The current article aims to provide an up-to-date synopsis of available techniques to study affect dynamics using intensive longitudinal data. We do so by introducing the following eight dichotomies that help elucidate what kind of data one has, what process aspects are of interest, and what research questions are being considered: single- versus multiple-person data; univariate versus multivariate models; stationary versus nonstationary models; linear versus nonlinear models; discrete time versus continuous time models; discrete versus continuous variables; time versus frequency domain; (...) and modeling the process versus computing descriptives. In addition, we discuss what we believe to be the most urging future challenges regarding the modeling of affect dynamics. (shrink)

This article describes some potential uses of Bayesian estimation for time-series and panel data models by incorporating information from prior probabilities in addition to observed data. Drawing on econometrics and other literatures we illustrate the use of informative “shrinkage” or “small variance” priors while extending prior work on the general cross-lagged panel model. Using a panel dataset of national income and subjective well-being we describe three key benefits of these priors. First, they shrink parameter estimates toward zero or toward each (...) other for time-varying parameters, which lends additional support for an income → SWB effect that is not supported with maximum likelihood. This is useful because, second, these priors increase model parsimony and the stability of estimates and thus improve out-of-sample predictions and interpretability, which means estimated effect should also be more trustworthy than under ML. Third, these priors allow estimating otherwise under-identified models under ML, allowing higher-order lagged effects and time-varying parameters that are otherwise impossible to estimate using observed data alone. In conclusion we note some of the responsibilities that come with the use of priors which, departing from typical commentaries on their scientific applications, we describe as involving reflection on how best to apply modeling tools to address matters of worldly concern. (shrink)

This paper aims at showing that all scholars writing on De iure praedae should refer to the extant manuscript of the work, or to the new electronic edition when it becomes available, to check the passages they use in their arguments. The printed text as edited by Hamaker, though generally reliable as a nineteenth-century edition, must now be considered outdated because of its suppression of all previous stages of the text, as well as its replacement of the original punctuation (...) with a new one, which more than once does affect the meaning of the text. Moreover, Hamaker's edition gives no authentic image of the sources of Grotius's thought. Secondly, signalling a need for more detailed textual research on IPC, the present paper calls attention to Grotius's extensive changes in chapter 10, and to the contribution which philological approaches might make to answering questions such as that regarding IPC's intended audience. (shrink)

Hamaker's conjecture κομâ at Lysias 16.18 was adopted by Rauchenstein in his influential edition of 1869 and soon given powerful endorsement by Jebb and by Shuckburgh. Successive later editors and commentators have seen no reason to demur: Thalheim, Adams, Hude, Gernet and Bizos, Lamb, and finally Edwards and Usher all adopt κομâ, and, where they comment, unanimously cite Aristophanic parallels in support of a connection between longhaired affectation and ‘oligarchic’ affiliations; some also adduce the expression ảπ’Ψεως in justification. But (...) this is an egregious instance of unwarranted tampering with a sound text. τóλμα is a quality conspicuously displayed by Mantitheus, on his own account of his character, words, and actions. (shrink)

Hamaker's conjecture κομâ (for τολμâ,sic) at Lysias 16.18 was adopted by Rauchenstein in his influential edition of 1869 and soon given powerful endorsement by Jebb and by Shuckburgh. Successive later editors and commentators have seen no reason to demur: Thalheim, Adams, Hude, Gernet and Bizos, Lamb, and finally Edwards and Usher all adopt κομâ, and, where they comment, unanimously cite Aristophanic parallels (especiallyEq.580) in support of a connection between longhaired affectation and ‘oligarchic’ affiliations; some also adduce the expression ảπ’ὂΨεως (...) in justification. But this is an egregious instance of unwarranted tampering with a sound text. τóλμα is a quality conspicuously displayed by Mantitheus, on his own account of his character, words, and actions. (shrink)