The theory of braids and the analysis of impossible figures

Impossible figures were regarded neither as new perceptual phenomena, nor as examples of known phenomena such as illusions. They were seen as geometric anomalies, not psychological ones, which serve a heuristic function in the study of perception. With this in mind, a topological analysis was undertaken with the anticipation of the following goals: (a) A systematic way (algorithm) of generating these figures should be evident; (b) simple properties of impossible figures which may not have been previously understood should be discovered. Both of these conditions were met.     

Structure of the Dospert: Is There Evidence for a General Risk Factor?

The Domain‐specific Risk‐taking scale was designed to assess risk taking in specific domains. This approach is unconventional in personality assessment but reflects conventional wisdom in the decision community that cross‐situational consistency in risk taking is more myth than reality. We applied bifactor analysis to a large sample (n = 921) of responses to the Domain‐specific Risk Taking. Results showed that, in addition to domain‐specific facets, there does appear to be evidence for a general risk‐taking disposition. And this general appetite for risk appears to be useful for predicting real‐world outcomes. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Legal briefing: Healthcare ethics committees

This issue's "Legal Briefing" column covers recent legal developments involving institutional healthcare ethics committees. This topic has been the subject of recent articles in JCE. Healthcare ethics committees have also recently been the subject of significant public policy attention. Disturbingly, Bobby Schindler and others have described ethics committees as "death panels." But most of the recent attention has been positive. Over the past several months, legislatures and courts have expanded the use of ethics committees and clarified their roles concerning both end-of-life treatment and other issues. These developments are usefully grouped into the following eight categories: 1. Existence and availability. 2. Membership and composition. 3. Operating procedures. 4. Advisory roles. 5. Decision-making and gate-keeping roles. 6. Confidentiality. 7. Immunity. 8. Litigation and court cases.     

Legal briefing: futile or non-beneficial treatment

This issue's "Legal Briefing" column covers recent legal developments involving futile or non-beneficial medical treatment. This topic has been the subject of recent articles in JCE. Indeed, it was the subject of a "Legal Briefing" in fall 2009. Accordingly, this column focuses on legal developments from the past two years. These developments are usefully grouped into the following 11 categories: 1. Texas Advance Directives Act, 2. Ontario Consent and Capacity Board, 3. Surrogate selection, 4. Ex post cases for damages, 5. Ex ante cases for injunctions, 6. Coercion and duress, 7. Assent and transparency, 8. Brain-death cases, 9. Criminal and administrative sanctions, 10. Conscientious objection, 11. Penalties for providing futile treatment.     

Turning a penrose triangle inside out

Why do impossible figures, which cannot exist in three dimensions, appear to make threedimensional sense? In order to shed some light on this question the limits may be tested to which three-dimensional operations on these figures can be performed. In this paper a particularly difficult operation, viz., torus eversion is attempted. Not only is an eversion found to be possible but an unfamiliar impossibility develops. The regular form of the eversion is shown to be unique.     

An inexpensive silent unlocking device for manipulanda

An electromagnetically controlled armature was developed which silently unlocks manipulanda (shuttle box doors, wheels, levers) for response control in discrete trial situations. The device was found to produce no cue to Ss as to when responding was possible in a shuttlebox situation.     

The best interest standard: both guide and limit to medical decision making on behalf of incapacitated patients

In this issue of JCE, Douglas Diekema argues that the best interest standard (BIS) has been misemployed to serve two materially different functions. On the one hand, clinicians and parents use the BIS to recommend and to make treatment decisions on behalf of children. On the other hand, clinicians and state authorities use the BIS to determine when the government should interfere with parental decision-making authority. Diekema concedes that the BIS is appropriately used to "guide" parents in making medical treatment decisions for their children. But he argues that the BIS is inappropriately used as a "limiting" standard to determine when to override those decisions. Specifically, Diekema contends that the BIS "does not represent the best means for determining when one must turn to the state to limit parental action." He argues that this limiting function should be served by the harm principle instead of by the BIS. I contend that we should not reassign the BIS's limiting function to the harm principle. In this article I make two arguments to support my position. First, the BIS has effectively served, and can serve, both guiding and limiting functions. Second, the harm principle would be an inadequate substitute. It cannot serve the limiting function as well as the more robust BIS.     

Supplementary report: Braids,side segments,and impossible figures

Impossible figures and their braid analyses are reconsidered from the point of view of their side segments rather than their corners.