reward-choice

Two types of behavioral models of impulsive behavior, response-disinhibition/attentional and reward-choice response models, were used to compare women grouped by high (Impulse+, n=43) and low (Impulse−, n=43) self-reported impulsive behavior on the Eysenck I₇ Questionnaire. Two of the four different tasks tested were response-disinhibition/attentional models; these included the Immediate and Delayed Memory Task and the GoStop Task. The other two tasks were based on the reward-choice model of impulsivity and included the Single Key Impulsivity Paradigm and the Two-Choice Reward Task. Of particular interest was whether commission errors (response-disinhibition/attentional paradigms) or a preference for smaller–sooner rewards over larger–later rewards (reward-choice) would differ between the groups. Participants completed one session of each task in a single day. The most significant findings were that the Impulse+ group had: (1) elevated commission errors; (2) lower stimulus discriminability (between target and catch stimuli); and (3) poorer response inhibition to a stop signal. Responding on the response-disinhibition/attentional tasks distinguished between the impulsivity groups while the reward-choice tasks did not. These results demonstrate that women who report higher levels of trait impulsivity respond in a manner consistent with previous studies examining impulsive behavior.     

Robust decision making in a nonlinear world

The authors propose a general modeling framework called the general monotone model (GeMM), which allows one to model psychological phenomena that manifest as nonlinear relations in behavior data without the need for making (overly) precise assumptions about functional form. Using both simulated and real data, the authors illustrate that GeMM performs as well as or better than standard statistical approaches (including ordinary least squares, robust, and Bayesian regression) in terms of power and predictive accuracy when the functional relations are strictly linear but outperforms these approaches under conditions in which the functional relations are monotone but nonlinear. Finally, the authors recast their framework within the context of contemporary models of behavioral decision making, including the lens model and the take-the-best heuristic, and use GeMM to highlight several important issues within the judgment and decision-making literature.     

Testing Models of Psychopathology in Preschool-aged Children Using a Structured Interview-based Assessment

A number of studies have found that broadband internalizing and externalizing factors provide a parsimonious framework for understanding the structure of psychopathology across childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. However, few of these studies have examined psychopathology in young children, and several recent studies have found support for alternative models, including a bi-factor model with common and specific factors. The present study used parents’ (typically mothers’) reports on a diagnostic interview in a community sample of 3-year old children (n?=?541; 53.9 % male) to compare the internalizing-externalizing latent factor model with a bi-factor model. The bi-factor model provided a better fit to the data. To test the concurrent validity of this solution, we examined associations between this model and paternal reports and laboratory observations of child temperament. The internalizing factor was associated with low levels of surgency and high levels of fear; the externalizing factor was associated with high levels of surgency and disinhibition and low levels of effortful control; and the common factor was associated with high levels of surgency and negative affect and low levels of effortful control. These results suggest that psychopathology in preschool-aged children may be explained by a single, common factor influencing nearly all disorders and unique internalizing and externalizing factors. These findings indicate that shared variance across internalizing and externalizing domains is substantial and are consistent with recent suggestions that emotion regulation difficulties may be a common vulnerability for a wide array of psychopathology.     

Murdoch's ontological argument

Anselm's ontological argument is an argument for the existence of God. This paper presents Iris Murdoch's ontological argument for the existence of the Good. It discusses her interpretation of Anselm's argument, her own distinctive appropriation of it, as well as some of the merits of her version of the argument. In doing so, it also shows how the argument integrates some key Murdochian ideas: morality's wide scope, the basicness of vision to morality, moral realism, and Platonism.     

Preferences for Spousal Support Among Individuals With Cancer1

Although it is known that individuals have preferences for different forms or amounts of social support from others when dealing with life events, such preferences have not been subject to extensive empirical examination. We examined preferences for spousal emotional and instrumental support, as well as preferences for spousal control-encouraging responses, among 151 individuals with cancer. Dispositional and situation-specific factors were placed into a hypothetical model predicting support preferences. Results confirmed predictions: Preferences for emotional and instrumental aspects of support were related to dispositional (affiliative need), person (gender), and contextual (disease impairment) variables. As predicted, higher affiliative need predicted higher preference for emotional support. However, functional impairment did not predict preferences for more instrumental support, and this variable only predicted preferences for more emotional support among female patients. Individuals’ preferences for control encouragement from their spouses were associated with attributions of personal responsibility for solving general life problems and indirectly associated with internal locus of control. These results provide an initial conceptual model for understanding cancer patients’ preferences for support.