Sorry about the Lingering Unapproved Comments!

... It looks like Blogger has stopped giving me notifications of comments to approve. I found a huge backlog, most of which I have approved. Let me see if I can turn notifications back on.

It will take me til next week to catch up on responding to a selection of the comments that have been lingering. Sorry to have neglected you!

Will Future Generations Find Us Especially Morally Loathsome?

Ethical norms change. Although reading Confucius doesn't feel like encountering some wholly bizarre, alien moral system, some ethical ideas do differ dramatically over time and between cultures. Genocide and civilian-slaughtering aggressive warfare are now widely considered to be among the evilest things people can do, yet they appear to be celebrated in the Bible (especially Deuteronomy and Joshua) and we still name children after Alexander "the Great". Many seemingly careful thinkers, including notoriously Aristotle and Locke, wrote justifications of slavery. Much of the world has only recently opened its eyes to the historically common oppression of women, homosexuals, low-status workers, people with disabilities, and ethnic minorities.

We probably haven't reached the end of moral change. In a few centuries, people might look back on our current norms with the same mix of appreciation and condemnation that we now look back on ethical norms common in Warring States China and Early Modern Europe.

Indeed, future generations might find our generation to be especially vividly loathsome, since we are the first generation creating an extensive video record of our day-to-day activities.

It’s one thing to know, in the abstract, that Rousseau fathered five children with a lover he regarded as too dull-witted to be worth attempting to formally educate, and that he demanded against her protests that their children be sent to (possibly very high mortality) orphanages [see esp. Confessions, Book VII]. It would be quite another if we had baby pictures and video of Rousseau's interactions with Thérèse. It's one thing to know, in the abstract, that Aristotle had a wife and a life of privilege. It would be quite another to watch video of him proudly enacting sexist and classist values we now find vile. Future generations that detest our sexual practices, or our consumerism, or our casual destruction of the environment, or our neglect of the sick and elderly, might be especially horrified to view these practices in vivid detail.

By "we" and "our" practices and values, I mean the typical practices and values of highly educated readers from early 21st-century democracies -- the notional readership of this blog. Maybe climate change proves to be catastrophic: Crops fail, low-lying cities are flooded, a billion desperate people are displaced or malnourished and tossed into war. Looking back on video of a philosopher of our era proudly stepping out of his shiny, privately-owned minivan, across his beautiful irrigated lawn in the summer heat, into his large chilly air-conditioned house, maybe wearing a leather hat, maybe sharing McDonald's ice-cream cones with his kids -- looking back, that is, on what I (of course this is me) think of as a lovely family moment -- might this seem to some future Bangladeshi philosopher as vividly disgusting as I suspect I would find Aristotle's treatment of Greek slaves?


If we are currently at the moral pinnacle, any change in future values will be a change for the worse. Future generations might condemn our mixing of the races, for example. They might be disgusted to see pictures of interracial couples walking together in public and raising their mixed-race children. Or they might condemn us for clothing customs that they come to view as obscene. However, I feel comfortable saying that they'd be wrong to condemn us, if those were the reasons why.

But it seems unlikely that we are at the pinnacle; and thus it seems likely that future generations might have some excellent moral reason to condemn us. More likely than our being at the moral pinnacle, it seems to me, is that either (a.) there has been a slow trajectory toward better values over the centuries (as argued by Steven Pinker) and that the trajectory will continue, or alternatively that (b.) shifts in value are more or less a random walk up, down, and sideways, in which case it would be unlikely chance if we happened to be at the peak right now. I am assuming here the same kind of non-relativism that most people assume in condemning Nazism and in thinking that it constitutes genuine moral progress to recognize the equal moral status of women and men.

(To someone who endorses most of the widely-shared values of their group it is almost just analytically the case that they will see their group's values as the peak. Suppose you endorse the mainstream values in your group -- values A, B, C, D, E, and F. Elsewhere, the mainstream values might instead be A, not-B, D, E, F and G, or A, C, not-D, not-E, H and I. Of course it will seem to you that you're the group that got it right -- exactly A, B, C, D, E, and F! It will seem to you that changes from past values have been good, and the likely future rejection of your values will be mistaken. This is basically the old man's "kids these days!" complaint, writ large.)

I worry then, that we might be in a situation similar to Aristotle's: horribly wrong (most of us) on some really important moral issues, though it doesn't feel like we're wrong, and although we think we are applying our excellent minds excellently to the matter, with wisdom and good sense. I worry that we, or I, might be using philosophy to justify the 21st-century college-educated North American's moral equivalent of keeping slaves, oppressing women, and launching genocidal war.

Is there some way of gaining insight into this possibility? Some way to get a temperature reading, so to speak, on our unrecognized evil?

Here's one thing I don't think will work: Rely on the ethical reasoning of the highest status philosophers in our society. If you've read any of my work on Kant's applied ethics, German philosophers' failure to reject Nazism, and the morality of ethics professors, you'll know why I say this.


I'd suggest, or at least I'd hope, that if future generations rightly condemn us, it won't be for something we'd find incomprehensible. It won't be because we sometimes chose blue shirts over red ones or because we like to smile at children. It will be for things that we already have an inkling might be wrong, and which some people do already condemn as wrong. As Michele Moody-Adams emphasizes in her discussion of slavery and cultural relativism (Moody-Adams 1997, ch. 2), in every slave culture there were always some voices condemning the injustice of slavery -- among them, typically, the slaves themselves -- and it required a kind of affected ignorance to disregard those voices. As a clue to our own evil, we might look to minority moral opinions in our own culture.

I tend to disagree with those minority opinions. I tend to think that the behavior of my social group is more or less fine, or at least forgivably mediocre. If someone advances a minority ethical view I disagree with, I'm philosopher enough to concoct some superficially plausible defenses. What I worry is that a properly situated observer might recognize those defenses to be no better than Hans Heyse's defense of Nazism or Kant's critique of masturbation.

Moody-Adams suggests that we can begin to transcend our cultural and historical moral boundaries though moral reflection and moral imagination. In the epilogue of her 1997 book, she finds hope in the kind of moral reflection that involves self-scrutiny, vivid imagination, a wide-ranging contact with other disciplines and traditions, a recognition of minority voices, and serious engagement with the concrete details of everyday moral inquiry.

Hey, that sounds pretty good! I'll put, or try to put, my hopes there too.

The Perceived Importance of Kant, as Measured by Advertisements for Specialists in His Work

I'm revising a couple of my old posts on Kant for my next book, and I wanted some quantitative data on the importance of Kant in Anglophone philosophy departments.

There's a Leiter poll, where Kant ranks as the third "most important" philosopher of all time after Plato and Aristotle. That's pretty high! But a couple of measures suggest he might be even more important than number three. In terms of appearance in philosophy abstracts, he might be number one. Kant* appears 4370 times since 2010 in Philosophers Index abstracts, compared to 2756 for Plato*, 3349 for Aristot*, 1096* for Hume*, 1545 for Nietzsch*, and 1110 for Marx*. I've tried a bunch of names and found no one higher.

But maybe the most striking measure of a philosopher's perceived importance is when philosophy departments advertise for specialists specifically in that person's work. By this measure, Kant is the winner, hands-down. Not even close!

Here's what I did: I searched PhilJobs -- currently the main resource for philosophy jobs in the Anglophone world -- for permanent or tenure-track positions posted from June 1, 2015 to June 18, 2018. "Kant*" yields 30 ads (of 910 in the database), among which 17 contained "Kant" or "Kantian" in the line for "Area of Specialization". One said "excluding Kant", so let's toss that one out, leaving 29 and 16. Four were specifically asking for "post-Kantian" philosophy (which presumably excludes Kant, but it's testament to his influence that a historical period is referred to in this way), but most were advertising either for a Kant specialist (e.g., UNC Chapel Hill searched in AOS "Kant's theoretical philosophy") or Kant among other things (e.g., Notre Dame "Kant and/or early modern"). Where "Kant" was not in the AOS line, his name was either in the Area Of Competence line or somewhere in the body of the ad [note 1].

In sum, the method above yields:
Kant: 29 total PhilJobs hits, 16 in AOS (12 if you exclude "post-Kantian").

Here are some others:

Plato*: 3, 0.
Aristot*: 2, 0.
Hume*: 1, 0.
Confuc*: 1, 0.
Aquin*: 3, 1 (all Catholic universities).
Nietzsch*: 0, 0.
Marx*: 5, 1. (4/5 Chinese universities).

As I said, hands down. Kant runs away with the title, Plato and Confucius shading their eyes in awe as they watch him zoom toward the horizon.

Note 1: If "Kant" was in the body of the ad, it was sometimes because the university was mentioning their department's strength in Kant rather than searching for someone in Kant, but for my purposes if a department is self-describing its strengths in that way, that's also a good signal of Kant's perceived importance, so I haven't excluded those cases.

[image source]

Slippery Slope Arguments and Discretely Countable Subjects of Experience

I've become increasingly worried about slippery slope arguments concerning the presence or absence of (phenomenal) consciousness. Partly this is in response to Peter Carruthers' new draft article on animal consciousness, partly it's because I'm revisiting some of my thought experiments about group minds, and partly it's just something I've been worrying about for a while.

To build a slippery slope argument concerning the presence of consciousness, do this:

* First, take some obviously conscious [or non-conscious] system as an anchor point -- such as an ordinary adult human being (clearly conscious) or an ordinary proton (obviously(?) non-conscious).

* Second, imagine a series of small changes at the far end of which is a case that some people might view as a case of the opposite sort. For example, subtract one molecule at a time from the human until you have only one proton left. (Note: This is a toy example; for more attractive versions of the argument, see below.)

* Third, highlight the implausibility of the idea that consciousness suddenly winks out [winks in] at any one of these little steps.

* Finally, conclude that the disputable system at the end of the series is also conscious [non-conscious].

Now slippery slope arguments are generally misleading for vague predicates like "red". Even if we can't finger an exact point of transition from red to non-red in a series of shades from red to blue, it doesn't follow that blue is red. Red is a vague predicate, so it ought to admit of vague, in-betweenish cases. (There are some fun logical puzzles about vague predicates, of course, but I trust that our community of capable logicians will eventually sort that stuff out.)

However, unlike redness, the presence or absence of consciousness seems to be a discrete all-or-nothing affair, which makes slippery-slope arguments more tempting. As John Searle says somewhere (hm... where?), having consciousness is like having money: You can have a little of it or a lot of it -- a penny or a million bucks -- but there's a discrete difference between having only a little and having not a single cent's worth. Consider sensory experience, for example. You can have a richly detailed visual field, or you can have an impoverished visual field, but there is, or at least seems to be, a discrete difference between having a tiny wisp of sensory experience (e.g., a brief gray dot, the sensory equivalent of a penny) and having no sensory experience at all. We normally think of subjects of experience as discrete, countable entities. Except as a joke, most of us wouldn't say that there are two-and-a-half conscious entities in the room or that an entity has 3/8 of a stream of experience. An entity either is a subject of conscious experience (however limited their experience is) or has no conscious experience at all.

Consider these three familiar slippery slopes.

(1.) Across the animal kingdom. We normally assume that humans, dogs, and apes are genuinely, richly phenomenally conscious. We can imagine a series of less and less sophisticated animals all the way down to the simplest animals or even down into unicellular life. It doesn't seem that there's a plausible place to draw a bright line, on one side of which the animals are conscious and on the other side of which they are not. (I did once hear an ethologist suggest that the line was exactly between toads (conscious) and frogs (non-conscious); but even if you accept that, we can construct a fine-grained toad-frog series.)

(2.) Across human development. The fertilized egg is presumably not conscious; the cute baby presumably is conscious. The moment of birth is important -- but it's not clear that it's so neurologically important that it is the bright line between an entirely non-conscious fetus and a conscious baby. Nor does there seem to be any other obvious sharp transition point.

(3.) Neural replacement. Tom Cuda and David Chalmers imagine replacing someone's biological neurons one by one with functionally equivalent artificial neurons. A sudden wink-out between N and N+1 replaced neurons doesn't seem intuitively plausible. (Nor does it seem intuitively plausible that there's a gradual fading away of consciousness while outward behavior, such as verbal reports, stays the same.) Cuda and Chalmers conclude that swapping out biological neurons for functionally similar artificial neurons would preserve consciousness.

Less familiar, but potentially just as troubling, are group consciousness cases. I've argued, for example, that Guilio Tononi's influential Integrated Information Theory of consciousness runs into trouble in employing a threshold across a slippery slope (e.g. here and Section 2 here). Here the slippery slope isn't between zero and one conscious subjects, but rather between one and N subjects (N > 1).

(4.) Group consciousness. At one end, anchor with N discretely distinct conscious entities and presumably no additional stream of consciousness at the group level. At the other end, anchor with a single conscious entity with parts none of which, presumably, is an individual subject of experience. Any particular way of making this more concrete will have some tricky assumptions, but we might suppose an Ann Leckie "ancillary" case with a hundred humanoid AIs in contact with a central computer on a ship. As the "distinct entities" anchor, imagine that the AIs are as independent as ordinary human beings are, and the central computer is just a communications relay. Intermediate steps involve more and more information transfer and central influence or control. The anchor case on the other end is one in which the humanoid AIs are just individually nonconscious limbs of a single fully integrated system (though spatially discontinuous). Alternatively, if you like your thought experiments brainy, anchor on one end with normally brained humans, then construct a series in which these brains are slowly neurally wired together and perhaps shrunk, until there's a single integrated brain again as the anchor on the other end.

Although the group consciousness cases are pretty high-flying as thought experiments, they render the countability issue wonderfully stark. If streams of consciousness really are countably discrete, then either you must:

(a.) Deny one of the anchors. There was group consciousness all along, perhaps!

(b.) Affirm that there's a sharp transition point at which adding just a single bit's worth of integration suddenly shifts the whole system from N distinct conscious entitites to only one conscious entity, despite the seemingly very minor structural difference (as on Tononi's view).

(c.) Try to wiggle out of the sharp transition with some intermediate number between N and 1. Maybe this humanoid winks out first while this other virtually identical humanoid still has a stream of consciousness -- though that's also rather strange and doesn't fully escape the problem.

(d.) Deny that conscious subjects, or streams of conscious experience, really must come in discretely countable packages.

I'm increasingly drawn to (d), though I'm not sure I can quite wrap my head around that possibility yet or fully appreciate its consequences.

[image adapted from Pixabay]

How To Go From Newbie To Professional Stock Trader In 5 Easy Steps?

Everyone has to take baby steps before they can run. The stock market can be unforgiving once entered; hence it is best to know the basics before delving in deep. Every new/want-to-be investor wants to know the answer to, “Where do I start?” With enough trial and error, strategizing and experiments, every novice can go professional, when it comes to online trading in Vietnam.

Here are the basics of stock market trading:

1)Get a good stock broker account: As obvious as it is, this is the first most necessary step; not in just getting an account, but getting an excellent one. Getting in touch with a trustworthy online broker will get you access to the market with a well-functioning account by your side. 

2)Learn the basics of trading: Though a majority of trading skills is developed through experience and experimenting, to step into the game you ought to know the basics. Several authors have taken care of this for you, trading for a Living by Dr. Alexander Elder, Stocks to Riches by Prayag Parikh and Stock Market Wizards by Jack D. Schwager are some of the best books to learn the stock market basics.

Online Trading in Vietnam

3)Take your time analyzing: Markets are not predominantly random, though chaotic at times, they always follow a pattern. It takes time to study these, but your patience will be well-rewarded. Opt for as many strategies as you want and see how each one plays out on the field. The more you know the market, the better you get at trades.

4)Practice before going all-in: A big mistake many traders make is entering the stock market business without any prior practice. Trading has many branches and each branch has sub-branches, trying to dive into this vastness without ample knowledge will result in you drowning. Always make use of demo Forex trading accounts to learn the market.

5)Don’t let failure get to you: Trading isn’t a “get rich quick” recipe. Trading, though it offers profits, can also bring the ship down. There will be days when you will lose more money than you invest, take it in your stride and let it teach you how to get better.

Trading is becoming a career today; it started off as a hobby decades back. Online trading is scaling new heights and you should capitalize on this opening immediately! At WesternFX we offer the best online brokers in Vietnam, experienced and geared with all the information needed to dominate the market. Get your trading account today, call us!

Why Participation Locales Are The Most ideal Approaches To Gain On the web And How To Assemble Them?

For quite a long time since web promoting began, enrollment destinations are seen as goldmines of benefitting greatly in the snappiest time conceivable. What's more, the motivation behind why is on account of you take the necessary steps once as a proprietor and get paid again and again by individuals who are intrigued and need to keep gaining from you. Or on the other hand they get a kick out of the chance to utilize the assets and apparatuses consistently since they required them to maintain their own online business.

The inquiry is regardless of realizing that participation locales are the best and quickest approaches to gain, for what reason do as such numerous individuals tarry without anyone else? The most well-known reasons I found are from their input in overviews are they are not specialized. They have no clue how to assemble a site not to mention participation. What's more, besides it includes a great deal of work and time which is valid since you need to offer some incentive as substance, instruments and assets ceaselessly to the individuals who wish to remain on as individuals. Regardless of whether there are free ones like Check Ling's AffiloBlueprint, similar standards apply since most advertisers need to make more deals as well as getting more leads too. Since to them and myself too, every supporter is justified regardless of a dollar and each paying client is worth two dollars and additionally relying upon what they purchase.

The way I see it, building participations don't need to be that difficult. You simply need to agreed to accept courses on those, learn and actualize and after that you regard go.Over the previous a long time since I started my web promoting venture, I have put into various enrollment courses. Other than AffiloBlueprint, I approach Omar Martin's My Out of line Favorable position, Adam Short's Specialty Classroom and AmaSuite by Dave Guindon and Chris Guthrie. They all comprised of an arrangement of 20-40 video instructional exercises, PDF manuals and programming applications and different assets.

Despite the fact that there are numerous subjects on building enrollment courses, the one I have and been utilizing for as long as 5 years is Upgrade Press. Planned and established by James Dyson from UK, it is intended for building online journals, points of arrival, salespages and participation destinations. It is likewise the costliest however as far as quality and client bolster, they are among the best. Having learn and executed what they instruct in their video instructional exercises, I have construct numerous greeting pages, direct mail advertisements and enrollment locales in different specialties. Other than web advertising, I have different points like wellbeing, self-awareness and innovation.

So all things considered, how would you fabricate a participation site?

It may astound you on the off chance that I reveal to you the appropriate response.

Which is -

You don't begin fabricating a participation site.

Rather you started by finding a beneficial specialty.

As in discussions and Facebook bunches which you can seek on identified with what you are keen on or having issues however figured out how to conquer them.

At that point what you require is to get associated with those gatherings of individuals as in acquainting yourself and getting with know, construct compatibility and comprehend them as how you ordinarily make companions. Discover their interests, difficulties, qualities and shortcomings before arranging them into your scratch pad. And afterward from those, pretty much you comprehend what they are searching for.

I hear numerous individuals looking at discovering, knowing and focusing on your market first before beginning any business. Which is valid. What's more, in web business, those I specified above are those business sectors.

At that point utilize those focuses you ordered them and compose a progression of articles on those. At that point set up them together into Microsoft Word or Open Office before sparing them as PDF digital book.

When I have done that, the following thing I will continue is reordering the substance from those articles into control point slides. In the meantime, I will agree to accept the multi day preliminary of Camtasia Studio to do and create video accounts essentially by perusing from and adding more stuff to those slides.

With regards to recordings, there are two different ways you can go about. The first is a straight 10-20 video arrangement which will be best for low to center evaluated online courses. However, in the event that you are investigating expensive training programs, I will suggest 10-20 modules with every module covering a progression of another 10-20 recordings. The principal module can be about specialty and watchword examine while the second and third addresses finding gainful partner programs and making drawing in content and so forth.

When I got the PDF guide and recordings done, I will include different rewards as assets. It can be interviews with different specialists in a similar specialty, programming instruments and extra PDF and video arrangement.

With regards to building the site itself, I will address building optin pages, deals offers and enrollment destinations from Advance Press. Rather than utilizing posts, I will concentrate more on pages and do certain settings and add modules to improve the look and utilization of the enrollment site.

I will likewise include menu best to enable clients to discover what they need rapidly and easily.It will contain Home, Aides, Recordings, Assets, Offshoots and Get in touch with Us Page. Under Recordings, there will be more pages with each committed to one video on one specific subject.

At long last I will purchase List of things to get Individuals to permit certain clients in with their username and secret key which they will get by means of email and redirection in the wake of joining from the enlistment page they will be coordinated to subsequent to securing their duplicate.

As far as estimating, individuals can pay month to month and yearly. They can likewise cross out whenever in the event that they don't wish to proceed as individuals.

At last I will welcome them to join my Facebook local gathering in which they can interface with each other and even do Joint Wander business bargains.

Amuro Wesley has been showcasing on the web for near a long time since beginning in 2008 low maintenance and doing this full-time in 2010.

Knowing How To Dispatch Your Item The Right Way

There are innumerable ways this can profit your dispatch, so read on and we'll take a gander at a couple of the ways that starting instead of discharging under the radar can have a significant effect to your deals.

The principal reason you need to make an item dispatch is that this will make publicity and buzz. What's more, by making promotion and buzz, you'll have the capacity to guarantee that individuals are more open to your item when it in the long run goes live.

The most ideal approach to influence individuals to need something is to reveal to them they need to pause. This additionally gives them an opportunity to spare the money and for the most part, it implies that when the item goes live, many individuals will purchase without even a moment's pause.

Trust it or not, an item dispatch can assist you with building specialist. Essentially by propelling an item as opposed to discharging it unobtrusively, you make that item appear to be unquestionably attractive and significantly more fascinating and this at last means you're probably going to get numerous more deals when it in the end goes live.

Partners love an item dispatch, so in the event that you need a multitude of expert advertisers to enable you to get the word out and construct more buzz for your item, at that point completing a dispatch is one of the simple most ideal approaches to achieve that.

Checking a group of people is a vital activity before you dispatch any item. As such, you have to guarantee that there are individuals out there who really need to purchase your item before you simply ahead and invest energy creating it. By having an item dispatch and a development to that dispatch, you'll have the capacity to counsel your group of onlookers and guarantee that they really need to see your item before you invest a considerable measure of energy and push to get it going. You can approach your group of onlookers for thoughts and basically wind up making the correct item that they ask for, along these lines basically ensuring your prosperity!

Making Magnificent Items

With regards to building computerized items to offer, there are an extensive number of various kinds of item that you can make. You can make a digital book for example, or you can make a bit of programming.

One of the simple best choices, however, is to make video substance and offer it as a course, a class or even a 'narrative'. This is an awesome choice since it quickly raises you most importantly of alternate dross that exists out there anybody can make a digital book yet it takes some know-how to make an all around delivered video. Furthermore, is that a video will naturally fit effortlessly making heaps of advertising materials and is for the most part something that you can showcase effectively.

There are two sorts of video. Recordings you show up in and recordings that you don't highlight in yourself. Also, of the two, the previous is by a wide margin the better alternative. This is the sort of video that will look like something genuinely high caliber and that you can truly get a group of people energized for. The main issue? They're likewise the hardest kinds of video to make.

This is what you have to do...


Up first is the gear you will require. On the off chance that you mean on making great recordings, at that point, obviously, you will require a decent, amazing camcorder keeping in mind the end goal to film those recordings. This ought to be something that will give you 1080p chronicle capacity (or even better, 4K) and that will give you a chance to film at 60fps. More critical still? The screen ought to pivot so you can perceive what you're doing!

You additionally require a tripod and this will additionally assist you with filming yourself without contracting a group. You will need lighting as well and a decent choice here is a softbox. Much of the time, the lighting is in reality more critical than the camera! Great sound is in like manner basic, so get a lav mic that you can utilize.

Altering and Introduction

Likewise very essential, is that you have incredible introduction abilities so you appear to be an expert sounding individual thus that the video will lock in.

From that point, it's about the way you alter the video together; and you will require a decent bit of programming, for example, Finished product Expert or Adobe Debut Professional to do that with.

It's a ton of work yet in the event that you pull everything off, you'll be left with something that offers itself!

My Novice's Manual for E-Item Advancement


The web is an elephant, in a manner of speaking. So how would you eat an elephant? One would state one piece at any given moment. Each web master has his own particular perspectives about how to prevail in the web or on the web, however like some other thing throughout everyday life, there is nobody culminate way, or one size fits all. Some say quality written substance makes all the difference. Some say start with a rundown. Some say start with 100% robotization. Substance, rundown, and mechanization all issue, however shouldn't something be said about the individual that is simply starting and doesn't know his left from his right? I trust a learner should begin with an item to demonstrate his validity and from that point proceed onward to building a rundown while in the meantime bit by bit working towards mechanizing his site to chip away at autopilot.

A Proviso about Beginning With an Item

Having said that it's smarter to begin with an item, I trust it's suitable to toss in this capability by saying that at the most abnormal amounts, you can really offer an item you have not yet created to your rundown or devotees, but rather as a novice, you will be unable to utilize that technique. At its most essential, it includes telling your devotees that you have an item that is turning out in say 90 days or 180 days time and any one among them that purchases ahead of time would get it at 30 or 20 percent markdown. Some may choose to purchase and you would then be able to utilize the money to build up the item. This procedure is for officially understood "brands" like Diminish Diamandis, Brendon Burchard, Tim Ferriss and Tony Robbins to say only four.

The most effective method to Build up Your First Item

This introduction centers around how you can build up your first item. Actually, in web business, you don't need to hold up until the point that you have an immaculate item. Simply start and keep enhancing en route. On the off chance that you look at autos or any item so far as that is concerned made in the 1970s, 2000s, you see that they continue improving regarding plan, smoothness, and execution, to specify only three viewpoints. That ought to be your point. Begin, and continue enhancing without stopping for even a minute.

In this introduction, the attention is altogether on electronic items (eProducts), not the offering of physical items on the web, which is alluded to as web based business. I'm accepting that you're as of now a specialist working in six measurements as a creator, mentor, speaker, mentor, advisor, workshop pioneer and now gunning for the seventh measurement, data showcasing. In the event that you don't see yourself as a specialist, don't stress excessively, we'll return to that and the scales will tumble off from your eyes. Regardless of whether you're not working in any of the measurements yet, say you're only a worker, don't stress, this introduction will open your eyes to the potential outcomes ahead. The writer of the book Moment Pay, Janet Switzer, recorded more than 52 eProducts one can create in her Nonconformist Program yet we'll confine ourselves to only the most straightforward items as this is a fledgling's system.

Understanding or knowing which items to build up, the interest for those items and how to position your items are past the extent of this introduction. Additionally showcasing, offering and propelling your item are outside the extent of this introduction. Having secured those primers, how about we make a plunge on your item improvement travel.

Items Reasonable For E-Duplicates

The fundamental items that you can without much of a stretch change over to e-organize are:

• Books

• Music

• Courses (classes) - these are by and large alluded to as "How to Items."

• Talks

• Exploration discoveries

The Main 7 Most Lucrative "How to Items" Zones In the Master Business

As per Brendon Burchard, in his book The Master Detachment, the seven most lucrative how to item regions are:

1. Inspiration Guidance

2. Authority Counsel

3. Monetary Counsel

4. Business Guidance

5. Advertising Counsel

6. Relationship Guidance

7. Otherworldly Counsel

E-Item Arrangements

The principle positions are:


• E-bar

• Mobi

• Sound (MP3)

• Recordings (MP4)

Destinations For Transferring Your E-Items

Having made or made your item, the following activity is to dispatch. You can dispatch your items through a blend of channels, including:

• Your site

• Outsider sites

• YouTube

• Vimeo

• Stitcher

• iTunes

• SoundCloud

• Cd Infant

• To your Rundown through an e-promoting stage, illustration, Mailchimp.

The Different Item Configurations In Detail

Give us now a chance to take the item designs each one in turn in somewhat more detail.

PDF (Versatile Record Arrangement)

One of the most effortless approaches to join the online business as a specialist is to begin with instructional class, workshop, course or a book. Your book specifically can and will open entryways particularly on the off chance that you can compose a New York Times smash hit. For a learner, that may be outlandish so allows simply start with a decent book or a well thoroughly considered course. Having done your book or course (this applies too to classes and workshops), you spare in word or PowerPoint and change over it to PDF. PDF (compact record design) is a unique configuration created by Adobe and can be purchased on the web or better still purchase the Cd and introduce in your workstation. When changed over to PDF, nobody can correct or tinker with your item and you can transfer it to your site and begin offering. Sounds so basic? Indeed! Innovation streamlines things. Anyone with a PC or PDA can purchase your item and begin getting a charge out of it immediately. Most new age workstations and advanced mobile phones have PDF peruser pre-introduced or you can essentially download an application that empowers you read the PDF record.


E-Bar (ePub) is short for electronic distribution and is a digital book document organize that the lion's share of gadgets, including iPad, android cell phones, tablets, PCs, or tablets can read. To change over your book to e-Bar requires an exceptional programming, which a normal business focus can enable you to accomplish. In the event that you can't get a business focus close you to change over your book to epub, you can do it online through an organization by the name Allzone.


Mobi is particularly curious to Amazon Ignite as that is the main configuration that Encourage employments. Beginning in 2011, a few experts anticipated that inside five years there would be more than 53million Ignites overall so on the off chance that you need one of the Fuel clients to purchase your book, you must choose the option to have it in Mobi design. Be that as it may, there is uplifting news. Amazon does not expect you to change over your book into Mobi before transferring to Amazon. You can transfer to Amazon in Word configuration and Amazon KDP (Arouse Coordinate Distributing) will consequently change over it to Mobi for you.

MP4 and MP3

Only a couple of years prior we were utilizing what was then known as Album (smaller plate) before the mp3 organize, which is a sound coding group for computerized sound, was presented. The mp3 (or MP3) arrangement can store colossal measures of sound so you needn't bother with several Discs as previously. Your completed work can be changed over to mp3 effortlessly to be tuned in to utilizing computerized gadgets including cell phones, iPads and PCs. Try not to stress over how to do this as a normal sound or video supervisor would deal with the specialized perspectives and help you transferred your item to Stitcher, SoundCloud or Compact disc Child. Altering isn't extremely costly and goes for as low as $5 for a one hour scene relying upon the editorial manager and the charge continues descending as an ever increasing number of individuals ace the craft of video altering.


Recordings are what influence the web to tick. Video connects more than some other medium so it's an absolute necessity you figure out how to do video. Furthermore, fortunately it's not as mind boggling as you may envision. You don't require any specialized abilities. Coordinate to-camera video is the one you make with a conventional camera or camcorder. Camera comes exceedingly prescribed contrasted with camcorder not just on the grounds that cameras are by and large littler in measure and less expensive, but since they grow less warmth contrasted with camcorders. At first, you may need to lease the camera however with time, you may choose to get your own. The most mainstream camera write is Group, yet you can likewise make recordings with your advanced mobile phone anyway there is a slight downside as you will be unable to alter or get sound or MP3 out of a PDA so having a camera has points of interest.

Research Funding: The Pretty-Proposal Approach vs the Recent-Past-Results Approach

Say you have some money and you want to fund some research. You're an institution of some sort: NSF, Templeton, MacArthur, a university's Committee on Research. How do you decide who gets your money?

Here are two broad approaches:

The Pretty Proposal Approach. Send out a call for applications. Give the money to the researchers who make the best case that they have an awesome research plan.

The Recent-Past-Results Approach. Figure out who in the field has recently been doing the best research of the sort you want to fund. Give them money for more such research.

[ETA for clarity, 09:46] The ideal form of the Recent-Past-Results Approach is one in which the researcher does not even have to write a proposal!

Of course both models have advantages and disadvantages. But on the whole, I'd suggest, too much funding is distributed based on the pretty proposal model and insufficient money based on the recent-past-result model.

I see three main advantages to the Pretty Proposal Approach:

First, and very importantly in my mind, the PPA is egalitarian. It doesn't matter what you've done in the past. If you have a great proposal, you deserve funding!

Second, two researchers with equally good track records might have differently promising future plans, and this approach (if it goes well) will reward the researcher with the more promising plans.

Third, the institution can more precisely control exactly what research projects are funded (possibly an advantage from the perspective of the institution).

But the Pretty Proposal Approach has some big downsides compared to the Recent-Past-Results Approach:

First, in my experience, researchers spend a huge amount of time writing pretty proposals, and the amount of time has been increasing sharply. This is time they don't spend on research itself. In the aggregate, this is a huge loss to academic research productivity (e.g., see here and here). The Recent-Past-Results approach, in contrast, needn't involve any active asking by the researcher (if the granting agency does the work of finding promising recipients), or submission only of a cv and recent publications. This would allow academics to deploy more of their skills and time on the research itself, rather than on constructing beautiful requests for money.

Second, past research performance probably better predicts future research performance than do promises of future research performance. I am unaware of data specifically on this question, but in general I find it better policy to anticipate what people will do based on what they've done in the past than based on the handsome promises they make when asking for money. If this is correct, then better research is likely to be funded on a Recent-Past-Results approach. (Caveat: Most grant proposals already require some evidence of your expertise and past work, which can help mitigate this disadvantage.)

Third, the best researchers are often opportunistic and move fast. They will do better research if they can pursue emerging opportunities and inspirations than if they are tied to a proposal written a year or more before.

In my view, the downsides of the dominant Pretty Proposal Approach are sufficiently large that we should shift a substantial proportion (not all) of our research funding toward the Recent-Past-Results Approach.

What about the three advantages of the Pretty Proposal Approach?

The third advantage of the PPA -- increased institutional power -- is not clearly an all-things-considered advantage. Researchers who have recently done good work in the eyes of grant evaluators might be better at deciding the specific best uses of future research resources than are those grant evaluators themselves. Institutions understandably want some control; but they can exert this control by conditional granting: "We offer you this money to spend on research on Topic X (meeting further Criteria Y and Z), if you wish to do more such research."

The second advantage of the PPA -- more funding for similar researchers with differently promising plans -- can be partly accommodated by retaining the Pretty Proposal Approach as a substantial component of research funding. I certainly wouldn't want to see all funding to be based on Recent Past Results!

The first advantage of the PPA -- egalitarianism -- is the most concerning to me. I don't think we want to see elite professors and friends of the granting committees getting ever more of the grant money in a self-reinforcing cycle. A Recent-Past-Results Approach should implement stringent measures to reduce the risk of this outcome. Here are a few possibilities:

Prioritize researchers with less institutional support. If two researchers have similarly excellent past results but one has achieved those results with less institutional support -- a higher teaching load, less previous grant funding -- then prioritize the one with less support. Especially prioritize funding research by people with decent track records and very little institutional support, perhaps even over those with very good track records and loads of institutional support. This helps level the playing field, and it also might produce better results overall, since those with the least existing institutional support might be the ones who would most benefit from an increase in support.

Low-threshold equal funding. Create some low bar, then fund everyone at the same small level once they cross that bar. This might be good practice for universities funding small grants for faculty conference travel, for example (compared to faculty having to write detailed justifications for conference travel).

Term limits. Require a five-year hiatus, for example, after five years of funding so that other researchers have a chance at showing what they can do when they receive funding.

[ETA 10:37] In favoring more emphasis on the Recent-Past-Results Approach, I am not suggesting that everyone write Pretty Proposals with cvs attached and then the funding is decided mostly based on cv. That would combine the time disadvantage of writing Pretty Proposals with the inegalitarian disadvantage of the Recent-Past-Results Approach, and it would add misdirection since people would be invited to think that writing a good proposal is important. (Any resemblance of the real grants process to this dystopian worst-of-all-worlds approach is purely coincidental.) I am proposing either no submission at all by the grant recipient (models include MacArthur "genius" grants and automatic faculty start-up funds) or a very minimal description of topic, with no discussion of methods, impact, previous literature, etc.

[Still another ETA, 11:03] I hadn't considered random funding! See here and here (HT Daniel Brunson). An intriguing idea, perhaps in combination with a low threshold of some sort.

Related Posts:

Related Posts: How to Give $1 Million a Year to Philosophers (Mar 18, 2013).

Against Increasing the Power of Grant Agencies in Philosophy (Dec 23, 2011).

She Just Wants to Be Heard

It happens so frequently when I do couples counselling. It's what I do often say, whether directly or indirectly. It's directed to him. It's the temptation to say, 'She just wants to be heard.'

And every now and then I hear myself want to say it to her, too, 'He just wants to be heard.'

The truth is we all want to be heard, and if we can't do the hearing we have no right to be heard.

It's so ironic that I find myself in the role at all of couples' counsellor - me, who once refused, year in, year out, to do marriage counselling. I didn't believe I needed it, I didn't believe we needed it. I didn't believe in it. How fundamentally wrong I was. We all need it. At some stage or other.

And it's especially so when we're not heard - when our voice is trapped in some weird wilderness of bewilderment. When the self is buried dead in the partnership that exists like two ships passing in the night.

She just wants to be heard. It ought to be the easiest thing of all things to do for the husband - to put off himself and clothe himself in the wife's needs; to be validated for what she so authentically experiences. Really, it's true. Why is she constantly undermined for feeling what she does (or he, for that matter)?

It costs him nothing but the energy of curiosity, which is to be interested enough to seek to understand the cries his own wife shrieks in her spirit, writhing silently from within her soul.

If he can hear her, which is to void himself of himself only enough to be in his wife, he stands to experience her like he's never experienced her. Alive in compassion, alert to kindness, elevated in gentleness, and cosy of soul, he does what must seem effortless to an onlooker. It doesn't take much more than a decisive sacrifice. To think relatively nothing of it.

If only he can hear her. Harder things have been done. Easier things than this have hardly been known.

Yet still he struggles to put himself off to be curious enough to be interested sufficiently to know her.

She just wants to be heard. She needs his heart to change, yet there's no sense in forcing something that will only be forced shut.

His heart must change. He mustn't harden his heart. Still, a hardening takes place when she insists. She must stop insisting and instead insist upon entreating the Lord in prayer. It's her only hope.

A miracle is needed. That's what a changed heart is - nobody but God could have procured it. So pray to God, and live each minute praying in hope, living in expectation, without getting disappointed, that it may well happen. There's nothing to lose and all to gain. Besides, with pressure gone, the impossible is possible again.

Oh, I know these men. I am one. And my heart was hard until it was broken, shattered upon the streets paved in the name of reconstruction. But not every heart softens in brokenness every time, though it ought to.

She just wants to be heard. She needs it. She won't be reached otherwise. All else is a sheer waste of time until she is heard. Her heart remains impenetrably closed until it is massaged open with the salve of consideration.

If a man is to transcend himself and become what only God knows he can become, he will attempt what can only be done in and through God. And then he will understand why she wants to be heard, and when he understands this, he will be compelled to ensure she is heard.

He must understand why she wants to be heard. He need only check his own heart's honest wants to know her need is valid.

The Only Way to Never Is to Never Say Never

Counselling is like a mirror, and not just for the client. Even as I sit there and listen, God's Spirit often tells me, 'Yes, you relate with that, don't you?'

I see it as a good thing. When it happens it means I'm not deceived by conceit. There's an immediate empathy, because there's some personal experience for their particular kind of suffering.

Over the years, I've counselled people who were lamenting in disbelief - 'I never thought I would ever fall for something like that - I said I would never do that - and I never would have, but now I have!' As I reflect, I can think of two life situations where I had said, without thinking it would ever happen, 'I would never do that.' And I did. On both occasions. Yes, twice. Both of these situations have involved major regret - both situations involved significant harm and railed me and my family onto tracks we would have preferred not to have rolled along.

These kinds of situations are what we routinely find in the counselling situation - shock and disbelief.

As human beings we're so prone to believing our own press, which is the propagation of our own stories that we hardly ever challenge. To fall into a 'never' situation is just such a human thing to do.

If we say we'll never divorce, we better ensure we do the kind of work on our marriage that means that possibility should never happen, and not simply rest on the idea that our partner holds to the same premise, because they don't. I made the promise that we-would-never-divorce, all the while never doing the work that would have protected against that reality. The only way to never is to never say never.

If we say we'll never have an affair, that's fine, but we had better imagine how easily such things happen if we're not continually guarding our hearts. Too easily do we all rest in the fact that our ideals say we would never, without realising we're fallible beings prone to being wanted and needed. None of us are too far away from falling in love with something or someone totally inappropriate. The only way to never is to never say never.

If we say we'll never take drugs or drink too much or end up addicted to something, we best keep ourselves to short account on any habit-forming behaviours, knowing that some behaviours ought never be engaged in. We somehow need to bear in mind that we're never beyond addiction. By never putting ourselves beyond it we exercise the fear of the Lord. The only way to never is to never say never.

If we say we'll never end up in prison or publicly shamed or bankrupt, we best not break the law in the first place, nor engage in unethical practices, nor take financial risks we shouldn't take. But there are no assurances. We could easily find ourselves incarcerated. All it takes is a few seconds of impulsivity at the wrong time in the wrong place with the wrong people. It's easy to be tempted into an unethical decision or three. And anyone can fall foul of bad financial circumstances. The only way to never is to never say never.

Of course, there are a million and more things we could apply this to.

The only thing that ensures an authentic vigilance against that shocking reality we would never see ourselves doing is to see ourselves doing it - often enough to enjoy the fresh motivation not to do it.

Seeing ourselves capable of falling into significant sin ensures we guard our hearts against it as well as giving us empathy for those who have suffered such a fall.

Makeup And The False-Self

The other day I saw a picture of a woman's face on social media and this picture had received a fair amount 'likes'. That wasn't it though, as she had received a number of positive comments.

One of these comments went into how good she looked and there were others that went even further, calling her "beautiful". I thought that this woman must have appreciated all this positive feedback. 
A Mask

Nevertheless, this wasn't just a normal picture; this woman was wearing a fair amount of makeup. I started to think about if this woman could actually accept these compliments, or if they only went in so far.

The reason for this is that the makeup had covered up her face, meaning that these people couldn't see her real face. It made me wonder if deep down, she wondered if her real face would receive the same feedback or if it was good enough.

A Natural Reaction

This is then similar to how someone famous can be told how great they are and this can make them feel good. Yet, what they could think about is if these people would be saying the same thing if they were not famous.

In the first case, these people can't see what she really looks like and, in the second, these people don't know who the person really is; the only thing they can see is what they have projected onto them. In reality, a lot of these people won't even care about who they are behind the role that they play.


So, when it comes to the woman who was wearing a lot of makeup, there will be an upside and a downside. The upside will be that it allows her to receive positive feedback; the downside is that it can cause her to believe that she doesn't look good enough without it.

This is then no different to how someone can play a role and receive positive feedback for the role that they play. They can end up being told how great and nice they are, but as they are playing a role, this feedback might not go in and they can feel like a fraud.

One Area

If this woman is in a relationship, her partner might not ever get to see her without makeup. She will then be with someone, but it won't be possible for her to completely let her guard down and to connect with them.

She could believe that her partner would end up losing interest if they were to see her without the mask that she wears. This is unlikely to be a very deep or fulfilling relationship.

Moving On

Her true-self will be covered up and her partner will only be able to get so close to her. Now, as she doesn't feel comfortable with who she is, there is a strong chance that she will be with someone who is the same.

She probably won't be able to completely relax in their presence, and this means that her time with her partner may be more like a performance than a time where she can actually be with her partner. If she was to reveal herself and her partner lost interest, then it would show that she is with the wrong person.

Final Thoughts

Intimacy is not something that can be experienced if someone is wearing a mask or playing a role. Having said all this, this doesn't mean that I believe that women shouldn't wear makeup, far from it.

In general, what I believe is that there is a time and a place for makeup, and that it is there to accentuate a woman's features, as opposed to totally changing her appearance. Personally, if I'm attracted to a woman, I want to know who she really is - behind the makeup and the roles that she plays.

Does It Harm Philosophy as a Discipline to Discuss the Apparently Meager Practical Effects of Studying Ethics?

I've done a lot of empirical work on the apparently meager practical effects of studying philosophical ethics. Although most philosophers seem to view my work either neutrally or positively, or have concerns about the empirical details of this or that study, others react quite negatively to the whole project, more or less in principle.

About a month ago on Facebook, Samuel Rickless did such a nice job articulating some general concerns (see his comment on this public post) that I thought I'd quote his comments here and share some of my reactions.

First, My Research:

* In a series of studies published from 2009 to 2014, mostly in collaboration with Joshua Rust (and summarized here), I've empirically explored the moral behavior of ethics professors. As far as I know, no one else had ever systematically examined this question. Across 17 measures of (arguably) moral behavior, ranging from rates of charitable donation to staying in contact with one's mother to vegetarianism to littering to responding to student emails to peer ratings of overall moral behavior, I have found not a single main measure on which ethicists appeared to act morally better than comparison groups of other professors; nor do they appear to behave better overall when the data are merged meta-analytically. (Caveat: on some secondary measures we found ethicists to behave better. However, on other measures we found them to behave worse, with no clearly interpretable overall pattern.)

* In a pair of studies with Fiery Cushman, published in 2012 and 2015, I've found that philosophers, including professional ethicists, seem to be no less susceptible than non-philosophers to apparently irrational order effects and framing effects in their evaluation of moral dilemmas.

* More recently, I've turned my attention to philosophical pedagogy. In an unpublished critical review from 2013, I found little good empirical evidence that business ethics or medical ethics instruction has any practical effect on student behavior. I have been following up with some empirical research of my own with several different collaborators. None of it is complete yet, but preliminary results tend to confirm the lack of practical effect, except perhaps when there's the right kind of narrative or emotional engagement. On grounds of armchair plausibility, I tend to favor multi-causal, canceling explanations over the view that philosophical reflection is simply inert (contra Jon Haidt); thus I'm inclined to explore how backfire effects might on average tend to cancel positive effects. It was a post on the possible backfire effects of teaching ethics that prompted Rickless's comment.

Rickless's Objection:
(shared with permission, adding lineation and emphasis for clarity)

Rickless: And I’ll be honest, Eric, all this stuff about how unethical ethicists are, and how counterproductive their courses might be, really bothers me. It’s not that I think that ethics courses can’t be improved or that all ethicists are wonderful people. But please understand that the takeaway from this kind of research and speculation, as it will likely be processed by journalists and others who may well pick up and run with it, will be that philosophers are shits whose courses turn their students into shits. And this may lead to the defunding of philosophy, the removal of ethics courses from business school, and, to my mind, a host of other consequences that are almost certainly far worse than the ills that you are looking to prevent.

Schwitzgebel: Samuel, I understand that concern. You might be right about the effects. However, I also think that if it is correct that ethics classes as standardly taught have little of the positive effect that some administrators and students hope for from them, we as a society should know that. It should be explored in a rigorous way. On the possibly bright side, a new dimension of my research is starting to examine conditions under which teaching does have a positive measurable effect on real-world behavior. I am hopeful that understanding that better will lead us to teach better.

Rickless: In theory, what you say about knowing that courses have little or no positive effect makes sense. But in practice, I have the following concerns.

First, no set of studies could possibly measure all the positive and negative effects of teaching ethics this way or that way. You just can’t control all the potentially relevant variables, in part because you don’t know what all the potentially relevant variables are, in part because you can’t fix all the parameters with only one parameter allowed to vary.

Second, you need to be thinking very seriously about whether your own motives (particularly motives related to bursting bubbles and countering conventional wisdom) are playing a role in your research, because those motives can have unseen effects on the way that research is conducted, as well as the conclusions drawn from it. I am not imputing bad motives to you. Far from it, and quite the opposite. But I think that all researchers, myself included, want their research to be striking and interesting, sometimes surprising.

Third, the tendency of researchers is to draw conclusions that go beyond the actual evidence.

Fourth, the combination of all these factors leads to conclusions that have a significant likelihood of being mistaken.

Fifth, those conclusions will likely be taken much more seriously by the powers-that-be than by the researchers themselves. All the qualifiers inserted by researchers are usually removed by journalists and administrators.

Sixth, the consequences on the profession if negative results are taken seriously by persons in positions of power will be dire.

Under the circumstances, it seems to me that research that is designed to reveal negative facts about the way things are taught had better be airtight before being publicized. The problem is that there is no such research. This doesn’t mean that there is no answer to problems of ineffective teaching. But that is an issue for another day.

My Reply:

On the issue of motives: Of course it is fun to have striking research! Given my general skepticism about self-knowledge, including of motives, I won't attempt self-diagnosis. However, I will say that except for recent studies that are not yet complete, I have published every empirical study I've done on this topic, with no file-drawered results. I am not selecting only the striking material for publication. Also, in my recent pedagogy research I am collaborating with other researchers who very much hope for positive results.

On the likelihood of being mistaken: I acknowledge that any one study is likely to be mistaken. However, my results are pretty consistent across a wide variety of methods and behavior types, including some issues specifically chosen with the thought that they might show ethicists in a good light (the charity and vegetarianism measures in Schwitzgebel and Rust 2014). I think this adds to credibility, though it would be better if other researchers with different methods and theoretical perspectives attempted to confirm or disconfirm our findings. There is currently one replication attempt ongoing among German-language philosophers, so we will see how that plays out!

On whether the powers-that-be will take the conclusions more seriously than the researchers: I interpret Rickless here as meaning that they will tend to remove the caveats and go for the sexy headline. I do think that is possible. One potentially alarming fact from this point of view is that my most-cited and seemingly best-known study is the only study where I found ethicists seeming to behave worse than the comparison groups: the study of missing library books. However, it was also my first published study on the topic, so I don't know to what extent the extra attention is a primacy effect.

On possibly dire consequences: The most likely path for dire consequences seems to me to be this: Part of the administrative justification for requiring ethics classes might be the implicit expectation that university-level ethics instruction positively influences moral behavior. If this expectation is removed, so too is part of the administrative justification for ethics instruction.

Rickless's conclusion appears to be that no empirical research on this topic, with negative or null results, should be published unless it is "airtight", and that it is practically impossible for such research to be airtight. From this I infer that Rickless thinks either that (a.) only positive results should be published, while negative or null results remain unpublished because inevitably not airtight, or that (b.) no studies of this sort should be published at all, whether positive, negative, or null.

Rickless's argument has merit, and I see the path to this conclusion. Certainly there is a risk to the discipline in publishing negative or null results, and one ought to be careful.

However, both (a) and (b) seem to be bad policy.

On (a): To think that only positive results should be published (or more moderately that we should have a much higher bar for negative or null results than for positive ones) runs contrary to the standards of open science that have recently received so much attention in the social psychology replication crisis. In the long run it is probably contrary to the interests of science, philosophy, and society as a whole for us to pursue a policy that will create an illusory disproportion of positive research.

That said, there is a much more moderate strand of (a) that I could endorse: Being cautious and sober about one's research, rather than yielding to the temptation to inflate dubious, sexy results for the sake of publicity. I hope that in my own work I generally meet this standard, and I would recommend that same standard for both positive and negative or null research.

On (b): It seems at least as undesirable to discourage all empirical research on these topics. Don't we want to know the relationship between philosophical moral reflection and real-world moral behavior? Even if you think that studying the behavior of professional ethicists in particular is unilluminating, surely studying the effects of philosophical pedagogy is worthwhile. We should want to know what sorts of effects our courses have on the students who take them and under what conditions -- especially if part of the administrative justification for requiring ethics courses is the assumption that they do have a practical effect. To reject the whole enterprise of empirically researching the effects of studying philosophy because there's a risk that some studies will show that studying philosophy has little practical impact on real-world choices -- that seems radically antiscientific.

Rickless raises legitimate worries. I think the best practical response is more research, by more research groups, with open sharing of results, and open discussions of the issue by people working from a wide variety of perspectives. In the long run, I hope that some of my null results can lay the groundwork for a fuller understanding of the moral psychology of philosophy. Understanding the range of conditions under which philosophical moral reflection does and does not have practical effects on real-world behavior should ultimately empower rather than disempower philosophy as a discipline.

[image source]