Temporally Incongruent Counterparts

Despite its first page this paper is not yet another piece on Kant! Rather, the paper is a contribution to the literature on incongruent counterparts. Specifically, it concerns the question of whether we can construct a temporal version of the puzzle of incongruent counterparts—a question which (as far as 1 can tell) has been thoroughly neglected. I maintain that we can construct such a version of the puzzle, and that this temporal variant on the phenomenon has something to teach us about popular arguments for the possibility (or even actuality) of four-dimensional space.     

Individual Differences in Cognitive Editing Standards

This study is aimed at understanding how people edit their own arguments prior to uttering them (Hample, 1984; Hample & Dallinger, 1985a, 1985b). The main categories of editorial criteria are effectiveness, principled objection to type of argument, person-centered issues, and discourse competence standards. Our main purpose here is to begin an account of what sort of person prefers which criteria. Argumentativeness (Infante & Rancer, 1982), verbal aggression (Infante & Wigley, 1986), interpersonal orientation (Swap & Rubin, 1983), and respondent gender are associated with use of editorial criteria. Results point to two different approaches to editing one's own arguments. The task orientation focuses on effectiveness, and is taken by males, and by people high in verbal aggressiveness and low in interpersonal orientation. The relational orientation is taken by females, and by people low in verbal aggressiveness and high in argument avoidance and interpersonal orientation. Justification for using multiple arguments to instantiate each type of argument, and for using multiple situations was also found.