However Maslow 1943

However Maslow 1943


“However” (Maslow, 1943), “it” (Holtgraves, 1997) “may” (Foot, 1972) “be” (Bloom, 1971) “just as likely” (Gambetta, 2000) “to rely on” (Bartolo, Cubelli, Della Sala & Drei, 2003) “another” (Ricoeur, 1992) “person’s” (Clarke, 1964) “idea” (Ormerod, Twidale, Sas, Gomes da Silva & McKnight, 2006) “to support the construction of” (Belland, Glazewski, & Richardson, 2008) “your own” (Marantz, 1997), “as it may be” (Buonocore, 1955; Kline, 2000) “to refute” (O’brien, Braine, Yang, 1994) “an idea” (see Ormerod, Twidale, Sas, Gomes da Silva & McKnight, 2006) “by” (Lauder, 1994) “contrasting” (Iannetti, Salomons, Moayedi, Mouraux, & Davis, 2013) “or” (Kahneman & Miller, 1986) “contradicting” (Ritter, Downey, Soderland, & Etzioni, 2008) “it” (Hannaford, 1996).


Referential Notes


I use the adverb “however” from Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review50(4), 370. That said, it may also have been drawn from another article, although I can’t remember.


I use the pronoun “it” here in the spirit of, and drawn from, Holtgraves, T. (1997). Styles of language use: Individual and cultural variability in conversational indirectness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology73(3), 624. It is by no means the only word I could have used for this.


I may or may not have used the verb “may” from Foot, P. (1972). Morality as a system of hypothetical imperatives. The Philosophical Review81(3), 305-316. It is entirely possible, although sort of vaguely.


I definitely used the verb “be” from Bloom, L. (1971). Why not pivot grammar? Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders36(1), 40-50. Why wouldn’t I have, and how would I really know if in doing so, I existed?


The combination “just as likely” emerged from accidentally discovering Gambetta, D. (2000). Can we trust trust. Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations13, 213-237. Locating the phrase “just as likely” through a search engine yielded a probability and improbability of 0; 1-1/n where n = 1. My rigour is validated by my trustworthiness.


The next combination, “to rely on”, was modified from Bartolo, A., Cubelli, R., Della Sala, S., & Drei, S. (2003). Pantomimes are special gestures which rely on working memory. Brain and cognition53(3), 483-494. This was achieved by attempting to remember the gist of the article when asked by a colleague to which I responded “It’s sort of about working to rely on non-verbal gestures in order to remember things”. No, I didn’t gesticulate while I spoke. I didn’t.


Not to be confused with Kristeva’s inter-textual “another”, the word “another” was another person’s idea, not my own. Originally, I had used the word ‘Foucault’. I then changed my mind to the word ‘Barthes’. I then felt I could actually leave the name blank and imply any ‘another’ with a short extended underline. Finally, another read it and was confused. Distraught, I was inexplicably turned towards Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as another. University of Chicago Press, and I was overjoyed. From my laughing heart, thank-you Ricoeur.


While trusting a single authored article and confessing to also being the only author of this text, I relied on Clarke, B. L. (1964). Multiple authorship trends in scientific papers. Science143(3608), 822-824, for use of the possessive noun “person’s”.


I owe the idea to write this article as well as the borrowing of the word “idea” from Dix, Alan, Tom Ormerod, Michael Twidale, Corina Sas, Paula Alexandra Gomes da Silva, and Lorna McKnight. “Why bad ideas are a good idea.” (2006): 1-6. In this way, I am inclusive of the potential qualification of an idea by both positive and negative adjectives. That said, I did not really draw from Faes, S., & Dormond, O. (2015). Systemic buffers in cancer therapy: the example of sodium bicarbonate; stupid idea or wise remedy. Med Chem5, 540-4, although it does bear mentioning.


The phrase “to support the construction of” was predictably drawn from Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2008). A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development56(4), 401-422. Initially, it was hastily taken from Kisch, B., & Langefors, P. (2005). Incremental launching versus scaffolding for construction of prestressed concrete bridges, likely because of the sentence “Perhaps the most basic way of erection is to use scaffolds or falsework to support the construction of a bridge”.  However, I thought it would be immature of me to publish the quote in case of a discerning reader.


The words “your own” are relative, not based on an imaginary argument with Einstein that they may in fact be relativistic. They simultaneously refer both to my own ideas as well as to the reader’s. While I could easily claim that they were my own, I would be plagiarizing from Marantz, A. (1997). No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania working papers in linguistics4(2), 14.


At times scholars only cite a collection of words, completely ripped out of context, just to support their arguments. To be truthful I did so when I extracted the term “as it may be” from Buonocore, M. G. (1955). A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. Journal of dental research34(6), 849-853. The entire cite from which it came is actually “in as much as it may be”. Since we are in a confessional mood I should also admit that I also might have borrowed from Kline, D. G. (2000). Nerve surgery as it is now and as it may be. Neurosurgery46(6), 1285. How I happened to take from two separate sources that both have to do with dental surgery is as much a mystery as how the article by Chau, R., Hamel, S., & Nellis, W. J. (2011) entitled ‘Chemical processes in the deep interior of Uranus’. Nature communications2, 203), was ever allowed to be published.


Use of the word verb “refute” is a strong act of defiance, as is irony. Thus my borrowing from O’brien, D. P., Braine, M. D., & Yang, Y. (1994). Propositional reasoning by mental models? Simple to refute in principle and in practice. Psychological Review101(4), 711, is both an acceptance of assertions made in the article and a refutation of the refutation of propositional reasoning by mental models, as simple.


Consider the assertion for a moment that most scholarly writing exemplifies the definition of the preposition “by”: an action with a particular purpose. The action of putting forth the highly cited sentence that unleashed many a footnote at the beginning of this ‘article’, may in some ways contrast any particular purpose. This is especially the case when you consider that the word “by” in the sentence was cultivated from Amundson, R., & Lauder, G. V. (1994). Function without purpose. Biology and Philosophy9(4), 443-469.


The verb “contrasting” was splintered out of me from Iannetti, G. D., Salomons, T. V., Moayedi, M., Mouraux, A., & Davis, K. D. (2013). Beyond metaphor: contrasting mechanisms of social and physical pain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences17(8), 371-378. Particularly attractive was my inability to contrast a metaphor with a simile when attempting to grasp the ideas in the article. It was like I was forced to write metaphors and they all came out similes.


Use of the conjunction “or” might have come from two alternatives. The first from Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological review93(2), 136. The other possible source might have been one of the many random article searches conducted in google scholar with the term “this or that”, yielding “about 5, 300, 000 results in .08 seconds”, the first of which, was de Solla Price, D. J., de Solla Price, D. J., de Solla Price, D. J., & de Solla Price, D. J. (1986). Little science, big science… and beyond (p. 301). New York: Columbia University Press.


Disappointingly clever and entirely useful for the word “contradicting” I drew from Ritter, A., Downey, D., Soderland, S., & Etzioni, O. (2008, October). It’s a contradiction—no, it’s not: a case study using functional relations. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 11-20). Association for Computational Linguistics.


It, referring to the word “it” previously mentioned, is another pronoun, referring to an idea. It could refer to Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea. The Sciences35(3), 34-40. It might also refer to Sen, A. (2011). The idea of justice. Harvard University Press. In fact, there are so many ideas to which it could refer to that it, taken as an idea, may well owe its very existence to Hannaford, I. (1996). Race: The history of an idea in the West. Woodrow Wilson Center Press.