Accepting the null hypothesis

This article concerns acceptance of the null hypothesis that one variable has no effect on another. Despite frequent opinions to the contrary, this null hypothesis can be correct in some situations. Appropriate criteria for accepting the null hypothesis are (1) that the null hypothesis is possible; (2) that the results are consistent with the null hypothesis; and (3) that the experiment was a good effort to find an effect. These criteria are consistent with the meta-rules for psychology. The good-effort criterion is subjective, which is somewhat undesirable, but the alternative—never accepting the null hypothesis—is neither desirable nor practical.     

Dyslexia and the anchoring-deficit hypothesis

The 'core deficit' of dyslexia has been characterized by different researchers in terms of either phonological impairments or of difficulties in processing basic visual and auditory stimuli. Recent findings suggest that a single type of impairment in the dynamics of perception, which affects the efficiency of short-term memory, might underlie the broad range of difficulties of dyslexics. Experimental findings show that the general population quickly and automatically tunes around incoming stimuli, 'anchors to them' and performs faster and more accurately when these stimuli are subsequently repeated. Dyslexic individuals fail to benefit from stimulus-specific repetitions. This deficit can account for phonological, working memory, visual and auditory difficulties, in addition to the greater sensitivity of dyslexics to external noise.     

Evaluating the stage learning hypothesis

A procedure for evaluating the Genevan stage learning hypothesis is illustrated by analyzing Inhelder, Sinclair, and Bovet's (Learning and the development of cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1974) guided learning experiments. The method is a chi-square-based model fitting strategy which enables comparisons to be made among different models. The method eschews critical measurement problems and is easily implemented. There appears little evidence for the Genevan position, although failure to report critical data and sample size considerations makes definitive evaluation of the Genevan position difficult. Suggestions for future research are proposed.     

Questioning the social intelligence hypothesis

The social intelligence hypothesis posits that complex cognition and enlarged "executive brains" evolved in response to challenges that are associated with social complexity. This hypothesis has been well supported, but some recent data are inconsistent with its predictions. It is becoming increasingly clear that multiple selective agents, and non-selective constraints, must have acted to shape cognitive abilities in humans and other animals. The task now is to develop a larger theoretical framework that takes into account both inter-specific differences and similarities in cognition. This new framework should facilitate consideration of how selection pressures that are associated with sociality interact with those that are imposed by non-social forms of environmental complexity, and how both types of functional demands interact with phylogenetic and developmental constraints.     

“荷兰假说”带给我们的启示——对哮喘和COPD认识的争论

1961年,Orie教授提出荷兰理论,认为哮喘与慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)为同一病种而具有不同表现.而当前理论认为二者为独立疾病而有相似表现.争议持续至今已整整50年.哮喘与COPD的重叠现象一直让临床医生感到困惑,并带来临床的一些实际问题.我们期待更多的研究以及将来的指南给予更明确的阐述.     

Trauma: the seductive hypothesis

In much of contemporary culture, "trauma" signifies not so much terrible experience as a particular context for understanding and responding to a terrible experience. In therapy, in the media, and in international interventions, the traumatized are seen not simply as people who suffer and so are deserving of concern and aid; they are seen also as people who suffer for us, who are given special dispensation. They are treated with awe if they tell a certain kind of trauma story, and are ignored or vilified if they tell another. Trauma has become not simply a story of pain and its treatment, but a host of sub-stories involving the commodification of altruism, the justification of violence and revenge, the entry point into "true experience," and the place where voyeurism and witnessing intersect. Trauma is today the stuff not only of suffering but of fantasy. Historically, trauma theory and treatment have shown a tension, exemplified in the writings of Freud and Janet, between those who view trauma as formative and those who view it as exceptional. The latter view, that trauma confers exceptional status deserving of special privilege, has gained ground in recent years and has helped to shape the way charitable dollars are distributed, how the traumatized are presented in the media, how governments justify and carry out international responses to trauma, and how therapists attend to their traumatized patients. This response to trauma reflects an underlying, unarticulated belief system derived from narcissism; indeed, trauma has increasingly become the venue, in society and in treatment, where narcissism is permitted to prevail.