The article is a summary of recent experimental data on anchoring heuristic and models that seek to explain it. Anchoring heuristic represents one of the mechanisms of decision making in situations of limited information or time, by using a comparison standard called – an anchor. Given the supposed wide usage of this heuristic, authors explore the unconscious character of the heuristic and ways of making its biasing effects less prominent. Apart from the standard experimental design in which anchor is directly (...) connected to the judgment in question, evidence shows that people can be anchored indirectly, even when the anchor is perceived unconsciously. Newest data show that anchoring effect should be explained by two distinct processes. In the concluding remarks, authors consider broader implications of anchoring for the field of social cognition.U članku se opisuju noviji eksperimentalni nalazi vezani uz heuristiku sidrenja kao i modeli koji ih objašnjavaju. Heuristika sidrenja označava jedan od načina na koji ljudi donose odluke u nedostatku informacija i/ili vremena, a podrazumijeva korištenje standarda usporedbe kako bi se došlo do željene procjene. S obzirom na pretpostavljenu široku upotrebu ove heuristike, u članku se istražuju teoretska objašnjenja, razjašnjavaju razlozi zbog kojih je utjecaj te heuristike nedostupan svijesti te kako umanjiti njome izazvanu pristranost u razmišljanju. Osim standardnog nacrta kojim se ispituje ovaj fenomen opisani su i dokazi prema kojima sidro može vršiti svoj utjecaj i kad se ne dovodi u direktnu vezu s procjenom, čak i kada je percipirano nesvjesnim putem. Najnoviji skup istraživanja pak pokazuje da se heuristika sidrenja, prvotno zamišljena kao jedinstveni mehanizam, zapravo može podijeliti na dva bitno različita procesa. Zaključno se razmatraju kakve bi implikacije ovaj razvoj u istraživanjima mogao imati za područje socijalne kognicije općenito. (shrink)

The article describes a troubled history of eugenics in the US, from its beginnings at the end of the 19th century, through the whole of the 20th. It is a part of a larger historical study on eugenics. It focuses on Davenport, Laughlin, Estabrook and the Eugenic Record Office, on the early racist eugenicists like Grant and Ross, and on sterilization legislation in the twenties and thirties. The intention however was to put the historical debate into a contemporary context, or (...) at least to show that some eugenic ideas have lived long after everybody thought they were dead. There are some hints and quotations that show it might still be possible to misuse sterilisation in the US today. (shrink)

U članku se opisuje burna povijest eugenike u Sjedinjenim Državama tijekom cijelog 20. stoljeća. Premda je nacistička eugenika notornija po svojim groznim posljedicama, činjenica je da je većina američkih saveznih država imala zakone koji su dopuštali sterilizaciju “nesposobnih” i da je golem broj ljudi prisilno steriliziran. Neki su zakoni ukinuti tek 1967. ali postoje i naznake zakonodavstva o sterilizaciji koje bi mogle dopustiti zloupotrebe karakteristične za rane godine 20. stoljeća. Međutim, glavnina članka opisuje ideološke izjave najvećih američkih eugeničara poput Davenporta, (...) Laughlina, Estabrooka iz Eugenic Record Officea, Granta, Rossa i drugih, kao i socijalne motive koje su eugeniku činili tako popularnom ideologijom sve do Drugog svjetskog rata. Jedna od sugestija članka jest da su eugeničke ideje i dalje latentne u drukčijim oblicima “znanstvenog rasizma” koji traje i danas.The article describes a troubled history of eugenics in the US, from its beginnings at the end of the 19th century, through the whole of the 20th. It is a part of a larger historical study on eugenics. It focuses on Davenport, Laughlin, Estabrook and the Eugenic Record Office, on the early racist eugenicists like Grant and Ross, and on sterilization legislation in the twenties and thirties. The intention however was to put the historical debate into a contemporary context, or at least to show that some eugenic ideas have lived long after everybody thought they were dead. There are some hints and quotations that show it might still be possible to misuse sterilisation in the US today. (shrink)

Autor secira polemiku otvorenu osvrtom Tončija Matulića na knjigu Darka Polšeka Sudbina odabranih objavljenom u Filozofskim istraživanjima 98/2005: 671-693. Okosnica ovoga članka je seciranje Matulićevih stavova kako nema bitne razlike između stare eugenike i nove, i njegovih sveobuhvatnih antiliberalnih, paternalističkih i navodno „bioetičkih“ argumenata. Polšek koristi argumentaciju J. S. Milla iz djela O slobodi i tvrdi da demokratsko i pravedno društvo mora poštivati i „puke želje“ budućih roditelja u ostvarenju njihovih prava da odgajaju djecu, kao i da bude u mogućnosti, (...) između ostalog, izbjeći daleko veće opasnosti kolektivizma i svih vrsta intervencija države u privatne stvari što je i iznjedrilo sve ružne oblike eugenika u prošlosti. Štoviše, Polšek raspravlja o tome da svatko treba poštivati te liberalne principe kako bi ozbiljno shvatio neosporne principe bioetike: osobnu autonomiju, neovisnost i jednakost.The author dissects a polemic by Tonèi Matuliæ against Polšek’s book Sudbina odabranih printed in Filozofska istra®ivanja,98 , pp. 671–693. The main point of the article is a dissection of Matuliæ’s views that thereis no fundamental difference between old eugenics and new, and of his overall anti-liberal, paternalist,and allegedly ‘bioetical’ contentions. Polšek uses J. St. Mill’s arguments from On Libertyand argues that a democratic and a just society has to respect ‘mere wishes‘ of prospective parentswhen fulfilling their right to bear children, as to be able, among other things, to avoid far greaterdangers of collectivism and all sorts of state intervention in private matters, from which ugly formsof eugenics arose in the past. Moreover, Polšek argues that one has to respect these liberal principles in order to take seriously uncontested principlesof bioethics: of personal autonomy, independence, and equality. (shrink)