Scholarlink

<p>In this critical response to John Doris’s book “<i>Character Trouble: Undisciplined Essays on Moral Agency and Personality</i>,” I analyze his updated take on character skepticism—the view that character traits have surprisingly limited influence on behavior across diverse situations—from a philosophy of science perspective. While I find his updated view compelling, I challenge his reliance on Cohen’s conventional effect size benchmarks, arguing that qualitative labels for effect sizes obscure rather than clarify the practical significance of results. I propose that Doris’s strongest argument lies in what I call the “disproportion thesis”—the view that personality variables exert less influence, and situational variables more influence, on behavior than our intuitive expectations would predict, creating a disconcerting gap. However, I argue that this thesis requires a more explicit quantification of those prior expectations. I conclude that character skepticism would benefit from formulations of its insights in a way that directly addresses character theorists’ empirical commitments, avoiding vague benchmarks and contextualizing effects.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Character Trouble in Times of Metascientific Trouble

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月30日

查看全文
  • Felipe Romero

摘要

In this critical response to John Doris’s book “Character Trouble: Undisciplined Essays on Moral Agency and Personality,” I analyze his updated take on character skepticism—the view that character traits have surprisingly limited influence on behavior across diverse situations—from a philosophy of science perspective. While I find his updated view compelling, I challenge his reliance on Cohen’s conventional effect size benchmarks, arguing that qualitative labels for effect sizes obscure rather than clarify the practical significance of results. I propose that Doris’s strongest argument lies in what I call the “disproportion thesis”—the view that personality variables exert less influence, and situational variables more influence, on behavior than our intuitive expectations would predict, creating a disconcerting gap. However, I argue that this thesis requires a more explicit quantification of those prior expectations. I conclude that character skepticism would benefit from formulations of its insights in a way that directly addresses character theorists’ empirical commitments, avoiding vague benchmarks and contextualizing effects.