从风险决策中的多次博弈到单次博弈：量变还是质变?

诺贝尔经济学奖获得者Samuelson于1963年发现人们在单次和多次博弈条件下决策行为不一致。文章综述了两种博弈条件下人们决策行为的差异并质疑了这种差异的传统理论解释机制。描述或预测决策行为的风险决策理论其实只采用了一种评价法则—— 期望法则, 始终没有跳出“最大化”的窠臼。基于实验证据, 我们推测, 多次博弈时人们遵守了期望法则, 而单次博弈时人们所遵循的是非补偿性法则。从多次博弈到单次博弈, 不单单是一种博弈次数上的变化(量变), 而是代表了从期望法则(补偿性法则)到非补偿性法则两种策略之间的转变(质变)。最后, 文章介绍了单次、多次博弈问题在医疗、应急管理以及投资领域的体现, 并呼吁更多的研究者关注单次、多次博弈问题。     

Moral Relativism and Majority Rule

A number of arguments against relativism are based on the concept of majority rule. Since, the arguments allege, on relativism moral truth is founded on majority opinion, relativism entails that (a) moral progress and reform are impossible, (b) propaganda, advertising, brainwashing, and high birth rates turn mistaken moral judgments into correct ones, (c) moral horrors, if enough people believe them acceptable, are not moral horrors at all, (d) finding out what’s right and what’s wrong is extremely easy, (e) moral reasoning is very different from what we normally take it to be, and (f) internal criticism of a moral code is impossible. These arguments get their due in this article, which first defines and explicates relativism and then exposes, explains, and criticizes the arguments. Especially important to understand about the relation between relativism and majority opinion is the notion of a convention. Accordingly, it is discussed at some length.     

先秦法家法治思想的衍变——以《管子》、《商君书》和《韩非子》为中心

中国的“法治”思想源远流长,始于先秦法家,从春秋时期的管仲提出“以法治国”的主张,到战国时期的商鞅治国重“法”,再到韩非“法术势”相结合的法治理论的构建,先秦法家的法治思想经历了一个从萌芽到发展再到成熟的衍变过程,但法家的法治思想始终没有脱出君主专制下“以法治国”的巢臼。     

直言推理系统

本文构造了直言推理的一个系统MA,内容包括直接推理和三段论,但未考虑单称命题。此系统实际上是名辞逻辑系统MZ的子系统,精确地说是关于类名及其否定和由它们形成的本辞的系统。文中证明了系统MA的可靠性和完全性,并提出了它的自然推理系统。     

医药代表问题及其法律规制

近年我国医药行业不断发展,其营销人员的数量也在膨胀,从而引发了药品购销中的一系列问题,而医药代表在其中扮演着重要角色。由此,“医药代表问题”已引起人们的反感;国家和医院也采取不少措施打击,但收效甚微。医药代表问题成为社会热点。分析医药代表问题的社会成因,提出法律规制,旨在促进这一行业健康发展。     

CAI下小学低年级学生的学习控制水平与元认知监控水平的关系

对５８名小学三年级学生在ＣＡＩ（计算机辅助教学）下自学加法法现（规则学习）以及应用法则进行简便计算（技能学习）时学生学习控制水平（即选择学习内容和控制学习步调的适当性）与元认知监控水平（即对自己学习效果进行评价的准确性）之间的关系进行了探讨。结果表明,（１）在规则学习中,ＣＡＩ学习控制水平与元认知监控水平之间不存在显著性相关,但在技能学习中,两者之间存在显著性相关;（２）规则学习的学习控制水平显著高于技能学习。（３）ＣＡＩ学习控制水平和元认知监控水平两者与学生的学习成绩和时间两者不存在显著性相关。     

Priority rule signalization under two visibility conditions: Driving simulator study on speed and lateral position

In literature, priority-controlled and right-hand priority intersections have rarely been compared on other elements than the number of right-of-way violations and collisions. This study investigates the effect on speed and lateral position of five priority rules under two visibility conditions at an intersection (without hierarchy between branches), which is, at this moment, a knowledge gap.Fifty participants drove five different routes in a simulator and were exposed to the following manipulations: priority to the right rule applying and indicated (road sign and road sign with road marking), priority to the right rule applying but not indicated (no sign), priority to the right rule not applying and indicated (priority road and priority at next intersection), under good and bad visibility.Results show a significant speed decrease for both situations where the priority to the right rule was indicated compared to situations with no priority to the right rule, especially when visibility was bad. Priority to the right signs with additional road marking resulted in lowest speed under both visibility conditions. For all priority rules, lateral position shifted more towards the middle of the road when visibility was bad.Since speed was higher in case of priority roads or roads with priority at next intersection, it can be concluded that a higher level of control (priority-controlled intersections) does not necessarily result in a traffic safety improvement. Therefore, policy makers should take into account the results of this study and not generally change all the priority to the right intersections by priority-controlled intersections.     

Process Overlap Theory: A Unified Account of the General Factor of Intelligence

The most replicated result in the field of intelligence is the positive manifold, which refers to an all-positive pattern of correlations among diverse cognitive tests. The positive manifold is typically described by a general factor, or g. In turn, g is often identified as general intelligence, yet this explanation is contradicted by a number of results. Here we offer a new account of g: process overlap theory. According to the theory, cognitive tests tap domain-general executive processes, identified primarily in research on working memory, as well as more domain-specific processes. Executive processes are tapped in an overlapping manner across cognitive tests such that they are required more often than domain-specific ones. The theory provides an account of a number of findings on human intelligence. As well, it is formalized as a multidimensional item response model and as a structural model, and the neural mechanisms underlying the proposed overlapping processes are discussed.     

Psychological evidence in the courtroom: critical reflections on the general acceptance standard

The increasing ties between psychology and law have familiarized psychologists with the standards by which law admits scientific evidence into the courtroom. In the USA, these include the general acceptance standard and the Daubert guidelines and, in the UK, the Turner Rule. However, the psychological literature has largely failed to make clear the degree of legal debate that exists concerning the clarity and effectiveness of such standards. This paper will focus on the general acceptance standard, examining key problems of this standard and placing them in a specifically psychological context. Such consideration is important precisely because the standard has become so well known within the psychological literature and because insufficient attention has been given to the way in which it operates implicitly within jurisdictions outside the USA. The authors argue that it is the responsibility of psychologists to become more involved in the debate concerning admissibility standards, given the credibility and authority that law accords to psychology when admitting it into the courtroom. In particular, psychologists need to become more self-reflective about their role in creating and maintaining such standards. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.