text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in Happiness (11)

=Evidence in The World Happiness Report=

Established by the, the (WHR) is an annual publication, written by experts in various fields, that utilises data primarily provided by  to rank and assess national happiness levels of over 150 countries.

Methodology

The Gallup World Poll is a survey completed by at least 1000 citizens per country. Its results are used to generate indices that cover various social, economic, and political topics, such as Life Evaluation, Personal Health, and Personal Economy.

The Cantril Ladder scale forms the basis of the Life Evaluation index. It asks participants to place themselves on an imaginary "ladder with steps numbered from 0 at the bottom to 10 at the top" where "the top of the ladder represents the best possible life for [them] and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for [them]". The calculated national averages (0-10) are the values used in the WHR's 'Ranking of Happiness'.

Using the World Poll indices and additional supplementary data, the WHR evaluates how these 6 key factors affect a nation’s well-being:

 * GDP per capita;
 * social support;
 * healthy life expectancy;
 * freedom to make life choices;
 * generosity;
 * perceptions of corruption.

Psychology
In Psychology, the study of the concept of Happiness is mainly conducted through the construction of various theories, while the evidence of happiness itself is generally based on behaviour assessments and surveys. Criteria often studied in Psychology, such as "generosity" and "freedom of making life choices", play an important part in the assessment of happiness in the WHR.

In some instances, to be able to assess the actual level of happiness in individuals, psychologists collect data on their physical behaviour and then construct statistics based on said data. These behaviours include but are not limited to: laughing, smiling and helping others. However, despite the presence of the aforementioned quantitative methods, it is mainly qualitative ones that are used by psychologists in the construction of the report.

In the WHR and generally in psychology, the most common method used to process evidence of happiness are surveys where individuals are asked several questions assessing circumstances that may relate to their level of happiness, or are straightforwardly asked to rate their happiness on a scale from 0 to 10.

This surveying method is often criticised for being too subjective, as the perception of happiness varies from one individual to another and is disproportionately influenced by the most recent events in their lives.

Medicine and Health Sciences
Health (in particular physical health) and life expectancy play an important part in the assessment of a person’s happiness; these are medical concepts which allow the determination of a person’s quality of life and overall corporal well-being.

Physical health plays an essential role in an individual’s happiness due to biological factors (e.g. hormones released) that have been quantifiably proven to correlate with improved emotions and mental health. Life expectancy is linked to physical health, for when one has poor physical health, life expectancy is shortened. Therefore, the WHR considers life expectancy and physical health as evidence of the level of one’s happiness.

Evidence on life expectancy is taken from the World Health Organisation, which defines life expectancy as the ‘average number of years that a new-born could expect to live’. If one has a longer life expectancy, the likelihood for the person to be happy increases. Evidence in life expectancy incorporates both quantitative and qualitative elements such as documentation of birth mortality in hospitals and oral accounts provided through census. Similarly, evidence in physical health combines both qualitative and quantitative methods. The clinician's experience, patient's preferences and existing medical knowledge are all considered in evidence-based medicine, which facilitates the assessment of one's physical health.

Another important factor that is reflected through physical health and life expectancy is the country's healthcare system. For example, a poor healthcare system affects one's corporal well-being, limiting their experience of true happiness.

Economics
Traditionally, financial hardship is one of the main factors hindering individual happiness. As such, the WHR uses different econometric measures as a means of evaluating the relative causes of nations’ measured happiness and the differences between nations. The WHR recognises that income security in the event of involuntary unemployment is pivotal in determining life satisfaction. The most commonly used metric is GDP per capita — a measure of a country's economic output per person. The data shows that many of the countries with significantly lower GDP per capita tend to feature lower on the Happiness Rankings, indicating that analysing the evidence in personal economics and individuals’ incomes is critical to evaluating subjective well-being.

However, most studies do show that once basic human needs are met, additional income does not have a strong correlation with increased well-being. In fact, one of the main criticisms of using econometrics in quantifying happiness is that too much value is placed on personal income and GDP per capita. Most recent studies show that income inequality and financial security have a much stronger correlation with subjective well-being. Beyond this, most evidence suggests that it is not how much money we have, but rather how we choose to spend it, which impacts our happiness and well-being.

Interdisciplinary Interactions
The WHR relies on data from the Gallup World Poll, which is composed of over 100 core questions that cover the different aspects affecting one’s happiness. To garner holistic evidence, experts from different disciplinary fields including (but not limited to) Psychology, Medicine and Economics, work collaboratively. The questionnaire is divided into several sections, including those that directly correspond to the aforementioned disciplines. Examples of the different questions would be:
 * Psychology: "All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?"
 * Medicine: "Are you satisfied with or dissatisfied with the availability of quality healthcare?"
 * Economics: "How would you rate economic conditions in this country today — as excellent, good, only, fair or poor?"

In fact, some of the questions apply an interdisciplinary angle, for example, the question "Do you have confidence in the healthcare or medical systems?", concerns the psychological state of the interviewee, whilst their answer will also imply the effectiveness of healthcare systems, which is also evidence of medical infrastructures. This method ensures that the happiness indices generated for each country reflect the average national happiness of its population.

Tensions
One of the main criticisms directed towards the WHR is that with the attempt of assessing happiness by combining various disciplines using vastly differing and overall complex approaches to evidencing, the report fails to properly unify the resulting data.

For example, if we take the psychological method of happiness assessment, which is a survey involving subjective answers that are influenced by differing factors, and attempt to combine it with the objective GDP value used in economics, the resulting data accuracy may inevitably falter. Moreover, happiness is often seen as an individual concept — an experience that varies from person-to-person. Therefore, merging together qualitative and quantitative data into a single numerical result may fail to truly reflect the state of happiness in a country.

These various elements in interdisciplinary evidence must thus be accounted for when determining an individual's real happiness level.


text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in Happiness (11)

{NOTE: the majority of the discussions were led on a WhatsApp group chat or during Microsoft Teams meetings, and were only partially transferred to the discussion page}

Potential topics for the chapter
Power of silence - Dissecting the idea through how different disciplines approach 'silence', for example a musician will have his own interpretation of the idea of silence, whilst an anthropologist may undergo fieldwork and suggest that silence is a form of expressing opinion.

Power of patriarchy in film - Looking into ideas such as powerful men or #metoo movement

Issues of Truth in Mental Health (delusion)

--> All of the above topics have a potential problem of the topic being too broad and there might be cases examples require a lot of explanation. Given the word limit, it is not ideal to work on these

Final topic: Evidence in happiness

Evidence in Happiness
Ideas in disciplines:
 * Economics - Happiness index
 * Psychology - Dopamine
 * Biology - Hormones
 * Philosophy - Utilitarianism

Interdisciplinary ideas:
 * Quantitative vs qualitative
 * Individual vs population (1 vs many)
 * --> clashes and conflict? integration?

Action Plan

 * Regular meetings on Friday 12-1pm ukt
 * Look into different resources for the topic in disciplines of our own interest
 * Create basic backbone for the chapter soon

Feel free to add anything that I have missed! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

28/11 2nd meeting on Microsoft Teams
Narrowing down the topic to: Evidence in the World Happiness Report.

- initial topic being too broad

Finalising disciplines to be included:

- psychology - how happy is a person? [feeling, mentally]

- economics - how much money does one have? [financially]

- medicine, in particular life expectancy - how much time does one have? [physically]

Structure of the page:

Introduction: outline of the World Happiness Report.

Disciplines: psychology, economics, medicine

Conclusion: how the disciplines connect with each other, how they come about in generating evidence

Potential aspects to be included in the conclusion:

- individual vs society

- quantitative vs qualitative

- technology connects the discipline, tool required?

Plan of action: - doing research on disciplines mentioned above by next teams meeting (5/12) Macabre Roses (discuss • contribs) 11:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussed Sections
Introduction:
 * Contains overview of what the WHR is
 * References need including
 * Formatting changes needed

Methodology:
 * Contains overview of the Gallup World Poll and Cantril ladder

Psychology:
 * Needs further referencing

Medicine:
 * Start by explaining how health and life expectancy is measured
 * Explain how this relates to a person’s well-being
 * Perhaps mention that being alive and well enables the individual to be happy for longer
 * If necessary: Look at the flip side, i.e. how being unhealthy can impact happiness
 * Then tie it into the WHR and how it uses this data

Economics:
 * Alter the first sentence so that it is not subjective and more factual
 * Continue this objective tone throughout the remainder of the section

Conclusion:
 * Talk about how these disciplines are brought together to formulate the questions used in the Gallup World Poll/WHR - discussed whether this should be in introduction/methodology/conclusion??
 * Settled on putting it in the conclusion
 * Format of conclusion:
 * Interdisciplinarity - How the fields come together?
 * Conflicts between these disciplines

General discussions:

 * Concerns where raised about how to discuss how the evidence was gathered for the various sections
 * Will be covered in introduction, methodology, and conclusion
 * Concern raised about where the evidence came from - Gallup World Poll
 * This is covered in the intro and methodology sections
 * Suggestion of talking about how the methodology of gathering evidence in each section and then briefly mentioning how it ties into the WHR
 * Then spending the conclusion discussing how it all ties together into the WHR
 * See above for final decision on format for conclusion
 * Formatting:
 * Refer to World Happiness Report using acronym WHR, following first mention in intro
 * Remove acronyms if they are not used subsequently, e.g. WHO
 * Add hyperlinks throughout where necessary/beneficial

Action plans - Before next meeting - Thursday 10th December 1pm UKT:

 * Write both subsections of conclusion in pairs, as discussed above:
 * Interdisciplinarity
 * Conflicts
 * Restructuring medicine, as discussed above
 * Reformatting whole page, as discussed above
 * Referencing (Psychology), as discussed above
 * Altering first sentence of economics and making whole section more objective, as discussed above
 * Find an image to insert
 * Figure 2.1 from WHR 20 - check copyright regulations

NOTE:Please add anything I may have missed! Cakeordeath123 (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Concerns

 * Negotiation of subheadings
 * Discussed about the title problem at the top of the page - “Issues in Interdisciplinarity/Evidence in Happiness (11)”

Plan of Action

 * Fix referencing
 * Spell and grammar check
 * Cut word count
 * Email seminar leader about altering title of “Issues in Interdisciplinarity/Evidence in Happiness (11)”
 * Cross-check references
 * Export as PDF and run work through TurnItIn
 * Bonus: Add relevant image (if any)

Important: Next meeting to finalise everything on Sunday 13th December 2020.

Note: Inform group chat whenever…
 * you’re editing the page;
 * what edits have been done;
 * Word count (before your edit) and new word count (after your edit)

If I've missed anything, please feel free to add on! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 17:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

13/12 4th and final Meeting on Microsoft Teams
* Finalised and submitted the Chapter
 * We finalised referencing
 * Added additional fixes to the Medicine category
 * Added picture to the Methodology section
 * Proof read and fixed some last grammatical errors
 * Double checked word count
 * Exported the chapter as a PDF file and ran it trough the test submissions page
 * Congratulations on finishing this assignment everyone! ヽ(o^ ^o)ﾉ Macabre Roses (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks Macabre Roses! Good work everyone! Glad to have worked with you all! Take care and Happy Holidays! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 16:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks for summarising this and thank you everyone for working hard together to get this done! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 16:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Focus of chapter
Hi guys. Upon closer research into the World Happiness Report, it has become clear that most of the evidence/data used in the WHR comes from the Gallup World Poll - it seems that the WHR is often using this data and then commenting upon the findings. My concern is that perhaps it would fit the topic of evidence better if we went straight to the source as it were and shifted our focus from the WHR to Gallup World Poll and its methodology. I'll bring it up in the meeting today (Saturday) so we can discuss further.Cakeordeath123 (discuss • contribs) 12:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Medicine
Hello! I just typed a brief paragraph about how medicine can affect evidence in happiness and how this is taken into account in the WHR. However, I am quite uncertain whether what I have typed is clear enough to show how medicine as a discipline affects the evidence in life expectancy and how this in turn has an impact on the WHR. I feel like it might not really link to the evidence..? Also, I focused specifically on the 2020 report and I guess perhaps it would be ideal if we centralised this? I think we can talk about these during our meeting later today, and feel free to edit anything that I have typed. -Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 04:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hey! I completely understand your uncertainty... It's most likely because medicine's contribution to evidence in this happiness report isn't as straightforward as the others. Perhaps the 'Medicine' section could use some more background information of some sort. For example, we could probably go into how physical health plays a role in one's happiness and how there is a positive correlation between physical health and life expectancy. Or how life expectancy allows for longer experience of life and therefore the likeliness of experiencing happiness is greater. Though I am, myself, having quite a hard time linking this back to how explicitly medicine provides evidence for the report. But I guess it's the fact that those in the field of medicine have first-hand experience with helping those facing life and death at that very crucial moment and somewhat contribute to informing the hospital of someone's passing which can then get passed on through birth mortality documents, or something like that. Also, I would suggest renaming this section as 'Medicine and Health' because I think it gives more of a broader scope and can be more easily linked with the whole 'physical health' matter if that makes sense. Apologies if none of this makes sense! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 17:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you so much for the suggestions and the paper that you have found! I've refined the paragraph now with your suggestions and the structure we discussed during our meeting, hope it all makes sense and let me know if you have more suggestions! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 02:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

 * That's great! Also having made a few tweaks to the Medicine section, I think it would benefit from talking about (or rather said in a single sentence because of the word count) how physical health can be measured not only through medical assessments but asking about their physical routine — which not only combines (possibly) quantitative and qualitative evidence, but also subjective and objective evidence (although those words are respectively synonymous to an extent). Following that, in the conclusion, we could maybe add something about the reliability of individuals assessing their own happiness (as they are asked to rate their own happiness themselves and such in the questionnaire) and how accurately their answers reflect their real happiness (if happiness were ever truly and indefinitely quantifiable). Though from this, I am aware that (1) this is difficult to talk about given our word count and that (2) my latter point about the accuracy of their answers may perhaps be leading towards the path of truth — but regardless I am interested in hearing everyone's thoughts on this! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 18:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the suggestion and help once again and I agree with the section will benefit from being more precise about specific ways of which evidence is collected. I have went on to search on more information and added a bit more about that based on evidence based medicine. Let me know if you think it's appropriate. Once again, thank you so much for your suggestion!! -Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 03:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

 * No problem! Yes, I think talking about evidence-based medicine is more than appropriate, great job! Also having read my previous reply to you in this thread, I realise I wasn't very clear about my points (especially the first one about physical routine and such) which bothers me slightly (so I hope you don't mind me reiterating my point in a more coherent manner here). And also I have been intellectually enlightened after having fully read our full draft of this WikiChapter. Basically what I meant to say was that the section would benefit from talking about (or rather said in a single sentence because of the word count) how physical health can be measured not only through medical assessments, but asking about how they 'feel' about their fitness level. Doing the latter would give us an insight into how they (a patient/citizen) subjectively view their own health as that could give us an insight into their current mental state which may neurologically affect their health and therefore happiness (both physically and mentally). Because although they may seem almost physiologically fine by observation, they may be suffering mentally and that may require more than a doctor and their extensive medical knowledge but also perhaps a psychologist/psychiatrist (which their psychology-specific knowledge). Thus leading to the collaboration of these two fields (medicine and neuroscience) to collaborate. This also justifies quite specifically why the 6 key variables in the WHR and questions in the Gallup World Poll do not only require a single discipline but many more, to determine how happiness can be influenced and what impact that has on the outcome of the well-being scores more holistically. And of course, there is that question of how reliable is one's own view of their own happiness who is the one experiencing it, compared to a doctor's/psychologist's perception of it (as an outsider / third party, and also being credible disciplinary experts)? Could this report have perhaps benefitted from a disciplinary expert (e.g. medical doctors and psychologists) medically and psychologically evaluating the interviewee rather than having the interviewee answer the questions about their own happiness themselves? But I guess this boils down to the fact that happiness is an individual concept as mentioned in the conclusion and therefore the questionnaire and its content were most appropriate for this investigation. I'd be interested in hearing your (or anyone's) thoughts about this if any come up!

 * Additionally, rewriting this also made me realise that medical assessments as evidence are in nature both objective and subjective, especially in terms of diagnoses when certain symptoms arise, or even when analysing X-ray scans. In the X-ray scan, although it was produced through quantitative methods and technology and therefore supposedly making it an objective piece of evidence, doctors would approach it almost subjectively. By observation. This truly strikes me. This is perhaps because I used to think generally that medical assessments are inherently objective — a stereotype of the nature of evidence in almost any hard/life science. But I never thought about how this might change when it comes to approaching it, which may then go past evidence but closer to what the truth of happiness entails. Also in terms of subjectivity in medical evidence, I've heard of many cases where doctors would conflict with one another when it comes to diagnosing a patient because of clashing opinions — such as on what disease the specific symptoms attribute to, thus leading to the patient to usually require a second opinion from another doctor for further accuracy. This is quite interesting to me as this is a conflict that is intradisciplinary (when our focus is very much more on interdisciplinary tensions). This also seems to resonate with our conclusion about the World Happiness Report and its usage of both subjective and objective evidences, and its potential need to integrate those two semantically conflicting evidence in order to attach a value that best reflects the happiness of an individual in a specific country. Sorry for blabbering, I'm currently having in my own little thought bubble. And apologies if this is straying further from our topic — I am currently thinking as I write. --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 21:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 * No worries about straying further from our topic. Let me address the first part of your comment, I think it's a very unique thought about having the experts examine an individual's happiness but I think this cannot be the only way of assessing one's level of happiness because of the inherent 'individuality' of feelings. Moreover, if the experts diagnosing how happy a person is knows that the results will affect a nation's level of happiness, perhaps they will not be as objective and these bias accounts are difficult to detect. So I guess the questionnaires directed to individuals is potentially a better methodology to generate evidence for the WHR.

 * In response to your second point - I'm so glad you found this interesting. At first, I was very confused with medicine and health sciences in general for I am not particularly familiar with the discipline but as I investigated more, I started to realise how evidence is so crucial in medicine. In fact, I think what you're feeling and thinking is very similar to what I thought when I came across evidence based medicine under systematic review (you might want to have a read about it here I guess it's because we're used to understanding science as 'objective' or absolute, but in fact when it comes to diagnoses and problems relating to health, it is inevitable that subjectivity plays a role. Especially when it comes to making decisions such as the doctor's diagnosis, the treatment for the patient etc. Therefore, evidence based medicine attempts to fuse these elements to make sure doctors follow a proper protocol to prevent over subjective decision. - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 10:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you so much for your response and for that link — I will definitely give that a read! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Economics
Hey all! Just added a first draft of the section on economics evidence in happiness. I think it'll need a lot of trimming and changing - but there are some useful references included. I think it will also need refocusing on the WHR, because the second paragraph in particular lost that focus slightly. Cakeordeath123 (discuss • contribs) 12:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hey! I think the section is looking really good and also I added a hyperlink for the word econometrics so that it help clarifies things, hope that's alright. -Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 03:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Introduction
Hello! Just added my bit on the introduction and decided to add a separate section called "Methodology" so I could go into brief detail about how these values were calculated. Feel free to add or remove anything! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello all. As discussed on WhatsApp chat, I have done an overhaul of the introduction and methodology sections:
 * Removed repeated information
 * Clarified that the happiness scores used in the Ranking of Happiness also come from the Gallup World Poll data
 * Removed the introduction heading and left the intro as a line underneath the main title
 * Upgraded the methodology subheading to a heading in place of the now-deleted introduction heading
 * Reduced word count (by 29 words)

I have left the original section there for comparison, please let me know if you feel I have missed any relevant info from the original section/if I have made any unnecessary/detrimental edits?? Cakeordeath123 (discuss • contribs) 14:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I think given the word count constrains, the version on the top is better than the one below [original] (the entry word-count is 1216 words with this), I also think the main ideas about the WHR and the Gallup is clearly summarised as well. - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 16:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes, I agree with Shaunice34. Thanks for that! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 17:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I also agree, and have at present removed the old version from the page. Macabre Roses (discuss • contribs) 16:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Referencing
Hello everyone! Just wanted to clarify something: is everyone using Vancouver referencing? I realised we didn't really say much about this but it just popped up in my head suddenly. Let me know! Thanks! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 17:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hey! Yes I've been using Vancouver referencing, I think it's the standard for wiki accounts? Anyway maybe we could go over all the referencing during our meeting later? - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 02:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes, that sounds good! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

 * During our meeting on the 13th of December, we reviewed and finalised all referencing. Macabre Roses (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Psychology
Hey Macabre Roses, I edited the psychology section as I think we're quite over the word limit at the moment, let me know if there's anything that you think shouldn't be deleted and feel free to add it back. I mainly tweaked on connectives so should not be too much of a problem. Do let me know! -Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 03:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the edits are well done! Macabre Roses (discuss • contribs) 22:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Formatting
Hello all! Does anyone know what we should do about the title that seems to show up at the top of our page (i.e. "Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in Happiness (11)")? I believe that title is old and seems almost unremovable. Has anyone else tried fixing it perhaps? --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hey, I tired fixing this - I used a similar method that I adopted previously for changing the title of the change, but by doing so - this page completely disappeared so I had to undo what I've done to keep the page... - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 * That's odd... It seems that, based on a Wiki chapter on the main page I stumbled upon, a group got rid of this same problem we are having. I guess we should email our seminar leader about this. I'll CC you all in! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 18:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

 * [NOTE] Outcome: According to our seminar leader, we were told to just leave it be, unless he hears otherwise from other ATK lecturers. --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 21:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion
Hello everyone! This is just a small suggestion but I was wondering whether maybe we should change the heading from "Conclusion" to "Evaluating Evidence"? It doesn't change much but I think it suits our ending better and ties things up well (in the sense that we are simply evaluating the evidence at the end). What do you all think? --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 18:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I believe 'evaluating evidence' will suit our content more as we are not really concluding what we've written but we're evaluating it instead. So yes, I think it's a good suggestion, let's wait and see what Cakeordeath123 and Macabre Roses think. - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 01:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 * In my opinion, it would be better if we emphasised on the "combination of evidence" from different disciplines. Macabre Roses (discuss • contribs) 16:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 * After a discussion in the meeting today 13th December, we have settled on changing the "Conclusions" heading to "Interdisciplinary Interactions", and removed the subheading "Interdisciplinarity", which has now been done 14:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Cakeordeath123 (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy
Hey everyone! I read through some articles and books about happiness in philosophy and utilitarianism is definitely a topic where it clearly links to happiness. This is an approach that can allow the moral agent to know what is 'right' to do when facing a dilemma and is heavily based on utility, which is often understood as happiness. I've consolidated some notes so you can all have a read about it and see whether it could be included into our chapter.

Utilitarianism = teleological approach in ethics → the end justifies the means
 * Idea generated from Jeremy Bentham who included this in his book: Principles of Morals and Legislation (1978)
 * The consequence is what matters, in this case the principle is to maximise utility (because humans have a tendency to 'seek pleasure and avoid pain')
 * Utility often understood as happiness
 * Therefore, the morally correct thing to do is whatever that will result in the greatest amount of happiness

An introduction and easier read to Bentham's book can be found here

Happiness: = ‘Calculated’ through the Hedonic Calculus (p.22 of the introductory text)

Some things to be considered - specifically linking to qualifying and quantifying:

 * Some of the criteria can be quantified by numbers, for example ‘duration’ but some cannot as they are sensation, for example: ‘intensity’ - is it possible to try to incorporate both quantity and quality into one account?
 * In these 7 criteria, does one contribute more to the actual feeling of ‘happiness’ ?
 * To me the methodology seems to be → but it might not be ‘clear’ in providing a  ‘direction’ as to deciding what happiness means
 * All these criteria all dependent on the subjective experience of what one thinks what constitutes as happiness - is that a problem?

Feel free to supplement your thoughts and we can also discuss more during our call this Friday! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 05:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

 * This is really interesting! I think this ties in quite explicitly with Economics. Because classically, economists often adopt this principle of utilitarianism in most of their theories (notably rational choice theory) where they assume all consumers will make decisions that maximises utility. But I believe it is a theory that is more than often refuted by behavioural economists. I resonate with your questions too - they would fit perfectly in our conclusion/ending. Great work! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 05:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you for providing me with this insight! I don't really know much about economics but it seems really interesting how the disciplines have similar concepts but the concept is applied in different ways due to the nature of the discipline itself! I was just wondering then, when economists deal with 'happiness' do they usually follow the utilitarianism approach, especially when they calculate the happiness index or do they use both? - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 06:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Sorry for the late reply! But I would say that it depends on the branch of economics. Classic economists would usually use utilitarianism as the default assumption that all consumers go by when making decisions. But the emergence of behavioural economics which incorporates psychological theories to classic economics have gone against that most times. So I guess ultimately, looking at economics as a whole, I would say that they use both but different subfields of economics approach it quite differently. I'll give an example of where utilitarianism is applied. So, traditionally, utilitarianism does serve as an underpinning of some early basic economics concepts that looked to understand the decision-making behaviour of a typical consumer — so at what point do consumers stop consuming and for this, classic economists have theorised that it is at a point where marginal utility (their marginal satisfaction from consuming a unit of the product) falls. This theory is called the law of diminishing marginal utility which is taught early on in economics courses usually. I hope that made some sense... and answered at least one of your questions! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 06:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Sorry that I just saw this reply! Thank you so much for clarifying things especially by giving an example and it's so interesting to see how this concept is applied to Economics. (As I don't really know much about economics...) I'll spend some time looking into the theory that you suggested. -Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 01:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Economics
Hello! I've compiled some notes regarding the way in which economists quantify happiness especially with regards to the Happiness Index.

Happiness Index / Gross National Happiness / Life ladder
 * Definitions:
 * - Created by Global Happiness Council (GHC), a group of independent academic happiness specialists.
 * - Old definition according to GHC as of 2012: The Happiness Index is defined as the weighted (by sampling weights) rate of respondents reporting “Very happy” or “Quite happy” less the weighted rate of respondents reporting “Not very happy” or “Not at all happy,” plus 100. The index thus ranges from 0 to 200.
 * - Recent definition in 2018 report and onwards: Please imagine a ladder, with steps numbered from 0 at the bottom to 10 at the top. The top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you. On which step of the ladder would you say you personally feel you stand at this time?
 * - Scale 0-10
 * - Involves a multitude of specialists from different disciplines: psychologists and neuroscientists, technologists, economists (source: GHC report 2019)
 * How data is sourced?
 * - Integration of qualitative and quantitative analysis
 * - Method of collecting raw data is qualitative as it is collected through surveys and therefore subjective and based on an individual - retrieved from Gallup World Poll
 * - Interviews 1000 residents / country in +150 countries
 * - Interviews people aged +15
 * - “asked the same questions in his or her own language to produce statistically” (source)
 * - the questionnaire measures 14 areas within its core questionnaire: “Business and economics, citizen engagement, communication and technology, social diversity, education and family, individual well-being, environment and energy, food and shelter, government and politics, law and order, health, religion and ethics, transportation and work culture.”
 * - Data is processed to bring out an average from all surveys that represents a country’s Gross National Happiness

Questions I have following this research:
 * - Can an average of only 1000 residents per country truly represent the happiness of the people within a country?
 * - Regarding the exclusion of ages below 15 from survey - why? Is it assumed that they are not capable of identifying their level of happiness? Is their response just not valid because of their lack of experience in life and maturity to do so (compared to those aged 15+)? If it is, then doesn't the lack of children representation in this happiness index skew the data and its validity as an index?

Please feel free to add any more notes, thoughts, and questions you may have! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 05:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Well done for doing this, it is very informative and interesting! One common theme that I am picking up on is that the concept of happiness is usually experienced by the individual but all 'evidence' towards happiness is based on a definition or a generalisation drawn from either a group of specialists (in your example) or by an individual (in the case of Bentham), which makes me question to what extent are these measures an accurate representation? The questions you have raised are also very thought provoking, especially regarding the exclusion of ages below 15 from the survey. It made me realise a potential limitation that runs in both this survey and also in utilitarianism. They both require one to have the ability to realise they are happy in order to have 'evidence'. However, surely if we were to observe if a person is 'happy' or not, certain behaviours such as smiling or laughing could be taken into account. Thus, perhaps a behavioural approach in psychology would be able to address this limitation, therefore, demonstrating in order gain a holistic view and of what happiness it might require evidence from a range of disciplines. (This could be included in our conclusion and we could discuss this further in our meeting tomorrow!) - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 06:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Oh, yes, that point about observing whether a person is 'happy' through smiling and such is very interesting! Though I wonder how valid that would be as evidence as people experience happiness and exhibit that feeling in different manners (e.g. one might laugh aloud out of joy whilst another would simply sit still but experience that same level of happiness). And, yes, I think that would be great to look within the conclusion! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 07:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I agree that a smiling might not be a full representation of one's happiness as it could have several interpretations. Let's talk about this later today! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 03:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Neuroscience (Psychology)
Hello everyone, here is the main information I have gathered on the concept of happiness and its measurement in Psychology. This involves a general overview of theories of happiness in Psychology, different ways of measuring happiness as well as some perspectives. Please do let me know if there is anything you would like to add, question, edit, remove and so on.Macabre Roses (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

 In Psychology, there are three main theories of the concept of happiness:

- The Freedom of Choice Theory The extent to which a society allows free choice has a great impact on a person's happiness (when their basic needs are met). Inglehart R. "Cultural Evolution: People's Motivations are Changing, and Reshaping the World" (2019)

- The Self-Determination Theory The ability to make choices without external influence and interference - being self motivated has a direct link with happiness. Ryan, Richard M.,Deci, Edward L. "Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being." American Psychologist, Vol 55(1), (Jan 2000) 68-78

- The Positive Psychology Theory Spending time on improving our own well-being in a more positive and proactive way contributes to our happiness. Bolier L, Haverman M, Westerhof G, Riper H, Smit F, Bohlmeijer E."Positive psychology interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies" (2013)

 Methods of measuring happiness in Psychology:

- Biological (there has been minimal success in identifying the biological markers of happiness):- quantitative Using biological markers such as hormones and neurotransmitters to measure happiness (What is known is that the markers for happiness are not the same as those for depression)

- Behavioural: Physical behaviour such as frequency of smiling, laughing and helping Others. - quantitative Mark Holder (2017)

- Implicit measures (have not been proven to be effective): People do not know their happiness is being assessed - usually assess reaction times of connecting positive and negative terms to oneself. - Other reports: Asking people to rate someone else's happiness (children of parents and the other way around) - qualitative

- Self-Reports (most common): Using a single or multiple questions to ask a person what their level of happiness is. - qualitative The Subjective Happiness Scale

Issue: The answer is subjective and humans are disproportionately impacted by the most recent events in their life, so if for example a question is asked to rate one's overall happiness throughout their life, if something bad happened recently they are likely to answer accordingly.

 Meik Wiking (“The Psychology”, 2018):

In order to measure happiness, it is important to look at the various parts that contribute to the concept of happiness. differentiate between momentary happiness and overall happiness.

- A person’s genetics

- Situation

- Behavior (40%)

 Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, and Schkade (2005):

Three different constructs that are involved when talking about happiness such as:

- More positive emotions

- High life satisfaction

- Less negative emotions.

 * Wow! This is super interesting, particularly how different branches of psychology actually approach this differently. I was wondering for the experiments that were carried out, was there an age restriction? (For example, in economics, the Gallup World Poll it's 15+) Moreover, one thing that cam into my mind is that both in economics and psychology, the discipline will conduct surveys and experiments to transfer the qualified data into quantified data - this requires two people, the interviewer and the interviewee. Yet, in philosophy, the moral agent is the only person who determines the 'happiness' of other individuals. We could talk a bit more about this during our meeting later! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 03:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Power in the legalisation of cannabis

= Introduction to the Legalisation of Cannabis =

On the 2nd December 2020, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, from the United Nations Economic and Social Council reclassified cannabis as a less harmful drug. Cannabis was before on the list of the most dangerous drugs under the Schedule IV of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This decision sets an unprecedented turn. From now on, international law recognises the medical benefits therapeutic cannabis can have. This decision was taken by a political organisation based on the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommendations and thus highlights that different disciplines come into play in this issue. The problem however, is not solved because while the UN decision has an internationally symbolic dimension to it, each country has their own legislation. Therefore, the use of cannabis is twofold as it is not only therapeutic but also recreational. The different disciplines involved including medicine, politics, law and economics have significant power here, which makes the legalisation of cannabis an issue that cannot be solved by a monodisciplinary approach.

= The Medical Discipline : a Decisive Power in the Legalisation =

Medical power plays an essential role in the legalisation of cannabis and has a great pressure on its control. A therapeutic use of cannabis is not a new practice, however the question of legalising its use recently appeared in the medical discipline. According to numerous international researches, marijuana is an effective solution for pain control and could become a much safer treatment than opiates which currently account for 70% of drug associated deaths. Moreover, the use of cannabis as a muscle relaxant has been positively experienced with Parkinson’s disease and its use as a treatment for PTSD has been promising.

On the other hand, although certain researches have proved wrong some of the negative assumptions on marijuana consumption, for instance a lowered IQ as a consequence, the use of cannabis can still cause harm. Despite the political and economic advantages of its legalisation, the power of medical research could not have been ignored in the UN decision since it highlights the dangers of cannabis use for individuals including Cannabis Use Disorder, harmful effects on teenagers’ brain development and cognitive dysfunction

However, these negative effects are comparable to those of alcohol which is on the contrary legalised, so it may raise potential misunderstandings of cannabis users about its prohibition. Indeed, cannabis would cause less harm than alcohol, but the hypothesis of regulating cannabis as little as alcohol, allowing hemp recreational use is firmly countered by scientific research as it aims to prevent normalisation of cannabis consumption ,.

Thus, the scientific profession is definitely challenging the legalisation of cannabis without its therapeutic criteria which has been decided by six governments so far for political, legal and economic benefits. On the other hand, the legalisation of a controlled distribution of cannabis strictly for medicinal use is increasing as it is more and more supported by the medical power.

= Governmental Power =

The consequences of the legalisation of cannabis are significant in politics and law. These disciplines, although distinct, are intertwined in this issue, under one organ: the government. Being the decision-maker, the government has a major power on the outcome of this issue.

Part of the political and legal power promotes the legalisation of cannabis. Their main arguments are the following: legalising cannabis and putting it under government control will allow the dismantlement of the criminal market of cannabis. The police are overwhelmed with cases of people who smoke marijuana, while other more serious cases require their time. According to FBI data 500,000 arrests were made in the United States for cannabis possession in 2019. The power held by the judiciary, lobbying for more financial means and time, is an incentive for the legalisation of cannabis. In addition, marijuana being one of the most consumed drugs, dismantling its black market would be a major win for any government. This results in tensions between parts of governments that push for the legalisation, seeing it as a political driver and the medical power.

Yet, drawing on the examples of states and countries that legalised marijuana, some governments pointed out that there is no guarantee that the black market will be dismantled, or that its legalisation does not make way for other, more harmful drugs. Moreover, the legal power highlights that it is not because a law is not efficient that it should be changed to the opposite, otherwise arm trafficking and tax evasion should be legalised too. Conflicts within the law lead to cases such as the United States where cannabis is prohibited federally but legal in some states.

Thus, the legal and political disciplines have tremendous power in solving such an issue through governments. However, due to the tensions within their perspectives and the power struggle, a unique outcome has not yet been cleared.

= Economic Power =

Legalising cannabis is very impactful for the economy. It not only can create a new revenue source, but it can also reduce the costs associated with law enforcement measures. In Canada, around $70 million is earned yearly through levies on legal hemp sales whereas, police, prison and court associated costs accounted for more than $600 million in 2009

Black markets are underground markets, whereas legalisation is a synonym for transparency and control. A market controlled by the government allows production to be done in better conditions to ensure a higher quality production. Certain economists argue that an official marijuana market would make it easier to control sales to the underage population that cannot purchase it. Thus, economists sometimes side partial with the political and legal power.

On the other hand, the total costs of cannabis legalisation are highly subject to how the consumption changes. This means that if hemp consumption surges dramatically, social costs will outweigh economic benefits. These social drawbacks mainly include health care costs, traffic accidents, fire damage costs and economic loss of income (both in terms of cost of marijuana and loss in productivity).

Eventually, even when cannabis is legalised, the black market is not set to disappear. In California today, it is three times larger than the official market since its prices are more attractive to customers and producers do not pay taxes on their sales. Therefore, economic power is another influence in the resolution to legalising cannabis.

= The Interdisciplinary Challenge: the Seek of a Possible Agreement = In conclusion, the legalisation of cannabis raises an interdisciplinary conflict especially between the medical power and both the economic and governmental powers. Although a great proportion of the medical profession supports a controlled legalisation of therapeutic cannabis, only the hypothesis of legalising recreational cannabis highlights the economic, political and legal benefits. As these different disciplines each have significant power in the decision-making on this topic, their different conflicts of interest and views prevent a consensus from being reached. Nevertheless, several governments seem to have found a compromise: the decriminalisation of cannabis possession below a certain quantity. The police would not be as flooded, which is both a legal and financial advantage. Finally, if the quantity limit is decided by the medical authority, public health would not be threatened by this type of decision.

= References =


text: Category:Book:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in Measuring Workplace Happiness

Introduction
Modern perspectives on happiness tend towards defining "purpose" in one's life. The Japanese, for example, qualify happiness through their idea of Ikigai, "that which makes one's life worth living", focusing on four main areas of life. (Note that "well-being" differs from happiness, which forms a part of overall well-being). This Wikibook chapter will explore the use of evidence in measuring workplace happiness, as well as the tensions arising between different disciplinary perspectives.

Economics

Economists place value on quantitative data, using surveys, self-assessment scales and measurement tools such as the Day Reconstructing Method and Bhutan's Gross National Happiness Index. Tensions can arise with other disciplines as economists focus selectively on empirical data, which lacks subjective context, treating happiness purely as a calculation.

Previously unavailable, big datasets now provide empirical evidence that higher income correlates with higher happiness. This is true cross-nationally, enabling "reassessment" of the Easterlin Paradox, the idea that money doesn't buy happiness, and that more money to a poor person means more than it does a rich person. Company bosses use this evidence and implement pay increases tapered to benefit lower-incomes more than higher. The hope here is that happiness is "endogenous": engendering productivity and conscientiousness (Pinker, 2018), partially fulfilling a need to feel valued to feel happier. The evidence also refutes the earlier idea that $75,000 is the optimal happiness and income level above which happiness growth slows.

Psychology

Modern Positive Psychologists established the Happiness Formula of H = C + V + S: C being conditions of your life; V being Volunteering that you do and daily choices you make; and S being your biological set point. Meditation, under the “eightfold noble path” (Haidt, 2006) helps with the V because it reduces attachment and cultivates acceptance. Happiness has been defined as “the form of pleasant moods and emotions, well‐being, and positive attitudes” (Fisher, 2010), and being happy at work has been shown to be an important factor in workplace advancement. Fisher established the key variables in measuring workplace happiness as job satisfaction, engagement and organisational loyalty, all of which can be measured both subjectively and empirically across a timeframe, concerning a unitary or collective subject.

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy works to rationalise and not catastrophise behaviours, asking questions like "what's the worst that could happen?" and "has it ever happened?" to change behaviours through changing thought patterns. This has been evidenced through Randomised Control Trials (RCTs) and implemented in workplace settings to reduce stress amongst employees. A major method of evidence retrieval in psychology is self-reporting, consisting of single or multi-faceted questionnaires given to respondents through RCTs or on case-by-case bases, for example the Job Descriptive Index, or the Utrecht Work Enthusiasm Scale.

Psychology raises both intra- and inter-disciplinary tensions. Within psychology, twin studies have shown that genetic factors account for 35-50% of our happiness levels. This disproved early Freudian theory, favouring quantitative genetic data over subjective and qualitative analysis methods, raising tensions between psychologists as quantitative data continues to be held in increasingly high regard. Psychology emphasises reasons for behaviour rather than outcomes, with data typically being more subjective. However, evidence used in happiness economics is largely quantitative: mathematical models predict behaviour with happiness as the desired outcome. These types of data are seen in stark contrast to one another, ultimately leading to disharmony, perpetuating interdisciplinary tension further.

Neuroscience
Neuroscientific studies have been conducted into workplace happiness, demonstrating the interactions of neurotransmitters and the impact these have on happiness levels.

Recent research by neuroeconomist Paul Zak found that an increased level of the hormone and neurotransmitter oxytocin leads to an increased level of trust, efficiency and workplace productivity, in turn resulting in higher levels of happiness. This was proven with empirical evidence, as blood samples were used to quantify oxytocin levels in social interactions.

The evidence shows dopamine, a neurotransmitter, is a strong contributor to workplace happiness. Higher levels of dopamine in the brain have been correlated with higher levels of workplace motivation and happiness. Lower levels of motivation are linked to psychiatric disorders like depression and increased risk of Alzheimer's and other neurological disorders. The evidence used to quantify dopamine levels is empirical, using Positron Emission Tomography (PET scanning) to map, analyse and quantify neurotransmitter levels in different parts of the brain.

Tensions also exist between psychology and neuroscience. Psychology was historically the more sociological discipline, with neuroscience relying on biological principles. Neuroscience is based on the concept of 'eliminative reductionism', meaning many neuroscientists believe that neural analysis could replace psychological analysis. Psychologists label humans as complex systems, and believe that brain function can't simply be reduced to neural functions, but rather is influenced by a whole range of biological, social and cultural factors. Here lies an obvious tension, due to two opposing fundamental principals (reductionism vs holism), and the consequent effect on research methodology and formation of evidence.

Anthropology

Cultural, societal and geographical constructs of happiness hold the same communalities, what the Japanese call 'Ikigai', the Danish 'Hygge', for example. Humans are happier when they are fit, healthy, loved, safe, comfortable and socially connected (not lonely), which are critical considerations for workplace happiness. These factors can be measured by anthropologists through qualitative data, helping to understand the role of meaning and value in happiness, which are variables often excluded when just focusing on quantitative measures.

Smaller societies feel happier if they have cultural autonomy within an advancing, modern world. Many young, single, white, males have experienced high levels of unhappiness during lockdown and look forward to going to work for interpersonal contact, upon which mental health is dependent. Happiness differs between the generations: happiness at twenty is different to that at forty and at sixty as vested interests evolve and sociocentric orientations are challenged by globalisation. Anthropology has been a cultural critique of disciplines and what's best for humans and what's best for the State.

Anthropology almost keeps a restraining hand on quantitative happiness measurements. Sustainable emotional well-being of employees is a crucial contributing factor to workplace happiness; its positive effects can lead to increased productivity, resilience and engagement. Economic measures alone cannot quantify happiness, so applying an anthropological perspective could provide an overview of what makes humans happy, combining all the interdisciplinary evidence available and applying those conditions to the workplace. While the sciences, including economics, value empirical evidence, anthropology values qualitative ethnographic evidence. These differences can be overcome by combining cross-cultural statistics, which offer more nuanced understandings of local differences.

Conclusion
Disciplines approach the epistemology and ontology of evidence in different ways, creating incongruity in what constitutes evidence and how evidence is defined, leading to interdisciplinary tensions.

These contrasting beliefs pose challenges when it comes to measuring workplace happiness. While individual disciplines can provide unique perspectives, the search for clearer common ground continues. Taking a more comprehensive approach to measuring happiness, combining the subjective nature of qualitative data with quantitative data would be the ideal interdisciplinary solution. Evidence needs to be integrated holistically, but perspectivism between the disciplines slows the process of collaboration.


text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Laura, Varya, Ellie

Today we have started discussing possible topics for our wikibooks chapter for the UCL module BASC0001. We decided that we will focus on Truth but we will carry out some more research before finalising our topic.

Our ideas are:

•	Truth in reality/Truth in consciousness

•	Truth in the bystander effect

•	Truth in the Nature nurture debate, understanding of personality.

•	Truth in abnormality: Autism, MDD, another specific disorder, general mental health

The disciplines we may focus on are:

•	Psychology

•	Philosophy

•	Anthropology

•	Biology

MM.Mar 08 (discuss • contribs) 15:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in Anxiety and other related mental disorders

Zoom Meeting 1: Brainstorming
We settled on evidences in anxiety and other related diseases. For example PTSD, ADHD or even hyperactivity. We are going to use the disciplines of anthropology, psychology, economy, biology, neuroscience. Especially the conflict between different anthropologists about what means these different illnesses and also the conflict between how different societies look at them. We could Also highlight some conflicts about economy often putting aside mental health issues while psychologist emphasis their importance. https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=d7YT2mv6Z4IC&oi=fnd&pg=PA181&dq=anthropology+mental+disorders+theories&ots=STYz7i6pxS&sig=cTsTzqyo1ApWygVJEp1emKXYIUE#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://www.open.edu/openlearn/health-sports-psychology/health/challenging-ideas-mental-health/content-section-3.3.1

Meeting date : 20/11/2020

Zoom Meeting 2
Before the meeting, each of our group members shared useful links related to the topic and made short summaries of them in a google doc. In the meeting, we discussed our findings and proposed a structure for the chapter. Gabriel will work on the introduction and conflicts sections, Sarah will focus on biological, psychiatrical and neuroscience perspectives of the diagnosis of anxiety disorder, and Joyce will focus on anthropological, psychological, and economical perspectives of anxiety.

Google doc link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aiFpzjEBaDn7n_LcTAWRDtCKNLMUlsBwIod5f1wt5pE/edit?ts=5fbe704a

Meeting date: 20/11/27


text:
User:Cupper52

See w:en:User:Cupper52

title: User:Cupper52


text:
User:Cupper52/sandbox

w:en:User:Cupper52/sandbox

title: User:Cupper52/sandbox


text:
Talk:Lentis/Car Dependency in the U.S.

I am once again imploring that this page will be completed by December 7th, I ask for it not to be deleted again

This page is a Work in Progress and is planned to be finished by the 7th of DecemberDCollins2021 (discuss • contribs) 20:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lentis/Car Dependency in the U.S.


text:
User talk:2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:55

Blocked
You cannot edit for 3 months due to disruptive editing. You are welcome to contribute constructively when editing privileges are restored. You may appeal this action with a reasonable argument by adding the text below. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:55


text:
Module:Wikidata label

--[[ __  __           _       _      __        ___ _    _     _       _          _       _          _ |  \/  | ___   __| |_   _| | ___ \ \      / (_) | _(_) __| | __ _| |_ __ _  | | __ _| |__   ___| | | |\/| |/ _ \ / _` | | | | |/ _ (_) \ /\ / /| | |/ / |/ _` |/ _` | __/ _` | | |/ _` | '_ \ / _ \ | | |  | | (_) | (_| | |_| | |  __/_ \ V  V / | |   <| | (_| | (_| | || (_| | | | (_| | |_) |  __/ | |_|  |_|\___/ \__,_|\__,_|_|\___(_) \_/\_/  |_|_|\_\_|\__,_|\__,_|\__\__,_| |_|\__,_|_.__/ \___|_|

This module is intended to be the engine behind "Template:Label". This module was copied from Commons please ask for changes there.

Please do not modify this code without applying the changes first at "Module:Wikidata label/sandbox" and testing at "Module:Wikidata label/testcases".

Authors and maintainers:
 * User:Jarekt - original version

]]

require('strict') -- used for debugging purposes as it detects cases of unintended global variables

--============================================= --=== Internal functions ====================== --=============================================

--- -- Normalize input arguments by converting them all to lower case and -- replacing space with "_" in the argument name. Also empty strings are -- converted to nils. Arguments are collected from arguments passed to the -- module and if missing from the template that calls the module local function getArgs(frame) local function normalize_input_args(input_args, output_args) for name, value in pairs( input_args ) do			value = mw.text.trim(value) -- trim whitespaces from the beggining and the end of the string if value ~= '' then -- nuke empty strings if type(name)=='string' then name = string.gsub( string.lower(name), ' ', '_') end output_args[name] = value end end return output_args end local args = {} args = normalize_input_args(frame:getParent.args, args) args = normalize_input_args(frame.args, args) return args end

--- -- Function allowing for consistent treatment of boolean-like wikitext input. -- It works similarly to Module:Yesno but does not assume val is a string local function yesno(val, default) if type(val) == 'boolean' then return val elseif type(val) == 'number' then if val == 1 then return true elseif val == 0 then return false end elseif type(val) == 'string' then val = mw.ustring.lower(val) -- put in lower case if val == 'no' or val == 'n' or val == 'false' or val == '0' then return false elseif val == 'yes' or val == 'y' or val == 'true' or val == '1' then return true end end return default end

- -- get message in a given language -- INPUTS: -- * msg - name of a message. For it to work MediaWiki:msg page need to be set up -- * lang - translate message to language "lang" -- * default - string to return in case this module is moved to a project where this message is not set -- OUTPUT: -- * translated message local function getMessage(msg, lang, default) msg = mw.message.new(msg):inLanguage(lang):plain return (msg == nil and default) or msg end

--- -- use different sitelink call depending if you already have an entity or not -- INPUTS: -- * item and entity - entity id and entity: if full entity already uploded than use that --                     otherwise use entity id to look up sitelink -- * lang - language of the project -- OUTPUT: -- * sitelink local function getSitelink(item, entity, lang) if entity and entity.getSitelink then -- if we have entity then use it return entity:getSitelink(lang .. 'wiki') else -- if no entity then use different function return mw.wikibase.getSitelink(item, lang .. 'wiki') end end

--- -- use different sitelink call depending if you already have an entity or not -- INPUTS: -- * item and entity - entity id and entity: if full entity already uploded than use that --                     otherwise use entity id to look up sitelink -- * prop - property for which to return the best statment -- OUTPUT: -- * value of the best statment (only from the first one) local function getBestStatementsValue(item, entity, prop) local statments if entity then statments = entity:getBestStatements(prop) else statments = mw.wikibase.getBestStatements(item, prop) end for _, statment in ipairs(statments) do		if statment and statment.mainsnak.datavalue.value then return statment.mainsnak.datavalue.value end end end

--- -- change capitalization of the label -- INPUTS: -- * label - label string -- * capitalization - capitalization to be applied: allowed values are "tc", "lc", --     "uc", "lcfirst", and "ucfirst". Any other value will return original string -- * lang - language of the label -- OUTPUT: -- * value of the best statment (only from the first one) local function apply_capitalization(label, capitalization, lang) capitalization = string.lower(capitalization or 'none') if capitalization == 'none' then return label elseif capitalization == 'uc' then return mw.language.new(lang):uc(label) elseif capitalization == 'lc' then return mw.language.new(lang):lc(label) elseif capitalization == 'tc' then -- title case local new_label = {} for _, word in ipairs(mw.text.split(label, ' ')) do			table.insert(new_label, mw.language.new(lang):ucfirst(word)) end return table.concat(new_label, ' ') elseif capitalization == 'ucfirst' then return mw.language.new(lang):ucfirst(label) elseif capitalization == 'lcfirst' then return mw.language.new(lang):lcfirst(label) end return label end

--- get link based on user preference INPUTS:  * "wikidata" - link to wikidata   * "wikipedia" - link to wikipedia (language dependent)   * "wikidata talk" - link to wikidata talk page   * "commons" - link to commons (try sitelink then commons category then commons gallery)   * "commonscat" - link to commons (try commons category then commons gallery)   * "-" - means no link OUTPUT: local function getLink(link_type, item, entity, langList) local link, eLink link_type = mw.ustring.lower(link_type or '') local item_type = mw.ustring.sub(item, 1, 1) -- first letter prefix of item entity ID: 'Q', 'P' or 'M'	if item_type == 'M' then eLink='c:Special:EntityPage/'..item elseif item_type == 'Q' then eLink='d:'..item -- wikibase entity page link elseif item_type == 'P' then eLink='d:Property:'..item -- wikibase entity page link else eLink='d:Special:EntityPage/'..item end if link_type == '-' then -- allow different link formats link = ''           -- no link elseif link_type == 'wikidata' or item_type == 'M' then link = eLink       -- link to wikibase entity page elseif link_type == 'wikidata talk' and item_type == 'P' then link = 'd:Property talk:'.. item       -- link to wikidata property talk page elseif link_type == 'wikidata talk' then link = 'd:Talk:'..item  -- link to wikidata talk page elseif link_type == 'commons' or link_type == 'commonscat' then --		When link_type == 'commons' we try the following links (in specified order):		 1) commons sitelink		  2) P373 "Commons Category" claims		  3) P935 "Commons Gallery"  claims		Since most items have a commons sitelink we never have to look for claims		When link_type == 'commonscat' we try to maximize chances of commons link being a category, so we		      try the following links (in specified order):		  1) commons sitelink, which is kept if it points to a category		  2) P373 "Commons Category" claims		  3) commons sitelink (which does not point to a category)		  4) P935 "Commons Gallery"  claims		Since most pages have a commons sitelink we never have to look for claims				local sLink = getSitelink(item, entity, 'commons')  -- look for sitelink to commons		if sLink then			sLink = 'c:'..sLink			if (link_type == 'commons') or (link_type == 'commonscat' and mw.ustring.find(sLink, 'Category:')) then link = sLink end end if not link then -- try linking to P373 "Commons Category" local cat = getBestStatementsValue(item, entity, 'P373') link = (cat ~= nil and 'c:Category:' .. cat) or nil end link = link or sLink if not link then -- try linking to P935 "Commons Gallery" link = getBestStatementsValue(item, entity, 'P935') end end if not link then -- apply default "Wikipedia" link type for _, language in ipairs(langList) do			local sitelink = getSitelink(item, entity, language) if sitelink then link = 'w:'.. language ..':'.. sitelink break end end end return link or eLink -- no wiki sitelink, so link to wikidata end
 * link_type - can be :
 * item  - entity ID (always provided)
 * entity - whole entity. It can be nil if whole entity is not loaded
 * langList - language fallback list for preferred language (required)
 * link - link to the wikimedia page

--============================================= --=== External functions ====================== --============================================= local p = {}

--====================================================================== --=== API functions for use from other Scribunto modules =============== --======================================================================

--[[ _getLabel

This function returns a label translated to desired language, created based on wikidata

Inputs: 1: item - wikidata's item's q-id or entity class 2: lang - desired language of the label 3: link_type - link style. Possible values (case-insensitive): "wikipedia", "wikidata", "Commons", or "-" (no link) 4: capitalization - can be "uc" (upper case), "lc" (lower case), "ucfirst" (upper case for the first letter), "lcfirst" (lower case for the first letter), or 'none' (default)

Error Handling: Bad q-id will result in displayed error ]] function p._getLabel(item, lang, link_type, capitalization, show_id) local entity, s, link, label, language, desc

-- clean up the input parameters if type(item) ~= 'string' then -- "item" is not a q-id entity = item           -- "item" must be the entity item  = entity.id       -- look-up q-id elseif tonumber(item) then  -- if it is just the number then add "Q" in front item = 'Q'..item end item = mw.ustring.gsub(mw.ustring.upper(item), 'PROPERTY:P', 'P') -- make all the properties the same and capitalize

if not lang then label, lang = mw.wikibase.getLabelWithLang(item) end if not lang then -- if still no language lang = mw.getCurrentFrame:callParserFunction("int","lang")  -- get user's chosen language label = nil end

-- build language fallback list lang = mw.ustring.lower(lang) local langList = mw.language.getFallbacksFor(lang) table.insert(langList, 1, lang)

-- get label (visible part of the link) if not label then for _, language in ipairs(langList) do -- loop over language fallback list looking for label in the specific language if entity then label = entity:getLabel(language) else label = mw.wikibase.getLabelByLang(item, language) end if label then break end                   -- label found and we are done end end if label then -- wikitext-escape the label if we have one label = mw.text.nowiki(label) end if not label then                             -- no labels found, so just show the q-id label = item elseif show_id then          -- add id		show_id = yesno(show_id,false) if show_id then local wordsep = getMessage('Word-separator', lang, ' ') local id = mw.message.new('parentheses', item):inLanguage(lang):plain id = (id~=nil and id) or ('('..item..')') -- in case this module is moved to a project where is not set label = label .. wordsep .. " " .. id .. " "		end end label = apply_capitalization(label, capitalization, lang) -- look for description if entity and entity.descriptions and lang then for _, language in ipairs(langList) do			if entity.descriptions[language] then desc = entity.descriptions[language].value break end end else desc = mw.wikibase.getDescription(item) end if desc and link_type ~= '-' then -- wikitext-escape the description if we have one desc = mw.text.nowiki(desc) -- add description as hover text label = ' ' .. label .. ' '	end

-- return the results if link_type == '-' then return label -- return just the label else link = getLink(link_type, item, entity, langList) return  .. label ..  -- return link end end

--[[--- _sitelinks

This function returns a table of sitelinks for a single project organized by language

Inputs: 1: item - wikidata's item's q-id or entity class 2: project - (case-insensitive) one of: "wikipedia", "wikisource", "wikiquote", "wikibooks", "wikinews", "wikiversity", "wikivoyage", "wiktionary", "commons", "mediawiki", "wikispecies", "wikidata", etc.

Output: Table of sitelinks with language fields

Output: Table of sitelinks with language fields See also ]] function p._sitelinks(item, project) local entity, sitelink -- get entity if type(item) == 'string' then -- "item" is a q-id entity = mw.wikibase.getEntity(item) else entity = item             -- "item" is the entity end
 * for the full list of supported interwikis.
 * for the full list of sitecodes (used in database dumps).

-- convert from english project name to proproject code local projLUT = { wikipedia  = 'wiki',           commons   = 'commonswiki', foundation = 'foundationwiki', mediawiki = 'mediawikiwiki', wikispecies = 'specieswiki',   wikidata  = 'wikidatawiki', incubator  = 'incubatorwiki',	oldwikisource = 'sourceswiki', }	local langLUT = { -- These are not language codes before the 'wiki' or 'wikiversity' suffix in a sitecode: foundation = '~', commons = '~',	-- they will be skipped incubator = '~', meta    = '~', mediawiki = '~', sources = '~', species   = '~', beta    = '~', -- Legacy language codes used in sitecodes, remapped to standard Wikimedia language codes: -- See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special_language_codes for details als    = 'gsw', bat_smg      = 'sgs', fiu_vro = 'vro', be_x_old    = 'be-tarask', roa_rup = 'rup', zh_classical = 'lzh', zh_yue = 'yue', zh_min_nan   = 'nan', zh_wuu = 'wuu', no           = 'nb', }	project = project:lower project = projLUT[project] or project -- correct the project name local n = project:len local linkTable = {} if entity and entity.sitelinks then -- See if entity exists, and that it has sitelinks for _, sitelink in pairs(entity.sitelinks) do -- loop over all sitelinks local site = sitelink.site local m   = site:len - n			local proj = site:sub(m +1)  -- project part of the siteID if proj == project then -- proj matches desired "project" local lang = site:sub(1, m) -- language part of the siteID lang = langLUT[lang] or lang:gsub('_','-') if lang ~= '~' then -- proj matches desired "project" linkTable[lang] = sitelink.title end end end end return linkTable end

--[[ _aliases

This function returns a table of aliases for a single language

Inputs: 1: item - wikidata's item's q-id or entity class 2: lang - language code, like 'en' or 'de'

Output: Table of aliases with language fields ]] function p._aliases(item, lang) local entity if type(item) == 'string' then -- "item" is a q-id entity = mw.wikibase.getEntity(item) else entity = item           -- "item" is the entity end local aliasTable = {} if entity and entity.aliases then						-- See if there is an entity and that is has aliases if entity.aliases[lang] then						-- See if it has English Aliases for _, alias in pairs(entity.aliases[lang]) do -- Make a loop around the English aliases table.insert(aliasTable, alias.value)				-- Create a table of English aliases end end end return aliasTable end

--====================================================================== --=== Invoke functions for use from wikitext, e.g., templates ========== ---=====================================================================

--[[ getLabel

This function returns a label translated to desired language, created based on wikidata

Usage:

Parameters 1: wikidata's item's q-id (required) 2: language (optional; default ) 3: link_style: "wikipedia" (default), "Wikidata", "Commons", or "-" (no link) 4: capitalization - can be "uc", "lc", "tc", "ucfirst", "lcfirst"

Error Handling: Bad q-id will result in displayed error ]] function p.getLabel(frame) local args = getArgs(frame) return p._getLabel(args.item, args.lang, args.link, args.capitalization, args.show_id) end

--[[--- sitelinks

This function returns a comma separated list of sitelinks for a single project organized by language Its main purpose is to help with testing of _sitelinks function.

Usage:

Inputs: 1: item - wikidata's item's q-id or entity class 2: project - "wikipedia" (or "wiki"), "wikisource", "wikiquote", "wikibooks", "wikinews", "wikiversity", "wikivoyage", "wiktionary", etc.

Output: comma separated list ]] function p.sitelinks(frame) local args = getArgs(frame) local sitelinks = p._sitelinks(args.item, args.project) local sitelinkList = {} for lang, sitelink in pairs(sitelinks) do table.insert(sitelinkList, (lang=='' and sitelink) or (lang .. ':' .. sitelink)) end return table.concat(sitelinkList, ', ') end

--[[ aliases

This function returns a comma separated list of aliases for a single language Its main purpose is to help with testing of _aliases function.

Usage:

Inputs: 1: item - wikidata's item's q-id or entity class 2: lang - language code, like 'en' or 'de'

Output: Comma separated list of aliases ]] function p.aliases(frame) local args = getArgs(frame) return table.concat(p._aliases(args.item, args.lang), ', ') end

return p

title: Module:Wikidata label


text:
History of video games/Platforms/digiBLAST

Development
The digiBLAST was designed by Grey Innovation, a company in Melbourne, Australia.

Names considered for the digiBLAST included "Xplorerr" and "Go-Deck".

Launch
The digiBLAST saw a western European release in November of 2005 for 79.95 euros. The DigiBLAST sold at a loss. 200,000 digiBLASTs were expected to sell during the 2005 holiday season.

Legacy
The digiBLAST sold 100,000 consoles at most, and was taken off the market around 2008.

Grey Innovations survived the failure of the digiBLAST. It still existed as of 2020 and was the first company to produce ventilators for the Australian National Stockpile during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Compute
The digiBLAST is powered by a Samsung OCEAN-L-20 SOC containing an ARM9 based CPU.

Hardware
The digiBLAST has an LCD that easily ghosts.

The digiBLAST has mono audio.

A demo unit of the digiBLAST had a rechargeable battery that offers 10 hours of playtime. The battery takes four hours to charge. The shipped unit simply took four AA batteries.

A pop out stand is used to prop the console up on tables and other flat surfaces.

An optional MP3 Player module adds 256 megabytes of storage for music.

Software
The digiBLAST runs Linux, which is loaded from game cartridges.

Notable Games

 * Rayman 3
 * Tony Hawk Pro Skater 4

External Resources

 * Video Game Kraken - digiBLAST page.
 * Game Medium - digiBLAST page.


text:
User:MargeIn

Hey there! My Wikipedia name is MargeIn. I am new to the Wikipedia Community. If I do anything wrong or inappropriate in my bid to get to understand Wikipedia better. Please tell me (preferably gently).

title: User:MargeIn


text:
User talk:HumbleBeauty/Proof of monism

Dear [Mars Turner],

You need to provide the evidence. For example, something that links the email account you are using to the author or to the website where the work is published. Say the work was published on a site called "mysite.com". Sending us an email from "admin@mysite.com" might demonstrate you were the owner of the site.

Yours sincerely, Marc Garver

 * Dear Marc Garver,

 * I turned on my Internet Information Services and I am hosting my proof of monism from my computer

 * I am posting without being logged in, so that you can verify my ip address matches the ip address of my link shown (though deleted) on the ip address user page (check the history for the link to my proof).

title: User talk:HumbleBeauty/Proof of monism


text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/The Future of Artificial Intelligence

Meeting on 20.11.20 Natasha, Ben

Came up with some different possible ideas for interdisciplinary issues in AI. Created google doc to share ideas and resources.

Meeting on 22.11.20 Natasha, Benjamin, Charlotte

Discussed various topic ideas for interdisciplinary issues as we weren't dead set on Artificial Intelligence and started adding them to the google doc. Aim to get a final topic idea by the end of this week at the latest.


text:
User:Geemer76

My name is Geemer76. I live in Wikiversity.

title: User:Geemer76


text: User:Tsarina Catarina/sandbox

title: User:Tsarina Catarina/sandbox


text: User talk:MMMagnazza

title: User talk:MMMagnazza


text:
History of video games/Platforms/PC-50x Family

History
The first PC-50X console was released in 1975. The system was designed to be low cost, and over two hundred variants of based on the PC-50X design were made.

The PC-50x Family petered out over the course of the 1980's.

Technology
PC-50X consoles made use of various General Instrument chips housed in cartridges, essentially making these pong consoles in cartridges, with the console simply being a power supply and interface for controllers and the television. Cartridges held as many as 10 variations of a game.

External Resources

 * Video Game Console Library - Page containing photos of different models.
 * 20th Century Video Games - Page containing photos and origin of various models.


text:
History of video games/Platforms/Gameroom Tele-Pong

History
Entex was founded in Compton, California in 1970 to produce toys. Entex launched the Gameroom Tele-Pong in 1976, becoming an early entrant into the game console market. Little more information is available for this console, though it's earliness and following Entex consoles make it noteworthy.

Technology
The Gameroom Tele-Pong likely used analog circuits, similar to the Magnavox Odyssey. The system uses eight integrated circuits, and 26 transistors. The console has a one player mode, which is known for its high difficulty.

The Gameroom Tele-Pong is powered by four C type batteries. Players may manually turn score dials on the console to track scores. This was common feature on consoles lacking major compute resources, as it removes the need for players to manually track score in their heads or on paper.

External Resources

 * Old Computers Museum - Entex Gameroom Tele-Pong page with photo.
 * Old Computers Museum - Binatone TV Game page with photo.


text:
User talk:Uzume

Welcome
Welcome, Uzume!

If you have any questions, you can ask in the assistance reading room or possibly contact me personally. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 18:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay...Thanks, ...I think. You are a tad late in welcoming me considering my first edit here was from nearly 15 years ago (see 1630683; that is more than two years before your account even existed here) with a more recent edit from previous years being nearly 9 years go (see 2324413). Perhaps you should have used   instead of  . —Uzume (discuss • contribs) 19:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:Uzume


text:
Template:X-larger

pl:Szablon:X-większy

title: Template:X-larger


text: Template:Xx-larger

title: Template:Xx-larger


text:
Template:X-smaller

pl:Szablon:X-mniejszy

title: Template:X-smaller


text:
Semiconductors/Diodes from an Engineering Perspective

A P-N junction is useful in electrical engineering as a Diode. Diodes have various purposes, including: - Preventing current from flowing in one direction but not the other - Regulating voltage (when used in reverse bias) - Voltage-dependent capacitors (when used in reverse bias)

Diode construction and properties
As noted in the previous chapter, diodes are constructed at the physical interface of a P-doped semiconductor and an N-doped semiconductor. When these two regions meet, holes and electrons diffuse across the junction due to the differing concentration at the junction:

This diffusion does not continue indefinitely. Instead, as the electrons diffuse to the P-side and the holes diffuse in the N-side, a charge imbalance arises, creating a voltage which eventually prevents any further diffusion from occuring. The voltage is an inherent property of the diode and depends on the amount that the P-side is doped relative to the N-side. From this arises what is known as the Built-in potential, $V_{bi}$.

Biasing diodes
- When a diode is subject to an external electric field, it is said to be biased. - If the field is in the opposite direction to the built-in voltage, it will counteract the diffusion, making the depletion region thinner. This is known as forward biasing. - In addition to counteracting diffusion, forward biasing also injects charge carriers (holes and electrons) into the P and N regions of the diode. This encourages further diffusion from P to N, leading to current flow. - However, if the field is in the same direction as the built-in voltage, it will encourage the diffusion, making the depletion region thicker. This is known as reverse biasing. - In this mode, charge carriers are injected into the opposite regions of the diode (holes in N and electrons in P), where they instantly recombine. This prevents any current flowing, up to a certain point.

Circuit models of diodes
When analysing diodes, a number of models can be used, including:

Ideal diode model
In the ideal diode model, there are two states: on and off. In the on-state, the diode acts as a short circuit, allowing any amount of current to flow through and forcing the potential between its ends to be 0. In the off-state, the diode acts as an open circuit, so that no current can flow through the diode.

Voltage drop model
In the voltage drop model, there are similarly two states: on and off. The off state is the same as above; the circuit prevents any current from flowing. In the on-state however, the diode acts as a voltage source that maintains a constant voltage between its two terminals equal to its built-in voltage.

Empirical model
In the empirical model, we treat the diode as a circuit component governed by $I = I_s (e^{\frac{V_f}{V_T}}-1)$, giving us an exponential curve. This model typically requires numerical iteration to evaluate.

VRC model
In the VRC model, we model the diode as a voltage source, capacitor and resistor. This is typically used when the diode is being used in reverse-bias.

Voltage regulator
Todo

Voltage dependent capacitors
Todo


text:
History of video games/Platforms/BL6

Launch
Announced by the Bud-Light brand of Anheuser-Busch on November 17th, 2020, a single BL6 console was put up for auction to raise money for the Change is On the Menu charity program. According to some reviewers, a small number of BL6 exist instead of just a single console.

Legacy
Despite the limited production of the device, the console possess a number of unique properties that make it notable in gaming history. While the BL6 essentially exists as a charitable marketing stunt, the BL6 used a number of technologies rarely seen in game consoles. In particular, it is one of the few consoles to primarily use a projector, similar to the 1980's consoles such as the Proscreen. Furthermore the console incorporates a drink holder that regulates temperature, similar to the chicken chamber of the later KFConsole.

Compute
The BL6 is powered by a Intel Core i7-1065G7. The i7-1065G7 is a 64 bit mobile processor with four cores and eight threads with eight megabytes of cache and made on a 10 nanometer process with a thermal design power (TDP) of 15 watts. By default the processor is clocked at 1.30 gigahertz and turbos to 3.90 gigahertz, but it is unknown what clock speed the processor in the BL6 is configured to typically use.

The Intel Core i7-1065G7 includes an Intel Iris Plus Graphics GPU with a base clock of 300 megahertz and can turbo boost to a clock of 1.10 gigahertz.

The BL6 has 16 gigabytes of RAM.

Hardware
The primary display is a built in Asus ZenBeam projector, which projects a 720p resolution 500 lumen image.

For cooling internals, two fans are concealed in false cans in the six pack design of the console.

The console has twin aluminum beer coozies built into the unit with active peltier thermoelectric cooling and polystyrene insulation to keep beer cold.

The BL6 battery can power the system for two hours.

Buttons on the bottom rim of the console include power, +, -, and brightness. The BL6 appears to have HDMI out, two USB ports, and a power in jack that takes a C7/C8 coupler.

All hardware is enclosed in the form factor of a six pack of beer. Ventilation holes are arranged in groups of two wide and three high like a six pack. The chassis of the console was 3D printed.

Software
The BL6 runs Windows 10 as its operating system, with the custom BL(OS) or BLOS interface running on top of it.

Controllers
The BL6 sports two BL6 branded 8Bitdo N30 Pro+ controllers, which two compartments on the console can hold when not in use.

Game library
Four third party games were shipped with the BL6, and two exclusive games were developed for the system.
 * Tekken 7
 * R.B.I. Baseball 20
 * Soul Calibur VI
 * BroForce

Flashlight Freeze Tag
A BL6 exclusive game about hitting other players with the BL6 projector beam.

Six Puck
An BL6 exclusive air hockey game themed around Bud Light.

title: History of video games/Platforms/BL6


text:
AQA A-Level Physics/Photoelectric effect

Key Definitions
The Photoelectric Effect: The emission of electrons from a surface when it is illuminated by electromagnetic radiation above a certain threshold frequency (typically in the UV range).

Threshold Frequency: The minimum frequency of electromagnetic radiation such that it carries enough energy to dislodge (or remove) an electron from the surface.

Work Function ($$\phi$$): The minimum work that must be done to remove an electron from the surface.

Stopping Potential ($$V_s$$): The applied potential difference required to stop the fastest moving photoelectrons.

What Happens During the Photoelectric Effect
In Einstein's photon model, electromagnetic (EM) radiation is made up of packets of energy called photons. When a surface (usually metal) is illuminated with EM radiation, each photon has a one on one interaction with each electron on the surface.

Removing an electron from the surface
Supposing the photon has the objective of removing an electron from the surface. What energy would it require?

Going back to our definitions, this energy is called the work function. Hence, to complete its objective, the photon must have the same energy as the work function of the material.

It may not seem obvious at first, but this links perfectly to the threshold frequency through the equation $$E = hf$$, where $$h = 6.63 \times 10^{-34}$$ and is called Planck's constant.

Hence, the energy that the photon has (in this case, the work function) has a corresponding frequency, in this case, called the threshold frequency.

To release the electron from the surface, the photon must have energy $$hf = \phi$$.

Removing an electron from the surface with kinetic energy
Consider the case where the objective of the photon is to not only release the electron from the surface but to give it a certain velocity, $$v$$ away from the surface.

Because the electron has a velocity, it must have kinetic energy. As a result, the total energy that the photon must deliver can be summarised by this equation:

Photon Energy = Work Function + Kinetic Energy

Or $$hf = \phi + E_{k(max)}$$

Maximum Kinetic Energy
The surface of a material contains many layers of electrons. The further the electron is from the surface layer, the more energy is required to remove it from the material. This can be thought of as an increase in work function.

Going back to our equation $$E_{k} = hf - \phi$$, we can see that increasing $$\phi$$ decreases our kinetic energy.

Hence, the maximum kinetic energy $$K_{e(max)}$$ of an electron occurs when the electron is on the very top layer of the surface.


text:
User talk:2001:16B8:1E7F:1200:7856:22CB:FEED:3248

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikibooks! You do not need to log in to read or edit books at Wikibooks, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:
 * A username of your choice for directly attributing your contributions.
 * A personal user page, a talk page, and a watchlist to monitor pages that interest you.
 * The ability to rename pages and to customize some aspects of the Wikibooks interface.
 * People will recognize you as a member of the Wikibooks community, and you will be eligible to review pages as you gain experience.
 * Your IP address will be hidden from most users, which may give you a greater sense of security and privacy.

We hope that you choose to join our community as a Wikibookian and create an account.

Feel free to ask any questions on my talk page or in the Reading room. Be sure to sign your talk page comments with four tildes ( ~ ). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)