What Moore's Paradox Is About

On the basis of arguments showing that none of the most influential analyses of Moore's paradox yields a successful resolution of the problem, a new analysis of it is offered. It is argued that, in attempting to render verdicts of either inconsistency or self-contradiction or self-refutation, those analyses have all failed to satisfactorily explain why a Moore-paradoxical proposition is such that it cannot be rationally believed. According to the proposed solution put forward here, a Moore-paradoxical proposition is one for which the believer can have no non-overridden evidence. the arguments for this claim make use of some of Peter Klein's views on epistemic defeasibility. It is further suggested that this proposal may have important meta-epistemological implications.     

The Relation of Weight Stigmatization to Psychological Adjustment1

This study investigated weight stigmatization as a predictor of adjustment in samples of 100 undergraduates and 99 bariatric patients. Coping strategies (emotion‐focused coping, problem‐focused coping, disengagement coping) were tested as moderators of this relation. Weight stigmatization predicted depression, anxiety, and antisocial behavior when controlling for the effects of stressful life events. Problem‐focused coping weakened the association between weight stigmatization and depression. Emotion‐focused coping augmented the relation between weight stigmatization and antisocial behavior. The results support weight stigmatization as a meaningful predictor of adjustment difficulties. Engendering a problem‐focused coping style over an emotion‐focused coping style might benefit patients reporting weight stigmatization. Further work is necessary to understand what specific elements of these coping styles impact adjustment.     

Assessing cognitive impairment in Indigenous Australians: Re‐evaluation of the Kimberley Indigenous Cognitive Assessment in Western Australia and the Northern Territory

The Kimberley Indigenous Cognitive Assessment (KICA) was initially developed and validated as a culturally appropriate dementia screening tool for older Indigenous people living in the Kimberley. This paper describes the re‐evaluation of the psychometric properties of the cognitive section (KICA‐Cog) of this tool in two different populations, including a Northern Territory sample, and a larger population‐based cohort from the Kimberley. In both populations, participants were evaluated on the KICA‐Cog tool, and independently assessed by expert clinical raters blinded to the KICA scores, to determine validity and reliability of dementia diagnosis for both groups. Community consultation, feedback and education were integral parts of the research. for the Northern Territory sample, 52 participants were selected primarily through health services. Sensitivity was 82.4% and specificity was 87.5% for diagnosis of dementia, with area under the curve (AUC) of .95, based on a cut‐off score of 31/32 of a possible 39. for the Kimberley sample, 363 participants from multiple communities formed part of a prevalence study of dementia. Sensitivity was 93.3% and specificity was 98.4% for a cut‐off score of 33/34, with AUC = .98 (95% confidence interval: 0.97–0.99). There was no education bias found. The KICA‐Cog appears to be most reliable at a cut‐off of 33/39.