How does psychoanalytic supervision work? A brief communication

In this brief communication, we offer one perspective – the contextual psychoanalytic supervision model (CPSM) – on how psychoanalytic supervision works. The CPSM, a supervisory extrapolation of Wampold’s contextual psychotherapy relationship model, accentuates four psychoanalytic supervisor–supervisee relationship variables as crucial and change inducing: the learning alliance bond, supervisor–supervisee real relationship, creating supervision expectations/providing an expectation-consistent form of supervision, and the supervisee’s engagement in facilitative educational actions. The CPSM is presented in hopes of stimulating further discussion about what makes psychoanalytic supervision work.     

On grounding superadded properties in Locke

ABSTRACT

Scholars have employed three interpretive strategies to explain how Locke understands the metaphysical relationship between a superadded property and the material body to which it is affixed. The first is the mechanist strategy advanced by Michael Ayers and Edwin McCann. It argues that the mechanical affections of a given body are causally responsible for the operation of superadded powers. The second is the extrinsic strategy found in Mathew Stuart. It argues that Locke, who rejects mechanism, does not intend to ground superadded properties in the mechanical affections of material bodies. The third is the essentialist strategy developed by Lisa Downing. It argues that Locke, who does not adhere to mechanism, nevertheless intends to ground superadded properties in the real constitutions of their bearers. However, according to Downing, what grounds superadded properties are the nonmechanical affections of material bodies. My aim in this paper is to expand and strengthen the case for the extrinsic reading. I argue that what is recommended by Locke's writings on this topic is a thoroughly extrinsic interpretation according to which superaddition pertains exclusively to those properties for which no possible arrangement of mechanical or nonmechanical affections is causally sufficient.     

Epistemic justification and premise acceptability

In this paper, we want to explore the connection between premises' being acceptable and their being in some sense justified. The equivalence of premise acceptability and justification seems intuitively correct. But to argue for such a connection, we need to analyze the concepts of acceptability and justification. Such an analysis also seems necessary if this equivalence is to advance our understanding of premise acceptability. Following L. J. Cohen, we may say S believes that p when S is disposed to feel it true that p, while S accepts that p when S takes that p as a premise for further deliberation or action. Reasons for belief are reasons for acceptance, and epistemological (as opposed to pragmatic) reasons for acceptance are reason for belief. Following William P. Alston, we may explicate being a justifying reason for belief through the notion of an adequate ground on which the belief is based. In turn, adequacy of ground means that the mechanism grounding the belief is reliable. Given these notions, we may define a concept of justification in terms of presumptive adequacy.     

Educating ethically: Culture,commitment and integrity

In this paper, it is argued that the criticism of the Enlightenment project in education and the disappearance in the philosophy of education discourse of particular educational problems which confront practitioners has resulted in a philosophy of education which — as a kind of Spielerei — begs the question. To revitalize itself, philosophy of education must take up anew its perennial mission, one near to specific educational problems. In explaining how the I of the educator can be conceived after postmodernism, this study elaborates the concepts of integrity and particularity as relevant for education. Education itself is conceived as a personal relation with a real person that aids in developing individuality. It is concluded that this answer is an authoritative and authentic response from one individual to another within a particular situation.     

Is systemic reform in education morally justifiable?

Systemic education reform calls for state imposition of uniform standards for student performance, the curriculum, and student opportunities to learn that curriculum, coupled with the alignment of basic state accountability, teacher education, and financing policies and expanded school decision-making authority. Proponents argue that systemic reform will have the effect of enhancing overall economic growth and equalizing opportunities for the most disadvantaged. Analysis of the first claim suggests that the inherent tension between employment-oriented outcome standards and discipline-oriented curriculum frameworks and the uniform application of such standards to all schools may undermine economic growth. Moreover, systemic reform appears more likely to transform current social inequalities than to eliminate them.     

Champ et effets de la négation argumentative: contre-argumentation et mise en cause

An argument can be taken as an operation of justification or as the product of this operation. But what about a counter-argument? This article is based on the hypothesis that there exists an operation of argumentative negation, which is both the argumentative and the negative equivalent of the operation of justification. Justification and argumentative negation necessarily act on assertions, for they are active at the level of the epistemic modalities of statements. As an operation, a counter-argument can thus be described, as the application of an argumentative negation; as a product, it can be described as an argument the conclusion of which shows traces of negative modality. Two uses of argumentative negation are distinguished here: counter-argumentation and calling into question. The former can lead only to assertive conclusive statements, but the latter can also lead to directives or commissives. This leads the authors to introduce the notion of pseudo-argument, besides those of argument and counter-argument. It is shown in particular that when a pseudo-argument is rejected, argumentative negation has the effect of making evident an underlying argument. With respect to the latterit functions as a counter-argumentation, whereas with respect to the illocutionary act accomplished by the conclusive statement, it functions as a calling into question of a condition of satisfaction for this act. This article also defines certain characteristics of argument, proposes criteria for identifying argumentative negation in polemical conversations, and distinguishes four modes of counter-argumentation.     

情绪效价与面孔类型对幼儿无意视盲的影响

幼儿对不同的情绪面孔图片存在不同的注意偏向,考察情绪效价与面孔类型对幼儿无意视盲的影响,可以帮助我们进一步认识幼儿对情绪面孔的注意偏向。本研究采用静态无意视盲的实验范式,通过2（面孔类型：符号化卡通、真人）×2（情绪效价：积极、消极）被试间完全随机设计,考察了111名幼儿（62.5±3.6个月,男生60名）在无意注意条件下对不同情绪效价和不同类型面孔的觉察情况。结果表明：（1）幼儿对积极情绪面孔的觉察率显著高于消极情绪面孔;（2）符号化卡通面孔与真人面孔的整体觉察率不存在显著差异;（3）积极情绪面孔中符号化卡通面孔的觉察率高于真人面孔。综上,情绪效价对无意视盲的影响会基于面孔类型的不同而不同,幼儿对卡通积极情绪面孔有更显著的注意偏向。     

Justification,excuse, and proof beyond reasonable doubt

The law requires criminal guilt to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. There are two different approaches to construing this legal rule. On an epistemic approach, the rule is construed in terms of justified belief or knowledge; on a probabilistic approach, the rule is construed in terms of satisfying a probabilistic threshold. An epistemic construction of the rule has this advantage over a probabilistic construction: the former can while the latter cannot excuse the state from blame for a false conviction. This claim rests on an understanding of legal rules, legal justification for a finding of guilt and the central purpose of a criminal trial.     

Who should be on the $10 and $20 bills? Preferences based on gender,sexism, race,racism, political affiliation,and political ideology

In June 2015, the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced that a woman would replace Hamilton on the $10 bill. In April 2016, it announced that Harriet Tubman would replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, instead. After each announcement, we surveyed nationally representative samples of American adults and asked them what they thought of these proposed changes for the $10 bill (Study 1, N = 209) and the $20 bill (Study 2, N = 208). Predictors of currency preferences were gender, race, political affiliation and their respective prejudices and biases—sexism, racism, and political ideology. On the basis of social identity, system justification, and social dominance theories we predicted that privileged groups (i.e., males, Whites) and groups who desire to maintain the status quo (i.e., Republicans, conservatives, sexist and racist individuals) would prefer to leave Hamilton on the $10 bill and Jackson on the $20 bill. Results were consistent with these predictions: Overall, we found that under‐represented groups and more liberal individuals support the proposals from the U.S. Department of the Treasury. These findings suggest a bill of money is not just a piece of paper. The person depicted on U.S. currency can be perceived as an in‐group or out‐group member and this can affect judgements in line with relevant social psychological theories.     

Children's reasoning with peers in cooperative and competitive contexts

We report two studies that demonstrate how five‐ and seven‐year‐olds adapt their production of arguments to either a cooperative or a competitive context. Two games elicited agreements from peer dyads about placing animals on either of two halves of a playing field owned by either child. Children had to produce arguments to justify these decisions. Played in a competitive context that encouraged placing animals on one's own half, children's arguments showed a bias that was the result of withholding known arguments. In a cooperative context, children produced not only more arguments, but also more ‘two‐sided’ arguments. Also, seven‐year‐olds demonstrated a more frequent and strategic use of arguments that specifically refuted decisions that would favour their peers. The results suggest that cooperative contexts provide a more motivating context for children to produce arguments.

Statement of contribution

What is already known on this subject ?

• Reasoning is a social skill that allows people to reach joint decisions.
• Preschoolers give reasons for their proposals in their peer conversations.
• By adolescence, children use sophisticated arguments (e.g., refutations and rebuttals).

What the present study adds?

• Cooperation offers a more motivating context for children's argument production.
• Seven‐year‐olds are more strategic than five‐year‐olds in their reasoning with peers.
• Children's reasoning with others becomes more sophisticated after preschool years.