Rhetorical questions emerging spontaneously in consultations can be used as a tool for developing self‐reflexivity and exploring the therapeutic alliance in the process of therapy with couples and families. This paper presents a technique based on the enunciation of rhetorical questions, which can point to an impasse in the process of therapy and contain a key to its resolution. The technique focuses on the distinctive feature of rhetorical questions as convening a paradoxical injunction: a question not intended as a question, while uttered as such. The technique in four steps is illustrated by examples from therapy, supervision, consultation, and self‐supervision. Its focus is the interlink between the therapeutic relationship and the process of therapy and it is informed by a second‐order cybernetics approach, dialogical practice, and the systemic literature on emotion. The technique can help develop curiosity in working with families, lead to unforeseen developments, and touch on prejudices not made explicit in previous therapeutic encounters. Whether we are acting as supervisors, therapists, or clients, the creation of a ‘secure enough’ context for rhetorical questions becomes critical to allow freeform exploration. 相似文献
Over the past five years the Artificial Intelligence Center at SRI has been developing a new technology to address the problem of automated information management within real- world contexts. The result of this work is a body of techniques for automated reasoning from evidence that we call evidential reasoning. The techniques are based upon the mathematics of belief functions developed by Dempster and Shafer and have been successfully applied to a variety of problems including computer vision, multisensor integration, and intelligence analysis.
We have developed both a formal basis and a framework for implementating automated reasoning systems based upon these techniques. Both the formal and practical approach can be divided into four parts: (1) specifying a set of distinct propositional spaces, (2) specifying the interrelationships among these spaces, (3) representing bodies of evidence as belief distributions, and (4) establishing paths of the bodies for evidence to move through these spaces by means of evidential operations, eventually converging on spaces where the target questions can be answered. These steps specify a means for arguing from multiple bodies of evidence toward a particular (probabilistic) conclusion. Argument construction is the process by which such evidential analyses are constructed and is the analogue of constructing proof trees in a logical context.
This technology features the ability to reason from uncertain, incomplete, and occasionally inaccurate information based upon seven evidential operations: fusion, discounting, translation, projection, summarization, interpretation, and gisting. These operation are theoretically sound but have intuitive appeal as well.
In implementing this formal approach, we have found that evidential arguments can be represented as graphs. To support the construction, modification, and interrogation of evidential arguments, we have developed Gister. Gister provides an interactive, menu-driven, graphical interface that allows these graphical structures to be easily manipulated.
Our goal is to provide effective automated aids to domain experts for argument construction. Gister represents our first attempt at such an aid. 相似文献
Several researchers have proposed solutions to control type I error rate in sequential designs. The use of Bayesian sequential design becomes more common; however, these designs are subject to inflation of the type I error rate. We propose a Bayesian sequential design for binary outcome using an alpha‐spending function to control the overall type I error rate. Algorithms are presented for calculating critical values and power for the proposed designs. We also propose a new stopping rule for futility. Sensitivity analysis is implemented for assessing the effects of varying the parameters of the prior distribution and maximum total sample size on critical values. Alpha‐spending functions are compared using power and actual sample size through simulations. Further simulations show that, when total sample size is fixed, the proposed design has greater power than the traditional Bayesian sequential design, which sets equal stopping bounds at all interim analyses. We also find that the proposed design with the new stopping for futility rule results in greater power and can stop earlier with a smaller actual sample size, compared with the traditional stopping rule for futility when all other conditions are held constant. Finally, we apply the proposed method to a real data set and compare the results with traditional designs. 相似文献