text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Power in policy-making

Purpose of our discussion page
This section provides a space for group members to provide feedback and suggestions for improvement. It also complements our Wikibook, in the sense that it shows how we arrived at our final topic: issues of power between economics and politics in the making of tax policies. --Poccy3 (discuss • contribs) 21:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

First meeting 20/11/2020
In our first set up meeting for the Wikibooks chapter, unfortunately only three of us could attend, as one of us had to catch his flight back home. We started off by discussing the disciplines we want to play a role in our group project and continued with the planning of an interdisciplinary approach to them. Furthermore, we came up with a first type of research question, which was important to us in order to narrow down the research we have to do and get us a better idea of what the actual issue between these disciplines is. We came up with the research question ( Is consumer profiling through data mining, the most accurate way to predict economical behaviours? ) and chose evidence as the issue to be discussed. BonSchlonzo (discuss • contribs) 17:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Second meeting 24/11/2020
This week all of us attended the meeting, therefore, we started off with a quick recap of week 1 to explain the organization and the plan with our research question to our fourth member and made our approach overall more clear. Lastly, the whole meeting was set up with the goal to break our research question down into four areas, which we then assigned to each of us in order to have a clear and easy idea of who needs to do what type of research and in which area.

The areas were the following:

For Jade: How data mining is being done? How is the data collected, processed, stored? What types of models are being used? Of what consists the quantitative evidence?

For Shervin: Behavioural Economics (How does it work, and what actually is consumer behaviour, what do firms do with it? Still with the aspect of data mining and anthropology in mind!)

For Simon: An anthropological approach to consumer profiling (what form of evidence is being used? How accurate is this in general? (in surveys, for example, people do not always say accurate statements about themselves, so how can that be accounted for, etc.)

For Niklas: How is the data that has been mined used for consumer profiling? In what sectors does this have a lot of applications? How effective is it from a business perspective?

BonSchlonzo (discuss • contribs) 10:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Third meeting 27/11/2020
Everyone present at the meeting. After having discussed the findings of everyone's research (see below for a few extracts) we decided that our research question was too broad for a 1,200-word chapter. Therefore we took the decision to focus on a particular case study: Amazon's approach to consumer profiling as it is one of the biggest companies that use data-mining. This decision followed after a long debate, where we discussed the effectiveness of data-mining, its limits and contrasted it to anthropological market research.

Extracts of the research done by all members:

Jade:

From Chapter I: Introduction to Data Mining Osmar R. Zaïane, 1999 CMPUT690 Principles of Knowledge Discovery in Databases The concern in data mining are noisy data, missing values, static data, sparse data, dynamic data, relevance, interestingness, heterogeneity, algorithm efficiency, size and complexity of data. The data we have is often vast, and noisy, meaning that it’s imprecise and the data structure is complex. The Knowledge Discovery in Databases process comprises of a few steps leading from raw data collections to some form of new knowledge. The iterative process consists of the following steps:

1. Data cleaning: It is also known as data cleansing, it is a phase in which noise data and irrelevant data are removed from the collection.

2. Data integration: In this stage, multiple data sources, often heterogeneous, may be combined in a common source.

3. Data selection: At this step, the data relevant to the analysis is decided on and retrieved from the data collection.

4. Data transformation: also known as data consolidation, it is a phase in which the selected data is transformed into forms appropriate for the mining procedure.

5. Data mining: it is the crucial step in which clever techniques are applied to extract patterns potentially useful.

6. Pattern evaluation: in this step, strictly interesting patterns representing knowledge are identified based on given measures.

7. Knowledge representation: is the final phase in which the discovered knowledge is visually represented to the user. This essential step uses visualization techniques to help users understand and interpret the data mining results.

Additional Issues Quality quality of a process stands for the way a process meets users’ goals Accuracy Stored values should be compliant with real-world ones. • Freshness Data should not be old. •Completeness There should be no lack of information • Consistency Data representation should be uniform. • Availability Users should have easy access to data. • Traceability Data can easily be traced data back to its sources. • Clearness Data can be easily understood. • Accuracy and completeness

Shervin:

→ The study of economic decision making through a psychological lense, gives firms, organizations or just us as the society the chance to predict human behaviour and to understand the daily economic actions. Richard Thaler, the father of behavioural economics, came up with the whole concept of behaviour economics at first. https://hbr.org/2017/10/the-rise-of-behavioral-economics-and-its-influence-on-organizations

→ Came up with the idea of the nudge theory (positive reinforcement and indirect suggestions to lead consumer behaviour)

-https://www.ciim.ac.cy/how-to-use-nudge-theory-for-business-success/

the way we phrase things influences our thinking and forms our consumer behaviour 2008 Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein

Prospect Theory: Kahneman and Tversky (1979)

Consumer Behaviour related to data mining:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.1202.pdf

every single step we take if it is in the supermarket or on Amazon is considered a byte of data Consumer behaviour: Consumer behavior means the study of individuals, groups or organizations about their process of selecting, securing, using and disposing the products, services, experiences or ideas to satisfy needs and the impact of these processes on the consumer and the society. Application of consumer behaviour: 1. Making of marketing strategy, 2. Public Policy, 3. Consumer Common Sense (Purchasing Patterns etc.) Endowment effect: endowing someone with a good almost instantaneously makes him/her value it more highly. This can be thought of as a combination of reference dependence and loss aversion.

Simon:

consumer studies and anthropology - why and how consumers make their purchase decisions anthropological approach = more subjective and qualitative methods Abrams 2000: some cases quantitative analysis might not help decision makers to truly understand consumers WHILE “DESCRIPTIVE ANTHROPOLOGY” (qualitative and observational) provides revealing insights Thompson and Hirshman 1995: applied classic anthropology theories to study the consumers' self-conception of body images and self care practices in the modern urban society to help the marketers understand the relationship between consumer “socialized body” and consumption behavior. Mc Farlane: observes that when consumer reaction to a new product needs to be determined, companies traditionally refer to the qualitative method

Psychographic approach: define market segment through customer lifestyle lifestyle and demographics: age, location and gender activities, interest and opinions values, attitudes and social class: buying power / purchase orientation

Consumer Typology approach: consumers motivations and mindsets loyal consumers: rare but valuable → they promote brands through word of mouth discount consumers: buy if there is an “opportunity” impulsive consumers: emotionally driven rather than logically driven need-based consumers: fulfil a need

Consumer characteristics approach: traits that influence buying decisions convenience driven: need to be fast, simple and easy connectivity driven: feel connected through buying the sale product personalization driven: prefer a fully customized experience

Niklas:

“Data for the people” (2016) Andreas Weigend: describes the flaws of the current system of data collection and privacy but also discusses their potential. Advocates for more transparency of what is being done with our data, for people to become “data-literate” and for people to gain access to their data profiles and give them the possibility to change/blur data about them. The more data a company collects about an individual, the more targeted advertising can it bring to them. For example Alphabet collects an enormous amount of personal information through Google Maps (where you shop, work, live, what places you often visit) and this information is on a database, also accessible by Google (search) that can then give you targeted advertising according to the collected information.

source: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pKtVDgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=data+for+the+people&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjT99uh16LtAhVSXMAKHeNbCtYQ6AEwAHoECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=amazon&f=false “The Internet Encyclopedia” (2004) Hossein Bidgoli: Consumer profiling based on data mining is divided into two main categories: factual and rule-based. The factual profile is the information given by a customer by actively giving the information to the company (address, name, gender, etc) while rule-based profiles are designed after tracking and then analyzing the activity of the user on the Internet.

Looking further at the rule-based profiling, there are two steps in determining such a profile: rule-discovery and rule validation. → Agrawal et al. (1998): multidimensional indexing structure and algorithm for mining profile association rules. consumer-profiling is very closely linked to recommendation systems developed by the companies. Two common techniques in developing recommendation systems are item-to-item correlation (recommending similar items) and customer-to-customer correlation (recommending products that other customers who bought the same product, bought after that).

--Poccy3 (discuss • contribs) 17:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Fourth meeting 02/12/2020
In this meeting, Simon and Jade discussed the main features of Evidence of Amazon’s consumer profiling. The main purpose of this meeting was to come together with the key point to address in the Wikibook chapter. The subject seemed again very broad and it was difficult for them to find any problem with Amazon’s algorithms. They mainly talked about how dangerous it can be for society to read the same books or buy the same products. Amazon algorithms are using a ranking system to recommend product and an uniformization of ideas could be a great way to generate profit. They realized that maybe it was better to address the issue of Amazon through the lens of Power rather than Evidence.

Fifth meeting 04/12/2020
On Friday, the whole team met on Zoom during almost 3 hours. They discussed the change of issue suggested draws their attention on Amazon monopoly in e-commerce. They come together with the new following question and main points:

To what extent should politics interfere with Amazon’s power in e-commerce?

Introduction: (200 words) Shervin

Define power of firms in economics and show why Amazon is a firm with a lot of economic power. How politics can regulate the economic market, in regards to the research question.

First part: (400 words) SIMON and SHERVIN

Show how Amazon has an unfair advantage compared to their competition. Argue that this gives Amazon a quasi-monopoly over e-commerce. Explain why monopolies are bad for economics. Define Monopoly and what a monopoly means for the economy/politics.

Second part: (400 words) NIKLAS and Jade

Discuss how wealth can be redistributed and Amazon’s economic power limited through laws and regulations. Power conflict between Regulators and Amazon. Lobbyists will try to maintain Amazons power.

Sixth meeting 08/12/2020
After a quick talk with James during our tutorial, we realised that our interdisciplinary example was not focused enough on the disciplines.So, we decide to meet again to redefine our research. You can find below the main features we agreed to discuss. As time flies, we also agreed to meet again on Friday to edit our work together.

Final research question: Why do political scientists and economists disagree on redistributive policies?

Intro (200 words) Shervin: what are redistributive policies? What kind of approaches exist? Outline its failure in the past 100 years and mention that it is getting worse. (Case Study)

Part 1 : Oppose wealth redistribution in the two disciplines (600 words) in Economics : Simon how economics approach wealth redistribution ? Main concepts → power, economic growth, how do we measure wealth redistribution? limits ? Amazon example of economist approach (they don’t pay taxes almost) in Politics : Jade concepts → equality, power restriction, can an egalitarian/equal growth exist ? policies proposed to limit Amazon with new redistributive policies

Part 2: How both can be reconciled? Is it even possible? new approach to growth (200 words) Niklas Should we privilege growth over people? Does growth = more wealth among different classes? Doughnut economics → by looking at other things than growth (for example happiness, HDI, health care etc.) we can have a more equal society Should we reconsider how we measure wealth redistribution ? Conclusion:

Seventh meeting 11/12/2020
We met again and everyone received feedback on their work. We agreed with the final version of our Introduction.We also agreed that everyone should focus more on our issue Power, and not lose the bigger picture. We also set our last meeting for next Sunday and here are the following points, we agreed to discuss for next meeting:

-conclusion where are we heading ?????

-work on titles

-check uniformity références

-write meeting 8

- post more on discussion page —> link new doc / readings.

- words count

Jadaireu (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Eighth meeting 13/12/2020
In our eighth meeting, we all went over our respective final versions of our paragraphs and came to agreements on phrasing, references, titles, and content.

For the conclusion, we decided to write each their own and ended up merging Simons's conclusion with mine as they complemented well.

We agreed to meet one last time on 14/12/2020, to check the last, complete version of our work, before submitting it. --Poccy3 (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Readings
This section brings together our most interesting readings :

===Amazon.com Recommendations === This article describes how Amazon's algorithms work. Amazon uses item-to-item collaborative filtering algorithms. In basic words, those algorithms find a set of customers who purchased and rated items and will recommend those items to similar customers.

Two main algorithms are used :

- the collaborative filtering

This algorithm assign to a customer a vector with N-dimensions. N represents the number of distinct items. In order to find the best selling items, the vector assigned will be multiplied by the inverse frequency (= inverse of the number of customers who have purchased or rated the item). As you can imagine, this method is computationally expensive. In order to process the data, we need to reduce our data set. For example, we can reduce N by eliminating some very unpopular items of the catalog. If we reduce our data size, we also reduce our recommendation quality.

- cluster model

The goal of this algorithm is to regroup people from the same interests. To do so, "cluster models divide the customer base into many segments and treat the task as a classification problem." The algorithm starts with an initial data set of segments and repeatly match customers together to obtain the optimal cluster.

===Introduction to Data Mining ===

This chapter was very helpful to understand how data we have is often noisy and hard to process. It also describes the different steps in Knowledge Discovery. A very useful process to understand how information is extracted. This method regroups 7 fundamental steps such as the data cleaning or pattern evaluation. Data Mining is one of this step and is composed of five major elements. Very briefly we first, extract and store the data. Then, we provide data access to analysts and analyze it through a specific software. The last step consists in the presentation of the data in a useful format ( graph, table,...) A variety of data sources can be mined. ( flat files, time-series files, relational databases,...)

An interesting point of this chapter was the challenging problems in data mining. Indeed, data mining raises multiples issues : Security and social issues, User interface issues, Data source issues,Performance issues,... I strongly believe that such issues need an interdisciplinary approach to be solved or at least clearer.

NB: An other problem : most algorithms assume the data to be noise-free. This is of course a strong assumption.

===The Politics of Wealth Taxes === This document showed how 'democracy has proven relatively gentle with the wealthy'( ,1). It underlined the different approach to the Politics of Wealth Taxes. It stressed the fact that citizens are misinformed about the world of taxation and how private groups in specific country (such as Britain, France, Ireland, ...) use this indifference to their advantages.

Google Docs
We shared our research through Google Docs. It was easier for us to see the progress of our work. Here is the link to our Google Docs : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XyKnycFOmTlx83aZF7opmkoUpopARpAw_rwnu63BV2Y/edit?usp=sharing

@Everbody

Hopefully you guys will read it, but should we really leave the link for our google doc here as our google doc is more for our general notes etc. and is not really beneficial to anyone marking our essay. Please just let me know below or in our WhatsApp group so we can discuss this.

BonSchlonzo (discuss • contribs) 18:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree Shervin, the Google Doc is very messy as well, so I'm not sure if the corrector will be able to easily navigate through that document and understand how we went from one topic to the other. I would not include it here. --Poccy3 (discuss • contribs) 21:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think they will check it but if they do, it won't be detrimental toward our final grade. If you want to delete the section, you can.

Jadaireu (discuss • contribs) 9:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jadaireu & @Poccy3 I have thought about it again and came to the conclusion, that our grade will not be any reflection of our google document, therefore, I think we should actually leave it here to show which tool we used to aid our collaborative work outside of the WikiBooks page. I hope you all agree with me, this is just a very last detailed comment, which we can quickly discuss in our last meeting later on today, just before submitting.

BonSchlonzo (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Introduction
Hi guys, just read these two super interesting articles, which exactly relate to our issue and topic, have a read through if you like. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/SaezZucman14slides.pdf https://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2015/wp139_2015.pdf

BonSchlonzo (discuss • contribs) 18:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

idea for opening question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTwPHuE_HrU American wealth inequality is staggering. A wealth tax, which would hone in on the money people actually have, rather than just the money we earn and spend, could be a solution!

Uclqevy (discuss • contribs) 18:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Shervin, your articles are exactly the kind of papers that are perfect for this discussion thanks! The figure that the 85 richest individuals own as much wealth as the poorest half of the population is what struck me the most. Maybe we can start off with that in the introduction and then use the information from Simons video as a transition to show we're focussing on the US. Or should we start off immediately with the US? --Poccy3 (discuss • contribs) 17:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Poccy3, I have just uploaded the second draft of my introduction, have a look at the bottom, I have just very briefly mentioned the US as a little introduction and one quick fact about the wealth distribution in the US. I think that makes the transition easier to Simon's video.

BonSchlonzo (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

First part
Jade for your part on the concept of wealth redistribution in politics/political science I think it could be pertinent to look at John Rawls' work, especially the justice as fairness concept, which we could use as an opposite to how rich people/ big companies are being taxed nowadays. I'm happy to try and find relevant articles if you think you have the space to include this! --Poccy3 (discuss • contribs) 02:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

okay i'm going to read about it today. Thank you !!! I will let you know what I think about his work Jadaireu (discuss • contribs) 10:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Jade, about the meaning of wealth distribution, I think there is a way to identify a main general concept to the two disciplines which are economics and politics and then illustrate the term "growth" related to an economical perspective, and " equal distribution" to a political perspective.

Uclqevy (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Simon, I really like what you have written it is really concise and goes exactly towards the point we want to make. However, I just have on little suggestion, when you mention the effect of the tax and explain it in your two middle paragraphs, could you point out the issue of power a little bit more there, as I think it makes it then easier to see the real issue when reading through jade's second part of the argument.

BonSchlonzo (discuss • contribs) 19:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Mr BonSchlonzo, thank you for your comment! I agree, it will improve the understanding of the orverall, the text will be better articulated.

Uclqevy (discuss • contribs) 21:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Jade your paragraphs are really good and really well written but to save some space I would go straight to the second paragraph (we can probably include the first part in the intro or elsewhere) and we need to be more clear about why power is the issue between economics and politics. you could talk about the influence of journalism, public awareness, NGOs that fight for the ‘common people’ and try to mobilize people, to fight the lobbyists working for the rich. Something like how powerful political scientists are at influencing policymaking in general.

Simon, your paragraph is really good as well but to contrast it with Jade's more you could talk about lobbying first, which influences policy-making a lot. You can give examples of spending of big tech companies on lobbying (the numbers are remarkable). --Poccy3 (discuss • contribs) 11:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree Poccy3, Jade you can have a look, I deleted the Amazon example and add a final part on lobbying. Thus the transition with your political arguments could work pretty well... starting with this famous "quote". Have a look and tell me. Thank you Poccy3, for your very good remark.

Uclqevy (discuss • contribs) 18:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Poccy3 hey I read your message and i totally agree with you. we already discussed it during our morning so no need to answer for me to your message really

@uclqevy Great job ! I find your part super go straight to the essential ( aie aie I'm really losing my english). I believe taht the part on lobbying was really essential to our problem and really show the power that economists have in our society. Economists use their principles and arguments on growth to distribute wealth and implement public policies, which only benefit a small fraction of the population.so bravo !I still don't really understand the sentence " allow the concept of neutrality ". I am probably very tired but your sentences are so long (maybe put more dote )

@everybodyyy I upload my second draft. Can someone please rephrase my sentence on the American Dream ? Please tell me if I need to rewrite it. With no that much words, I just have the impression that what I wrote is just super unclear and that I missed so many interesting points to make.

Jadaireu (discuss • contribs) 19:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jadaireu I think your part is now almost perfect, I added a few suggestions for rephrasing on the Google docs but other than that its perfect! --Poccy3 (discuss • contribs) 10:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Second part
Hi Niklas,

I really like what you wrote. I can clearly see why economics and political scientists can not agree on the subject of wealth redistribution and how biased the subject of taxation is. Indeed, I also believe that governments should inform more their citizens on the use of their taxes. This part should show that the tension that exists between economists and political scientist on the subject of wealth redistribution is strongly related to the issue of Power. Maybe the word of power should be use ? Or should we link our example to Power in the conclusion ? What do you think ?

Could you also check your references ? I don't know who wrote your article for the reference 14 and as expressed in the assignement instructions, all quotes must follow the Vancouver system : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_system

I hope my feeback will help you ! I still have a lot to do to obtain the same writing quality of your paragraph :))

Jadaireu (discuss • contribs) 10:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jade, thanks for the flattering words and suggestions I appreciate it! I only mentioned power at the beginning of the paragraph because my goal was to try to find common ground between the two disciplines to overcome the issue and that the conflict over power will be already clear after the first part. I still think it would be good to mention it more clearly though, so I will work on that. One little problem is that my part is already longer than what we said in the outline, so I will either have to cut smth or we need to write a shorter introduction/conclusion. Let me know what you think is the best option. --Poccy3 (discuss • contribs) 10:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi jade, here is a proposition for the syntax of your sentence about the willignness of Americans to succeed: Americans have a strong belief in the principle of meritocracy; being rich only depends on your willingness whereas European see poverty as an economic scourge where high taxes would rebalance the injustice.

--Uclqevy (discuss • contribs) 22:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@everyone As I suggested on our WhatsApp group, I will change the second part to focus on the issue of power in the process of tax regulations, since the first part brings more detail to how both our disciplines approach taxation but don't exactly point out the issue between them. Maybe the current second part can be an inspiration for the conclusion, particularly the point on doughnut economics. Lmk what you think of that!

conclusion ?
Hello everyone !

I found this quote. I think that it illustrates well how hard it is for politicians to tax big companies.

What do you think about it ??

"Either you are creating jobs or you are losing jobs. Either you are part of the economy of tomorrow or you are part of the economy of yesterday. This is a competition and for us, it’s about being part of the economy of tomorrow."(A.Cuomo,2018).

Jadaireu (discuss • contribs) 23:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jade, I do agree that this quote illustrates one problem of taxing big companies (since they employ a lot of people they have a lot of economical power) but in my opinion, we should focus on potential solutions to overcome this problem in the conclusion. If there is enough space, I think this quote might be better suited for the first part. Let me know what you think! --Poccy3 (discuss • contribs) 16:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Yes I agree this quote is not very relevant with our subject !!! It was mostly for our draft on Amazon's power. I'm going to delete it. I think we could find a better quote :)

Jadaireu (discuss • contribs) 9:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys, in the conclusion one thing we could do is mention countries, where policy-making has gone past focussing on growth, to show that there can be a discussion between economists and political scientists that works. This article shows how New Zealand has abandoned GDP growth as its main indicator and now focuses on well-being and happiness: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/07/11/new-zealand-ditches-gdp-for-happiness-and-wellbeing/?sh=2e0d0b9d1942 Do you think that would be a good way to tackle the conclusion? --Poccy3 (discuss • contribs) 21:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Niklas, I think its one good way to approach the conclusion, where we could also most definitely mention countries like Norway, Finland and Sweden which all follow kind of the same principle. Another idea I had was instead of still focusing just on the US, contrast two countries which handle redistribution completely differently and which may focus on other taxes which don't have such a major impact on the economy and its growth. and give some facts/stats about their economic and political goals, in order to give an idea which does better in terms of what! Here is an article I found for Norway: https://www.ecnmy.org/engage/norways-the-happiest-country-on-earth-be-more-norway/

BonSchlonzo (discuss • contribs) 11:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@BonSchlonzo I completely agree with you! As we primarily focus on the effect of raising the corporate tax, we could talk about raising income tax for the super rich, bigger property taxes, or just generally that by designing taxes that target the wealth of individuals rather than their income can be more efficient and fair (because a lot of super-rich like Jeff Bezos don't earn most of their wealth through income but through other means that are even less taxed). --Poccy3 (discuss • contribs) 21:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, it should be fairly easy to reflect that onto a different country maybe other than the US. If you have a look at thus link I just found which talks about proportional and progressive taxes and how they impact economic growth but also the redistribution of wealth. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/2799054/feldstein_statetaxes.pdf;jsessionid=EA044AA35497699469FF5A897E62AB44?sequence=4

BonSchlonzo (discuss • contribs) 12:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Good evening BonSchlonzo and Poccy3, here is a good source from Vox to speak about a new way to tax the super rich https://www.vox.com/videos/2019/3/5/18249732/wealth-tax-better-way-rich. It seems to me a good opening on the conflict of this chapter. Uclqevy (discuss • contribs) 18:06, 12 december 2020 (UTC)

hello everyone, you might not agree with me but i think we should conclude by highlighting how our believes, the fact that some scholars take their knowledge as granted and only see the world through their own discipline can be damaging. People should more be careful with their own concepts and should challenge their perceptions of wealth.

Jadaireu (discuss • contribs) 23:03, 18:24 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jadaireu sorry to only get back to you now. Have a look at our final version of the conclusion and tell us if you would change anything about it! --Poccy3 (discuss • contribs) 21:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

For the proofreader's information, we have merged our findings into a single conclusion. Poccy3 and Uclqevy Uclqevy (discuss • contribs) 10:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Poccy3 & @Uclqevy I went through it yesterday and the conclusion is super ! Great job ! Jadaireu (discuss • contribs) 9:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Poccy3 &Uclqevy, I just went over the whole text again and I am really happy with the whole outcome, the idea we had to merge the conclusions of the both of you was important to ensure a smooth ending with the right meaning!

BonSchlonzo (discuss • contribs) 11:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Very good job everyone !!! What a journey it has been :). It has been a pleasure to work with you.I remember I was going to work on the definition of gender in our society and finally, i contributed to the topic of the US corporate law, which we started as Evidence in consumer profiling. I hope that you are all happy with our final version !

Merry Christmas guys !

See you soon

Jadaireu (discuss • contribs) 11:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

readings?
Hi I create a section 'Readings' in our discussion page to share our most interesting readings. What do you think ? Should we also add some quotes ?

Jadaireu (discuss • contribs) 10:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jade,

I like your Idea I wouldn't only add quotes and your most interesting readings, maybe just add most of your sources, so if anyone struggles to find an appropriate source, we can always come back to our readings here. Top idea, thanks.

BonSchlonzo (discuss • contribs) 16:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jade, I also think the idea is really good! I will add my readings to the section and I also believe quotes can be useful to this section, if that quote illustrates well, why that reading was relevant to our research. Also, do you think it would be helpful to add other sources than readings (videos, podcasts...) or not? --Poccy3 (discuss • contribs) 16:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree guys ! We should add any type of source we came accross during our research. I believe that the purpose of the discussion page is to show the evolution of our thoughts (how we shape our ideas for the chapter) so I believe that any source that we find interesting on any subject is still valuable.

@Poccy3 Why do you think we should only put in this section the sources related to our subject ? @Jadaireu Nevermind I agree showcasing how we came to the problem of wealth distribution is actually interesting to understand how we tackled the problem! Good idea to keep the entire train of thought.

@BonSchlonzo I believe we can find every source on the reference page of our chapter. That's why, I think that it will be more relevant to put 2/3 readings or videos/podcast that helped us define our ideas or that we think are very valuable for a future project.

Jadaireu (discuss • contribs) 9:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

144.82.9.19
Hey everyone ! I just wanted to mention that if you see 144.82.9.19 in the discussion tab, it is me. Sometimes, I edit our wikibook and forget to log on. So no worries ! Jadaireu (discuss • contribs) 19:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, good to know, don't think I've seen it so far but thanks for letting us know! --Poccy3 (discuss • contribs) 20:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Lentis/Among Us: Social Behavior in a Virtual World

The edits by user "2601:5C0:F:3840:E178:9EF2:520:AB91' represents a subset of Charles Fang's work on Eyewitness Testimony, Groupthink, and the Bystander Effect.

Charles Fang created the initial Among Us casebook chapter. LarryJCai migrated some information from the casebook presentation. Kelly Chen initially wrote all the information from the introduction to "Consequences" except for the part about coronavirus in "Rise in Popularity" which was written by Larry Cai. Larry wrote the "Accountability" section as well as the "Trust" and "Gathering information" subsections.

After transferring our draft into WikiBooks, we stayed on a video call with each other for 4 hours to copy-edit and improve on our initial draft on December 7th. We collectively wrote a conclusion, reviewed it, and continued to copy-edit over video calls on December 8th and 9th.

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


text:
Talk:Lentis/Light pollution

Fall 2020 3:30 group: used computing IDs for account names

title: Talk:Lentis/Light pollution


text:
User:Vdolar/sandbox

some text here.. a;as;dlfh asf;hasdlkfjn

Quiz
{What is ROBLOX? + A website where the content is produced by users (a user-generated website) - A website that gives information on a particular topic (an informational website) + A platform for developing games (a game development platform) + A website for hosting games (a game host)
 * type="[]"}
 * Almost all of the content on the ROBLOX website is produced by users. This includes assets in the catalog, content such as comments, forum posts, group wall posts and so on, and also games.
 * ROBLOX can be used as a game development platform because users can use the ROBLOX game engine to develop games.
 * Games that use the ROBLOX engine can be hosted on ROBLOX.

{What is the ROBLOX Studio? + An integrated development environment - A program for creating and editing videos + A program for creating and editing games - A website that gives information about ROBLOX.
 * type="[]"}
 * An integrated development environment (IDE) is an environment (a program) which contains integrated features for development (of games, in this case). Since the ROBLOX Studio is a program which contains many features integrated together for development of games, it is indeed an integrated development environment.
 * The ROBLOX Studio cannot be used to create, edit or manipulate videos in any way. The ROBLOX client does, however, have a feature to record in-game play. This feature is available through the in-game menu.
 * The ROBLOX Studio is used to create and edit games for ROBLOX. It can be used to place objects in the virtual world, to create scripts that represent the game code, and to upload games to ROBLOX once they are ready.
 * The studio does contain an object browser which can be used as a reference of ROBLOX's API, but it is not a website, and giving information isn't its primary purpose. The ROBLOX wiki would have that purpose (and also contains a reference of the API).

{What are the three properties all terrain cells have? + A shape + An orientation - A color + A material - A flow
 * type="[]"}
 * All terrain cells have a shape. Some will be solid blocks, while others will be ramps, and others will be corners.
 * The orientation of a cell is only relevant when it is not a solid block. When a terrain cell is, for example, a ramp block, the orientation defines in which direction the ramp points.
 * Terrain cells do not have a homogeneous color. The color of different parts of their surface (their texture) is defined by the their material.
 * The material of a cell defines its texture. The water material is special, as it also defines its behavior when objects go inside it.
 * Water terrain cells have a flow (which defines the direction in which water pushes objects that are in it, as in a river), but cells with other materials do not have a flow.

{Associate each surface type to its behavior. -+- Surfaces with this surface type will form bonds with surfaces of all these three types. +-- Surfaces with this surface type will form bonds with inlets and universal surfaces. --+ Surfaces with this surface type will form bonds with studs and universal surfaces.
 * type=""}
 * Studs | Universal | Inlets

{How many studs does it take to get a meter? { 20 | twenty (i) }
 * type="{}"}

title: User:Vdolar/sandbox


text:
User:Slykos/huggle.yaml.js

--- enable: true version: "3.4.10 build: 3880 3.4.10" report-summary: "Reporting $1" confirm-multiple: false confirm-talk: true confirm-self-revert: true confirm-whitelist: true revert-on-multiple-edits: true automatically-resolve-conflicts: true software-rollback: false enforce-months-as-headers: true history-load: true on-next: 1 delete-edits-after-revert: true skip-to-last-edit: false preferred-provider: 2 remove-oldest-queue-edits: false truncate-edits: false talkpage-freshness: 20 remove-after-trusted-edit: true retrieve-founder: false display-title: false check-tp: true manual-warning: false summary-mode: false automatic-reports: false han-html: false han-display-user-talk: true han-display-bots: false han-display-user: true watchlist: "watch" automatically-group: false queue-id: "default" page-empty-queue: "" enable-max-score: false max-score: 0 enable-min-score: false min-score: 0 automatic-refresh: true automatically-watchlist-warned-users: false shortcut-hash: "" show-warning-if-not-on-last-revision: true number-dropdown-menu-items: true insert-edits-of-rolled-user-to-queue: true confirm-on-recent-warning: true recent-warning-time-span: 120 confirm-warning-on-very-old-edits: true skip-warning-on-confirm: true queues:
 * 1) // This is a configuration of huggle, do not change it unless you know what you are doing.
 * 1) // Last version of huggle that wrote into this configuration file (sanity check)
 * 1) // This option will change the behaviour of automatic resolution, be carefull
 * 1) // Get original creator of every page so that you can G7 instead of reverting the page
 * 1) // Periodically check if you received new messages and display a notification box if you get them
 * 1) // HAN
 * 1) // Whether edits made by same user should be grouped up together in page
 * 1) // Location of page (wiki page name, for example WP:Huggle) that should be displayed when you hit next and queue is empty. Leave empty for default page.
 * 1) // If true you will not warn users who received a warning recently
 * 1) // If warning was sent less than N seconds ago it's considered too recent
 * 1) // If true, the options above will not generate confirmation, but instead will be silently accepted (warning will not be sent)

title: User:Slykos/huggle.yaml.js


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Truth in the Stanford Prison Experiment

Introduction to Social Psychology: An interdisciplinary approach
Social psychology is the scientific study of the cognition and actions of individuals in social situations. The field is dominated by research motivated by a positivist approach to uncovering the truth, but has become divided into separate areas with different research methodologies and practices. The opposing approaches to truth discovery have created interdisciplinary tension between the psychological and sociological branches, each disregarding the others work, deeming it irrelevant. The successful integration of the disciplines is essential for finding a more objective truth within the discipline.

The chapter will look in depth at the different disciplinary truths and the need for integration, with focus on the Stanford Prison Experiment as a prime example of why interdisciplinary work is necessary.

Case Study: The Stanford Prison Experiment
The Stanford Prison Experiment (1971) was a social psychology experiment by Philip Zimbardo in the basement of Stanford University. The experiment took an inductive and constructivist approach to the truth and aimed to investigate whether sadistic behaviour is caused by individual personalities (dispositional), or their surroundings (situational). To do this, Zimbardo created an experimental set-up that simulated prison-life. The experiment was supposed to run for two weeks but was shut down after 6 days due to serious ethical issues concerning the well-being of the participants.

The integrity of the experiment was questioned, with 'demand characteristics' (participants acting in a certain way because they think it's expected) being a contributing factor, meaning the results were a biased, tampering with the 'truth'.

Three Faces of Social Psychology
The idea of interdisciplinarity in the social psychology field is not new; the 25 years after WWII was named the 'Golden Age' of interdisciplinary social psychology as many training and research programmes were established in major US universities. Yet, by the mid 1960s these had mostly disappeared. The contributing factors to their disappearance are said to be the threat to the traditional departmental structure and a lack of funding and major breakthroughs. . Approaches to truth in social psychology became marked by three separate divisions, described as 'three faces' by James House. These divisions were psychological social psychology, symbolic interactionism and psychological sociology (sociological social psychology), all with new and different interpretations of the truth and different research methodologies. Psychological social psychology emphasised laboratory methods, symbolic interactionism focusses on informal interviewing methods and psychological sociology uses mostly survey methods.

The continuous growing apart of these fields, resulting in academic ignorance, can be seen as the main contributing factor for the demise of the SPE. An interdisciplinary team from all divisions would have been able to avoid the countless ethical violations and would've produced a universal truth, helpful and applicable throughout multiple disciplines.

Psychology: Psychological Social Psychology
Psychology seeks to understand the truth behind human thought, feeling, and behaviour. Psychological social psychology is largely dominated by this pursuit of inductive truth through the scientific method (truth seeking through experiment and observation). The notable Stanford prison experiment (SPE), highlights how scientific methodologies are used in practice in psychological social psychology.

Firstly, a hypothesis is defined. Zimbardo, the researcher behind the SPE, wanted to test the hypothesis that it's the personalities of the guards that is the cause of abusive behaviour in prisons (dispositional). The second step is designing an experiment for observation and evidence collection. Zimbardo created an experimental set-up simulating prison-life. 24 volunteers were randomly assigned, after psychological screening, to the role of either 'guard' or 'prisoner'. The screening processes accredited any aggressive behaviour to the environment (situational).

In following the scientific method, Zimbardo created a 'structured' system to seek truth in his experiment. However the lack of emotional empathy in the scientific method can mean the whole social picture isn't acknowledged- no objective truth.

The SPE relied solely on naturalistic observation for evidence collection; observing and recording behaviour as it occurs. Though common in social psychology, it is not a scientific method of measurement; unstructured observations are recorded qualitatively, causing interdisciplinary tension (especially in the SPE) due to its conflict with the scientific method. Experimental psychologists often argue that naturalistic observation produces a less objective 'truth'. They contend that the results are less reliable because it is harder to control variables, meaning the experiment is unrepeatable and therefore the conclusions cannot be tested.

However, the interdisciplinary nature of social psychology means that it possesses a unique version of 'truth'. This means that though it extracts much of its methodology from psychology, there is value to be gained from integrating techniques from other disciplines, such as sociology. It is arguable that this value gained balances, or even outweighs, the value lost from not rigidly following the scientific method.

Sociology: Sociological Social Psychology
Sociology is the scientific study of human interaction and social relationships, looking at social processes and rules. . Specifically, sociological social psychology (psychological sociology) studies individual social psychological behaviour and its relation to social structures.

Psychological sociology emphasises survey research methodologies in identifying truth, taking a more qualitative approach than psychological social psychology. and focusing more on individuals experiences in social situations more empathetically- a factor missing from the SPE.

Post experiment, Zimbardo conducted a short survey of the prisoners, where they placed their emotions towards guards and prisoners on scales of different adjectives. The sociological methods Zimbardo used were very simplistic and arguably lacked depth. By placing greater emphasis on psychological sociology in the SPE e.g. surveying the individuals throughout the experiment, the ethical issues could have been avoided and a more objective truth could have been reached.

However, the integration of a survey system into a scientific method set-up introduces two opposing evidence types, creating conflict. This could be seen as disrupting the variables in place, and, depending on the researchers discipline, one evidence type may be favoured, producing biased results and a 'subjective' truth.

Conclusions
The Stanford prison experiment is a prime example of sociology and psychology interacting within social psychology. Expertise from both schools were required to create a realistic prison simulation. However, more co-operation and crossover was needed to eliminate bias and uncover a more accurate truth.

Though it remains a frequently cited and influential experiment in psychology today, ambiguity and distrust in the results remain, much of this arising from ethical concerns, as well as interdisciplinary tensions between the sociological and psychological areas of social psychology. This is because there seems to be a shortfall in what are accepted as the necessary standards of measurement for the development of theories and production of ‘truth’. The SPE is often criticised for this very reason.

Despite this, it seems clear that the methodologies of both disciplines (sociology and psychology) bring something to the table and create a more universal truth; qualitative (sociological) measures such as survey and self-reporting are necessary to gage the participants individual emotional experiences, whereas quantitative (psychological) methods are needed to set up the experiment in a systematic way (scientific method) and track behaviour. This highlights the need for integration between the disciplines, to create universal truths that are accepted and beneficial across disciplines.


text:
User:Winduss

My name is Hein.

title: User:Winduss


text:
User talk:Milo Myself

Discuss everything about me.

title: User talk:Milo Myself


text: User:Milo Myself

title: User:Milo Myself


text:
Lentis/GMOs in Europe

GMOs in Europe page

title: Lentis/GMOs in Europe


text:
Lentis/Opposition to GMOs in Europe

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are living organisms that have had their genes altered by humans so they exhibit advantageous properties. In agriculture, GMOs take the form of plants that have genetic information added to their genome or otherwise altered to improve the crop. Improvements may include the crop being immune to certain herbicides that are sprayed over fields to kill weeds, or in the case of Golden Rice, to produce an essential nutrient for human development.

Although GMOs have been widely adapted in the United States, opposition to their cultivation has been increasingly observed in European nations. Europeans are more skeptical on the safety of GMOs for human consumption and are worried about their impact on the environment. However, participants are divided and many groups advocate for their acceptance, with Spain being the most pro-GMO nation in Europe.

History of GMOs in Europe
The cultivation of GMOs was accepted by European nations in the 1990s. But in the twenty-first century, many European countries have imposed bans on growing GMOs within their borders, and in some cases, even on their importation. In 2014, Russia issued a complete ban on sale of all genetically modified organisms. Most of the European Union (EU) followed suit, though with somewhat weaker restrictions, when 19 EU members (17 entire nations and portions of 2 other nations) banned the cultivation of eight new GMO crops. These new bans were a result of an EU law passed in March 2015 that allows member states to ban specific GMOs within their borders, despite the crop being approved by the EU as a whole.

A major exception to the anti-GMO cultivation trend in Europe is the Iberian Peninsula. Spain and Portugal alone produce approximately 95 percent of the GMOs cultivated in the EU. The primary GMO cultivated is an insect-resistant corn, introduced in 1998, which has saved farmers in pesticide costs and boosted production.

Some sociotechnical experts claim that increased opposition to GMOs in Europe versus the rest of the globe is partially a result of Europeans' distrust in science surrounding agriculture and in its regulation by the government. Many hypothesize that part of this distrust stems from the way that the British government handled the mad cow disease outbreak of the 1980s and 1990s. Brandon Mitchener, a Monsanto spokesman, describes the sentiment among Europeans as, “Mad cow disease caused a loss of public confidence in science. You had the British government saying beef was safe, while the EU said the opposite.” Other factors contributing to GMO opposition include concerns over the potential that GMOs have to harm biodiversity.

Opponents
Europeans oppose GMOs due to concerns over safety, human health, and the environment, among others. There is also limited trust in the institutions involved in GMO development regarding food safety and agriculture pollution and productivity. Because of this, industrialized agriculture is blamed for deterioration in food quality and damage to the environment. Thus, GMOs are strongly opposed by various non-governmental organizations, such as Greenpeace and France Nature Environnement.

Greenpeace is now the world’s largest environmental non-profit organization. The organization opposes genetic engineering and GMOs, using tactics that include protests and destruction of fields where genetically modified crops are tested. Additionally, through its south Asian chapters, Greenpeace opposes genetically modified golden rice in favor of organic crops. The advocacy also ignores scientific studies and USDA reports showing that organic yield is lagging behind. According to Greenpeace, “GMOs should not be released into the environment since there is not an adequate scientific understanding of their impact on the environment and human health… We also oppose all patents on plants, animals and humans."

Another organization, France Nature Environnement, shares the same view as Greenpeace. France Nature Environnement rejects new GMO techniques and suspects that GMOs can threaten food safety. France Nature Environnement’s method of opposing GMOs is similar to Greenpeace: promoting petitions against GMOs and destroying test fields. France Nature Environnement also makes statements that lead the reader into questioning GMOs: “tomorrow they can impose themselves in our fields and on our plates with complete discretion and with complete impunity. Will we let it happen?"

Advocates
Despite increasing concerns and oppositions, there are some advocates for GMOs in Europe. Spain, for example, currently has the highest adoption rate of Bt maize (a GMO corn crop) in the EU since it was first introduced in 1998. When asked about reasons for adopting the GMO crop, farmers stated that it lowers the risk of maize borer damage, with higher yields and better harvest quality.

Another advocate for GMOs in Europe is Boris Johnson, the prime minister of the UK. Johnson strongly supports GMOs and believes that they will mitigate the risk of famine. He said as much in one of his speeches: “Let's start now to liberate the UK's extraordinary bioscience sector from the anti- genetic modification rules; and let’s develop the blight-resistant crops that will feed the world."

United States' Policy on GMOs
In the US, GMO crops are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which analyzes the safety risks posed to humans and the environment by both the modified gene and the whole organism. The FDA considers most GMOs to be ‘substantially equivalent’ to their conventional counterparts; once a GMO is declared substantially equivalent, it does not require any further approval before cultivation or use in food products. In the US, GMO-containing foods do not have to be labelled unless more than 5% of ingredients come from GMOs. Also, foods that do not contain any genetic material from the GMO, like oil and sugar, do not need to be labelled as GMO foods. Animals may be fed GMO crops, and foods that come from the animal, like eggs and milk, do not need to be labeled as containing GMOs either.

Europe's Policy on GMOs
In Europe, GMOs are much more tightly controlled. The European Commission (EC) must clear the GMO for use, but employs a ‘precautionary principle’ which states, "When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment… the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.” This means the onus falls to the GMO developer to prepare an application, providing information on the modification made, the risks of the modification (to both humans and the environment), as well as approval from a designated member of their state. Labelling of GMO foods in the EU is stricter than in the US as well; in the EU, any food that contains more than 0.9% GMO ingredients must be labelled, and any GMO-containing product must be traceable to its origin. 	Another barrier for GMO use in the EU is the safeguard clause, which can be invoked by any member state. Members can prohibit the cultivation and sale of a certain GMO within their territory if the country feels it may cause more harm than the EC has determined. This has led to a struggle between the EU, which wants to accept new science and appear progressive, and member states that oppose GMOs or think they are unnecessary.

While many member states turn away from GMO crops, there is simply not enough land in Europe to support all who live there. The lack of farmland forces member states to import foods (especially cereal grains like wheat, corn, and rice) from other countries where GMO regulations are less stringent. European countries also often rely on GMO-containing animal feed, of which 30 million tons are imported each year.

Why Do These Regions Differ?

One of the main differences to GMO acceptance is climate: US farmland is dry and flat, while European farmland is mixed with woodlands and receives more rainfall. This means European farmers can till land to disrupt weeds, while American farmers rely on chemicals (and are more open to pesticide resistant plants). The US is also a victim of regulatory capture, in which the companies that are to be regulated end up legislating on their own behalf. Monsanto, a dominant agrochemical and GMO production company, has bipartisan support in the US and lobbies for GMO acceptance. Monsanto does not have as much influence in Europe, and does not influence GMO legislation as heavily.

Conclusion
Only time will tell whether cultivation of GMOs will receive widespread acceptance in Europe as it is in the United States. The issue is both a political and technological one, with many unknown factors at play. Though, one thing is certain: in Europe the burden is on the scientists to prove the safety of GMOs, not on opponents to demonstrate that the crops are unsafe.

Future authors could study the GMO policies of a specific European country, or even of a subordinate region within a sovereign state. By studying the regulations of a specific nation or region, the authors can investigate the unique sociotechnical basis behind local legislation.

title: Lentis/Opposition to GMOs in Europe


text:
User talk:Jadaireu

thank you

title: User talk:Jadaireu


text:
User:Jadaireu

hello

title: User:Jadaireu


text:
LMIs in Control/Stability Analysis/Continuous Time/Strong Stabilizability

The System
Consider the continous-time LTI system, $$G:L_{2e}\rightarrow L_{2e}$$ with state-space realization (A,B,C,0)

\begin{align} \dot x(t)&=Ax(t)+Bu(t),\\ y(t)&=Cx(t), \end{align}$$

where $$A\in \R^{n\times n}$$, $$B\in \R^{n\times m}$$, $$C\in \R^{p\times n}$$, and it and it is assumed that (A, B) is stabilizable, (A, C) is detectable, and the transfer matrix $$G(s)=C(s1-A^{-1})B$$ has no poles on the imaginary axis.

The Data
The matrices $$ A,B,C $$.

The Optimization Problem
The system G is strongly stabilizable if there exist $$P \in \mathbb S^n$$, $$Z\in \R^{n\times p}$$, and $$\gamma\in \R_{>0}$$, where $$P > 0$$, such that

\begin{align} PA+A^T+ZC+C^TZ^T<0\\ {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\begin{bmatrix}-P(A+BF)+(A+BF)^TP+ZC+C^TZ^T&&-Z&&-XB\\ \end{align}$$
 * &&-\gamma I && 0\\
 * && * && -\gamma I \end{bmatrix}}<0\end{aligned}}}\\

Conclusion:
where $$F=-B^TX$$ and $$X \in S_n$$, $$X \geq 0$$ is the solution to the Lyapunov equation given by

\begin{align} XA+A^TX-XBB^TX=0 \end{align}$$ Moreover, a controller that strongly stabilizes G is given by the state-space realization

\begin{align} \dot x_c = (A+BF+P^{-1}ZC)x(t)-P^{-1}Zu(t)\\ y_C=-B^TXx(t) \end{align}$$

Implementation

 * Example Code

Related LMIs

 * https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LMIs_in_Control/Stability_Analysis/Discrete_Time/DiscreteTimeStrongStabilizability - Discrete Time Strong Stabilizability


text:
User:FreeRighter

Acrostic:
(MELINA)

 M emories create ground

E motions then arrive

L ife is not linear

 I t’s uneven all around

N othing stops you for being who you are

A lways try to reach the biggest star

title: User:FreeRighter


text:
User:Vdolar

This is space for Veronika Dolar. I am an assistant professor of economics at State University of New York (SUNY) College at Old Westbury.

Work in Progress
This is the book that I will be working on right now: Open Pedagogy

title: User:Vdolar


text:
User talk:Vdolar

I am completely new to this. I feel quite overwhelmed but also excited about the prospects this platform can offer for open pedagogy. If anyone is reading this and would like to give me some useful advice, please do so. I am quite eager to see how this User talk actually works. Well, I guess, even if you don't have any useful advice, just leave a note. Really just interested in the logistical part of this page. Thank you.

title: User talk:Vdolar


text:
User:ShayMTR/sandbox/Epistemology/What is analysis?

In our everyday speech, we often use very complex or lofty concepts such as "justice" or "knowledge" but when asked "what is justice?" or "what is knowledge?", we might find it hard to give an exact answer. Despite the fact that we presumably know what these words mean (we can use them perfectly fine when we need to!), we seem to only have a fuzzy idea of what they are or how they work. One of the methods that philosophers use to make our understandings of the words we use less fuzzy is called conceptual analysis. Conceptual analysis rests on the idea that we really do already know what these words mean so that we can reliably test a definition or "analysis" against examples to see if it is right. First, we propose an analysis of the concept we're interested in by placing conditions on what counts as falling under that concept. Then, we test this analysis to see if there are any counterexamples which show that it is not quite right. Counterexamples can come in two forms: (1) the analysis may miss a genuine case of the concept which it should have captured or (2) the analysis may include a false case of the concept which it should not have. If we find either of these counterexamples, we need to alter the analysis appropriately to fix the problem.

Individual necessity
In scenario (1), our analysis misses a genuine example that it should have captured. For example, we may try to analyse the concept of a chair by saying that a chair is "an object that is (i) wooden, (ii) has four legs, and (iii) is something that people sit on". When considering this analysis, we might realise that it misses chairs which are made of plastic and chairs which have less than four legs (e.g. see the picture to the right). Here we can see that when our analysis misses a genuine example, it is because it is too strict and contains too many conditions. Some of the conditions in our analysis aren't individually necessary and have to be removed. In the chair example, we see that not all chairs are wooden and they don't all have four legs so these conditions can be removed. Doing this we are left with an analysis saying "a chair is an object that people sit on".

Joint sufficiency
In scenario (2), our analysis includes something which it shouldn't by mistake. For example, consider the analysis of chair that we have left from the last section: "a chair is an object that people sit on". There are many things that people sit on that are not chairs. Horse riders sit on horses while they are racing, Christians sit on church pews on Sundays, and park-goers often sit on benches or even the grass. Here we can see that when our analysis captures something it shouldn't, it is too broad and we need some extra conditions to rule out the false cases. Overall, our conditions are not jointly sufficient to guarantee that a case is a genuine example rather than a false example. We could add the condition that chairs must not be animals but this wouldn't rule out all the false cases we have thought of. Furthermore, simply adding "not [counterexample]" conditions to an analysis seems ad hoc, it rules out the things it should but it also doesn't give us much insight into why those counterexamples don't count or into what truly makes a chair a chair.

Having seen how difficult it is to analyse even the concept of a chair into its necessary and sufficient conditions, it might become clear here why the analysis of knowledge has been a historically debated topic worthy of an entire section of this textbook. Throughout this section, we will explore various analyses of knowledge and test them to see if they have any counterexamples that mean their conditions are not all individually necessary or jointly sufficient to properly define knowledge.


text:
Open Pedagogy

The Current Purpose of this Book
The purpose of this book is to summarize all the existing information out there about open pedagogy. In addition, it will be part of a course titled Effective Didactical Practices in Open Education as part of Master in Leadership in Open Education offered at The University of Nova Gorica in Slovenia - a small country in Europe.

What is Open Pedagogy?
To define open pedagogy, we need to break it down to its two components, open and pedagogy: Open, in this instance, refers to open educational resources (OER) – defined by UNESCO as “any type of educational materials that are in the public domain or introduced with an open license.”

Pedagogy is the practice and method of teaching; how we teach, rather than what we teach. Open pedagogy, also known as open educational practices (OEP), is the use of open educational resources (OER) to support learning, or the open sharing of teaching practices with a goal of improving education and training at the institutional, professional, and individual level. When you use open pedagogy in your classroom, you are inviting your students to be part of the teaching process, participating in the co-creation of knowledge.

Attribution: https://open.bccampus.ca/what-is-open-education/what-is-open-pedagogy/

Here is a link to the next page:

General Information on /Team work and team assignments/

Related Books

 * Learning Theories
 * Open Education Handbook

title: Open Pedagogy


text:
Open Pedagogy/Introduction

This will be the first page of the book. It is an introduction to open pedagogy.

title: Open Pedagogy/Introduction


text: Category:Book:Open Pedagogy

title: Category:Book:Open Pedagogy


text:
LMIs in Control/Stability Analysis/Discrete Time/DiscreteTimeStrongStabilizability

The System
Consider the continous-time LTI system, $$G:L_{2e}\rightarrow L_{2e}$$ with state-space realization ($$A_d,B_d,C_d,0$$)

\begin{align} \dot x(k)&=A_dx(k)+B_du(k),\\ y(k)&=C_dx(k), \end{align}$$

where $$A_d\in \R^{n\times n}$$, $$B_d\in \R^{n\times m}$$, $$C_d\in \R^{p\times n}$$, and it and it is assumed that ($$A_d,B_d $$),is stabilizable, ($$A_d, C_d$$) is detectable, and the transfer matrix $$G(s)=C_d(s1-A_d)^{-1})B_d$$ has no poles on the imaginary axis.

The Data
The matrices $$ A_d,B_d,C_d $$.

The Optimization Problem
The system G is strongly stabilizable if there exist $$P \in \mathbb S^n$$, $$Z\in \R^{n\times p}$$, and $$\gamma\in \R_{>0}$$, where $$P > 0$$, such that

\begin{align}

{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\begin{bmatrix}A^T_dPA_d-P-A_d^TZC_d-C^T_dZ^TA_d && C_d^TZ^T\\ {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\begin{bmatrix}N_{11} &&(A_d +B_dF)^TZ&& XB_d &&C_d^TZ^T\\ \end{align}$$
 * &&-P\\
 * && * && -\gamma I \end{bmatrix}}<0\end{aligned}}}\\
 * && -\gamma I && 0 && Z^T\\
 * && * && -\gamma I && 0\\
 * &&*&&*&&-P\end{bmatrix}}<0\end{aligned}}}\\

Conclusion:
where $$N_{11}=(A_d+B_dF)^TP(A_d+B_dF)-P+(A_d+B_dF)^TZC_d^TZ^T(A_d+B_dF), F=-B_d^TX,X=Y$$ and $$X \in S_n$$, $$X \geq 0$$ is the solution to the discrete-time Lyapunov equation given by

\begin{align} A_dXA^T_d+X-B_dB_d^TX=0 \end{align}$$ Moreover, a controller that strongly stabilizes G is given by the state-space realization

\begin{align} \dot x_{c,k+1} = (A_d+B_dF+P^{-1}ZC_d)x_k-P^{-1}Zu_k\\ y_{c,k}=-B_d^TXx_k \end{align}$$

Implementation

 * -example code

Related LMIs

 * https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LMIsinControl/StabilityAnalysis/ContinuousTime/StrongStabilizability - Continuous Time Strong Stabilizability


text:
LMIs in Control/SolutionInTermsofRiccatiInequalities

Let us now come back to the H∞-problem by output feedback control. This amounts to finding the matrices $$(A_K, B_K, C_K, D_K)$$ such that the conditions K stabilizes P and achieves $$ \bar S(P, K)_\infty < 1$$. are satisfied. We proceed as in the state-feedback problem. We use the Bounded Real Lemma to rewrite the H∞ norm bound into the solvability of a Riccati inequality, and we try to eliminate the controller parameters to arrive at verifiable conditions.

The System
Matrices to controller that solve the the H∞-problem by output feedback control

$$(A_K, B_K, C_K, D_K)$$

The Data
Following matrices are needed as Inputs:.

 * $$ (A_K, B_K, C_K, D_K)$$.
 * $$ (A, B_1, B_2, C_1,C_2)$$.

The Optimization Problem
In control systems theory, many analysis and design problems are closely related to Riccati algebraic equations or inequalities. Find X and Y

The LMI:
There exist $$A_K, B_K, C_K, D_K$$ that solve the output-feedback H∞ problem (K that stabilizes P and achieves $$ \bar S(P, K)_\infty < 1$$) if and only if there exist X and Y that satisfy the two ARIs

$$A^TX+XA+XB_1B_1^TX+C_1^T-C_2^TC_2<0$$

$$AY+YA^T+YC_1^TC_1Y+B_1B_1^T-B_2B_2^T<0$$

and the coupling condition

\begin{align} {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\begin{bmatrix}X&I\\\ I&Y\end{bmatrix}}<0\end{aligned}}}\\ \end{align}$$

Conclusion:
Let U and V be square and non-singular matrices with $$UV^T=I-XY$$, and set $$L=-X^{-1}C^T_2$$ ,$$F:=-B^T_2 Y^{-1}$$. Then $$A_K, B_K, C_K$$ as defined in

$$A_k=-U^{-1}[A^T+X(A+LC_2+B_2F)Y+X(B_1+LD_{21})B_1^T+C_1^T(C_1+D_{12}F)Y]V^{-T}$$

$$B_K=U^{-1}XL$$

$$C_K=FYV^{-T}$$

lead to a controller K that stabilizes P and achieves $$ \bar S(P, K)_\infty < 1$$


text:
LMIs in Control/Robustness/Continuous Time/DKIteration

This methods uses LMI techniques iteratively to obtain the result.

The System
Given a state-space representation of a system $$

G(s) $$ and an initial estimate of reduced order model $$

\hat{G}(s) $$.

\begin{align} \ G(s) &= C(sI-A)B + D,\\ \ \hat{G}(s) &= \hat{C}(sI-\hat{A})\hat{B} + \hat{D},\\ \end{align}$$

Where $$ A \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}, B \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times m}, C \in \mathbb{R}^{p\times n}, D \in \mathbb{R}^{p\times m}, \hat{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{k\times k}, \hat{B} \in \mathbb{R}^{k\times m}, \hat{C} \in \mathbb{R}^{p\times k}$$ and $$\hat{D} \in \mathbb{R}^{p\times m}$$.

The Data
The full order state matrices $$ A,B_1,B_2,C_1,C_2,D_{11},D_{12},D_{21} $$.

The Optimization Problem
Alternate fixing $$K,\Theta$$ in an iterative process to estimate a solution for Dynamic Output Feedback Synthesis with Structured Norm-Bounded Uncertainty.

The LMI: D-K Iteration
Objective: $$ \min \gamma $$.

Subject to:: Initialize: $$\Theta=I$$\\ Define:\\

$$

\begin{align} \ \hat G_{\Theta}(s) &= \begin{bmatrix} \ A &|& B_1\Theta^{-1/2} & B_2 \\ \hline \ \Theta^{1/2}C_1 &|& \Theta^{1/2}D_{11}\Theta^{-1/2} & \Theta^{1/2}D_{12} \\ \ C_2 &|& D_{12}\Theta^{-1/2} & 0\\ \end{bmatrix} \end{align} $$

Step 1:

Fix: $$ \Theta$$ and solve:

$$\inf_k \|\underline{S}(G_\Theta, K)\|_{H_{\infty}} $$

Step 2:

Fix K and minimize $$ \gamma$$ such that there exists $$ \Theta \in \mathbf{P\Theta}$$ and $$ X>0$$ such that

$$ \begin{align} \begin{bmatrix} \ A_{cl}^{T}X + XA_{xl} & XB_{cl} \\ \ B^T_{cl}X & -\Theta \\ \end{bmatrix} + \gamma^{-2} \begin{bmatrix} \ C_{cl}^{T}\\ \ D_{cl}^T \\ \end{bmatrix} \Theta \begin{bmatrix} \ C_{cl} & D_{cl}\\ \end{bmatrix} \ > 0 \end{align}$$ where $$A_{cl},B_{cl},C_{cl},D_{cl}$$ define $$\inf_k \|\underline{S}(G_\Theta, K)\|_{H_{\infty}} $$ (Bisection)

Step 3: Go to Step 1

Conclusion:
This is less of an LMI and more of a heuristic that allows us to solve for time-invariant scalings $$\Theta$$ and controller K. However, there are no guarantees that this process will return an globally optimized result.

Implementation

 * https://github.com/mosmith3asu/WikibooksLMIs/blob/main/DKiteration.m - Example Code

Related LMIs

 * https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LMIs_in_Control/pages/Discrete_Time_H%E2%88%9E_Optimal_Dynamic_Output_Feedback_Control - $$H_\infty$$- Dynamic Output Feedback Controller Synthesis


text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Truth in the Stanford Prison Experiment

Chapter Timeline
16/11/2020 During our ATK seminar, we formed our group and began to brainstorm ideas. To start with we looked through the previous wikibook chapters that had been completed and were particularly grasped by the ones that focused on specific case studies.

20/11/2020 The first idea we settled on was a study of truth in ‘The Trial of the Chicago Seven’, as we both found the topic very engaging. However, after researching we realised that though there was significant conflict in the case study, it was not interdisciplinary conflict. We felt we couldn’t execute the task properly and approach it from an interdisciplinary perspective using that trial and so decided to change our idea.

23/11/2020: Tara and I met over zoom to discuss other potential ideas for our project. As we are both science majors we were interested in topics that had a scientific dimension. This is when we decided on the Stanford Prison Experiment. From initial research we established a clear interdisciplinary tension between the psychological and ethical dimensions of the experiment.

24-25/11/2020: Over the next few days following our decision to do our project on the stanford prison experiment we both decided to watch the documentaries/films and read the articles associated to get a good level of background knowledge before beginning to academically research the topic. By doing this we were able to grasp the differing disciplinary perspectives on the Experiment.

01/12/2020: After both gaining a good knowledge of the Stanford Prison Experiment, we met again after our ATK seminar to discuss the plan for our chapter and begin to structure it on a Google docs, that we both contributed to, so that we had a clear plan for the chapter and the points we were trying to get across were clear. We collated useful sources on this page as well as bulleting what we wanted to discuss in each section, making sure there was an emphasis on interdisciplinary conflict and that there were two clear opposing viewpoints. We assigned roles for writing the chapter and decided it would be best if we both contributed to both disciplinary sections as neither of us specialise in these subjects so we can both apply our individual skills to the chapter as a whole.

03/12/2020: After further discussion, Inma and I decided this was more of an issue of the interdisciplinarity of social psychology and that the Stanford Prison Experiment was an example of why psychological social psychologists must integrate more with sociological social psychologists. We decided to turn the chapter into a discussion of truth in these fields, the tensions between them and the need for integration, using the SPE as a case study for this.

07/12/2020: Had a meeting where we structured the page and decided on more specific points we wanted to discuss in the chapter. Decided Inma was going to focus on the psychology aspect and Tara on the sociology aspect, with both of us contributing equally to the other sections. Began from this point writing the chapter in full depth, checking in with each other periodically to see where we're at and that we're both clear on the aims of the chapter.

10/12/2020: As most of our content was written (either straight onto the Wikipedia page or onto the google docs) it was very useful to have a fresh pair of eyes to proof-read the others work so we decided that once our individual sections were written, we would look at and add to each others works to be as collaborative as possible

14/12/2020: Before the deadline today, we met to discuss the chapter as a whole and make sure we've made all the points we wanted to, comparing the chapter to our plan on the google docs. We both contributed to fine tuning the chapter as a whole and cutting down to the given word count

General Discussion
Think the following paragraph would work better in the concluding section after we've spoken about the methodologies of both fields? : ''The importance of an interdisciplinary approach to social psychology arises for a number of reasons. If you were to try and understand the behaviour of an individual through a purely psychological lens, you neglect the opportunity to analyse the society, culture and interactions that combine to produce a personality. The combination of sociological, anthropological and psychological methods can foster both synergies and tension, depending on how they are employed.''Apricotptr (discuss • contribs) 19:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bascer1000 Updated the introduction let me know your thoughtsApricotptr (discuss • contribs) 17:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Today- •	Began to formulate the psychology section •	Focusing on the use of the scientific method in social psychology •	Using the Stanford prison experiment as a case study (there is now some repetition between this section and the later section on the Stanford prison experiment which we can sort out) •	Also I will add in the referencing •	Ideas I have had when writing- the sociological nature of the experiment i.e the need to view participants acting freely in a habitat makes it difficult to repeat the experiment. This conflicts with the scientific method, highlighting a disciplinary tension. --Bascer1000 (discuss • contribs) 00:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Seen that you've mentioned the SPE in the psychology section. Think if we're going to speak about it in each section we should establish the background information on it first so the reader fully understands the experiments significance and what went on? Think this would make it easier to integrate truth throughout the chapter this way too. Revised chapter order could be:

Introduction to Social Psychology: An interdisciplinary approach Case Study:Stanford Prison Experiment Disciplinary Perspectives Conclusions

Let me know your thoughtsApricotptr (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Not too sure what this sentence is trying to say would you be able to make it a bit clearer @Bascer1000?: The characteristics of participants are defined as ‘conceptual variables’[7], potentially including questions such as why the prisoners rebelled, or why the guards taunted the participants. Apricotptr (discuss • contribs) 12:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Yes! Your right that didn't make sense - think i've clarified it now. --Bascer1000 (discuss • contribs) 20:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that I think what you wrote about the three faces of social psychology is really great- frames the argument really well. --Bascer1000 (discuss • contribs) 22:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


title: User:AncestorHunter06


text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in Transgenderism

We had zoom calls in the past weeks with all four group members present. We have a separate wikibooks Google Docs so that we could edit at the same time and agreed on the following: Pauline - biology, Lily - psychology, Sheryl and Kaya - social anth, introduction. Conclusion and overall edits - after the individual sections are done. LittleSpadePerson (discuss • contribs) 17:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 20/11/20 - discussion of topics on whatsapp
 * 23/11/20, 5/11/20 - zoom calls
 * we also held discussions in the chat section of google docs and gave suggestions for sources for each other
 * additional calls: 11/12/20, 12/12/20

''Final things to do tomorrow: check referencing (all in Vancouver and the same format). word count 1,200.''
 * word count is on 1,238, how strict are the guidelines? I've just been through it trying to trim it down and i'm struggling!Ed Ardizzone (discuss • contribs) 12:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * edit- it's a strict upper limit so I'm going to try and go through again Ed Ardizzone (discuss • contribs) 12:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Its now at 1,226 Ed Ardizzone (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * i'll go through the chapter to make some final edits! we can make sure everything is perfect later when we call. LittleSpadePerson (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

whatsapp discussion LittleSpadePerson (discuss • contribs) 16:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * sheryl: for the second paragraph in biology, the animal part might not be entirely relevant? Maybe expand on the first half for undermsculanisation-feminism (is there any definition u can give?). the other two paragraphs are really Strong evidence while this one seems a little less so?
 * Kaya: Yea I think we should focus on the social anth and conclusion now to take away words from
 * Lily: The middle para of soc anth is quite long, maybe try and cut from that
 * Kaya: I think the sentence about the guinea pigs can be deleted
 * Sheryl: can someone else cut words from soc anth?
 * kaya: I’ll look through the conclusion
 * Pauline: I can cut the thing about guinea pigs

Introduction

For the introduction, "different theories, methodologies, contexts, frameworks, research tools and ethics" feels a little redundant. Which terms would you guys prefer?LittleSpadePerson (discuss • contribs) 17:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * how about 'from different perspectives, using various methodologies and research tools' ? Ed Ardizzone (discuss • contribs) 17:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you! i'll go change it now LittleSpadePerson (discuss • contribs)
 * I agree, that feels a lot more concise Wildharvestvalley5 (discuss • contribs) 18:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

'Transgenderism can be understood as the phenomenon where a person's gender identity does not correspond to the sex they were assigned at birth.' what if we took out 'can be understood as the phenomenon' and just put 'is' for the sake of wordcount? Ed Ardizzone (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah that sounds more concise, go ahead and change it. Wildharvestvalley5 (discuss • contribs) 16:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Biology

In the Bio part, when I talk about medical imaging methods, should I add examples? Cocowiki2001 (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * i think naming one or two would be good, it would only be a few words LittleSpadePerson (discuss • contribs) 17:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * i'll add that now! Cocowiki2001! (discuss • contribs) 10:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you! LittleSpadePerson (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

would it help to define the term "undermasculanisation-feminism" in the biology section? LittleSpadePerson (discuss • contribs) 18:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC) also, the second paragraph seems a little less connected to transgenderism than the other two. maybe some sources linking sex hormones to gender identity? we might have to remove the animal bit if it's over the word count but i'd appreciate some input from other people.LittleSpadePerson (discuss • contribs) 18:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I can try to find something on it!Cocowiki2001! (discuss • contribs) 10:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Psych

In psych, there are issues in methodologies that could be solved using social anth maybe? Despite use of more qualitative forms of data for evidence (eg. interviews), great deal of importance is still put on scientific methodologies + empiricism leading to binary terms in interviews etc, soc anth could help expand this???Ed Ardizzone (discuss • contribs) 17:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * i'll reword this point in the conclusion later! thanks for pointing this out. LittleSpadePerson (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

In the psych paragraph, in the first line I’d recommend saying what kind of ‘rich evidence’ is being used. I.e. “providing rich qualitative evidence” or whatever suits your argument best, just to add some depth/specificity to the sentence Wildharvestvalley5 (discuss • contribs) 18:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Anthropology

Question: Is queer theory in this explored in anthropology or as another 'discipline'? What's its relevance directly to anthropology? Wildharvestvalley5 (discuss • contribs) 23:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * i'm pretty surequeer theory can be used by social anthropologists as a framework to understand ethnographic evidence - feel free to correct me if i'm wrong but i'll clarify that in the main section! LittleSpadePerson (discuss • contribs) 00:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

"A structuralist approach would use ethnographic evidence to explore the overarching structures in Brazillian society that give rise to their perspective on gender and sex." - do you think we should delete this part? it doesn't seem to be connected to the rest of the paragraph even though i'd love to give a more specific example of schools of anthropological thought. we might exceed the word count.
 * Yeah I agree, I think we can do without it. We have enough to support our argument otherwise. Wildharvestvalley5 (discuss • contribs) 18:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the last paragraph of section needs to be condensed, a lot of it seems either repetitive or superfluous. Do you think we can get rid of parts of that section? (The paragraph that begins with "social anthropology situates[...]") Wildharvestvalley5 (discuss • contribs) 18:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * yeah i'm trimming down the word count now. i'll take some of it out, thank you! LittleSpadePerson (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * i've removed "Although all three disciplines are previously dominated by white, male and upper class members of western society, social anthropology actively aims to decolonise past theories and schools of thoughts so that evidence is less biased.", but we still need to cut a bit more of the word count. i think positionality of the ethnographer is important because it would affect understanding and analysis of the ethnography, so i would prefer to keep that part in. what do you guys think? (keep in mind we're currently about 100 words above the limit.) LittleSpadePerson (discuss • contribs) 15:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion

Ideas of connections between disciplines and their methods: In Bio the twin study design yields some limitations as the instruments used to measure gender identity may be confused with gender expression --> I believe this distinction could be made clearer with the help of Psychology and even social anthropology which shows the need for interdisciplinary research? Cocowiki2001 (discuss • contribs) 13:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Gender identity= what the person identifies as, gender expression= what gender the person is ‘recognisable as’, ‘presents as’, dependent on social expectations and knowledge of stereotypes/social norms of other people as well as the individual
 * Psychology could help-uses social experiments with children as participants (key time in establishing stereotypes + schemas)- as the expression and identity are more social constructs and not biological ones psychology obtains evidence from views and opinions of individuals via interviews etc rather than ‘instruments’- evidence is subjective not objective, so perhaps more appropriate to use Ed Ardizzone (discuss • contribs) 17:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * i've added all your points to the conclusion! we just have to cut some more words in the main paragraphs because i think the clash in evidence is quite important. LittleSpadePerson (discuss • contribs) 15:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a thought on the concluding paragraph; I think if we want to keep the heading "application of evidence" we might want to talk more explicitly about the real-world implication in which this evidence could be applied and is relevant (e.g. policy-making on discrimination based on gender identity, general societal understanding/tolerance of transgenderism, etc.) Let me know what you guys think Wildharvestvalley5 (discuss • contribs) 04:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree Cocowiki2001! (discuss • contribs) 10:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * i've changed it to 'integration of evidence' if that works better? LittleSpadePerson (discuss • contribs) 15:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

thank you for all the points guys! i'll edit the conclusion now and we can all read through the draft later in the call. LittleSpadePerson (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Other

I've added my section from the google doc, ik it still has some random notes in it so I'll take them out once I edit it- I think we're quite a lot over the word count though, also, do we think my section highlights limitations too much, should I change it? I thought the limitations would be useful to talk about the clashes with other disciplines but now I'm not sure
 * we can go through that in tomorrow's zoom call! i think it'll be helpful to pinpoint where the main clashes are and edit our sections so they support the conclusion of where the main difference/similarities in evidence is. LittleSpadePerson (discuss • contribs) 23:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

i edited the formatting of the discussion so it should be a bit easier to read now! LittleSpadePerson (discuss • contribs) 18:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in the French Security Law

The French Global security law
The 20th of October 2020, Jean-Yves Fauvergue et Alice Thourot introduced a new proposition of law to put in action within the French government. It included new regulations upon the municipal police’s power, the instauration of new equipment and devices of video monitoring for enhanced social security and new policies to restrict rights to disseminate videos of the police.

Sociological approach
Sociological insight on a law appears beneficial in the understanding of a policy's effect on society. According to the government, this law only aims to tackle issues of increasing violence against the police due to online diffusion of videos calling out for violence. Even though, this law claims to protect the nation’s police, many activists, journalists as well as the EU and the UN are expressing their dissatisfaction with this law, which is not in line with French values and human rights. Sociologically, videos are primary sources of evidence that can reveal violation of human rights. In a society where social medias reveal themselves as platforms of self-expression, the use of video as an evidence to denounce, critique and question is one of the most used and relevant tool. However, some factors associated with the social media obstruct the evidentiary value of a video: the anonymity, display of misinformation or information with lack of context, all make social media not always very convincing and often subjected to collective denial for lack of credibility.

Conflict Theory Perspective
Conflict theorists, center their sociological perspective upon power relationships within broader social structure, in particular inequality and uneven wealth distribution causing consequent class conflict. According to Chevigny and based on evidence he collected in America, a conflict theorist, police brutality is a governmental instrument used for and by social elites to suppress potential social threats that could destabilize their privileges. This perspective emphasize the exploitative aspect of social structure and the global passivity and lack of consciousness due to an established status quo. Using this perspective as an evidence, this new law regulating rights upon video-recording authority, appears as a mean to prevent the population from having access to disturbing videos that could destabilize the order to the detriment of potential victims, as well as allowing police officers to commit unjustified violence with impunity to groups that would represent a threat. This law is meant to cover up undesirable social movements, likely to cause social unrest.

Philosophical Approach
With the new security law, civilians don't have the right to take any video footage of the police. The French people are now watched and are incapable of looking back at the authority, making the look a new object of power. In "Discipline and Punish", Michel Foucault reflects on the panopticon a project thought by Jeremy Bentham. The "panopticon" would be a tower of control at the centre of a prison where someone observes every movement of the prisoners without them being able to look back at him. Humans tend to act correctly in front of a camera: they stand straight and tries to look decent in front of the observer. The subject of the film becomes the subject of the observer installing a new power relation between the two. In this context, allowing a one-way observation provides full control for police officers and attacks our freedom. However, Hobbes demonstrates that giving more power to a member of society is the key to societal cohesion. According to his book, "Léviathan" the " man is a wolf to man". Humans are naturally egoistic beings that fight amongst themselves. Civilians therefore accept to submit themselves to one leader to guarantee security and social cohesion. Thus Hobbes would claim the law is both legitimate and improves social cohesion. Philosophy embraces different opinions on subjects through different experiences. In philosophy, limited quantitative or qualitative evidence is found as one relies on their own subjective interpretations of the world. Evidence in philosophy is, therefore based on theories that are often only conceptualised. Arguably, philosophical evidence wouldn't be concrete enough in a practical situation such as the global security law, but can allow us to conceptualise some of the incentives and issues that come with the law. Philosophy and sociology prove that with a same issue and two different sets of evidence lead to different interpretations of the global security law.

Law, Philosophy and Human Rights
A key tension over the justification for the Security Law is the nature of human rights. It is around this issue that there has been much contention, namely with the UN high commissioner for human rights calling for a rewrite on the grounds of human rights. As laws are ultimately justified through the authority that a government is granted to create laws, the only evidential claim against the law is on the grounds of human rights. Human rights are claimed to be "inherent to all human beings" by the united nations but there is less clarity about which rights should have priority. Legally, Human rights hold a higher standing than international law and can be used by citizens to hold their governments accountable, so if the liberty of the populace is prioritised over the security of the police then obligations to the law are justified. It is here that philosophy can help exemplify which of these rights should be protected. An approach by Maurice Cranston, can help to provide ways to analyse rights themselves. If we apply some of Cranston's tests, particularly the idea that rights must respond to threats to other or the same rights, we can see that we can justify the UN reaction as the right of the freedom of press in regards to the police contributes to the prevention of future injustices done by the police, so the rights of freedoms, in this case, help protect future security rights of the public. On the contrary, the rights the police have to security stand not in defence of any other rights, but instead stand in contradiction to the future security rights of the public. As such, through this combined approach we can justify the UN response and see how we can prioritise rights over one another.

The Interdisciplinary Approach
The usage of evidence, and the types of evidence in these three disciplines is ultimately very different, and as such lead to very different outcomes. Political Philosophy uses evidence, with a stronger focus on reason alone, to support normative claims, whilst Sociology aims to explain why things are in society and create theories around that, using real life systems as evidence and law is used to exert powers over a society, and is evidenced by societal power systems in place. Evidence used by these disciplines greatly differ, they are still beneficial as they aim to explain different things; Philosophy helps us grasp the purpose of the law in a wider societal perspective, the sociology helps us grasp how the law will impact society and the discipline of law helps explain how the law will be put into practice and on what grounds. The three disciplines, despite some of their contradicting theories, approach the French Security Law from different angles, which ultimately aids us in understanding the law as a whole.