Whorf and Wittgenstein. Language, world view and argumentation

Whorf and Wittgenstein are perhaps the most famous names in linguistics and philosophy associated with the assumption that language plays a decisive role in shaping our view of reality. After a critical discussion of Whorf's linguistic relativity principle I conclude that it is not language as a system, but the use of language according to the rules of language games which connects language thought and world view, especially if some particular usage becomes the commonly accepted norm. This traditional norm also enters argumentative discourse in the form of background assumptions occuring in the premises of arguments. Thus, traditional points of view and prevailing ideologies in a society, even if challenged in discussions, can become reinforced and stabilized. This is illustrated with a critical analysis of the role and function of tautological utterances in argumentative discourse, which only apparently are compelling means of argumentation.     

Maximization of sums of quotients of quadratic forms and some generalizations

Monotonically convergent algorithms are described for maximizing six (constrained) functions of vectors x, or matricesX with columns x₁, ..., x _r . These functions are h₁(x)= _k (xA _kx)(xC _kx)^–1, H₁(X)= _k tr (XA _k X)(XC _k X)^–1, h₁(X)= _{k l} (x _l A _kx _l ) (x _l C _kx _l )^–1 withX constrained to be columnwise orthonormal, h₂(x)= _k (xA _kx)²(xC _kx)^–1 subject to xx=1, H₂(X)= _k tr(XA _kX)(XA_kX)(XC_kX)^–1 subject toXX=I, and h₂(X)= _{k l} (x _l A _kx _l )² (x _l C _kX _l )^–1 subject toXX=I. In these functions the matricesC _k are assumed to be positive definite. The matricesA _k can be arbitrary square matrices. The general formulation of the functions and the algorithms allows for application of the algorithms in various problems that arise in multivariate analysis. Several applications of the general algorithms are given. Specifically, algorithms are given for reciprocal principal components analysis, binormamin rotation, generalized discriminant analysis, variants of generalized principal components analysis, simple structure rotation for one of the latter variants, and set component analysis. For most of these methods the algorithms appear to be new, for the others the existing algorithms turn out to be special cases of the newly derived general algorithms.This research has been made possible by a fellowship from the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences to the author. The author is obliged to Jos ten Berge for stimulating this research and for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.     

Systems Theory and Family Therapy: From a Critique on Systems Theory to a Theory on System Change

Some system therapists reject the systemic view for various reasons, often related to violence, victimisation and power. This critique is based on an outdated narrow and incomplete knowledge of linear systems theory. A better understanding of these linear systems theories and of systems levels of organisation already answers much of the critique, but does not explain change. For the latter, a theory of how systems change is necessary for systems therapy in general and family therapy in particular. Modern dynamic systems and chaos theory are most useful to understand change, chaos, history, unpredictability and flexibility.     

Three-mode orthomax rotation

Factor analysis and principal components analysis (PCA) are often followed by an orthomax rotation to rotate a loading matrix to simple structure. The simple structure is usually defined in terms of the simplicity of the columns of the loading matrix. In Three-mode PCA, rotational freedom of the so called core (a three-way array relating components for the three different modes) can be used similarly to find a simple structure of the core. Simple structure of the core can be defined with respect to all three modes simultaneously, possibly with different emphases on the different modes. The present paper provides a fully flexible approach for orthomax rotation of the core to simple structure with respect to three modes simultaneously. Computationally, this approach relies on repeated (two-way) orthomax applied to supermatrices containing the frontal, lateral or horizontal slabs, respectively. The procedure is illustrated by means of a number of exemplary analyses. As a by-product, application of the Three-mode Orthomax procedures to two-way arrays is shown to reveal interesting relations with and interpretations of existing two-way simple structure rotation techniques.This research has been made possible by a fellowship from the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences to the author. The author is obliged to Jos ten Berge and two anonymous reviewers for useful comments on an earlier version of this paper.     

MISCONCEPTIONS OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

Abstract. Scholars in religious studies, or "religionists," often mischaracterize the social-scientific study of religion. They assume that a social-scientific analysis of the origin, function, meaning, or truth of religion either opposes or disregards the believer's analysis, which religionists profess to present and defend. I do not argue that the social sciences analyze religion from the believer's point of view. I argue instead that a social scientific analysis is more akin and germane to the believer's point of view than religionists assume. I single out seven mischaracterizations of the social sciences typically held by religionists.     

Maximum likelihood additivity analysis

A maximum likelihood estimation procedure was developed to fit unweighted and weighted additive models to conjoint data obtained by the categorical rating, the pair comparison or the directional ranking method. The scoring algorithm used to fit the models was found to be both reliable and efficient, and the program MAXADD is capable of handling up to 300 parameters to be estimated. Practical uses of the procedure are reported to demonstrate various advantages of the procedure as a statistical method.The research reported here was supported by Grant A6394 to the author from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Portions of this research were presented at the Psychometric Society meeting in Iowa City, Iowa, in May, 1980.Thanks are due to Jim Ramsay, Justine Sergent and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.Two MAXADD programs which perform the computations discussed in this paper may be obtained from the author.     

Reanalysis of the equation for simple action

De Villiers and Herrnstein (1976) have shown that the equation for simple action, derived from the matching law, predicts change in behavioral output for some 40 experiments in which the value of a single source of reinforcement has been varied. Using only the positive-reinforcement studies they cite that used five or more different reinforcement values, we found the high percentage of variance they report accommodated by this equation (94%) is predicated on instances of averaging rates of behavioral output before making a least-squares fit of the equation. In our reanalysis, which minimizes rate averaging, only 78% of the data variance is accommodated. This diminished data-variance accommodation can be improved by adding parameters that permit the equation's scaling constant to change as a function of reinforcement. Although these parameters permit acceptable levels of accommodation of data variance, they correspond to no obvious psychological processes. These findings support the view that the equation for simple action is an inadequate model for behavioral output.     

Preference for unsegmented interreinforcement intervals in concurrent chains

Five pigeons were trained under concurrent-chain schedules in which a pair of independent, concurrent variable-interval 60-s schedules were presented in the initial link and either both variable-interval or both fixed-interval schedules were presented in the terminal link. Except for the baseline, one of the terminal-link schedules was always a two-component chained schedule and the other was either a simple or a tandem schedule of equal mean interreinforcement interval. The values of the fixed-interval schedules were either 15 s or 60 s; that of the variable-interval schedules was always 60 s. A 1.5-s changeover delay operated during the initial link in some conditions. The pigeons preferred a simple or a tandem schedule to a chain. For the fixed-interval schedules, this preference was greater when the fixed interval was 60 s than when it was 15 s. For the variable-interval schedules, the preferences were less pronounced and occurred only when the changeover delay was in effect. For a given type of schedule and interreinforcement interval, similar preferences were obtained whether the nonchained schedule was a tandem or simple schedule. The changeover delay generally inflated preference and lowered the changeover rate, especially when the terminal-link schedules were either short (15 s) or aperiodic (variable-interval). The results were consistent with the notion that segmenting the interreinforcement interval of a schedule into a chain lowers the preference for it.     

Avoidance,induction, and the illusion of reinforcement

Environmental events that impact reproductive success may be called phylogenetically important events (PIEs). Some promote reproductive success, like mates and food; others threaten reproductive success, like predators and injury. Beneficial PIEs induce activities that enhance them, and detrimental PIEs induce activities that mitigate or avoid them. Free-operant avoidance relies on electric shock as a proxy for injury, a PIE. One theory takes avoidance behavior to be reinforced by its reducing shock rate. A more complete explanation is that avoidance both reduces shock rate and is induced by the PIEs it usually prevents. Shocks received act in concert with shock-rate reduction, in a feedback system. Four parametric data sets were analyzed to show that avoidance is induced by received shock rate according to power functions. Avoidance is not reinforced at all; avoidance is induced by its failures. Induction explains not only avoidance itself, but also phenomena unique to avoidance, like warmup and effects of unavoidable shock. Induction explains behavior more generally than reinforcement, because induction explains not only food-maintained operant and nonoperant behavior, but also shock-maintained behavior, including avoidance. Reinforcement fails to explain behavior when reinforcement is defined as strengthening by consequences. Induction erases the distinction between consequences and antecedents.     

Comment on Björn Sahlberg’s paper

This paper is a comment on Björn Sahlberg’s paper on the function of training analysis in the Swedish psychoanalytic association and discusses some aspects of the candidates’ personal analysis and supervision. The paper further suggests some possible sources for inspiration and perspective on organizational and educational issues, for example taking an interest in the epistemology of professions, in what the concept of ‘reflection-in-action’ could mean in the training situation, or in empirical research about the educational models and the practice of psychoanalysis.