The development of economic notions: Single sequence or separate acquisitions?

The conceptions on shops and factories of a group of 3rd-grade children were assessed by means of the Piagetian clinical method. Factorial analysis showed that children's answers about the two economic institutions yielded two distinct factors. Children were then divided into three groups (one control and two experimental); children in the experimental groups were taught, by means of two different training procedures, how the shopkeeper can earn a profit. A post-test interview, one month later, showed that both experimental groups had progressed in the target notion; however, children did not generalize to the factory what they had learned about shops. According to these results, 3rd-graders' thinking about economics consists of separate part-systems, which will eventually become integrated as children grow older.     

Space city revisited: patterns of legal outcomes in Houston homicide

This study re-examines, and updates, that of Lundsgaarde (1977), who found that among homicide offenders in Houston, Texas, in 1969, less than 50% of those who killed intimates or other family members were ever prosecuted for their lethal acts. The general pattern that emerges from our analysis of a random sample of 428 homicide cases during 1985 to 1994 indicates that killers of intimate partners or relatives are somewhat more likely to be prosecuted as offenders who were friends or strangers to their victims. Also during this 1985 to 1994 time period, the relative percent of defendants who were sentenced to a prison term of 20 years of less was smallest for those who killed intimate partners or other family members compared to those convicted of killing friends/acquaintances or strangers. As for sex-specific legal dispositions in cases of lethal violence against intimates or other relatives, we found that sanctions against women were considerably less severe than those against male offenders, in both time periods.     

A non linear wavelet based estimator for long memory processes

Two wavelet based estimators are considered in this paper for the two parameters that characterize long range dependence processes. The first one is linear and is based on the statistical properties of the coefficients of a discrete wavelet transform of long range dependence processes. The estimator consists in measuring the slope (related to the long memory parameter) and the intercept (related to the variance of the process) of a linear regression after a discrete wavelet transform is performed (Veitch and Abry, 1999). In this paper its properties are reviewed, and analytic evidence is produced that the linear estimator is applicable only when the second parameter is unknown. To overcome this limitation a non linear wavelet based estimator - that takes into account that the intercept depends on the long memory parameter - is proposed here for the cases in which the second parameter is known or the only parameter of interest is the long memory parameter. Under the same hypothesis assumed for the linear estimator, the non linear estimator is shown to be asymptotically more efficient for the long memory parameter. Numerical simulations show that, even for small data sets, the bias is very small and the variance close to optimal. An application to ATM based Internet traffic is presented.Financial support from the Italian Ministry of University and Scientific Research (MIUR), also in the context of the COFIN 2002 ALINWEB (Algorithms for the Internet and the Web) Project, is gratefully acknowledged.     

“水至清则无鱼”——我的新生词语规范观

在世界进入信息时代及我国加速改革开放后 ,新生词语的出现呈激增之势且势不可挡。对新生词语的产生和“入境”首先应采取宽容的态度 ,如吕叔湘先生所倡“宁滥勿缺” ,此谓“有容乃大 ,厚德载物”也 ;对新生词语的规范原则 ,要变过去的消极规范 (或曰“刚性规范”)为积极规范 (或曰“柔性规范”) ,化刚为柔 ,以柔克刚 ,树立一种柔性的规范观来拥抱多姿多彩的新生词语 ;柔性原则主要表现在尊重约定俗成 ,如果说规范是因需制订的一种主观功力 ,约定俗成则是无可替代的客观伟力 ,体现了语言特别是语汇发展过程中“物竞天择、适者生存”的自然法则     

An Underdiscussed Aspect of Chomsky (1959)

Chomsky''s (1959) review of Skinner''s (1957) Verbal Behavior has been influential and attributed with a role in the cognitive revolution. However, while counter reviews from within behavior analysis have noted that Chomsky misunderstood the subject matter, certain aspects of his scholarship have been underdiscussed. This includes several instances where Chomsky misquotes Skinner or takes his quotes out of context. Similar to the findings of Sokal (1996a, 1996b), it is speculated that the problems with Chomsky were overlooked by cognitive psychologists because his general outlook was accepted. Implications for the editorial review process are discussed.

Transgressing disciplinary boundaries . . . [is] a subversive undertaking since it is likely to violate the sanctuaries of accepted ways of perceiving. Among the most fortified boundaries have been those between the natural sciences and the humanities.—Greenberg (1990, p. 1), as quoted in Sokal (1996a)Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.—attributed to Bernhard Mannes Baruch (Montapert, 1964, p. 145)

Areas of study are sometimes profoundly affected by people outside them. For example, the linguist Noam Chomsky is familiar to many psychologists for his influence in the cognitive revolution, the major shift in the orientation of American psychology from behavioral to cognitive in the 1960s and 1970s (e.g., Auyang, 2000, p. 105; Erneling, 1997; Hunt, 1982, p. 217; Kosslyn & Rosenberg, 2001, p. 238). Some have even suggested that Chomsky''s (1959) review of B. F. Skinner''s (1957) Verbal Behavior, the latter''s theoretical account of how language can be explained in behavioral terms, was responsible for initiating the cognitive revolution (e.g., Bialystock, 1997; Harnish, 2002, p. 44).When Chomsky set out to write his review, he faced a daunting task. While apparently well read in certain areas such as political theory, there is little to indicate he had any previous exposure to psychology except for psychoanalysis (Barsky, 1997) and through linguists who have drawn upon psychology, such as Bloomfield (1933). Psychology in general in the early and mid-20th century was broad and diverse (e.g., Heidbreder, 1933; Hilgard & Bower, 1966), and so too was behavioral psychology. At that time “behaviorism” was used to refer a variety of behavior-oriented work, such as the strict methodological behaviorism of John B. Watson (e.g., Watson, 1913, 1924), the mathematical modeling with intervening variables of Clark L. Hull''s school (e.g., Hull, 1943, 1951, 1952), and the eclectic, molar, purposive behaviorism of Edward C. Tolman (e.g., Tolman, 1922, 1932, 1948), each with its own assumptions and terminologies. Skinner''s approach, radical behaviorism, differed from all of them in that he recognized the fundamental respondent-operant distinction (Skinner, 1935, 1937, 1938, p. 61ff., 1953, pp. 45–90), accepted the reality of private events, and rejected purely hypothetical mental constructs (Skinner, 1945). Verbal Behavior was very specifically based on Skinner''s approach, and any reviewer would have to understand this to do the job properly.Behavior analysts’ responses to Chomsky''s (1959) review of Verbal Behavior have not been positive (e.g., MacCorquodale, 1970; McLeish & Martin, 1975; Richelle, 1976); their counter reviews generally have noted that Chomsky fundamentally misunderstood the subject matter and emphasized major points where he differed from Skinner. The existing counter reviews, however, do not exhaust the problems with Chomsky. An especially important yet underdiscussed problem of Chomsky is the poor quality of his scholarship, which, to this author''s best knowledge, has not been previously addressed. The purpose of this paper is to address this issue and discuss its implications for future literature reviews.

Chomsky''s Review of Skinner

As noted above, Chomsky''s apparent understanding of radical behaviorism was poor, and at numerous points he makes claims not supported by the existing literature. Some parts of his review, such as citing a supporting claim that stimuli cannot be manipulated (Chomsky, 1959, p. 31, footnote 5) demonstrate severe problems with his understanding of the subject matter, and his handling of the most basic terms was so poor that Richelle (1976) said his “misunderstanding . . . would prompt most examination graders to read no further.”Many serious problems in this area have already been discussed by the above-mentioned counter reviewers; these include instances where Chomsky misattributed views to Skinner that clearly belong to others. For example, Chomsky (1959, p. 28) in describing response strength claimed: “The strength of an operant is defined by Skinner in terms of the rate of response during extinction. . . .” Skinner never claimed this, but rather defined it as the probability a response will occur under certain circumstances (Skinner, 1957, p. 22). MacCorquodale (1970) noted that rate of response during extinction was actually Hull''s definition of probability (Hull, 1943, pp. 260–262), and claiming that Skinner accepted this definition given his criticism of Hull''s work (Skinner, 1944) would be difficult to justify. Several other of Chomsky''s errors may have resulted from his failing to distinguish Skinner''s views from those of others. For example, Chomsky claimed that Skinner said “that children can learn language only through ‘meticulous care’ on the part of adults who shape their verbal repertoire through careful differential reinforcement” (Chomsky, p. 42) and that it is part of “the doctrine of Skinner and others that slow and careful shaping of verbal behavior through differential reinforcement is an absolute necessity” (op. cit., p. 42). Aside from the fact that other people''s doctrines are irrelevant here, nowhere does Skinner make this claim. Chomsky may have actually been reacting to Miller and Dollard (1941, p. 82), who in a discussion on language acquisition wrote: “The child is given meticulous training in connecting words to objects and connecting acts to words.” Skinner (1957), however, says almost nothing about language acquisition and certainly did not describe it as arising from a laborious and intentional shaping procedure. Chomsky (pp. 35, 52), perhaps supposing all responses would act like respondents, also wrongly indicated that a “strong” (operant) verbal response should, according to Skinner, necessarily be a high-pitched scream. However, as Skinner (1950, p. 196) noted,

In the sort of behavior adapted to the Pavlovian experiment (respondent behavior) there may be a progressive increase in the magnitude of response during learning. But we do not shout our responses louder and louder as we learn verbal material, nor does a rat press a lever harder and harder as conditioning proceeds. In operant behavior the energy or magnitude of response changes significantly only when some arbitrary value is differentially reinforced—when such a change is what is learned.

Not all of Chomsky''s errors involved confounding views or pure misunderstandings. There are several instances in Chomsky (1959) where Skinner is quoted out of context or the quote is incorrect such that Skinner''s views are not accurately portrayed. A few examples follow.

1. The above-mentioned false definition of response strength was again made when Chomsky (1959, p. 34) claimed that “Skinner has argued that this [rate of emission during extinction] is ‘the only datum that varies significantly and in the expected direction under conditions which are relevant to the “learning process.” The actual quote from Skinner (1950, p. 198) began with “Rate of responding appears to be the only datum which [sic] varies significantly. . . .” Extinction was not mentioned at all. Furthermore, this occurred in a discussion of learning theories, far removed from anything Chomsky discussed.
2. Chomsky (1959, p. 34) claimed that Skinner said that “the frequency of the response may be ‘primarily attributable to the frequency of occurrence of controlling variables’ . . . .” The actual sentence in Skinner (1957, p. 27) was “Nor can we be sure that frequency is not primarily attributable to the frequency of occurrence of controlling variables.” This occurred in a discussion of factors affecting frequency, during which Skinner emphasized that, contrary to the practice of “word counts” used in formal analyses of language, “it is also important to know the prevailing conditions,” that is, the circumstances under which they occur. Skinner was expressing a possibility or an uncertainty, which Chomsky failed to acknowledge.
3. Chomsky (1959, p. 34, footnote 9) quoted from Skinner (1950, p. 199) regarding allegedly using “the notion of probability in analyzing or formulating instances of even types of behavior which are not susceptible to this analysis.” Chomsky used this quote in a discussion in which he attacked Skinner''s usage of probability (and failed; see MacCorquodale, 1970). However, the passage from Skinner occurred at the end of a paragraph discussing complex activities that, as a whole, may never be repeated by the individual. In the same paragraph, Skinner (p. 199) said,

They are not simple unitary events lending themselves to prediction as such. If we are to predict marriage, success, accident, and so on, in anything more than statistical terms, we must deal with the smaller units of behavior which lead to and compose these unitary episodes. If the units appear in repeatable form, the present analysis may be applied.

Chomsky, however, attempted to apply this analysis to language behaviors, which typically involve a large number of units that may occur very frequently; thus the limitations that may apply to predicting marriage, success, accident, and so on as wholes are irrelevant to Skinner''s program. Chomsky acknowledged none of this.4. Chomsky (1959, p. 35, footnote 10), in discussing pitch, quoted Skinner as saying “Fortunately, ‘In English this presents no great difficulty’ since, for example, ‘relative pitch levels . . . are not . . . important,’” the “this” apparently referring to that pitch, among things, has linguistic functions (pp. 34–35). He further indicated (op. cit.): “No reference is made to the numerous studies of the function of relative pitch levels and other intonational features in English.” The implication is that Skinner ignored the importance of pitch and intonation in actual speech. But what Skinner (1957, p. 25) actually wrote was:

In English, this [energy level, speed of response, and even repetition entering into the construction of different forms of response] presents no great difficulty. Absolute levels of pitch and intensity are not “distinctive,” nor are relative pitch levels important. Changes in pitch, however, distinguish different types of utterance.

Skinner then discussed the functions of pitch in English. While Skinner and Chomsky may have disagreed about their exact functions, it is clear that Skinner did not contend that intonation or pitch in English were completely “unimportant” as Chomsky implied.5. Chomsky (1959, p. 52, footnote 42) quipped, “Similarly, ‘the universality of a literary work refers to the number of potential readers inclined to say the same thing’ (. . . i.e., the most ‘universal’ work is a dictionary of clichés and greetings).” However, the paragraph in Skinner (1957, pp. 274–275) this quote was taken from begins:

A reader seeks out other works of a given writer or other literature of a given type because of the reinforcement he has received. The reinforcement depends upon his own verbal behavior. A thematic correspondence between a reader and a literary work is likely to involve a matching of variables in the fields of motivation and emotion. The universality of a literary work refers to the number of potential readers inclined to say the same thing, at least in some measure. The success of a book is some indication of the number of people who possess a given kind of verbal behavior in strength.

In other words, a work has “universality” when readers would be likely to say something similar in content to the work, not specific utterances.6. Chomsky (1959, p. 53) claimed that “Skinner considers a sentence to be a set of key responses (nouns, verbs, adjectives) on a skeletal frame” and then proceeded to criticize Skinner as if this was his position. However, the actual quote was: “Others [other sentences] are nearly complete skeletal ‘frames’ upon which an exceptional response or two may be hung” (Skinner, 1957, p. 346), and this was not presented as the sole possibility. Rather, it was part of a much longer chapter (pp. 344–367) in which Skinner discussed how verbal responses are combined. Much of this involves a class of responses called autoclitics (p. 311ff.), which are verbal operants whose occurrence depends in part on the occurrence of other verbal operants; in Skinner''s hypothesis, grammar results from an interaction of autoclitics with other verbal operants. For example, when one is confronted by the appropriate stimulating conditions (seeing a hungry man) one would not only emit such responses as hungry and man, but also autoclitics related to the specificity of the situation (the) and occurrence (is) to produce a longer, structured utterance (The man is hungry; Skinner, p. 345). Not all sentences are necessarily created this way, and in the quote Chomsky cites, Skinner does indicate some may be partially or completely preformed; however, he certainly did not claim all were.     

Tuberculosis screening on a health science campus: use of QuantiFERON-TB Gold Test for students and employees

Detecting and managing Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB) infection in a health-science center population is a clinical dilemma. Tuberculin skin tests are still the preferred method for detecting present or past infection of TB. The authors discuss the performance of whole blood interferon gamma release assay test commercially known as QuantiFERON-TB Gold Test (QFT-G) as an additional tool for a TB surveillance program for the students and employees at an academic medical center. QFT-G was successfully implemented as a confirmatory test for screening of TB infection.     

"人的安全":一种"还原主义"和"理想主义"的误导

"人的安全"概念的使用,在安全理论研究中引发了一种"还原主义"和"理想主义"的误导,忽视了其他安全议程的道义主张和安全化的具体实践,并加剧了把安全看做是某种可期望的终极目标的危险.因而,"人的安全" 作为一种分析框架,在国际安全研究中缺乏理论的价值.     

“Parents and Children Talk: English Language Proficiency within Immigrant Families”

This paper extends the analysis of the acquisition of destination language proficiency among immigrants by explicitly incorporating interactions among family members—mother, father and children. Single equation, bivariate, and four-equation (multivariate) probit analyses are employed. Immigrant English language skills are greater the younger the age at migration, the longer the duration of residence, the higher the level of education, and for immigrants not from Asia. Large positive correlations in the unmeasured determinants of proficiency exist between spouses, between siblings, and between parents and children, although the latter relationship is stronger for the mother. The findings imply that learning takes place within the household.     

On the influence of extreme parties in electoral competition with policy-motivated candidates

We study and compare equilibrium platforms in models of unidimensional electoral competition with two and four policy motivated parties. We first analyze the plurality game, where the party getting the most votes is elected and implements its proposed platform. Restrictions on the set of credible announcements are needed to get existence of equilibria. Comparing equilibria with two and four parties, we obtain that moderate parties react to the introduction of extreme parties by proposing the same or more extreme equilibrium platforms. We then study the proportional system, where the policy implemented is a weighted sum of the proposals, with the voting shares as weights. Here, the existence of extreme parties leads moderate ones to choose more centrist platforms. We finally test the robustness of our results with respect to, first, the enlargement of the strategy space to entry decisions and, second, to asymmetric distributions of voters' blisspoints.

---