所指不一致与语义变化的动态机制

语言符号是约定俗成的,语言交际的前提是同一语言社区的语言使用者对同一符号的能指与所指的界定保持一致。能指的一致问题极为明显,人们都很清楚地意识到发音或文字的一致是交际所必须的,但所指的一致问题却由于意义本身的模糊与动态性而往往不被人们所察觉。所指的这种不一致既是语言变化的机制,也导致人们交际过程出现困难、误解甚至冲突,而语言使用中所指的趋同和人为的设定等将减少所指不一致带来的问题。     

Impact of Number of Interactions,Different Interaction Patterns,and Human Inconsistencies on Some Hybrid Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization Algorithms*

We investigate the impact of the number of human–computer interactions, different interaction patterns, and human inconsistencies in decision maker responses on the convergence of an interactive, evolutionary multiobjective algorithm recently developed by the authors. In our context “an interaction” means choosing the best and worst solutions among a sample of six solutions. By interaction patterns we refer to whether preference questioning is more front‐, center‐, rear‐, or edge‐loaded. As test problems we use two‐ to four‐objective knapsack problems, multicriteria scheduling problems, and multiobjective facility location problems. In the tests, two different preference functions are used to represent actual decision maker preferences, linear and Chebyshev. The results indicate that it is possible to obtain solutions that are very good or even nearly optimal with a reasonable number of interactions. The results also indicate that the algorithm is robust to minor inconsistencies in decision maker responses. There is also surprising robustness toward different patterns of interaction with the decision maker. The results are of interest to the evolutionary multiobjective (EMO) community actively developing hybrid interactive EMO approaches.     

Mixture of Maximal Quasi Orders: a new Approach to Preference Modelling

Normative theories suggest that inconsistencies be pointed out to the Decision Maker who is thus given the chance to modify his/her judgments. In this paper, we suggest that the inconsistencies problem be transferred from the Decision Maker to the Analyst. With the Mixture of Maximal Quasi Orders, rather than pointing out incoherences for the Decision Maker to change, these inconsistencies may be used as new source of information to model his/her preferences.     

From inconsistency to hypocrisy: When does “saying one thing but doing another” invite condemnation?

It is not always possible for leaders, teams, and organizations to practice what they preach. Misalignment between words and deeds can invite harsh interpersonal consequences, such as distrust and moral condemnation, which have negative knock-on effects throughout organizations. Yet the interpersonal consequences of such misalignment are not always severe, and are sometimes even positive. This paper presents a new model of when and why audiences respond negatively to those who “say one thing but do another.” We propose that audiences react negatively if they (a) perceive a high degree of misalignment (i.e., perceive low “behavioral integrity”), and (b) interpret such misalignment as a claim to an undeserved moral benefit (i.e., interpret it as hypocrisy). Our model integrates disparate research findings about factors that influence how audiences react to misalignment, and it clarifies conceptual confusion surrounding word-deed misalignment, behavioral integrity, and hypocrisy. We discuss how our model can inform unanswered questions, such as why people fail to practice what they preach despite the risk of negative consequences. Finally, we consider practical implications for leaders, proposing that anticipating and managing the consequences of misalignment will be more effective than trying to avoid it altogether.     

Conditions equivalent and doubly equivalent to consistency of approximate MLE's

Summary Strasser (1981) introduced approximately maximum likelihood estimators (AMLE's) and found a condition equivalent to strong consistency of all AMLE's. Here a condition weaker than that of Strasser is proved to be equivalent to the usual consistency of all AMLE's. Under an additional regularity this condition is shown to be doubly equivalent, which means that it is equivalent to consistency, and its contrary is equivalent to inconsistency of all AMLE's. The doubly equivalent conditions are important—we present an example where MLE is strongly consistent but some AMLE's are inconsistent. It is proved that the additional regularity can be reduced to the finiteness of an observations entropy. All results are motivate and illustrated by examples. Supported by CSAS grant N. 17503.     

Reservation price uncertainty: Loss,virtue, or emotional heterogeneity?

One of the best-researched anomalies in behavioral sciences is loss aversion, but with strong study variations and no systematic explanations thereof. The aim here was to introduce psychophysiological correlates for loss aversion to improve behavioral predictability. In an endowment experiment, a loss versus gain framing was implemented for a virtue versus a vice product. In addition to the classical price elicitation, an area of indifference and individual price reactions were examined, while emotional arousal as skin conductance levels were continuously measured. Furthermore, various heterogeneity measures for emotions and product experience evaluations were applied directly after the purchasing decision or as a more general personality measure at the end of the study. Results show fundamental regularities of product and frame on the price or the size of indifference. Physiologically measured emotional arousal further supports the dependence of loss aversion. Vice products and a loss frame increase emotional arousal and the consumer purchase price indifference. Reported emotions, aggregated as personality factors, can partially explain the observed heterogeneity in purchase price levels and price indifferences.     

Some Faults of the Bayes Factor in Nonparametric Model Selection

We compare different Bayesian strategies for testing a parametric model versus a nonparametric alternative on the ground of their ability to solve the inconsistency problems arising when using the Bayes factor under certain conditions. A preliminary critical discussion of such an inconsistency is provided.