Is knowledge of family history related to psychosocial functioning? Comparison of adolescents living in institutional care and adolescents living with their biological families

We tested adolescents growing up in institutional care and adolescents living with their birth families using the ‘Do you know?’ scale and other measures of psychosocial functioning. We found that children living in group homes knew significantly less of their family history, exhibited more behavioural problems and had a more external locus of control. Moreover, the correlations between self-esteem and knowledge of family history were significantly different between the groups. This may suggest that the contribution of the knowledge of family history to self-esteem is different depending on the quality of family history. We also found a significant correlation between locus of control and behavioural problems for the children in institutional care, but not children living with their birth families, which may indicate that their behavioural problems may partially stem from the sense of lack of control over their lives.     

In Defence of Metametasemantics

In the paper I defend the idea of metametasemantics against the arguments recently presented by Ori Simchen (2017). Simchen attacks the view, according to which metametasemantics incorporating all possible metasemantic accounts is necessary to protect the metasemantic theories from the notorious problem of inscrutability of reference (see Sider 2011). Simchen claims that if metametasemantics is allowed it ‘absorbs’ metasemantic theories to the extent that it diminishes their explanatory value. Furthermore, in this way Simchen sets up two main metasemantic paradigms i.e. productivism (roughly speaking: speaker’s metasemantics) and interpretationism (audience’s metasemantics) as the rival theories inevitably excluding each other. I endeavour to undermine Simchen’s point by demonstrating that his argumentation mixes up deflationary reading of the predicate ‘is true’ with its substantial reading. Consequently, I demonstrate that accepting metametasemantics does not diminish explanatory value of various metasemantic theories and thus that there is no good reason to forbid metametasemantics. I also argue that even if we ignore the above-mentioned confusion in Simchen’s reasoning, his arguments still fail when considering various problems with the notion of diminishment of explanatory value and because the analogy that his arguments are based on is fairly weak. Eventually, I conclude that metametasemantics does not pose any danger to metasemantics and that it provides a solid ground for developing a theory that benefits from both productivism and interpretationism.