Philosophy of Science eJournal最新文献

{"title":"'How I Think You Are Investing': Gendered, Social Metacognitive Influences on Consumers’ Investing Perspectives","authors":"S. Gould, Rania W. Semaan, Lauren Trabold","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3349622","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3349622","url":null,"abstract":"Marketplace social metacognition concerns how consumers think about other consumers in the marketplace and how those others make decisions. We apply this perspective to the consideration of gender stereotypes in relation to investing decision scenarios involving potential gains and losses, as suggested by prospect and house money investing theories. In an experimental study of 84 business school students we find that target-investor order of gender presentation (i.e., the gender of an imagined investor with either a male or female presented first) was more predictive than one’s own gender in terms of both amounts invested and investing processes engaged in by male as opposed to female target-investors across gain and loss scenarios. Our findings suggest possible revisions in relating gender stereotype theory to both social metacognition and behaviorally diagnostic investing information.","PeriodicalId":399171,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science eJournal","volume":"625 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132479063","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Teleology and its Use and Misuse in Theories of Public Administration: The Case of Economic Policy","authors":"C. Gordon","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1090104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1090104","url":null,"abstract":"Modern social science supposedly eschews any notion of purposefulness when assessing social phenomenon. There may be causes and effects, and in the case of individual actors or groups of actors there are certainly intentions. But the Aristotelian notion of teleology, that things which social scientists study have some sort of predetermined goal, seems decidedly unscientific to modern minds. It may seem strange to hear mention of such an archaic term. Few writers nowadays refer explicitly to teleogy when analyzing the state, or anything else for that matter. The term is derived from the Greek telos (meaning end or goal) and logos (meaning theory or account) and refers simultaneously to a belief that a particular phenomenon under study has a purpose and the attempt to explain how the characteristics of the phenomenon in question lead to fulfillment of that purpose (W.T. Jones 1969, 222). Yet, conservative political philosophers have used teleogy to great effect. They often assume that the State and its actors are self-interested and self-aggrandizing. Many in this cynical age see such a premise as self-evident and regard as naive any more generous-minded deviation from it. Nonetheless, this premise posits a fundamental tendency in the State which makes certain courses of action, in this case a tyrannical government, more likely than others, and hence makes certain types of events, such as a switch to debt finance, more dangerous than others. There are, however, many other frameworks of the State and they are usually linked with a teleology of some sort. Writers who are not so conservative use teleology as well, just a different one, namely that the natural end of the state and humanity is to do good, not evil, or to help others, not themselves. This paper will review the theoretical debate about statecraft (which often comes down to a debate about the natural tendency of the state, and its ability in a given historical circumstance to fulfill that tendency). The argument will be made that despite some strong advantages of other approaches, the grand theoretical and teleological way of analyzing policy has been fraught with difficulty.","PeriodicalId":399171,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science eJournal","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125157741","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}