["[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-01 00:00]\n<User>Let me tell you about some new developments:\nThe problem of the flow of time, as it has been treated in analytic philosophy, owes its beginning to a paper written by J. M. E. McTaggart. In this paper McTaggart proposes two \"temporal series\". The first series, which means to account for our intuitions about temporal becoming, or the moving Now, is called the A-series. The A-series orders events according to their being in the past, present or future, simpliciter and in comparison to each other. The B-series eliminates all reference to the present, and the associated temporal modalities of past and future, and orders all events by the temporal relations earlier than and later than.\n\nAccording to Presentism, time is an ordering of various realities. At a certain time some things exist and others do not. This is the only reality we can deal with and we cannot for example say that Homer exists because at the present time he does not. An Eternalist, on the other hand, holds that time is a dimension of reality on a par with the three spatial dimensions, and hence that all things\u2014past, present, and future\u2014can be said to be just as real as things in the present. According to this theory, then, Homer really does exist, though we must still use special language when talking about somebody who exists at a distant time\u2014just as we would use special language when talking about something far away (the very words near, far, above, below, and such are directly comparable to phrases such as in the past, a minute ago, and so on).\n<Assistant>Wonderful. I'll remember these key points.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-02 00:00]\n<User>I want to tell you about some new discoveries:\nThe positions on the persistence of objects are somewhat similar. An endurantist holds that for an object to persist through time is for it to exist completely at different times (each instance of existence we can regard as somehow separate from previous and future instances, though still numerically identical with them). A perdurantist on the other hand holds that for a thing to exist through time is for it to exist as a continuous reality, and that when we consider the thing as a whole we must consider an aggregate of all its \"temporal parts\" or instances of existing. Endurantism is seen as the conventional view and flows out of our pre-philosophical ideas (when I talk to somebody I think I am talking to that person as a complete object, and not just a part of a cross-temporal being), but perdurantists have attacked this position. (An example of a perdurantist is David Lewis.) One argument perdurantists use to state the superiority of their view is that perdurantism is able to take account of change in objects.\n\nHowever, asymmetry of causation can be observed in a non-arbitrary way which is not metaphysical in the case of a human hand dropping a cup of water which smashes into fragments on a hard floor, spilling the liquid. In this order, the causes of the resultant pattern of cup fragments and water spill is easily attributable in terms of the trajectory of the cup, irregularities in its structure, angle of its impact on the floor, etc. However, applying the same event in reverse, it is difficult to explain why the various pieces of the cup should fly up into the human hand and reassemble precisely into the shape of a cup, or why the water should position itself entirely within the cup. The causes of the resultant structure and shape of the cup and the encapsulation of the water by the hand within the cup are not easily attributable, as neither hand nor floor can achieve such formations of the cup or water. This asymmetry is perceivable on account of two features: i) the relationship between the agent capacities of the human hand (i.e., what it is and is not capable of and what it is for) and non-animal agency (i.e., what floors are and are not capable of and what they are for) and ii) that the pieces of cup came to possess exactly the nature and number of those of a cup before assembling. In short, such asymmetry is attributable to the relationship between temporal direction on the one hand and the implications of form and functional capacity on the other.\n\nTraditionally considered the last part of the Stone Age, the Neolithic followed the terminal Holocene Epipaleolithic period and commenced with the beginning of farming, which produced the \"Neolithic Revolution\". It ended when metal tools became widespread (in the Copper Age or Bronze Age; or, in some geographical regions, in the Iron Age). The Neolithic is a progression of behavioral and cultural characteristics and changes, including the use of wild and domestic crops and of domesticated animals.\n\nThe beginning of the Neolithic culture is considered to be in the Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank) about 10,200 \u2013 8,800 BC. It developed directly from the Epipaleolithic Natufian culture in the region, whose people pioneered the use of wild cereals, which then evolved into true farming. The Natufian period was between 12,000 and 10,200 BC, and the so-called \"proto-Neolithic\" is now included in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPNA) between 10,200 and 8,800 BC. As the Natufians had become dependent on wild cereals in their diet, and a sedentary way of life had begun among them, the climatic changes associated with the Younger Dryas are thought to have forced people to develop farming.\n\nNot all of these cultural elements characteristic of the Neolithic appeared everywhere in the same order: the earliest farming societies in the Near East did not use pottery. In other parts of the world, such as Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia, independent domestication events led to their own regionally distinctive Neolithic cultures that arose completely independent of those in Europe and Southwest Asia. Early Japanese societies and other East Asian cultures used pottery before developing agriculture.\n\nThe Neolithic 1 (PPNA) period began roughly 10,000 years ago in the Levant. A temple area in southeastern Turkey at G\u00f6bekli Tepe dated around 9,500 BC may be regarded as the beginning of the period. This site was developed by nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes, evidenced by the lack of permanent housing in the vicinity and may be the oldest known human-made place of worship. At least seven stone circles, covering 25 acres (10 ha), contain limestone pillars carved with animals, insects, and birds. Stone tools were used by perhaps as many as hundreds of people to create the pillars, which might have supported roofs. Other early PPNA sites dating to around 9,500 to 9,000 BCE have been found in Jericho, Israel (notably Ain Mallaha, Nahal Oren, and Kfar HaHoresh), Gilgal in the Jordan Valley, and Byblos, Lebanon. The start of Neolithic 1 overlaps the Tahunian and Heavy Neolithic periods to some degree.[citation needed]\n\nThe Neolithic 2 (PPNB) began around 8,800 BCE according to the ASPRO chronology in the Levant (Jericho, Israel). As with the PPNA dates, there are two versions from the same laboratories noted above. This system of terminology, however, is not convenient for southeast Anatolia and settlements of the middle Anatolia basin. This era was before the Mesolithic era.[citation needed] A settlement of 3,000 inhabitants was found in the outskirts of Amman, Jordan. Considered to be one of the largest prehistoric settlements in the Near East, called 'Ain Ghazal, it was continuously inhabited from approximately 7,250 \u2013 5,000 B.\n\nAround 10,200 BC the first fully developed Neolithic cultures belonging to the phase Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) appeared in the fertile crescent. Around 10,700 to 9,400 BC a settlement was established in Tell Qaramel, 10 miles north of Aleppo. The settlement included 2 temples dating back to 9,650. Around 9000 BC during the PPNA, one of the world's first towns, Jericho, appeared in the Levant. It was surrounded by a stone and marble wall and contained a population of 2000\u20133000 people and a massive stone tower. Around 6,400 BC the Halaf culture appeared in Lebanon, Israel and Palestine, Syria, Anatolia, and Northern Mesopotamia and subsisted on dryland agriculture.\n\nIn 1981 a team of researchers from the Maison de l'Orient et de la M\u00e9diterran\u00e9e, including Jacques Cauvin and Oliver Aurenche divided Near East neolithic chronology into ten periods (0 to 9) based on social, economic and cultural characteristics. In 2002 Danielle Stordeur and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Abb\u00e8s advanced this system with a division into five periods. Natufian (1) between 12,000 and 10,200 BC, Khiamian (2) between 10,200-8,800 BC, PPNA: Sultanian (Jericho), Mureybetian, early PPNB (PPNB ancien) (3) between 8,800-7,600 BC, middle PPNB (PPNB moyen) 7,600-6,900 BC, late PPNB (PPNB r\u00e9cent) (4) between 7,500 and 7,000 BC and a PPNB (sometimes called PPNC) transitional stage (PPNB final) (5) where Halaf and dark faced burnished ware begin to emerge between 6,900-6,400 BC. They also advanced the idea of a transitional stage between the PPNA and PPNB between 8,800 and 8,600 BC at sites like Jerf el Ahmar and Tell Aswad.\n\nDomestication of sheep and goats reached Egypt from the Near East possibly as early as 6,000 BC. Graeme Barker states \"The first indisputable evidence for domestic plants and animals in the Nile valley is not until the early fifth millennium bc in northern Egypt and a thousand years later further south, in both cases as part of strategies that still relied heavily on fishing, hunting, and the gathering of wild plants\" and suggests that these subsistence changes were not due to farmers migrating from the Near East but was an indigenous development, with cereals either indigenous or obtained through exchange. Other scholars argue that the primary stimulus for agriculture and domesticated animals (as well as mud-brick architecture and other Neolithic cultural features) in Egypt was from the Middle East.\n<Assistant>Perfect. I've stored this information in my memory.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-03 00:00]\n<User>Let me provide you with some new details:\nIn southeast Europe agrarian societies first appeared in the 7th millennium BC, attested by one of the earliest farming sites of Europe, discovered in Vasht\u00ebmi, southeastern Albania and dating back to 6,500 BC. Anthropomorphic figurines have been found in the Balkans from 6000 BC, and in Central Europe by c. 5800 BC (La Hoguette). Among the earliest cultural complexes of this area are the Sesklo culture in Thessaly, which later expanded in the Balkans giving rise to Star\u010devo-K\u00f6r\u00f6s (Cris), Linearbandkeramik, and Vin\u010da. Through a combination of cultural diffusion and migration of peoples, the Neolithic traditions spread west and northwards to reach northwestern Europe by around 4500 BC. The Vin\u010da culture may have created the earliest system of writing, the Vin\u010da signs, though archaeologist Shan Winn believes they most likely represented pictograms and ideograms rather than a truly developed form of writing. The Cucuteni-Trypillian culture built enormous settlements in Romania, Moldova and Ukraine from 5300 to 2300 BC. The megalithic temple complexes of \u0120gantija on the Mediterranean island of Gozo (in the Maltese archipelago) and of Mnajdra (Malta) are notable for their gigantic Neolithic structures, the oldest of which date back to c. 3600 BC. The Hypogeum of \u0126al-Saflieni, Paola, Malta, is a subterranean structure excavated c. 2500 BC; originally a sanctuary, it became a necropolis, the only prehistoric underground temple in the world, and showing a degree of artistry in stone sculpture unique in prehistory to the Maltese islands. After 2500 BC, the Maltese Islands were depopulated for several decades until the arrival of a new influx of Bronze Age immigrants, a culture that cremated its dead and introduced smaller megalithic structures called dolmens to Malta. In most cases there are small chambers here, with the cover made of a large slab placed on upright stones. They are claimed to belong to a population certainly different from that which built the previous megalithic temples. It is presumed the population arrived from Sicily because of the similarity of Maltese dolmens to some small constructions found in the largest island of the Mediterranean sea.\n\nIn 2012, news was released about a new farming site discovered in Munam-ri, Goseong, Gangwon Province, South Korea, which may be the earliest farmland known to date in east Asia. \"No remains of an agricultural field from the Neolithic period have been found in any East Asian country before, the institute said, adding that the discovery reveals that the history of agricultural cultivation at least began during the period on the Korean Peninsula\". The farm was dated between 3600 and 3000 B.C. Pottery, stone projectile points, and possible houses were also found. \"In 2002, researchers discovered prehistoric earthenware, jade earrings, among other items in the area\". The research team will perform accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) dating to retrieve a more precise date for the site.\n\nIn Mesoamerica, a similar set of events (i.e., crop domestication and sedentary lifestyles) occurred by around 4500 BC, but possibly as early as 11,000\u201310,000 BC. These cultures are usually not referred to as belonging to the Neolithic; in America different terms are used such as Formative stage instead of mid-late Neolithic, Archaic Era instead of Early Neolithic and Paleo-Indian for the preceding period. The Formative stage is equivalent to the Neolithic Revolution period in Europe, Asia, and Africa. In the Southwestern United States it occurred from 500 to 1200 C.E. when there was a dramatic increase in population and development of large villages supported by agriculture based on dryland farming of maize, and later, beans, squash, and domesticated turkeys. During this period the bow and arrow and ceramic pottery were also introduced.\n\nDuring most of the Neolithic age of Eurasia, people lived in small tribes composed of multiple bands or lineages. There is little scientific evidence of developed social stratification in most Neolithic societies; social stratification is more associated with the later Bronze Age. Although some late Eurasian Neolithic societies formed complex stratified chiefdoms or even states, states evolved in Eurasia only with the rise of metallurgy, and most Neolithic societies on the whole were relatively simple and egalitarian. Beyond Eurasia, however, states were formed during the local Neolithic in three areas, namely in the Preceramic Andes with the Norte Chico Civilization, Formative Mesoamerica and Ancient Hawai\u02bbi. However, most Neolithic societies were noticeably more hierarchical than the Paleolithic cultures that preceded them and hunter-gatherer cultures in general.\n\nThe domestication of large animals (c. 8000 BC) resulted in a dramatic increase in social inequality in most of the areas where it occurred; New Guinea being a notable exception. Possession of livestock allowed competition between households and resulted in inherited inequalities of wealth. Neolithic pastoralists who controlled large herds gradually acquired more livestock, and this made economic inequalities more pronounced. However, evidence of social inequality is still disputed, as settlements such as Catal Huyuk reveal a striking lack of difference in the size of homes and burial sites, suggesting a more egalitarian society with no evidence of the concept of capital, although some homes do appear slightly larger or more elaborately decorated than others.\n\nFamilies and households were still largely independent economically, and the household was probably the center of life. However, excavations in Central Europe have revealed that early Neolithic Linear Ceramic cultures (\"Linearbandkeramik\") were building large arrangements of circular ditches between 4800 BC and 4600 BC. These structures (and their later counterparts such as causewayed enclosures, burial mounds, and henge) required considerable time and labour to construct, which suggests that some influential individuals were able to organise and direct human labour \u2014 though non-hierarchical and voluntary work remain possibilities.\n\nThere is a large body of evidence for fortified settlements at Linearbandkeramik sites along the Rhine, as at least some villages were fortified for some time with a palisade and an outer ditch. Settlements with palisades and weapon-traumatized bones have been discovered, such as at the Talheim Death Pit demonstrates \"...systematic violence between groups\" and warfare was probably much more common during the Neolithic than in the preceding Paleolithic period. This supplanted an earlier view of the Linear Pottery Culture as living a \"peaceful, unfortified lifestyle\".\n\nControl of labour and inter-group conflict is characteristic of corporate-level or 'tribal' groups, headed by a charismatic individual; whether a 'big man' or a proto-chief, functioning as a lineage-group head. Whether a non-hierarchical system of organization existed is debatable, and there is no evidence that explicitly suggests that Neolithic societies functioned under any dominating class or individual, as was the case in the chiefdoms of the European Early Bronze Age. Theories to explain the apparent implied egalitarianism of Neolithic (and Paleolithic) societies have arisen, notably the Marxist concept of primitive communism.\n\nThe shelter of the early people changed dramatically from the paleolithic to the neolithic era. In the paleolithic, people did not normally live in permanent constructions. In the neolithic, mud brick houses started appearing that were coated with plaster. The growth of agriculture made permanent houses possible. Doorways were made on the roof, with ladders positioned both on the inside and outside of the houses. The roof was supported by beams from the inside. The rough ground was covered by platforms, mats, and skins on which residents slept. Stilt-houses settlements were common in the Alpine and Pianura Padana (Terramare) region. Remains have been found at the Ljubljana Marshes in Slovenia and at the Mondsee and Attersee lakes in Upper Austria, for example.\n\nA significant and far-reaching shift in human subsistence and lifestyle was to be brought about in areas where crop farming and cultivation were first developed: the previous reliance on an essentially nomadic hunter-gatherer subsistence technique or pastoral transhumance was at first supplemented, and then increasingly replaced by, a reliance upon the foods produced from cultivated lands. These developments are also believed to have greatly encouraged the growth of settlements, since it may be supposed that the increased need to spend more time and labor in tending crop fields required more localized dwellings. This trend would continue into the Bronze Age, eventually giving rise to permanently settled farming towns, and later cities and states whose larger populations could be sustained by the increased productivity from cultivated lands.\n\nHowever, early farmers were also adversely affected in times of famine, such as may be caused by drought or pests. In instances where agriculture had become the predominant way of life, the sensitivity to these shortages could be particularly acute, affecting agrarian populations to an extent that otherwise may not have been routinely experienced by prior hunter-gatherer communities. Nevertheless, agrarian communities generally proved successful, and their growth and the expansion of territory under cultivation continued.\n<Assistant>Received. I'll store this information.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-04 00:00]\n<User>Here are some news I learnt earlier:\nAnother significant change undergone by many of these newly agrarian communities was one of diet. Pre-agrarian diets varied by region, season, available local plant and animal resources and degree of pastoralism and hunting. Post-agrarian diet was restricted to a limited package of successfully cultivated cereal grains, plants and to a variable extent domesticated animals and animal products. Supplementation of diet by hunting and gathering was to variable degrees precluded by the increase in population above the carrying capacity of the land and a high sedentary local population concentration. In some cultures, there would have been a significant shift toward increased starch and plant protein. The relative nutritional benefits and drawbacks of these dietary changes and their overall impact on early societal development is still debated.\n\nNeolithic people were skilled farmers, manufacturing a range of tools necessary for the tending, harvesting and processing of crops (such as sickle blades and grinding stones) and food production (e.g. pottery, bone implements). They were also skilled manufacturers of a range of other types of stone tools and ornaments, including projectile points, beads, and statuettes. But what allowed forest clearance on a large scale was the polished stone axe above all other tools. Together with the adze, fashioning wood for shelter, structures and canoes for example, this enabled them to exploit their newly won farmland.\n\nNeolithic peoples in the Levant, Anatolia, Syria, northern Mesopotamia and Central Asia were also accomplished builders, utilizing mud-brick to construct houses and villages. At \u00c7atal h\u00f6y\u00fck, houses were plastered and painted with elaborate scenes of humans and animals. In Europe, long houses built from wattle and daub were constructed. Elaborate tombs were built for the dead. These tombs are particularly numerous in Ireland, where there are many thousand still in existence. Neolithic people in the British Isles built long barrows and chamber tombs for their dead and causewayed camps, henges, flint mines and cursus monuments. It was also important to figure out ways of preserving food for future months, such as fashioning relatively airtight containers, and using substances like salt as preservatives.\n\nMost clothing appears to have been made of animal skins, as indicated by finds of large numbers of bone and antler pins which are ideal for fastening leather. Wool cloth and linen might have become available during the later Neolithic, as suggested by finds of perforated stones which (depending on size) may have served as spindle whorls or loom weights. The clothing worn in the Neolithic Age might be similar to that worn by \u00d6tzi the Iceman, although he was not Neolithic (since he belonged to the later Copper age).\n\nFriedrich Hayek CH (German: [\u02c8f\u0281i\u02d0d\u0281\u026a\u00e7 \u02c8a\u028a\u032f\u0261\u028ast \u02c8ha\u026a\u032f\u025bk]; 8 May 1899 \u2013 23 March 1992), born in Austria-Hungary as Friedrich August von Hayek and frequently referred to as F. A. Hayek, was an Austrian and British economist and philosopher best known for his defense of classical liberalism. Hayek shared the 1974 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences with Gunnar Myrdal for his \"pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and ... penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena.\"\n\nIn 1984, he was appointed a member of the Order of the Companions of Honour by Queen Elizabeth II on the advice of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for his \"services to the study of economics\". He was the first recipient of the Hanns Martin Schleyer Prize in 1984. He also received the US Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1991 from President George H. W. Bush. In 2011, his article \"The Use of Knowledge in Society\" was selected as one of the top 20 articles published in The American Economic Review during its first 100 years.\n\nFriedrich August von Hayek was born in Vienna to August von Hayek and Felicitas Hayek (n\u00e9e von Juraschek). Friedrich's father, from whom he received his middle name, was also born in Vienna in 1871. He was a medical doctor employed by the municipal ministry of health, with passion in botany, in which he wrote a number of monographs. August von Hayek was also a part-time botany lecturer at the University of Vienna. Friedrich's mother was born in 1875 to a wealthy, conservative, land-owning family. As her mother died several years prior to Friedrich's birth, Felicitas gained a significant inheritance which provided as much as half of her and August's income during the early years of their marriage. Hayek was the oldest of three brothers, Heinrich (1900\u201369) and Erich (1904\u201386), who were one-and-a-half and five years younger than him.\n\nHis father's career as a university professor influenced Friedrich's goals later in life. Both of his grandfathers, who lived long enough for Friedrich to know them, were scholars. Franz von Juraschek was a leading economist in Austria-Hungary and a close friend of Eugen B\u00f6hm von Bawerk, one of the founders of the Austrian School of Economics. Von Juraschek was a statistician and was later employed by the Austrian government. Friedrich's paternal grandfather, Gustav Edler von Hayek, taught natural sciences at the Imperial Realobergymnasium (secondary school) in Vienna. He wrote systematic works in biology, some of which are relatively well known.\n\nOn his mother's side, Hayek was second cousin to the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. His mother often played with Wittgenstein's sisters, and had known Ludwig well. As a result of their family relationship, Hayek became one of the first to read Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus when the book was published in its original German edition in 1921. Although Hayek met Wittgenstein on only a few occasions, Hayek said that Wittgenstein's philosophy and methods of analysis had a profound influence on his own life and thought. In his later years, Hayek recalled a discussion of philosophy with Wittgenstein, when both were officers during World War I. After Wittgenstein's death, Hayek had intended to write a biography of Wittgenstein and worked on collecting family materials; and he later assisted biographers of Wittgenstein.\n\nHayek displayed an intellectual and academic bent from a very young age. He read fluently and frequently before going to school. At his father's suggestion, Hayek, as a teenager, read the genetic and evolutionary works of Hugo de Vries and the philosophical works of Ludwig Feuerbach. In school Hayek was much taken by one instructor's lectures on Aristotle's ethics. In his unpublished autobiographical notes, Hayek recalled a division between him and his younger brothers who were only few years younger than him, but he believed that they were somehow of a different generation. He preferred to associate with adults.\n\nAt the University of Vienna, Hayek earned doctorates in law and political science in 1921 and 1923 respectively; and he also studied philosophy, psychology, and economics. For a short time, when the University of Vienna closed, Hayek studied in Constantin von Monakow's Institute of Brain Anatomy, where Hayek spent much of his time staining brain cells. Hayek's time in Monakow's lab, and his deep interest in the work of Ernst Mach, inspired Hayek's first intellectual project, eventually published as The Sensory Order (1952). It located connective learning at the physical and neurological levels, rejecting the \"sense data\" associationism of the empiricists and logical positivists. Hayek presented his work to the private seminar he had created with Herbert Furth called the Geistkreis.\n\nDuring Hayek's years at the University of Vienna, Carl Menger's work on the explanatory strategy of social science and Friedrich von Wieser's commanding presence in the classroom left a lasting influence on him. Upon the completion of his examinations, Hayek was hired by Ludwig von Mises on the recommendation of Wieser as a specialist for the Austrian government working on the legal and economic details of the Treaty of Saint Germain. Between 1923 and 1924 Hayek worked as a research assistant to Prof. Jeremiah Jenks of New York University, compiling macroeconomic data on the American economy and the operations of the US Federal Reserve.\n<Assistant>Received. I'll store this information.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-05 00:00]\n<User>I'd like to tell you about some recent findings:\nInitially sympathetic to Wieser's democratic socialism, Hayek's economic thinking shifted away from socialism and toward the classical liberalism of Carl Menger after reading von Mises' book Socialism. It was sometime after reading Socialism that Hayek began attending von Mises' private seminars, joining several of his university friends, including Fritz Machlup, Alfred Schutz, Felix Kaufmann, and Gottfried Haberler, who were also participating in Hayek's own, more general, private seminar. It was during this time that he also encountered and befriended noted political philosopher Eric Voegelin, with whom he retained a long-standing relationship.\n\nWith the help of Mises, in the late 1920s Hayek founded and served as director of the Austrian Institute for Business Cycle Research, before joining the faculty of the London School of Economics (LSE) in 1931 at the behest of Lionel Robbins. Upon his arrival in London, Hayek was quickly recognised as one of the leading economic theorists in the world, and his development of the economics of processes in time and the co-ordination function of prices inspired the ground-breaking work of John Hicks, Abba Lerner, and many others in the development of modern microeconomics.\n\nHayek was concerned about the general view in Britain's academia that fascism was a capitalist reaction to socialism and The Road to Serfdom arose from those concerns. It was written between 1940 and 1943. The title was inspired by the French classical liberal thinker Alexis de Tocqueville's writings on the \"road to servitude.\" It was first published in Britain by Routledge in March 1944 and was quite popular, leading Hayek to call it \"that unobtainable book,\" also due in part to wartime paper rationing. When it was published in the United States by the University of Chicago in September of that year, it achieved greater popularity than in Britain. At the arrangement of editor Max Eastman, the American magazine Reader's Digest also published an abridged version in April 1945, enabling The Road to Serfdom to reach a far wider audience than academics. The book is widely popular among those advocating individualism and classical liberalism.\n\nIn 1950, Hayek left the London School of Economics for the University of Chicago, where he became a professor in the Committee on Social Thought. Hayek's salary was funded not by the university, but by an outside foundation. University of Chicago President Robert Hutchins was in the midst of a war with the U. of Chicago faculty over departmental autonomy and control, and Hayek got caught in the middle of that battle. Hutchins had been attempting to force all departments to adopt the neo-Thomist Great Books program of Mortimer Adler, and the U. of Chicago economists were sick of Hutchins' meddling. As the result the Economics department rejected Hutchins' pressure to hire Hayek, and Hayek became a part of the new Committee on Social Thought.\n<Assistant>Sure I will remember them.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-06 00:00]\n<User>Let me tell you about some new developments:\nHayek had made contact with many at the U. of Chicago in the 1940s, with Hayek's The Road to Serfdom playing a seminal role in transforming how Milton Friedman and others understood how society works. Hayek conducted a number in influential faculty seminars while at the U. of Chicago, and a number of academics worked on research projects sympathetic to some of Hayek's own, such as Aaron Director, who was active in the Chicago School in helping to fund and establish what became the \"Law and Society\" program in the University of Chicago Law School. Hayek, Frank Knight, Friedman and George Stigler worked together in forming the Mont P\u00e8lerin Society, an international forum for libertarian economists. Hayek and Friedman cooperated in support of the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists, later renamed the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, an American student organisation devoted to libertarian ideas.\n\nAfter editing a book on John Stuart Mill's letters he planned to publish two books on the liberal order, The Constitution of Liberty and \"The Creative Powers of a Free Civilization\" (eventually the title for the second chapter of The Constitution of Liberty). He completed The Constitution of Liberty in May 1959, with publication in February 1960. Hayek was concerned \"with that condition of men in which coercion of some by others is reduced as much as is possible in society\". Hayek was disappointed that the book did not receive the same enthusiastic general reception as The Road to Serfdom had sixteen years before.\n\nFrom 1962 until his retirement in 1968, he was a professor at the University of Freiburg, West Germany, where he began work on his next book, Law, Legislation and Liberty. Hayek regarded his years at Freiburg as \"very fruitful\". Following his retirement, Hayek spent a year as a visiting professor of philosophy at the University of California, Los Angeles, where he continued work on Law, Legislation and Liberty, teaching a graduate seminar by the same name and another on the philosophy of social science. Primary drafts of the book were completed by 1970, but Hayek chose to rework his drafts and finally brought the book to publication in three volumes in 1973, 1976 and 1979.\n\nIn February 1975, Margaret Thatcher was elected leader of the British Conservative Party. The Institute of Economic Affairs arranged a meeting between Hayek and Thatcher in London soon after. During Thatcher's only visit to the Conservative Research Department in the summer of 1975, a speaker had prepared a paper on why the \"middle way\" was the pragmatic path the Conservative Party should take, avoiding the extremes of left and right. Before he had finished, Thatcher \"reached into her briefcase and took out a book. It was Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty. Interrupting our pragmatist, she held the book up for all of us to see. 'This', she said sternly, 'is what we believe', and banged Hayek down on the table\".\n\nIn 1977, Hayek was critical of the Lib-Lab pact, in which the British Liberal Party agreed to keep the British Labour government in office. Writing to The Times, Hayek said, \"May one who has devoted a large part of his life to the study of the history and the principles of liberalism point out that a party that keeps a socialist government in power has lost all title to the name 'Liberal'. Certainly no liberal can in future vote 'Liberal'\". Hayek was criticised by Liberal politicians Gladwyn Jebb and Andrew Phillips, who both claimed that the purpose of the pact was to discourage socialist legislation.\n<Assistant>Perfect. I've stored this information in my memory.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-07 00:00]\n<User>Let me share some additional facts I found:\nIn 1978, Hayek came into conflict with the Liberal Party leader, David Steel, who claimed that liberty was possible only with \"social justice and an equitable distribution of wealth and power, which in turn require a degree of active government intervention\" and that the Conservative Party were more concerned with the connection between liberty and private enterprise than between liberty and democracy. Hayek claimed that a limited democracy might be better than other forms of limited government at protecting liberty but that an unlimited democracy was worse than other forms of unlimited government because \"its government loses the power even to do what it thinks right if any group on which its majority depends thinks otherwise\".\n\nIn 1984, he was appointed as a member of the Order of the Companions of Honour (CH) by Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom on the advice of the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for his \"services to the study of economics\". Hayek had hoped to receive a baronetcy, and after he was awarded the CH he sent a letter to his friends requesting that he be called the English version of Friedrich (Frederick) from now on. After his 20 min audience with the Queen, he was \"absolutely besotted\" with her according to his daughter-in-law, Esca Hayek. Hayek said a year later that he was \"amazed by her. That ease and skill, as if she'd known me all my life.\" The audience with the Queen was followed by a dinner with family and friends at the Institute of Economic Affairs. When, later that evening, Hayek was dropped off at the Reform Club, he commented: \"I've just had the happiest day of my life.\"\n\nIn 1991, US President George H. W. Bush awarded Hayek the Presidential Medal of Freedom, one of the two highest civilian awards in the United States, for a \"lifetime of looking beyond the horizon\". Hayek died on 23 March 1992 in Freiburg, Germany, and was buried on 4 April in the Neustift am Walde cemetery in the northern outskirts of Vienna according to the Catholic rite. In 2011, his article The Use of Knowledge in Society was selected as one of the top 20 articles published in the American Economic Review during its first 100 years.\n\nHayek's principal investigations in economics concerned capital, money, and the business cycle. Mises had earlier applied the concept of marginal utility to the value of money in his Theory of Money and Credit (1912), in which he also proposed an explanation for \"industrial fluctuations\" based on the ideas of the old British Currency School and of Swedish economist Knut Wicksell. Hayek used this body of work as a starting point for his own interpretation of the business cycle, elaborating what later became known as the \"Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle\". Hayek spelled out the Austrian approach in more detail in his book, published in 1929, an English translation of which appeared in 1933 as Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle. There he argued for a monetary approach to the origins of the cycle. In his Prices and Production (1931), Hayek argued that the business cycle resulted from the central bank's inflationary credit expansion and its transmission over time, leading to a capital misallocation caused by the artificially low interest rates. Hayek claimed that \"the past instability of the market economy is the consequence of the exclusion of the most important regulator of the market mechanism, money, from itself being regulated by the market process\".\n\nIn 1929, Lionel Robbins assumed the helm of the London School of Economics (LSE). Eager to promote alternatives to what he regarded as the narrow approach of the school of economic thought that then dominated the English-speaking academic world (centred at the University of Cambridge and deriving largely from the work of Alfred Marshall), Robbins invited Hayek to join the faculty at LSE, which he did in 1931. According to Nicholas Kaldor, Hayek's theory of the time-structure of capital and of the business cycle initially \"fascinated the academic world\" and appeared to offer a less \"facile and superficial\" understanding of macroeconomics than the Cambridge school's.\n<Assistant>Appreciated. I'll retain these important details.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-08 00:00]\n<User>Let me update you with some new information:\nAlso in 1931, Hayek critiqued Keynes's Treatise on Money (1930) in his \"Reflections on the pure theory of Mr. J. M. Keynes\" and published his lectures at the LSE in book form as Prices and Production. Unemployment and idle resources are, for Keynes, caused by a lack of effective demand; for Hayek, they stem from a previous, unsustainable episode of easy money and artificially low interest rates. Keynes asked his friend Piero Sraffa to respond. Sraffa elaborated on the effect of inflation-induced \"forced savings\" on the capital sector and about the definition of a \"natural\" interest rate in a growing economy. Others who responded negatively to Hayek's work on the business cycle included John Hicks, Frank Knight, and Gunnar Myrdal. Kaldor later wrote that Hayek's Prices and Production had produced \"a remarkable crop of critics\" and that the total number of pages in British and American journals dedicated to the resulting debate \"could rarely have been equalled in the economic controversies of the past.\"\n\nHayek continued his research on monetary and capital theory, revising his theories of the relations between credit cycles and capital structure in Profits, Interest and Investment (1939) and The Pure Theory of Capital (1941), but his reputation as an economic theorist had by then fallen so much that those works were largely ignored, except for scathing critiques by Nicholas Kaldor. Lionel Robbins himself, who had embraced the Austrian theory of the business cycle in The Great Depression (1934), later regretted having written the book and accepted many of the Keynesian counter-arguments.\n\nHayek never produced the book-length treatment of \"the dynamics of capital\" that he had promised in the Pure Theory of Capital. After 1941, he continued to publish works on the economics of information, political philosophy, the theory of law, and psychology, but seldom on macroeconomics. At the University of Chicago, Hayek was not part of the economics department and did not influence the rebirth of neoclassical theory which took place there (see Chicago school of economics). When, in 1974, he shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics with Gunnar Myrdal, the latter complained about being paired with an \"ideologue\". Milton Friedman declared himself \"an enormous admirer of Hayek, but not for his economics. I think Prices and Production is a very flawed book. I think his [Pure Theory of Capital] is unreadable. On the other hand, The Road to Serfdom is one of the great books of our time.\"\n\nBuilding on the earlier work of Ludwig von Mises and others, Hayek also argued that while in centrally planned economies an individual or a select group of individuals must determine the distribution of resources, these planners will never have enough information to carry out this allocation reliably. This argument, first proposed by Max Weber, says that the efficient exchange and use of resources can be maintained only through the price mechanism in free markets (see economic calculation problem).\n\nSome socialists such as H. D. Dickinson and Oskar Lange, responded by invoking general equilibrium theory, which they argued disproved Mises's thesis. They noted that the difference between a planned and a free market system lay in who was responsible for solving the equations. They argued, if some of the prices chosen by socialist managers were wrong, gluts or shortages would appear, signalling them to adjust the prices up or down, just as in a free market. Through such a trial and error, a socialist economy could mimic the efficiency of a free market system, while avoiding its many problems.\n\nIn The Use of Knowledge in Society (1945), Hayek argued that the price mechanism serves to share and synchronise local and personal knowledge, allowing society's members to achieve diverse, complicated ends through a principle of spontaneous self-organization. He contrasted the use of the price mechanism with central planning, arguing that the former allows for more rapid adaptation to changes in particular circumstances of time and place. Thus, he set the stage for Oliver Williamson's later contrast between markets and hierarchies as alternative co-ordination mechanisms for economic transactions. He used the term catallaxy to describe a \"self-organizing system of voluntary co-operation\". Hayek's research into this argument was specifically cited by the Nobel Committee in its press release awarding Hayek the Nobel prize.\n\nHayek was one of the leading academic critics of collectivism in the 20th century. Hayek argued that all forms of collectivism (even those theoretically based on voluntary co-operation) could only be maintained by a central authority of some kind. In Hayek's view, the central role of the state should be to maintain the rule of law, with as little arbitrary intervention as possible. In his popular book, The Road to Serfdom (1944) and in subsequent academic works, Hayek argued that socialism required central economic planning and that such planning in turn leads towards totalitarianism.\n<Assistant>Understood. I'll keep these facts for future reference.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-09 00:00]\n<User>Let me share some additional facts I found:\nHayek also wrote that the state can play a role in the economy, and specifically, in creating a \"safety net\". He wrote, \"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.\"\n\nHayek's work on the microeconomics of the choice theoretics of investment, non-permanent goods, potential permanent resources, and economically-adapted permanent resources mark a central dividing point between his work in areas of macroeconomics and that of almost all other economists. Hayek's work on the macroeconomic subjects of central planning, trade cycle theory, the division of knowledge, and entrepreneurial adaptation especially, differ greatly from the opinions of macroeconomic \"Marshallian\" economists in the tradition of John Maynard Keynes and the microeconomic \"Walrasian\" economists in the tradition of Abba Lerner.\n\nDuring World War II, Hayek began the \u2018Abuse of Reason\u2019 project. His goal was to show how a number of then-popular doctrines and beliefs had a common origin in some fundamental misconceptions about the social science. In his philosophy of science, which has much in common with that of his good friend Karl Popper, Hayek was highly critical of what he termed scientism: a false understanding of the methods of science that has been mistakenly forced upon the social sciences, but that is contrary to the practices of genuine science. Usually, scientism involves combining the philosophers' ancient demand for demonstrative justification with the associationists' false view that all scientific explanations are simple two-variable linear relationships.\n\nIn The Sensory Order: An Inquiry into the Foundations of Theoretical Psychology (1952), Hayek independently developed a \"Hebbian learning\" model of learning and memory \u2013 an idea which he first conceived in 1920, prior to his study of economics. Hayek's expansion of the \"Hebbian synapse\" construction into a global brain theory has received continued attention in neuroscience, cognitive science, computer science, behavioural science, and evolutionary psychology, by scientists such as Gerald Edelman, and Joaquin Fuster.\n\nIn the latter half of his career Hayek made a number of contributions to social and political philosophy, which he based on his views on the limits of human knowledge, and the idea of spontaneous order in social institutions. He argues in favour of a society organised around a market order, in which the apparatus of state is employed almost (though not entirely) exclusively to enforce the legal order (consisting of abstract rules, and not particular commands) necessary for a market of free individuals to function. These ideas were informed by a moral philosophy derived from epistemological concerns regarding the inherent limits of human knowledge. Hayek argued that his ideal individualistic, free-market polity would be self-regulating to such a degree that it would be 'a society which does not depend for its functioning on our finding good men for running it'.\n\nHayek disapproved of the notion of 'social justice'. He compared the market to a game in which 'there is no point in calling the outcome just or unjust' and argued that 'social justice is an empty phrase with no determinable content'; likewise \"the results of the individual's efforts are necessarily unpredictable, and the question as to whether the resulting distribution of incomes is just has no meaning\". He generally regarded government redistribution of income or capital as an unacceptable intrusion upon individual freedom: \"the principle of distributive justice, once introduced, would not be fulfilled until the whole of society was organized in accordance with it. This would produce a kind of society which in all essential respects would be the opposite of a free society.\"\n\nHayek\u2019s concept of the market as a spontaneous order has been recently applied to ecosystems to defend a broadly non-interventionist policy. Like the market, ecosystems contain complex networks of information, involve an ongoing dynamic process, contain orders within orders, and the entire system operates without being directed by a conscious mind. On this analysis, species takes the place of price as a visible element of the system formed by a complex set of largely unknowable elements. Human ignorance about the countless interactions between the organisms of an ecosystem limits our ability to manipulate nature. Since humans rely on the ecosystem to sustain themselves, we have a prima facie obligation to not disrupt such systems. This analysis of ecosystems as spontaneous orders does not rely on markets qualifying as spontaneous orders. As such, one need not endorse Hayek\u2019s analysis of markets to endorse ecosystems as spontaneous orders.\n<Assistant>Received. I'll store this information.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-10 00:00]\n<User>Here are some news I learnt earlier:\nWith regard to a safety net, Hayek advocated \"some provision for those threatened by the extremes of indigence or starvation, be if only in the interest of those who require protection against acts of desperation on the part of the needy.\" As referenced in the section on \"The economic calculation problem,\" Hayek wrote that \"there is no reason why... the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance.\" Summarizing on this topic, Wapshott writes \"[Hayek] advocated mandatory universal health care and unemployment insurance, enforced, if not directly provided, by the state.\" Bernard Harcourt says that \"Hayek was adamant about this.\" In the 1973 Law, Legislation, and Liberty, Hayek wrote:\n\nArthur M. Diamond argues Hayek's problems arise when he goes beyond claims that can be evaluated within economic science. Diamond argued that: \u201cThe human mind, Hayek says, is not just limited in its ability to synthesize a vast array of concrete facts, it is also limited in its ability to give a deductively sound ground to ethics. Here is where the tension develops, for he also wants to give a reasoned moral defense of the free market. He is an intellectual skeptic who wants to give political philosophy a secure intellectual foundation. It is thus not too surprising that what results is confused and contradictory.\u201d\n\nAsked about the liberal, non-democratic rule by a Chilean interviewer, Hayek is translated from German to Spanish to English as having said, \"As long term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. [...] Personally I prefer a liberal dictatorship to democratic government devoid of liberalism. My personal impression \u2013 and this is valid for South America \u2013 is that in Chile, for example, we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government.\" In a letter to the London Times, he defended the Pinochet regime and said that he had \"not been able to find a single person even in much maligned Chile who did not agree that personal freedom was much greater under Pinochet than it had been under Allende.\" Hayek admitted that \"it is not very likely that this will succeed, even if, at a particular point in time, it may be the only hope there is.\", he explained, however, \"It is not certain hope, because it will always depend on the goodwill of an individual, and there are very few individuals one can trust. But if it is the sole opportunity which exists at a particular moment it may be the best solution despite this. And only if and when the dictatorial government is visibly directing its steps towards limited democracy\".\n\nFor Hayek, the supposedly stark difference between authoritarianism and totalitarianism has much importance and Hayek places heavy weight on this distinction in his defence of transitional dictatorship. For example, when Hayek visited Venezuela in May 1981, he was asked to comment on the prevalence of totalitarian regimes in Latin America. In reply, Hayek warned against confusing \"totalitarianism with authoritarianism,\" and said that he was unaware of \"any totalitarian governments in Latin America. The only one was Chile under Allende\". For Hayek, however, the word 'totalitarian' signifies something very specific: the want to \u201corganize the whole of society\u201d to attain a \u201cdefinite social goal\u201d \u2014which is stark in contrast to \u201cliberalism and individualism\u201d.\n\nIn 1932, Hayek suggested that private investment in the public markets was a better road to wealth and economic co-ordination in Britain than government spending programs, as argued in a letter he co-signed with Lionel Robbins and others in an exchange of letters with John Maynard Keynes in The Times. The nearly decade long deflationary depression in Britain dating from Churchill's decision in 1925 to return Britain to the gold standard at the old pre-war, pre-inflationary par was the public policy backdrop for Hayek's single public engagement with Keynes over British monetary and fiscal policy, otherwise Hayek and Keynes agreed on many theoretical matters, and their economic disagreements were fundamentally theoretical, having to do almost exclusively with the relation of the economics of extending the length of production to the economics of labour inputs.\n<Assistant>I've captured all of this valuable information."]
[{"question": "What was the name of Hayek's first work?", "answer": "The Sensory Order"}, {"question": "Who believes that time is a dimension of reality on a par with the three spatial dimensions", "answer": "Eternalist"}, {"question": "What was Hayek gathering during his time as a research assistant?", "answer": "macroeconomic data"}, {"question": "What are ecosystems views to be?", "answer": "spontaneous orders"}, {"question": "Which party was criticized for being less concerned about liberty and democracy?", "answer": "the Conservative Party"}, {"question": "What settlement featured equal sized homes with little evidence of capital?", "answer": "Catal Huyuk"}, {"question": "Whose works inspire the term \"Walrasian\" in economics?", "answer": "Abba Lerner"}, {"question": "From whom did Felicitas inherit her wealth?", "answer": "her mother"}, {"question": "In what economic field of study does Hayek's views differ from those in macroeconomics?", "answer": "microeconomics"}, {"question": "What tool allowed early farmers to convert forest into arable land?", "answer": "stone axe"}, {"question": "What era saw an increase in permanently settled farming towns?", "answer": "the Bronze Age"}, {"question": "How many settlers were found in Jordan?", "answer": "3,000 inhabitants"}, {"question": "Hayek believed the requirements for a socialist economy would lead to what?", "answer": "totalitarianism"}, {"question": "At what point did Hayek claim dictatorships may be necessary?", "answer": "a transitional period"}, {"question": "Hayek believed that which type of democracy was the worst of its alternatives?", "answer": "unlimited"}, {"question": "Which of Hayek's works did Thatcher produce at the Conservative Research Department?", "answer": "The Constitution of Liberty"}, {"question": "Which philosopher did Hayek learn about in a school lecture?", "answer": "Aristotle"}, {"question": "How did Hayek feel about the success of the book he released in 1960?", "answer": "disappointed"}, {"question": "What position did Hayek gain at the Austrian Institute?", "answer": "director"}, {"question": "Who possibly created the earliest system of writing?", "answer": "The Vin\u010da culture"}, {"question": "During his attendance to von Mises' seminars, who did Hayek become friends with?", "answer": "Eric Voegelin"}, {"question": "Who did Keynes' arguments against the Austrian theory of the business cycle eventually influence?", "answer": "Lionel Robbins"}, {"question": "Who supplied Hayek's salary?", "answer": "an outside foundation"}, {"question": "Who's occupation inspired Hayek when he was older?", "answer": "His father's"}, {"question": "What is McTaggart's second series called?", "answer": "The B-series"}, {"question": "What objects were not used by early farm societies in the Near East ?", "answer": "pottery"}, {"question": "When was the original division of 10 advanced to a division of 5?", "answer": "2002"}, {"question": "What did early humans use to make clothing?", "answer": "animal skins"}, {"question": "Whose work most notably influenced Hayek's argument regarding resource distribution?", "answer": "Max Weber"}, {"question": "Who did Hayek say should provide a safety net for society?", "answer": "the state"}, {"question": "One might still support spontaneous orders without agreeing with which of Hayek's assessments?", "answer": "analysis of markets"}, {"question": "What did Hayek use to refer to the spread of ignorance and misunderstanding within the social sciences?", "answer": "scientism"}, {"question": "Upon leaving London, for what college did he choose to work?", "answer": "University of Chicago"}, {"question": "According to the Eternalist theory, what must we use to describe Homer?", "answer": "special language"}, {"question": "What region do some scholars see as the source for Egypt's start in agriculture?", "answer": "the Middle East"}, {"question": "What era is commonly known as the final phase of the Stone Age?", "answer": "the Neolithic"}, {"question": "Who disagreed with David Steel's statements in 1978", "answer": "Hayek"}, {"question": "The arguments presented in Hayek's 1945 book were a large reason for being granted what award?", "answer": "the Nobel prize"}, {"question": "What were the causes of famine in early farm towns?", "answer": "drought or pests"}, {"question": "What was the name of the ideology Hayek criticized?", "answer": "collectivism"}, {"question": "In which of Hayek's works did he make his statements regarding social insurance?", "answer": "The economic calculation problem"}, {"question": "Who did Thatcher meet with shortly after she was elected as the head of her party?", "answer": "Hayek"}, {"question": "As of the release of his 1960 book, how long had it been since The Road to Serfdom was released?", "answer": "sixteen years"}, {"question": "What materials were used to build the wall around Jericho?", "answer": "stone and marble"}, {"question": "What was August von Hayek particularly passionate about?", "answer": "botany"}, {"question": "What was the name of the agreement Hayek criticized in 1977?", "answer": "Lib-Lab pact"}, {"question": "What did the use of pottery help early Japanese societies develop?", "answer": "agriculture"}, {"question": "Who was among the first readers of Ludwig  Wittgenstein's book?", "answer": "Hayek"}, {"question": "Hayek believed that authoritarianism was very different from what?", "answer": "totalitarianism"}, {"question": "According to what theory is time an ordering of various realities?", "answer": "Presentism"}, {"question": "Who played a critical role in the formation of the Law and Society program?", "answer": "Aaron Director"}, {"question": "Who holds for a thing to exist through time is for it to exist as a continuous reality?", "answer": "perdurantist"}, {"question": "What subject did Hayek's works influence and inspire?", "answer": "modern microeconomics"}, {"question": "What work did Hayek begin in 1923?", "answer": "research assistant"}, {"question": "What type of societies were usually still successful after dealing with famine?", "answer": "agrarian communities"}, {"question": "Who was in possession of large herds that would produce more livestock?", "answer": "Neolithic pastoralists"}, {"question": "What lifestyle element changed significantly from the paleolithic to the neolithic era?", "answer": "shelter"}, {"question": "Where was evidence of fortified settlements found?", "answer": "Linearbandkeramik"}, {"question": "What era saw an increase in metal tool use?", "answer": "Copper Age"}, {"question": "Which man's works were mostly the cause of the ''narrow approach''?", "answer": "Alfred Marshall"}, {"question": "What did some Liberal politicians claim the pact was meant to do?", "answer": "discourage socialist legislation"}, {"question": "What would Hayek's free-market not require in order to function properly?", "answer": "good men"}, {"question": "Who criticizes Hayek's ability to provide specific facts?", "answer": "Arthur M. Diamond"}, {"question": "How many temples were built in Tell Qaramel?", "answer": "2"}, {"question": "What food item was the key to the evolution of farming?", "answer": "wild cereals"}, {"question": "What type of homes were built in the Neolithic era?", "answer": "mud brick houses"}, {"question": "What did Neolithic people use mud-brick to build?", "answer": "houses and villages"}, {"question": "When did the domestication of sheep first appear in Egypt?", "answer": "6,000 BC"}, {"question": "What sort of system did Hayek propose the government create?", "answer": "social insurance"}, {"question": "What type of disagreement existed in tribal groups that were controlled by charismatic leaders?", "answer": "inter-group conflict"}, {"question": "When did Hayek start working on Abuse of Reason?", "answer": "During World War II"}, {"question": "What was August von Hayek's occupation?", "answer": "medical doctor"}, {"question": "What topic did Hayek never write a book about as he said he would?", "answer": "the dynamics of capital"}, {"question": "Where did first show his work?", "answer": "the Geistkreis"}, {"question": "For whom did Hayek work upon being hired by Ludwig von Mises?", "answer": "the Austrian government"}, {"question": "What did Hayek believe the Chilean government would become in the future?", "answer": "a liberal government"}, {"question": "What social groups were formed during the Neolithic age of Eurasia?", "answer": "small tribes"}, {"question": "Which type of economy did Hayek believe the price mechanism to be less effective with?", "answer": "central planning"}, {"question": "Who was Hayek's father?", "answer": "August von Hayek"}, {"question": "What trend led to a major shift in the livelihoods of early cultures?", "answer": "crop farming and cultivation"}, {"question": "The arguments presented in The Use of Knowledge in Society created an starting point for who?", "answer": "Oliver Williamson"}, {"question": "What concept did Hayek dislike?", "answer": "social justice"}, {"question": "When did agrarian societies start to arise in Southeast Europe?", "answer": "7th millennium BC"}, {"question": "Where was Hayek buried in relation to his home town of Vienna?", "answer": "northern outskirts"}, {"question": "What term does Diamond use to refer to Hayek?", "answer": "intellectual skeptic"}, {"question": "What did socialists believe equilibrium theory invalidated?", "answer": "Mises's thesis"}, {"question": "When was the earliest known Asian farm site found in South Korea?", "answer": "2012"}, {"question": "What scenes did the paintings on homes depict?", "answer": "humans and animals"}, {"question": "How many features of asymmetry in the cup example can be viewed?", "answer": "two"}, {"question": "What is the term used to describe economists following Keynes school of thought?", "answer": "\"Marshallian\""}, {"question": "What topic did Hayek shy away from following Pure Theory of Capital?", "answer": "macroeconomics"}, {"question": "What did Hayek want society to function around?", "answer": "a market order"}, {"question": "What did Wittgenstein and Hayek do during the first world war?", "answer": "both were officers"}, {"question": "What was the cultural aspect was the major center of life?", "answer": "the household"}, {"question": "With whom did Hayek establish the Geistkreis?", "answer": "Herbert Furth"}, {"question": "Which of Hayek's books was not as well received as The Road to Serfdom?", "answer": "The Constitution of Liberty"}, {"question": "Who made the claim that Hayek was particularly determined regarding his beliefs on social insurance and a safety net?", "answer": "Bernard Harcourt"}, {"question": "Which type of government was more favorable than others according to Hayek?", "answer": "limited democracy"}, {"question": "Who is responsible for Road to Serfdom being shortened for Reader's Digest in 1945?", "answer": "Max Eastman"}, {"question": "What food related trend was significant in the new agrarian societies?", "answer": "diet"}]