法国关于马克思的逻辑学的讨论

六十年代中期,资本主义国家里出现了一场意识形态的运动,七十年代正式形成,此后不断扩大。这场运动基本上是以对马克思的经济学的主要著作《资本论》、《政治经济学批判大纲》的理解为基础,同时又是对马克思的著作,特别是对马克思的早期著作所作的人道主义-存在主义的解释的反映。     

哲学的实践

哲学的功用问题,一经深究,便显得非常困难了。它包括许许多多重要而详尽的课题,需要从意识形态、方法论和历史上去作具体的阐述。“功用”(function)这个词,源于拉丁文“functio”,主要是指活动、作业、任务和位置的意思。因此,它包含很广泛的一类问题,在这篇文章中,只讨论社会意识那些最普遍的形式。正因为如此,我现在至多只能提出我自己     

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.     

Adaptive regression and types of cognitive flexibility

The relationship between adaptive regression and cognitive flexibility was explored in a group of 42 college students. Adaptive regression was measured with the Holt scoring system for the Rorschach. One type of cognitive flexibility was measured by Guilford's tests of divergent production (Word Fluency, Associational Fluency, and Alternate Uses) and a second type by Mednick's Remote Associates Test. Adaptive regression was found to be significantly positively related to the Remote Associates Test in males but not in females. Adaptive regression was found to be unrelated to divergent production tests. These relationships were not found to be mediated by Rorschach productivity or verbal intelligence. A two-stage process was proposed to account for the cognitive operations underlying adaptive regression and the Remote Associates Test. The first stage is seen as a generative (primary process) stage, while the second stage is seen as an evaluative (secondary process) stage. Possible reasons for sex differences were also discussed.     

Impulsivity and paced tapping

The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that impulsivity is positively related to both the intraindividual variability and the rate of performance of a paced tapping task. The independent variable in the tapping task were: feedback vs. no feedback; tempo; concurrent cognitive task (counting) vs. no concurrent cognitive task. Three measures of tapping performance were computed: absolute or total error of tapping, tapping rate, and the intraindividual variability of tapping. The results confirm the hypothesis that impulsivity is positively related to rate of paced tapping, although the degree of relationship varied under different experimental conditions within the paced tapping task. Intraindividual variability of tapping was not significantly related to impulsivity, but the results were suggestive of a positive relationship.     

Selective punishment of interresponse times

Lever pressing by two squirrel monkeys was maintained under a variable-interval 60-second schedule of food presentation. When response-dependent electric shock was made contingent on comparatively long interresponse times, response rate increased, and further increases were obtained when the minimum interresponse-time requirement was decreased. When an equal proportion of responses produced shock without regard to interresponse time, rates decreased. Thus, shock contingent on long interresponse times selectively decreased the relative frequency of those interresponse times, and increased the relative frequency of shorter interresponse times, whereas shock delivered independent of interresponse times decreased the relative frequency of shorter interresponse times while increasing the frequency of longer ones. The results provide preliminary evidence that interresponse times may be differentiated by punishment, further supporting the notion that interresponse times may be considered functional units of behavior.     

How to maximize reward rate on two variable-interval paradigms

Without assuming any constraints on behavior, we derive the policy that maximizes overall reward rate on two variable-interval paradigms. The first paradigm is concurrent variable time-variable time with changeover delay. It is shown that for nearly all parameter values, a switch to the schedule with the longer interval should be followed immediately by a switch back to the schedule with the shorter interval. The matching law does not hold at the optimum and does not uniquely specify the obtained reward rate. The second paradigm is discrete trial concurrent variable interval-variable interval. For given schedule parameters, the optimal policy involves a cycle of a fixed number of choices of the schedule with the shorter interval followed by one choice of the schedule with the longer interval. Molecular maximization sometimes results in optimal behavior.