Family-of-Origin Experiences and Conflict Resolution Behaviors of Young Adult Dating Couples

This study was conducted to explore the relationship among retrospective reports of family-of-origin functioning, reported perceptions of a laboratory-based conflict resolution discussion, and outsiders' ratings of communication behaviors between young adult dating couples, with a special focus on predicted gender differences. Sixty-three couples aged 18 to 24 participated in this study. A Revealed Differences task was used to elicit discussion about an issue identified as discordant for the couple on a Relationship Issue Questionnaire. Family-of-origin variables were related to both men's and women's perceptions of the conflict, as well as outsiders' ratings of their conflict resolution behaviors. However, the conflict resolution behaviors and perceptions of men and women were associated with distinctly different aspects of functioning in their families of origin. Further, women's families-of-origin factors were more prominent for the couples' communication behaviors because they indicated a greater number of significant correlations between the women's families of origin and: 1) perceptions of the conflict resolution discussion by both the men and women, and 2) the observed conflict resolution behaviors of both men and women. These findings are discussed in the context of both the relevant research and important social-political influences.     

Bad Luck Once Again

In a recent article in this journal, Storrs McCall and E.J. Lowe sketch an account of indeterminist free will designed to avoid the luck objection that has been wielded to such effect against event‐causal libertarianism. They argue that if decision‐making is an indeterministic process and not an event or series of events, the luck objection will fail. I argue that they are wrong: the luck objection is equally successful against their account as against existing event‐causal libertarianisms. Like the event‐causal libertarianism their account is meant to supplant, the process view cannot offer a reasons explanation of the agent’s choice itself; that choice is explained by nothing except chance. The agent therefore fails to exercise freedom‐level control over it.     

ON THE RATIONALIST SOLUTION TO GREGORY KAVKA'S TOXIN PUZZLE

Gregory Kavka's 'Toxin Puzzle' suggests that I cannot intend to perform a counter-preferential action A even if I have a strong self-interested reason to form this intention. The 'Rationalist Solution,' however, suggests that I can form this intention. For even though it is counter-preferential, A-ing is actually rational given that the intention behind it is rational. Two arguments are offered for this proposition that the rationality of the intention to A transfers to A-ing itself: the 'Self-Promise Argument' and David Gauthier's 'Rational Self-Interest Argument.' But both arguments – and therefore the Rationalist Solution – fail. The Self-Promise Argument fails because my intention to A does not constitute a promise to myself that I am obligated to honor. And Gauthier's Rational Self-Interest Argument fails to rule out the possibility of rational irrationality.     

Enhancing Authenticity

Some philosophers have criticized the use of psychopharmaceuticals on the grounds that even if these drugs enhance the person using them, they threaten their authenticity. Others have replied by pointing out that the conception of authenticity upon which this argument rests is contestable; on a rival conception, psychopharmaceuticals might be used to enhance our authenticity. Since, however, it is difficult to decide between these competing conceptions of authenticity, the debate seems to end in a stalemate. I suggest that we need not resolve this debate to end the stalemate. New technologies which alter the self can be understood within the framework of the first conception of authenticity, I suggest, not as threatening the authentic self, but rather as bringing the outward appearance of the self into line with its deepest essence. Since psychopharmaceutical use can plausibly be understood on this model, it can be seen as enhancing our authenticity on either conception.