略论《周易》史观

《周易》的形成出于占筮,古人以此来求知国之兴衰、人之穷通,具有一种“通古今之变”的思维倾向。所以它有别于其他类型的迷信,那蕴含其中的某种逻辑推演和理智分析的因素,被后来的易学及其哲学发展出一套《周易》的世界观、人生观和历史观。这些观点集中到一点就是:以阴阳变异的法则说明一切事物。本文主要从《周易》的特有思维模式及其古奥的言词来探讨其中所蕴含的历史观。并规约出两点:第一,《周易》所体现的历史演变方式;第二,《周易》史观中的历史动力。     

Momentary maximizing in concurrent schedules with a minimum interchangeover interval

Eight pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules with a minimum interchangeover time programmed as a consequence of changeovers. In Experiment 1 the reinforcement schedules remained constant while the minimum interchangeover time varied from 0 to 200 s. Relative response rates and relative time deviated from relative reinforcement rates toward indifference with long minimum interchangeover times. In Experiment 2 different reinforcement ratios were scheduled in successive experimental conditions with the minimum interchangeover time constant at 0, 2, 10, or 120 s. The exponent of the generalized matching equation was close to 1.0 when the minimum interchangeover time was 0 s (the typical procedure for concurrent schedules without a changeover delay) and decreased as that duration was increased. The data support the momentary maximizing theory and contradict molar maximizing theories and the melioration theory.     

中小学师生的校园暴力内隐观研究

本研究用自编问卷对2386名中小学生和504名中小学教师进行了调查,结果表明,中小学师生普遍认可比较严重的身体攻击和性骚扰为校园暴力,不太认可言语攻击为校园暴力。学生的内隐观存在性别、城乡和年级差异,教师的内隐观基本不受性别、城乡、年级和学历影响。教师比学生更认可身体攻击为校园暴力,而学生比教师更认可言语攻击、财产破坏和一般性的体罚为校园暴力。     

社会智力研究视角和方法的转变——从社会智力的测量观到人格的社会智力观

在社会智力研究的早期,研究者们运用测量观的视角和方法对社会智力进行了研究,取得了不少的成果。但是随着研究的进行,传统测量观的发展却遇到了极大的困难,如不能对社会智力和学业智力进行有效的区分等。人格的社会智力观强调社会行为的背景具体化和行为的主观意义,主张探询人的一般化的社会认知机制,为社会智力的研究展开了一个新的视角。     

驳"王弼以老解《易》论"

本文反对王弼以老庄思想解释<周易>这一传统观点,因为他除了用老庄道家思想解释<周易>之外,王弼也运用儒家思想来解释<周易>,而且运用儒家思想解释的内容大于运用道家思想解释的内容.本文分析了王弼为何同时运用儒家和道家思想解易的原因,并提出<周易注>的绝大多数内容是以<易传>的思想和汉代的注易方法来解释<周易>.     

关于弗洛伊德与皮亚杰心理发展观的比较分析

弗洛伊德和皮亚杰都是心理学的大师,他们关于心理发展的阶段、过程、结构等方面的思想既有关联,也存在不同。揭示两位大师心理观的关联和异同不仅有助于认清心理学思想的发展逻辑,而且对心理学理论的建构和研究也有裨益。     

Behavior,process, and scale: Comments on Shimp (2020), “Molecular (moment-to-moment) and molar (aggregate) analyses of behavior”

If we study the behavior of organisms, we must understand the ontological status of both “organism” and “behavior.” A living organism maintains itself alive by constantly interacting with the environment, taking in energy and discarding waste. Ontologically, an organism is a process. Its interactions with the environment, which constitute its behavior, are processes also, because the parts of any process are themselves processes. Processes serve functions, and the function of a process must be part of its identity. A process, by definition, extends in time. Time is the fundamental and universal measure of behavior. All processes have the property of scale. Activities of an organism have parts that are themselves activities on a smaller time scale. Scale varies continuously, and behavior may be studied on as large or as small a time scale as seems necessary. When researchers refer to the “structure” of behavior, they refer to smaller-scale activities. Attaching a switch to a lever or key is convenient, but one should never confuse operation of a switch with a unit of behavior. Shimp's (2020) “molecular” measures are small-scale measures. The molecular view based on discrete events has outlived its usefulness and should be replaced by a multiscale molar paradigm.