Stroop effects for masked threat words: Pre‐attentive bias or selective awareness?

The single‐trial emotional Stroop effect for masked threat words, and its association with anxiety, anger, and depression was studied in a group of men (n = 24) and women (n = 24) while controlling for possible differential thresholds for threat words versus neutral words. Stroop interference for masked threat words was found to correlate with trait anxiety, and the effect could not be explained by any differences in thresholds due to valence, neither at a subjective (conscious identification task) nor at an objective (lexical decision task) level of awareness. Jacoby's exclusion task was explored as an alternative measure of conscious awareness, and the results corroborated the conclusion that the Stroop effect for masked threat words was the result of preattentive processes. Unexpectedly, however, the correlation between Stroop interference for masked threat words and trait anxiety was found only among the men.     

A Gricean Interpretation of Nāgārjuna’s Catuṣkoṭi and the No-Thesis View

Nāgārjuna (c. 150–250 CE), the famous founder of the Madhyamika School, proposed the positive catu?ko?i in his seminal work, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā: ‘All is real, or all is unreal, all is both real and unreal, all is neither unreal nor real; this is the graded teaching of the Buddha’. He also proposed the negative catu?ko?i: ‘“It is empty” is not to be said, nor “It is non-empty,” nor that it is both, nor that it is neither; [“empty”] is said only for the sake of instruction’ and the no-thesis view: ‘No dharma whatsoever was ever taught by the Buddha to anyone’. In this essay, I adopt Gricean pragmatics to explain the positive and negative catu?ko?i and the no-thesis view proposed by Nāgārjuna in a way that does not violate classical logic. For Nāgārjuna, all statements are false as long as the hearer understands them within a reified conceptual scheme, according to which (a) substance is a basic categorical concept; (b) substances have svabhāva, and (c) names and sentences have svabhāva.