title: Future intentions, plans, and the problem of Buridan's Ass

authors: Ulatowski, Joseph W.

abstract: Suppose that:
1. an agent, S, is able to choose only one option, x or y;
2. S prefers neither x nor y in comparison to the other; and
3. S prefers having at least one of x or y to having none.1
Call this “the problem of Buridan’s Ass.” A theory of practical reasoning is supposed to tell us what to do. Which option, x or y, should S choose? Which theory of practical reasoning tells S to choose that option? While we are capable of overcoming the above situation, it seems that our choosing to act did not rely upon a theory of practical reasoning.
In response to the puzzle above, I show how Davidson’s theory faces a pair of difficulties, which are the result of his overly weak conception of the role of intentions and plans in practical reasoning. On one hand, Davidson’s theory seems unable to accommodate the possibility of a future intention in the face of equally desirable future options, and, on the other hand, his theory cannot ensure that rational intentions are agglomerative. Upon further inspection, however, it appears that Davidson’s theory is not an overly weak conception since he does seem to rule out the role of plans in practical reasoning. But even including plans in practical reasoning, as Bratman’s theory of intention does, fails to solve the seemingly insoluble problem of equipollent preference.

text: Future intentions, plans, and the problem of Buridan's Ass Suppose that:
1. an agent, S, is able to choose only one option, x or y;
2. S prefers neither x nor y in comparison to the other; and
3. S prefers having at least one of x or y to having none.1
Call this “the problem of Buridan’s Ass.” A theory of practical reasoning is supposed to tell us what to do. Which option, x or y, should S choose? Which theory of practical reasoning tells S to choose that option? While we are capable of overcoming the above situation, it seems that our choosing to act did not rely upon a theory of practical reasoning.
In response to the puzzle above, I show how Davidson’s theory faces a pair of difficulties, which are the result of his overly weak conception of the role of intentions and plans in practical reasoning. On one hand, Davidson’s theory seems unable to accommodate the possibility of a future intention in the face of equally desirable future options, and, on the other hand, his theory cannot ensure that rational intentions are agglomerative. Upon further inspection, however, it appears that Davidson’s theory is not an overly weak conception since he does seem to rule out the role of plans in practical reasoning. But even including plans in practical reasoning, as Bratman’s theory of intention does, fails to solve the seemingly insoluble problem of equipollent preference.

year: 2021

title: Reactive Strength as a Metric for Informing Return-to-Sport Decisions: A Case-Control Study

authors: Teichmann, Jorg

subjects: science & technology

abstract: Objective: Current return-to-sport decisions are primarily based on elapsed time since surgery or injury and strength measures. Given data that show rates of successful return to competitive sport at around 55%, there is strong rationale for adopting tools that will better inform return-to-sport decisions. The authors’ objective was to assess reactive strength as a metric for informing return-to-sport decisions. 
Design: Case-control design. 
Methods: Fifteen elite athletes from national sports teams (23 [6.0] y) in the final phase of their return-to-sport protocol following a unilateral knee injury and 16 age-matched control athletes (22 [4.6] y) performed a unilateral isometric strength test and 24-cm drop jump test. Pairwise comparisons were used to determine differences between legs within groups and differences in interleg asymmetry between groups. 
Results: Strength measures did not distinguish the control from the rehabilitation group; however, clear differences in the degree of asymmetry were apparent between the control and rehabilitation groups for contact time (Cohen d = 0.56; −0.14 to 1.27; 8.2%; P = .113), flight time (d = 1.10; 0.44 to 1.76; 16.0%; P = .002), and reactive strength index (d = 1.27; 0.50 to 2.04; 22.4%; P = .002). 
Conclusion: Reactive strength data provide insight into functional deficits that persist into the final phase of a return-to-sport protocol. The authors’ findings support the use of dynamic assessment tools to inform return-to-sport decisions to limit potential for injury.

text: Reactive Strength as a Metric for Informing Return-to-Sport Decisions: A Case-Control Study Objective: Current return-to-sport decisions are primarily based on elapsed time since surgery or injury and strength measures. Given data that show rates of successful return to competitive sport at around 55%, there is strong rationale for adopting tools that will better inform return-to-sport decisions. The authors’ objective was to assess reactive strength as a metric for informing return-to-sport decisions. 
Design: Case-control design. 
Methods: Fifteen elite athletes from national sports teams (23 [6.0] y) in the final phase of their return-to-sport protocol following a unilateral knee injury and 16 age-matched control athletes (22 [4.6] y) performed a unilateral isometric strength test and 24-cm drop jump test. Pairwise comparisons were used to determine differences between legs within groups and differences in interleg asymmetry between groups. 
Results: Strength measures did not distinguish the control from the rehabilitation group; however, clear differences in the degree of asymmetry were apparent between the control and rehabilitation groups for contact time (Cohen d = 0.56; −0.14 to 1.27; 8.2%; P = .113), flight time (d = 1.10; 0.44 to 1.76; 16.0%; P = .002), and reactive strength index (d = 1.27; 0.50 to 2.04; 22.4%; P = .002). 
Conclusion: Reactive strength data provide insight into functional deficits that persist into the final phase of a return-to-sport protocol. The authors’ findings support the use of dynamic assessment tools to inform return-to-sport decisions to limit potential for injury.

year: 2022-01-01

title: Iarararararī

authors: Maxwell, Te Kahautu

abstract: Poi. Lyrics composed by Raniera Poihipi rāua ko Te Kahautu Maxwell. Musical score composed by Te Kahautu Maxwell, Pixie Rogers, Tama Hata, Raharuha Mitai, Renee Mitai, Maisey Rika, Ramari Sherman, Te Rina Ransfield. Performed by Ōpōtiki Mai Tawhiti (Kapa Haka group) (4mins)

Waiata Tira: Aroha
Whakaeke: Haere mai rā
Mōteatea: Te Pātere a Te Turuki
Poi: Iarararararī
Waiata ā ringa: Taku Mana Māori Motuhake
Haka: Waiwharangi
Whakawātea: Āio

text: Iarararararī Poi. Lyrics composed by Raniera Poihipi rāua ko Te Kahautu Maxwell. Musical score composed by Te Kahautu Maxwell, Pixie Rogers, Tama Hata, Raharuha Mitai, Renee Mitai, Maisey Rika, Ramari Sherman, Te Rina Ransfield. Performed by Ōpōtiki Mai Tawhiti (Kapa Haka group) (4mins)

Waiata Tira: Aroha
Whakaeke: Haere mai rā
Mōteatea: Te Pātere a Te Turuki
Poi: Iarararararī
Waiata ā ringa: Taku Mana Māori Motuhake
Haka: Waiwharangi
Whakawātea: Āio

year: 2020-02-06