Marriage Guidance Training and the Trainee's Own Marriage: A Prospective Study

Twenty trainees and 18 partners took part in a study of the effects of a marriage guidance training programme on their own marriage. Changes were assessed in two ways: retrospectively ('perceived' changes as assessed following training) and prospectively (changes calculated by comparing scores obtained before training and those obtained after training). For most dimensions there was little correspondence between 'perceived' change and 'calculated' change. This has important methodological implications, which are discussed. The 'calculated' change indicated poorer marital adjustment following training. The trainees' scores suggested that they had become less 'abasing' and less 'nurturant' towards their partners; also that they had more disagreements about 'philosophy of life' and 'dealing with in-laws'. Their comments suggested that a number of the trainees had become more analytical of their own marriages, and that training had heightened their awareness of their own needs and individuality.     

The rhetorical foundation of philosophical argumentation

The rejection of rhetoric has been a constant theme in Western thought since Plato. The presupposition of such a debasement lies at the foundation of a certain view of Reason that I have called propositionalism, and which is analyzed in this article. The basic tenets of propositionalism are that truth is exclusive, i.e. it does not allow for any alternative, and that there is always only one proposition which must be true, the opposite one being false. Necessity and uniqueness are the ideals of propositionalism. But the question of the necessity of such a necessity is bound to arise. Foundationalism and propositionalism are intrinsically related. Since necessity excludes alternatives, rhetoric, which is based on the possibility of opposite standpoints, is unavoidably devalued as the crippled child of Reason, identical to sophistry or eristic. But propositionalism cannot justify itself and provide a justification for its own foundation without circle or contraditction. Since it responds to the problem of eradicating problems and alternatives through propositional entities, propositionalism is ultimately based on questioning to which it replies in the mode of denial. The unavowed foundation of Reason is therefore the question of questioning, even though this very question is suppressed as propositionalism. The trace of such a question is not only historical, but can also be seen, for instance, in the role played by the principle of contradiction in the constitution of propositional Reason (Artitotle): opposite propositions are not the expression of a problematic situation, they are either possible or successively unique propositions.We want to replace propositionalism by problematology which allows for the conceptualization of alternatives, thereby rendering a true rhetoric possible. Argumentation cannot then be equated with eristic any more, as propositionalism maintained.Rationality must be seen as having questioning as its true starting-point. Reason must be rhetorical if it is to survive the death of propositionalism which took place after the radical criticisms of Marx, Nietzsche and Freud. Even if it is still hard ffor philosophers and rhetoricians to think within another framework and even though they prefer endlessly to deconstauct the old one instead of changing it, problematology is bound to impose itself as the new voice for rationality, because Reason has always endeavored to solve problems. Propositionalism has been only one way of conceiving problems, based on the view that solutions could be but the suppression of questioning.     

On the transmission of partial information: inferences from movement-related brain potentials.

Results are reported from a new paradigm that uses movement-related brain potentials to detect response preparation based on partial information. The paradigm uses a hybrid choice-reaction go/nogo procedure in which decisions about response hand and whether to respond are based on separate stimulus attributes. A lateral asymmetry in the movement-related brain potential was found on nogo trials without overt movement. The direction of this asymmetry depended primarily on the signaled response hand rather than on properties of the stimulus. When the asymmetry first appeared was influenced by the time required to select the signaled hand, and when it began to differ on go and nogo trials was influenced by the time to decide whether to respond. These findings indicate that both stimulus attributes were processed in parallel and that the asymmetry reflected preparation of the response hand that began before the go/nogo decision was completed.     

Effects of Fluprazine Hydrochloride on Three Aversively Motivated Tasks

The Psychological Record - Treatment with 8.0 mg/kg fluprazine hydrochloride had no effect on the acquisition of a step-down avoidance response but retarded its extinction. The drug also impaired...