Presentism: Foreigner-Friendly or Xenophobic?

I argue that, for all we know, there are perfectly ordinary actual entities that are temporal in the usual sense and yet never present, past, or future. This epistemic fact requires us to modify the theses of presentism and eternalism. More importantly, it generates three new and quite serious objections to presentism, which I formulate and partially evaluate in this paper.     

Psychological,endocrine, and neural correlates of attentional bias in subclinical depression

Background: Our knowledge with respect to psychological, endocrine, and neural correlates of attentional bias in individuals with high vulnerability to developing depression – the subclinically depressed, still remains limited. Design: The study used a 2?×?2 mixed design. Methods: Attentional bias toward happy and sad faces in healthy (N?=?26) and subclinically depressed individuals (N?=?22) was assessed via a neuroimaging dot-probe attention task. Participants also completed trait and state psychological measures and provided saliva samples for cortisol analysis. Results: The subclinical group showed attentional bias toward happy faces; past use of problem-focused coping strategies when dealing with a personally relevant stressor as well as state levels of anxiety, together, contributed to this bias. In the control group, the happy attentional bias was positively correlated with activity in the right caudate. In the subclinical group, the bias was negatively associated with the left fusiform gyrus and positively with the left inferior parietal lobule and bilateral putamen. We observed group differences in association between cortisol levels during the task and neural activity during happy attentional bias processing within the key regions involved in attention. Conclusions: The attentional bias toward happy faces may reflect an active coping attempt by the subclinical participants.     

Degrees and Dimensions of Rightness: Reflections on Martin Peterson’s Dimensions of Consequentialism

Martin Peterson argues for two interesting and appealing claims: multi-dimensionalism and degrees of rightness. Multi-dimensionalism is the view that more than one factor determines whether an act is right. According to Peterson’s multi-dimensionalism, these factors are not simply ways of achieving some greater aggregate good. Degrees of rightness is the view that some actions are more wrong or less right than others without being entirely wrong. It is of course, compatible with this, that some actions are right or wrong to a maximal degree, or entirely right or wrong. Multi-dimensionalism and degrees are taken to be intertwined. On Peterson’s view, if there were only one dimension, we wouldn’t need degrees; where only one dimension applies, an act is entirely right or entirely wrong. Peterson claims that degrees of rightness or wrongness arise only because there are multi-dimensions, and that an act cannot be entirely right if it is wrong on some dimension. I shall argue against both of these claims.     

Response to Stuart Kauffman: The Paradox of Divine Action and Scientific Truth

We three authors compare and contrast Stuart Kauffman's concept of the “cosmic mind” with similar ideas developed in our recent book, The Unity of Truth: Solving the Paradox of Science and Religion (IUniverse, 2012). Albert Einstein was known to have said: “Science without religion is lame, religion with science is blind.” We authors make use of the “paradox resolution” methods of physics to find a non-conflicting method by which God's actions communicate with human beings without violating any of the laws of science. The “communications paradox” is resolved by hypothesizing non-causal quantum-mechanical measurements as the way God communicates. the quantum-mechanical resolution of the “communications paradox” is completely consistent with both theist belief and the laws of science, whereas Kauffman's “cosmic mind” concept is seen to be consistent with pantheism.     

Preview benefit in speaking occurs regardless of preview timing

Speakers access information from objects they will name but have not looked at yet, indexed by preview benefit—faster processing of the target when a preview object previously occupying its location was related rather than unrelated to the target. This suggests that speakers distribute attention over multiple objects, but it does not reveal the time course of the processing of a current and a to-be-named object. Is the preview benefit a consequence of attention shifting to the next-to-be-named object shortly before the eyes move to that location, or does the benefit reflect a more unconstrained deployment of attention to upcoming objects? Using the multiple-object naming paradigm with a gaze-contingent display change manipulation, we addressed this issue by manipulating the latency of the onset of the preview (SOA) and whether the preview represented the same concept as (but a different visual token of) the target or an unrelated concept. The results revealed that the preview benefit was robust, regardless of the latency of the preview onset or the latency of the saccade to the target (the lag between preview offset and fixation on the target). Together, these data suggest that preview benefit is not restricted to the time during an attention shift preceding an eye movement, and that speakers are able to take advantage of information from nonfoveal objects whenever such objects are visually available.     

Low‐status aversion: the effect of self‐threat on willingness to buy and sell

Consumption decisions are inherently rooted in both what to consume and what to forgo. Although prior research has focused on consumption, we instead examine what compels consumers to steer clear of particular goods. In two studies, we demonstrated that individuals experiencing self‐threat avoid low‐status goods to prevent further damage to their self‐worth. Individuals facing self‐threat showed a decreased willingness to buy (Study 1), and a correspondingly greater willingness to sell (Study 2) low‐status goods, as compared with nonthreatened individuals. Notably, these effects emerged even when such behaviors were associated with economic costs (Study 2). Together, these results highlight how the motive to preserve the self can affect market exchanges, thereby painting a more complete portrait of the relationship between consumption, status, and the self.     

A Dose-Ranging Study of Behavioral and Pharmacological Treatment in Social Settings for Children with ADHD

Placebo and three doses of methylphenidate (MPH) were crossed with 3 levels of behavioral modification (no behavioral modification, NBM; low-intensity behavioral modification, LBM; and high-intensity behavior modification, HBM) in the context of a summer treatment program (STP). Participants were 48 children with ADHD, aged 5–12. Behavior was examined in a variety of social settings (sports activities, art class, lunch) that are typical of elementary school, neighborhood, and after-school settings. Children received each behavioral condition for 3 weeks, order counterbalanced across groups. Children concurrently received in random order placebo, 0.15 mg/kg/dose, 0.3 mg/kg/dose, or 0.6 mg/kg/dose MPH, 3 times daily with dose manipulated on a daily basis in random order for each child. Both behavioral and medication treatments produced highly significant and positive effects on children’s behavior. The treatment modalities also interacted significantly. Whereas there was a linear dose–response curve for medication in NBM, the dose–response curves flattened considerably in LBM and HBM. Behavior modification produced effects as large as moderate doses, and on some measures, high doses of medication. These results replicate and extend to social-recreational settings previously reported results in a classroom setting from the same sample (Fabiano et al., School Psychology Review, 36, 195–216, 2007). Results illustrate the importance of taking dosage/intensity into account when evaluating combined treatments; there were no benefits of combined treatments when the dosage of either treatment was high but combination of the low-dose treatments produced substantial incremental improvement over unimodal treatment.