How to Know That Time Travel Is Unlikely Without Knowing Why

What's the point of time travel? Not to change the past; no matter how carefully a time traveler plans, all of her attempts to change the past end in failure. Paul Horwich has argued that the implausibility of such failures gives us reason to doubt that there will be frequent time travel to the local past. I defend a modified version of Horwich's argument and show how we might gain evidence about the chance of there being frequent time travel in the future without having any information that explains why that chance value obtains.     

Social sharing of emotional experiences in Asian American and European American women

The present study investigated the relationships among ethnicity and social sharing of traumatic experiences in a sample of 88 East Asian and 88 European American women. Participants were asked to write about a traumatic experience for twenty minutes and then to rate how upsetting the experience was, how often they thought about it, how often and to whom they had previously disclosed the experience, as well as the perceived appropriateness of sharing the experience with different target audiences, e.g., friends and family members. The results indicated that Asian Americans reported speaking to others less frequently about the traumatic event and sharing it with fewer individuals, and tended to be more likely to share the event with friends than with family members when compared to European Americans. Asian Americans also reported thinking about the upsetting event less frequently than European Americans even though both groups reported that the events were equally upsetting. The more upsetting events were, the more often they were shared in the European American group, but there was no relationship between how upsetting events were and the degree to which they were shared in the Asian American group.     

Expertise in Deception Detection Involves Actively Prompting Diagnostic Information Rather Than Passive Behavioral Observation

In a proof‐of‐concept study, an expert obtained 100% deception‐detection accuracy over 33 interviews. Tapes of the interactions were shown to N = 136 students who obtained 79.1% accuracy (Mdn = 83.3%, mode = 100%). The findings were replicated in a second experiment with 5 different experts who collectively conducted 89 interviews. The new experts were 97.8% accurate in cheating detection and 95.5% accurate at detecting who cheated. A sample of N = 34 students watched a random sample of 36 expert interviews and obtained 93.6% accuracy. The data suggest that experts can accurately distinguish truths from lies when they are allowed to actively question a potential liar, and nonexperts can obtain high accuracy when viewing expertly questioned senders.     

Peply to Godfrey-Smith

Philosophical Studies -     

Are My Temporal Parts Agents?

When we think about ethics, we normally focus on a particular sort of agent: the individual person. Some philosophers have argued that we should rethink the limits of what counts as an ethically relevant unit of agency by expanding outward, and claiming that groups of people can have normative reasons for action. In this paper, I explore whether we can go in the other direction. Are there sub-personal beings who count as agents with their own reasons for action? In particular, might the temporal parts of persons, beings like “me-in-my-twenties,” be thought of as normative agents? This idea, I argue, has deep attractions, and deep, but surmountable, challenges. And if we do accept this idea, I argue, this can indirectly help to support the case for thinking that groups can have reasons for action.