题目内容
普萘洛尔可引起的不良反应是
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
脑膜炎
Think of all the criminals who have killed, all the soldiers who have killed; consider the mass murder of Jews in Nazi Germany. Is there something inside human beings that allows us to take part in this sort of violence, or were these people swept along by the situation Stanley Milgram, a New York psychologist, designed an experiment to find answers to this question, paying adult males four and a half dollars to act the role of "teacher" in a complicated experiment. The "teachers" were to ask questions of a "learner", a middle-aged man in another room. If the learner gave an incorrect answer, the teacher was instructed to turn a knob to send an electric current to the learner’s chair. There were thirty positions on the control knob, with the shocks ranging from 15 to 450 volts, the last position marked "Danger: Severe Shock". The teachers were told to increase the severity of the shock with each incorrect response. With the first few shocks, the learner could be heard over the intercom, grunting and moaning. When the dial reached 150, he demanded that the experiment be ended; shortly afterwards, at 180 volts, he began to complain of the pain. At 300 volts, he complained about his heart condition, screamed, and no longer responded to the questions; but the teachers who complanined about their roles in the experiment were told the experiment had to continue. According to the rules, the learner’s failure to respond was an "error", so he must be shocked. A group of psychiatrists was asked for predictions. Certainly, they said, most people would not punish the victim beyond 150 volts. Furthermore, they predicted fewer than four percent would persist up to 300 volts; only abnormal individuals--less than one tenth of a percent--would proceed to 450 volts. And, in fact, nearly every "teacher" did protest--each became concerned that he might injure the learner, and many said they could not continue to follow instructions. At 180 volts, one "teacher" said, "He’s hollering. He can’t stand it; what if anything happens to him I mean who is going to take responsibility if anything happens to that gentleman" When the experimenter said he would accept responsibility, the teacher meekly responded, "All right." Some teachers, alarmed by the silence in the next room, called out to the learner to answer so they wouldn’t have to continue shocking him. In fact, most of the teachers protested, but the important thing is that they did not disobey their instruction. Sixty-two percent of all the subjects delivered shocks all the way up to 450 volts--the average highest shock was 370 volts. Of course, the learner was not being shocked. Even his screams were tape-recorded. But this experiment and similar variations of it have been repeated several times, and the results are invariably the same: in the presence of authority, in a situation governed by rules. Personality tests given to the subjects who delivered the shocks of 450 volts show that they are not abnormal or sick in any way. They’re exactly like the rest of us. The main purpose of this passage is to ______.
二尖瓣狭窄的杂音
Anyone who has followed recent historical literature can testify to the revolution that is taking place in historical studies that currently fashionable subjects come directly from the sociology catalog: childhood, work, leisure. The new subjects are accompanied by new methods. Where history once was primarily narrative, it is now entirely analytic. The old questions "What happened" and "How did it happen" have given way to the question "Why did it happen" 46) Prominent among the methods used to answer the question "Why" is psychoanalysis, and its use has given rise to psychohistory. Psychohistory does not merely use psychological explanations in historical contexts. Historians have always used such explanations when they were appropriate and when there was sufficient evidence for them. But this practical use of psychology is not what psychohistorians intend. They are committed, not just to psychology in general, but to Freudian psychoanalysis. This commitment prevents a commitment to history as historians have always understood it. 47) Psychohistory derives its "facts" not from history, the detailed records of events and their sequences, but from psychoanalysis of the individuals who made history, and deduces its theories not from this or that instance in their lives, but from a view of human nature that transcends ( goes beyond) history. It denies the basic criterion of historical evidence: that evidence be publicly accessible to, and therefore assessable by, all historians. And it violates the basic belief of historical method: that historians be alert to the negative instances that would refute their theses. 48) Psychohistorians, convinced of the absolute rightness of their theories, are also convinced that theirs is the "deepest" explanation of any event, that other explanations fall short of truth. Psychohistory is not content to violate the discipline of history; it also violates the past itself. 49) It denies to the past any integrity and will of its own, in which people acted out of a variety of motives and in which events had many causes and effects. It imposes upon the past the same determinism that it imposes upon the present, thus robbing people and events of their individuality and of their complexity. 50) Instead of respecting the particularity of the past, it assimilates all events, past and present, into a single deterministic schema that is presumed to be true at all times and in all circumstances Anyone who has followed recent historical literature can testify to the revolution that is taking place in historical studies that currently fashionable subjects come directly from the sociology catalog: childhood, work, leisure. The new subjects are accompanied by new methods. Where history once was primarily narrative, it is now entirely analytic. The old questions "What happened" and "How did it happen" have given way to the question "Why did it happen" 46) Prominent among the methods used to answer the question "Why" is psychoanalysis, and its use has given rise to psychohistory. Psychohistory does not merely use psychological explanations in historical contexts. Historians have always used such explanations when they were appropriate and when there was sufficient evidence for them. But this practical use of psychology is not what psychohistorians intend. They are committed, not just to psychology in general, but to Freudian psychoanalysis. This commitment prevents a commitment to history as historians have always understood it. 47) Psychohistory derives its "facts" not from history, the detailed records of events and their sequences, but from psychoanalysis of the individuals who made history, and deduces its theories not from this or that instance in their lives, but from a view of human nature that transcends ( goes beyond) history. It denies the basic criterion of historical evidence: that evidence be publicly accessible to, and therefore assessable by, all historians. And it violates the basic belief of historical method: that historians be alert to the negative instances that would refute their theses. 48) Psychohistorians, convinced of the absolute rightness of their theories, are also convinced that theirs is the "deepest" explanation of any event, that other explanations fall short of truth. Psychohistory is not content to violate the discipline of history; it also violates the past itself. 49) It denies to the past any integrity and will of its own, in which people acted out of a variety of motives and in which events had many causes and effects. It imposes upon the past the same determinism that it imposes upon the present, thus robbing people and events of their individuality and of their complexity. 50) Instead of respecting the particularity of the past, it assimilates all events, past and present, into a single deterministic schema that is presumed to be true at all times and in all circumstances
微信支付 
支付宝支付