同一与差别的辩证法

无论是过去还是现在,唯物辩证法一直都在遭受资产阶级思想家们的攻讦。同时,马克思主义的敌人又在千方百计地伪造马克思主义与马克思主义辩证法,但对马克思主义辩证法的最重要的原理——发展即是对立面的斗争,却要进行排斥。马克思主义辩证法正是根据这个基本原理来研究同一与差别这对范畴的相互关系,并把这对范畴看作是辩证过程的明显表现之一。列宁写道:“辩证法是这样的一种学说:它研究对立怎样能够是同一的,又怎样成为同一的(怎样变成同一的),——在怎样的条件之下它们互相转化,成为同一的”。辩证唯物主义正是从这种立场出发,去批判抽象同一性的形而上学观念的。     

苏联就辩证法与系统方法举行会议

1979年6月俄罗斯联邦社会主义共和国高等和中等专业教育部的唯物辩证法问题委员会在列宁格勒举行了第9次扩大会议。在这次会议上,对“辩证法与系统方法”这一论题进行了讨论。六十来名科学家参加了这次会议。 (?)乌耶莫夫在“系统方法是辩证法具体化的现代形式”的报告中强调指出,哲学不应当把它的一般方法论直接运用于部门科学的事实和具体问     

How and why people accept personality feedback

The present experiment examined a model and a supplementary explanation of feedback acceptance. The model consisted of inventory responding under a yea-saying response set and the explanation stated that feedback is accepted because it is accurate and persuasive. "Neurotic" and stable undergraduates (n = 120) took several personality inventories and then rated the accuracies of personality "interpretations." As predicted, the model mirrored every detail of feedback acceptance; also, the accuracy of interpretations related most simply to their acceptance and the undergraduates changed their self-perceptions in the direction of the interpretations. Contrary to predictions, individual differences in persuasibility did influence feedback acceptance.     

Response strength in multiple periodic and aperiodic schedules

Responding in multiple periodic and aperiodic schedules of equal mean reinforcement rate was examined during extinction, satiation, and in the presence of various free-food schedules. In Experiments I and II, pigeons were trained on multiple variable-interval–fixed-interval schedules. Decreases in the rate of responding due to extinction, satiation, or food schedules were approximately equal regardless of the temporal pattern of reinforcer presentation. In Experiment III, pigeons responded on a two-component multiple schedule in which each component was a two-member homogeneous response chain terminating in a fixed-interval schedule during one component and in a variable-interval schedule during the other. The length of both terminal links was varied over a series of conditions. Initial-link responding in the fixed-interval component was reduced more by increasing terminal-link length than was initial-link responding in the variable-interval component. However, no differences in resistance to satiation and extinction were obtained across the fixed and variable components. If the relative decrease in responding produced by satiation and extinction is used as an index of the “value” of the conditions maintaining responding, then these data suggest that fixed and variable schedules of equal mean length are equally valued. This conclusion, however, is not consistent with findings of preference for variable over fixed schedules obtained in studies using concurrent-chain procedures.     

Positive conditioned suppression: Transfer of performance between contingent and noncontingent reinforcement situations

Five homing pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules. A fixed-duration stimulus was occasionally presented on one key; and, in various conditions, this stimulus terminated (a) without reinforcement, (b) in noncontingent reinforcement, (c) with reinforcement contingent on a response on the key on which the stimulus was presented, and (d) with reinforcement contingent on a response on the key on which the stimulus was not presented. Initially, a stimulus terminating in noncontingent reinforcement generally produced decreased response rates on both keys during the stimulus. Contingencies, however, reliably produced increased rates during the stimulus on the key on which the contingency was arranged, relative to the rate on the concurrently available key. Contingency conditions were followed by noncontingency conditions in which the separation of rates caused by contingencies was maintained. When rates during the stimulus were compared with response rates on the same keys in the absence of the stimulus, contingency-caused rate increases and decreases were again found, but only the rate decreases were maintained in subsequent noncontingency conditions. Further data suggested that the contingency-caused rate changes were not maintained when the stimulus terminated without reinforcement, and that they were unaffected by a threefold decrease in the reinforcement rate provided by the baseline schedules. The results support the suggestion that performance in the positive conditioned suppression procedure results from concurrent and multiple schedule interactions. They further suggest that the production of either acceleration or suppression is dependent on adventitious and historical contingencies.