Unwise Choice Research Articles

On the use of compactly supported density estimates in problems of discrimination

It is often proposed ( R. P. W. Duin, I.E.E.E. Trans. Comput. 25 (1976) , 1175–1179; J. D. F. Habbema, J. Hermans, and J. Remme, “Compstat 1978” (Corsten and Hermans, Eds.), pp. 178–185, “Compstat 1974” (G. Bruckman, Ed.), pp. 101–110; [16] , [17] ) that Kullback-Leibler loss or likelihood cross-validation be used to select the window size when a kernel density estimate is constructed for purposes of discrimination. Some numerical work ( E. F. Schuster and G. G. Gregory, “Fifteenth Annual Symposium on the Interface of Computer Science and Statistics” (W. F. Eddy, Ed.), pp. 295–298, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1981 ) argues against this proposal, but a major theoretical contribution ( Y. S. Chow, S. Geman, and L. D. Wu, Ann. Statist. 11 (1983) , 25–38) demonstrates consistency in the important case of compactly supported kernels. In the present paper we argue that in the context of Kullback-Leibler loss and likelihood cross-validation, compactly supported kernels are an unwise choice. They can result in unnecessarily large loss, and can lead to infinite loss when likelihood cross-validation is used to select window size. Compactly supported kernels often dictate that window size be chosen by trading off one part of the variance component of loss against the other, with scant regard for bias; compare the classical theory, where minimum loss is achieved by trading off variance against bias.

Mothers are easily worried.

Mothers are easily worried and this cannot always be avoided. But mothers are often worried unnecessarily by insensitivity, unwise choice of words, failure to determine what they are really concerned about, by criticizing them for being over anxious and ignoring their fears, or by inadequate explanation and counselling. Much anxiety is caused by unwise remarks in an assessment clinic or by a doctor's failure to know the normal and abnormal variations in development, behaviour, or physical growth and physical features with resulting unnecessary medicines, surgery, or special investigations. It is easy to implant a feeling of guilt by putting the blame for a child's behaviour or handicap on the parents. Screening procedures in the newborn may cause much parental anxiety.

The Counterphobic Mechanism as a Force in Mate Selection and Marital Stability

When a marriage therapist uncovers the fundamental problems of his patients, he frequently wonders on what basis the couple was ever attracted to each other. Indeed, sometimes it seems as if the whole field of marriage therapy is dependent upon the prevalence of marriages in which each individual has made an unwise choice of mate. Marriages, popularly believed to be made in heaven, to the marriage therapist appear to have been made on a battlefield. Why do people select one another for marriage? What factors determine marital stability or instability? Certainly no simplistic answer is forthcoming for these questions; however, in our experience with treating over 100 troubled marriages in the last nine years, a theme-namely, counterphobia-appears over and over again as one of the significant forces in choice of mate and in marital stability. It is our purpose to discuss this recurring theme of counterphobia in this paper.