Metaphors Serve a Basic Social Function

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea E. Bowes ◽  
Albert N. Katz
Keyword(s):  
1995 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 383-383
Author(s):  
Terri Gullickson
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Rathika Krishnasamy

Background: The rate of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) colonisation in dialysis populations has increased over time. This study aimed to assess the effect of contact precautions and isolation on quality of life and mood for haemodialysis (HD) patients colonised with MDRO. Methods: Patients undergoing facility HD completed the Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOL–SFTM), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and Personal Wellbeing-Index Adult (PWI-A). Patients colonised with MDRO were case-matched by age and gender with patients not colonised. Results: A total of 16 MDRO-colonised patients were matched with 16 controls. Groups were well matched for demographics and co-morbidities, other than a trend for older dialysis vintage in the MDRO group [7.2 years (interquartile range 4.6–10.0) compared to 3.2 (1.4–7.6) years, p=0.05]. Comparing MDRO-positive with negative patients, physical (30.5±10.7 vs. 34.6±7.3; p=0.2) and mental (46.5±11.2 vs. 48.5±12.5; p = 0.6) composite scores were not different between groups. The MDRO group reported poorer sleep quality (p=0.01) and sleep patterns (p=0.05), and lower social function (p=0.02). BDI scores were similar (MDRO-positive 10(3.5–21.0) vs. MDRO-negative 12(6.5–16.0), p=0.6). PWI-A scores were also similar in both groups; however, MDRO patients reported lower scores for “feeling safe”, p=0.03. Conclusion: While overall scores of quality of life and depression were similar between groups, the MDRO group reported poorer outcomes in sleep and social function. A larger cohort and qualitative interviews may give more detail of the impact of contact precautions and isolation on HD patients. The necessity for contact precautions for different MDRO needs consideration.


2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-112
Author(s):  
Pierre Legendre

"Der Beitrag reevaluiert die «dogmatische Funktion», eine soziale Funktion, die mit biologischer und kultureller Reproduktion und folglich der Reproduktion des industriellen Systems zusammenhängt. Indem sie sich auf der Grenze zwischen Anthropologie und Rechtsgeschichte des Westens situiert, nimmt die Studie die psychoanalytische Frage nach der Rolle des Rechts im Verhalten des modernen Menschen erneut in den Blick. </br></br>This article reappraises the dogmatic function, a social function related to biological and cultural reproduction and consequently to the reproduction of the industrial system itself. On the borderline of anthropology and of the history of law – applied to the West – this study takes a new look at the question raised by psychoanalysis concerning the role of law in modern human behaviour. "


Author(s):  
Alistair M. C. Isaac ◽  
Will Bridewell

It is easy to see that social robots will need the ability to detect and evaluate deceptive speech; otherwise they will be vulnerable to manipulation by malevolent humans. More surprisingly, we argue that effective social robots must also be able to produce deceptive speech. Many forms of technically deceptive speech perform a positive pro-social function, and the social integration of artificial agents will be possible only if they participate in this market of constructive deceit. We demonstrate that a crucial condition for detecting and producing deceptive speech is possession of a theory of mind. Furthermore, strategic reasoning about deception requires identifying a type of goal distinguished by its priority over the norms of conversation, which we call an ulterior motive. We argue that this goal is the appropriate target for ethical evaluation, not the veridicality of speech per se. Consequently, deception-capable robots are compatible with the most prominent programs to ensure that robots behave ethically.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document