text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in Amazons consumer profiling

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.

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?

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.

AMAZON.com Recommendat° Item to Item Collaborative Filtering

find° a set of customers whose purchased and rated items overlap the user’s purchased and rated item → problem : people doing raking → pay for it → unique algorithm aggregates items form these similar customers and eliminates recommands remaning both algorithms used collaborative filtering and cluster models

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.


text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Truth in Free Will

I made a new heading for Truth in Free Will (our old one seems to have been deleted). We thought about the disciplines through which we could discuss the biological vs cultural determinism; genetics, epigenetics, psychology, philosophy, physics. Is it okay if I look at the genetics point of view and (RC) looks at the psychology? 12Tig (discuss • contribs) 13.34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I looked into genetics and epigenetics and found some interesting things. I think that my section might lean towards free will being an illusion. I also came across several interesting topics, though I am not sure if they fit in my section or might go better in another, so if you have any thoughts on it please do say. They are: how stimulation in infancy is very important for brain development, and how if neglected in early life children can have learning disabilities (although this might not fit under 'free will' at all); and that learning disabilities and mental health disorders are linked to genes, and no one today would assume that someone with depression or autism could 'just snap out of it' - there is an understanding that certain responses and behaviours are pre-determined (genetic/ biological determinism); also the issue of reflexes and Pavlovian responses - hardwired in brains, requiring no conscious decisions to act. Sorry for the long ramble, but do you have any thoughts about whether and where these issues might fit? 12Tig (discuss • contribs) 12.16, 04 December 2020 (UTC)

That all sounds pretty interesting! The issues you've mentioned all seem to be linked to biology, so it should work perfectly imo! We could maybe start by mentioning the philosophical aspect, as determinism is a philosophical concept, and open up the question of free will? Then we could each go into specific deterministic theories, and discuss the interdisciplinarity aspects within them. I’d be interested in psychology (environmental?) determinism (I’d like to talk about family/early life, mention the attachment theory). Otherwise technological determinism maybe? We could potentially end it on mentioning the multi and interdisciplinary net that arose from the question of free will, and how in all these disciplines others factors considered all come up to the conclusion that these different external factors are what determine our behaviour (free will is an illusion like you’ve mentioned, poppy). Maybe we could mention complex systems so we can add a superconcept to it as well? What do you guys think? --Enotecaaa (discuss • contribs) 15:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

These are great ideas! It seems to me that 12Tig wants to focus on the biological and epigenetical aspect of determinism and Enotecaaa wants to focus on the psychological take? I have done some research on the physics/practical point of view that concerns determinism and would like to bring that in somehow, wherever it makes sense. I will write down my ideas and put them on the document so you can have a look and let me know what you think. I can even do some research on psychology (if that's okay Enotecaaa) as I find that area of determinsim quite interesting. Again, I'll write it down my work on the document so all of us can contribute to whichever area you find interesting. Rosacarter (discuss • contribs) 17:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree - it all sounds great! I might have gone into some other topics too as they all seem to overlap quite a lot, but feel free to remove them or play with the structure. And @Enotecaaa: I think that including a superconcept is a really good idea, especially as complex systems seems to fit so well with my research into determinism and free will. Also just to add that in the last ATK seminar he said that we should count the words in headings towards our total count, but captions for pictures won't count. 12Tig (discuss • contribs) 10.50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I added a bit of my section. It is still unfinished, but I thought it would be good to start putting bits up. Please edit or change the headings if you want. 12Tig (discuss • contribs) 17.16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I have added some information on the technological and physics aspect of determinism. Its not complete as of now, but feel free to add/edit anything you want. I am unsure of the heading for the physics/math one, please change it to what you feel is most appropriate. Rosacarter (discuss • contribs) 00:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I think it looks really good. I added a bit to do with stochasticity, but please do delete, edit or move it. I'm also unsure about the 'biological determinism' heading, but I think we can edit down the word count and finish structure and headings as we add more content. Do we need to have a picture/figure of some sort? Also I think there is something odd going on (sorry if it's my fault) to do with 'accepted changes' to the page.12Tig (discuss • contribs) 09.59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I added a rough introduction, please do change it to fit with what we add to the page. I also put my section on biology/genetics after the section on physics because I thought it followed on from what I added to it. Please do remove/ change the position of any section I add if either of you think it doesn't fit. 12Tig (discuss • contribs) 11.55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the stochasticity is very interesting, I didn't understand it too well though, probably because I don't take math. But I added some information explaining it's meaning. In the end I tried to link it back to free will again as I think we should keep referring to it, given that its our topic. Hope you don't mind. Please edit or delete whatever you want. Rosacarter (discuss • contribs) 13:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph on sociology and merged that with the technological aspect as there was very little to write about that and it is interrelated with sociology. I'm unsure where to put the sociology section, please change it to what you think works best. @Enotecaaa have you focused on the psychology or philosophy bit? If so, I think we should put it right after the introduction, right?Rosacarter (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the conclusion a bit. Please have a look and let me know if it is okay. Rosacarter (discuss • contribs) 14:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it looks really good - you made it better! 12Tig (discuss • contribs) 16.58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

TO EXAMINERS: for some reason the last few edits we made to get the word count below 1200 were not carried over into the pdf download. Your magnanimity would be appreciated. Thank you very much.

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


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Truth in Free Will

Introduction
Determinism and free will are viewed through different disciplinary lenses, each interpreting empirical evidence as truth differently. Free will was initially considered though a philosophical lens, using phenomenology and constructionism to determine truth. However with the advent of genetics and neuroscience, amongst other disciplines, in the 19th and 20th centuries empirical evidence and a positivist approach to truth has added new perspectives to the debate. Often there are tensions within these disciplines, interpreting evidence differently.

Sociology
Social determinism, first introduced by Emile Durkheim (1858–1917), theorises that an individual’s social interactions and constructs determine their behaviour. Social factors in this context refer to interpersonal interactions, education, culture and other experiences encountered through the course of one’s life. Social determinism implies a sense of hegemonic control of the society and its constraints over an individual. Determinants such as acceptance, taboos, culture, gender, education, stigmas etc. largely restrain one’s decisions throughout their life. This is as there is a specific thought process that society creates through the means of education, interactions, familial relations etc. As these experiences are vital to an individual’s decision making behaviour in the future, sociologists argue that society is dominantly deterministic. This leads to the conclusion that free will does not exist as all behaviour is ultimately a consequence of societal supremacy on the human mind.

Psychology
The psychological approach to Determinism, and the question of “free will”, is grounded on a dualistic assumption that will is either determined, and so contingent to the laws of causation, or free of any prior conditionnement by past events, and therefore undetermined. The law of causation dictates that earlier events have a direct influence on the present behaviour of an individual, thus causality allows for the prediction of future behavioural responses.

Psychological Determinism finds a correlation between childhood events (circumstances of one’s upbringings) and present mental state. Children are heavily conditioned by their exterior environment, and more dramatically impacted by their experiences as they do not have any to compare them with.

It is therefore conceivable that one individual's relationship with their caregiver has a direct impact on later relationships formed in the future. John Bowlby’s theory of attachment offers a model constructed on four attachment patterns, which are determined by childhood causality, and dictate an individual's response to affection, dismissal and trust, as well as ideas of love and self-worth. The four patterns are the following:

- Secure attachment (indicates caring, responsive and sensitive caregivers)

- Ambivalent attachment (indicates unpredictable, uncertain and sometimes insensitive caregivers)

- Disorganised attachment ( indicates rejecting, unpredictable and fearful caregivers, and therefore lack of affection and distrust)

- Avoidant attachment (indicates dismissive and insensitive caregivers, leading to a fear of affectionate/emotional responses)

These attachment patterns during childhood, lead to the formation of 4 attachment styles in adulthood: Secure, Anxious-attachment/preoccupied, Fearful-avoidant and Dismissive/avoidant. These attachment styles predict an individual’s response to affection and intimacy, its emotional availability, view of self and others, fears of abandonment and rejection, as well as choice of partners based on these styles.

Physics and Mathematics
The physics or mathematical approach towards determinism explains that any ordinary act occurs as a result of a series of initial actions that ultimately set it in motion. This is often referred to as the mathematical phenomenon 'the butterfly effect', an idea first introduced by Edward Norton Lorenz (1917–2008) as part of his Chaos Theory, which again aims to prove that deterministic laws govern the outcome of all actions. It is also believed that predetermination of outcomes may be possible by the use of accurate statistical calculation of the chemical, biological as well as environmental changes of an individual. This implies that there is a calculated and practical reasoning behind every decision and action an individual makes, thus invalidating the possibility of human agency, and reinforcing the truth that free will is illusionary. However, there are several arguments against such practical theories of determinism. For example, the way in which learning, memory, emotions and experiences play a role in an individual’s actions and reactions.

A contrasting theory is that humans are complex systems which use stochasticity to choose responses. In studies of other species the adaptive, stochastic abilities of organisms to choose a behaviour in response to internal and external information supports an interpretation that choices are a complex probability, influenced by genes and environment, but not pre-determined. As this theory accounts for the external and internal factors that can influence the random probability of decisions, stochasticity promotes the possibility of free will.

Biology and Genetics
Strict biological determinism believes lives are pre-determined by genes. This can be controversial. Many accept that, although positivist, biological determinism is influenced by constructionism. Genetic facts and objective evidence are combined with qualitative data on behaviour from sociology to reach the truth. The DRD4 gene has been linked to personality and political views, previously thought to be determined by social environment. There is also evidence that genetics influence social grouping; friendships often form between people with similar genotypes. This shows that genes contribute to individuals' personalities and behaviour.

This pluralist approach to truth is continued in epigenetics, the study of how gene expression is altered. Experiencing trauma has heritable epigenetic effects. From studying Holocaust survivors it was found that FKBP5 gene expression was affected by the trauma experienced, which was passed down to children. This gene is involved in stress responses and is associated with depression. Depression, also linked to several other genes, affects behaviour. As depression is an illness, not controlled by the patient, this suggests that behaviour is influenced by genes. Epigenetics demonstrate that initial genetic conditions can change in response to external factors, and that a genome and gene expression affect psychology and ergo free will. Therefore it considers the truth to be that behaviour is determined by genetics and society.

Conclusion
Both biologists and physicists consider truth to be derived from objective laws, although how the evidence is gathered and interpreted varies. The empirical evidence from Physics is not considered applicable in complex human behaviour by sociologists and psychologists. Also, it conflicts with constructionist and phenomenological approaches which consider truth to be from experiences and interactions. To approach free will from any single disciplinary perspective is to exclude valuable insights from other aspects of it. The effect of genetics on behaviour is difficult to distinguish from that of the environment. Additionally, the study of epigenetics is in contrast with physical determinism as it demonstrates that initial conditions do not predict outcomes. Biology also incorporates stochastic theories about choices, but concludes that there is an unpredictable interplay between the environment and initial conditions which ultimately gives rise to free will. Evidently, there are multiple interdisciplinary clashes within the debate of determinism and free will. Through their own lenses, the varying disciplines come to suggest the truth that to an extent, free will is illusionistic.


text:
Canadian Refugee Procedure/109 - Applications to Vacate

IRPA Section 109
Section 109 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act reads: Applications to Vacate Vacation of refugee protection

109 (1) The Refugee Protection Division may, on application by the Minister, vacate a decision to allow a claim for refugee protection, if it finds that the decision was obtained as a result of directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter.

Rejection of application (2) The Refugee Protection Division may reject the application if it is satisfied that other sufficient evidence was considered at the time of the first determination to justify refugee protection.

Allowance of application (3) If the application is allowed, the claim of the person is deemed to be rejected and the decision that led to the conferral of refugee protection is nullified.

For commentary, see RPD Rule 64
Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rule 64 - Applications to Vacate or to Cease Refugee Protection


text:
Template:The Linux Kernel/test

 Usage:

title: Template:The Linux Kernel/test


text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Lockdown chapter

General updates
Summary of 1st meeting (20.11.2020) :

 * We considered several options and decided to investigate the interdisciplinary conflict in evidence/truth behind the decision of whether to impose a lockdown or not.
 * We’ve identified Economics, Statistics, Public Health, Politics, International Relations, Law, Psychology, and Sociology as potential disciplines for our further research.
 * We saw a potential problem with lack of published resources on the topic due to its recency, but the preliminary research showed availability of credible information-- Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 19:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of 2nd meeting (27.11.2020) :
 * Each of us conducted some preliminary research to verify whether we can find sufficient valid and reviewed resources to begin writing on this topic. Fortunately, we found a good amount of them so we decided to go ahead with the topic of lockdown.
 * We narrowed down the title of our chapter to a more specific title - “evidence in assessment methodologies for the effectiveness of the lockdown.” This included discussions on issues of truth and evidence - which one would be more suitable. We ultimately unanimously decided to choose Evidence as this issue would allow us to provide clear and coherent arguments in a restricted word count.
 * We divided the research for certain disciplines among ourselves. After writing about the lockdown from the perspectives of our allotted disciplines, we will meet again to identify and write about the tensions between each of them together. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 10:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Summary of the 3rd meeting (06.12.2020):
 * Discussed our findings regarding the evidence in the three chosen disciplines.
 * Compared the types of evidence used: qualitative (Political Science) vs quantitative (more in Economics and Public Health )
 * Identified and discussed general trends and how they came into conflict with one another (Economics: against the strict lockdown,and more in favor of the implementation of various mitigation strategies generally negative effect; Public Health and Political Science: in support of the lockdown, mainly positive effect ( to different extents ))
 * Set objectives and outlined next steps: each group member researches and evaluates how the evidence presented by different disciplines creates conflict( Economics vs Political Science, Public Health vs Economics, Public Health vs Political Science )--Vovkpp (discuss • contribs) 17:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Summary of the 4th meeting (09.12.2020):
 * Updated each other on the status of our individual paragraphs of each discipline and finalised them
 * After spending the last 3 days researching, had a major discussion on the conflicts between each discipline and identified them appropriately
 * Attempted to disentangle evidence and truth during the evaluation part of the chapter
 * Now, everyone has to add their contributions to the introduction and finalise that. After, count the number of words left and begin writing the conflict paragraph together --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 03:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Summary of 5th meeting (13.12.2020): --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Went through the whole chapter, made suggestions concerning each other’s contributions and the page as a whole.
 * Edited some paragraphs collectively in the Google document to make them more concise and clear
 * Discussed the examples of conflict in evidence that we mentioned earlier in the WhatsApp chat and the discussion page and finalised the structure of the conflict in evidence paragraph
 * Discussed the format, references, the credibility of sources and how to improve our page based on the individual feedback we received on our sandboxes

We used a Google document and a WhatsApp chat a lot from the first weeks of this assignment due to their functionality, (color-coding, proposing edits, edits in real time) which helped us propose changes to each other’s contributions with more clarity than the discussion page. It also allowed us to discuss the proposed changes instead of just making them directly and share the resources we found useful for the development of this project --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 12:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Introduction
Hi! This is the draft of a few introductory sentences I came up with, please feel free to propose corrections, changes, and any suggestions

"This chapter investigates the nature of interdisciplinary evidence on which the contested measures of containment of the coronavirus pandemic are based. It notes the role of methodological differences and … in the conflict concerning the necessity of lockdown.

Lockdown (as used here) is defined as a series of restrictions on the social and economic life of citizens and the use of public spaces. When the pandemic started, a debate concerning the correct response started alongside it and was mainly centred around mitigation and suppression approaches. Figure 1 (- it is a function that relates lives saved and protection of incomes) demonstrates the widespread view that a lockdown is a trade-off between the economic costs and lives lost, which naturally leads to a debate centered on the validity of economic and medical evidence." – it may be too economics centered explanation

--Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 15:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Here is my version of the introduction (where I have just made edits and added a few phrases):

"This chapter investigates the evidences disciplines use to individually attempt to determine the effectiveness of containment measures, specifically lockdowns, for the coronavirus pandemic. It explores the role of methodological differences as well as short-term and long-term perspectives in the conflict concerning the necessity of a lockdown.

Lockdown is defined here as 'a series of restrictions on the social and economic life of citizens and use of public spaces'. When the pandemic hit, a debate concerning the correct economic, political and public health response started alongside. As this lead to varying responses by different countries, some effective and some worsening the situation, it is important to demonstrate that an interdisciplinary approach would be the most suitable method for determining whether mitigation approaches or suppression approaches will be the most effective."

So, the reason why I removed your last paragraph (with the figure) is because I think it would be a better addition to the conflict paragraph instead of this. In the introduction, we just want to explain our intention for writing this chapter -- we have the rest of the chapter to justify these claims. Tell me what you think! --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 03:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi, I totally agree that the last paragraph should be moved. I just wanted to make a few little corrections to the introduction you proposed but somehow ended up rewriting the whole thing, I'm sorry. So here is the paragraph I came up with, I changed the structure we both used before and tried to cut it down:

"When the coronavirus pandemic hit, a debate about the correct response started alongside. This chapter investigates the evidence individual disciplines rely on in attempts to determine the effectiveness of specific virus containment measures, such as lockdowns, and the role the differences in disciplinary methodologies seem to play in it. Lockdown is defined here as a series of restrictions on the social and economic life of citizens and use of public spaces. As this debate has influenced the actual state policies, of varying degrees of success, it is important to understand the potential flaws in the arguments of different sides, their causes and to demonstrate that an interdisciplinary approach would be the most suitable method for determining the most thought-through measures."

I hope I didn't misunderstand the key changes you've proposed. Please feel free to change it! --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, i have changed the wording a little bit, but i agree with all of the points you have outlined in the introduction "This chapter investigates the evidence different disciplines use in an attempt to determine the effectiveness of containment measures, specifically lockdowns, for the coronavirus pandemic. It explores the role of methodological differences as well as short-term and long-term perspectives in the conflict concerning the necessity of a lockdown.

Lockdown is defined here as "a series of restrictions on the social and economic life of citizens and use of public spaces" When the pandemic hit, a debate concerning the convenient economic, political and public health response started as a consequence. Leading to various international reactions, some improving and others worsening the situation, it is important to acknowledge the need for an interdisciplinary approach as a method for determining whether mitigation approaches or suppression approaches will be the most effective."--Vovkpp (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

this is a better version, i have combined some of the previous suggestions, what do you think ?

When the pandemic hit, a debate concerning the convenient economic, political and public health response started as a consequence.This chapter investigates the evidence various disciplines use in an attempt to determine the effectiveness of virus containment measures, such as lockdowns, as well as the role the differences in disciplinary methodologies seem to play in it.

Lockdown is defined here as "a series of restrictions on the social and economic life of citizens and use of public spaces" Leading to various reactions and implementation of a number of policies on different levels, achieving various degrees of success, it is important to highlight the downsides of different procedures and acknowledge the need for an interdisciplinary approach as the method for determining the nature of the most effective measures to be taken: mitigation or suppression.--Vovkpp (discuss • contribs) 16:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I'd substitute "convenient" in the first sentence by "optimal". And I think the sentence after the lockdown definition needs to be clearer, maybe it can be split into two. --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 16:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 * What do you think about this variant:

When the pandemic hit, a debate concerning the optimal economic, political and public health response started as a consequence.This chapter investigates the evidence various disciplines use in an attempt to determine the effectiveness of virus containment measures, such as lockdowns, as well as the role the differences in disciplinary methodologies seem to play in it.

Lockdown is defined here as "a series of restrictions on the social and economic life of citizens and use of public spaces". Consequently, as a result of various reactions to the crisis across the globe, a number of policies have been implemented on different levels, achieving various degrees of success. Hence, it is important to highlight the downsides of different procedures and acknowledge the need for an interdisciplinary approach as the method for determining the nature of the most effective measures to be taken: mitigation or suppression.--Vovkpp (discuss • contribs) 19:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi guys! I just made some grammatical edits to the introduction - just so that what we are saying is crystal clear. Hope its okay! --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Economics
This is the economics methodology section draft I've constructed,

"In economics, lockdown tends to be seen as a trade-off between the economic costs and lives lost. Many papers attempt to represent the problem as a cost-benefit analysis and construct quantitative models that either justify the costs of lockdown or not. Economic advice is based on abstracted, generalised models and functions that rely on statistics, quantitative data, assumptions, estimates and other models, theories, and forecasts. Those models tend to lack recognition of psychological factors, of some quantitatively unmeasurable uncertainty and many aspects of the complex interdependence of society. Furthermore, most healthcare economics models rely on epidemiological models which also have some degree of abstraction and error. Both economic and epidemiological models have to be based on limited data obtained by observation rather than controlled randomized trials and thus may be insufficiently reliable."

I may add a few examples related to the nature of economic evidence that may have been involved in the conflict surrounding lockdown decisions. But I think it can be more convenient to discuss our findings and then choose which of these or other examples I found should be included in our page. I found a lot of papers that look at very different aspects of the problem and I think we should decide on which aspect we want to focus on to comply with the word limit.

But generally, as a result of the economics approach and methodology, some economics papers propose a mitigation strategy instead of a suppression strategy - lockdown.

Some economic evidence may not take all the complex context into consideration, for example certain authors present the change in GDP between February and April as an evidence of detrimental consequences of lockdown. However economic research with a different methodology suggested that only 7% of the negative growth of economic activity was due to legal restrictions while 60% was caused by the reaction of people to the virus and anticipated crisis.

Most cost-benefit analysis would have to rely on estimated cost of a human life which has to be quantified and different approaches to that exist. For example economists see a 10 week lockdown as feasible only if a human life is valued at over 10m£ and when that number is compared to cost of life in other scenarios, it looks totally illogical to implement such a lockdown. In the first months of the pandemic, economic models were based on typical frameworks and the kind of data that was used in similar economic problems but not necessarily similar situations in the past. So all the classical concerns about economic evidence are applicable to some early papers. Later some other perspectives, and thus evidence, were recognised and models became more accurate but still not perfect and the measures they recommend may not be practically possible or useful. So many economists propose targeted measures rather than a lockdown, however some recognise the validity of strict short-term restrictions in the long term perspective. From what I understood people in health sciences insist that it’s practically difficult and frequently impossible to contain the disease by targeted measures, relying on the evidence they consider but the economists don't?

--Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 16:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hey! I just read through your paragraph and I think, in terms of content, it is great! Just a few suggestions: a) refrain from using more than one specific example while explaining a claim you're making; as discussed in the call, we're making paragraphs on each discipline mostly non-specific so they give an overall view of the situation from their perspective and state the major and most prominent trends observed, b) try to follow the structure used by the Political Science and Public Health disciplines used, just for uniformity and clarity purposes, c) I don't understand the meaning of mitigation and suppression strategy so maybe you could define the terms?, d) try to draw a clear, overall conclusion by the discipline. Hope I am not overstepping and feel free to do as much as you feel comfortable with. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 19:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for the feedback! I decided to omit all the specific examples, and use them only if they illustrate an interdisciplinary conflict in evidence in the Conflict in Evidence section, according to the structure proposed in the Google document. I tried to make the sentence about mitigation and suppression strategies clearer, hope it's better now. And I also tried to write a more concise conclusion but I may add more to it --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 21:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Do you think I can add a picture (a graph) from a paper and cite it or should I try to find something similar in Wikimedia? --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hey! I am not sure but I will ask our module leader and get back to you on that. Moreover, I just read the latest version of the Economics paragraph on the main page and I have a few suggestions that could really clarify what you have already written:

Hope these make sense! --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) mention the focus of economic research, in regards to lockdown measures, more clearly (even if it seems obvious) and of course, attach a reference to that
 * 2) rearrange a couple sentences and make a few grammatical edits, as mentioned in the Google Document
 * 3) move the sentence talking about "psychological factors" to the conflict paragraph, as it will make more sense there
 * Thank you! I'll try to do these things

I wanted to discuss a couple of other concerns, I've checked the sources I'm referencing and I think they are of good quality, but one government publication has no authors, do you think it may be an issue? It is an official document and the data I take from it concerns the methodology they describe rather than findings that may have some bias. Another paper that I found useful is a literature review that is not peer-reviewed due to its recency. But it mentions different perspectives and many papers with opposing views that are frequently referenced and considered reliable in other publications I've come across. Do you think I should keep these sources? --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I think you should keep both of those references. The first one is a government publication -- therefore it can definitely be trusted as governments (to the best of my knowledge) don't release unverified information. Secondly, although the literature review is not peer-reviewed, I think its okay to use because literature reviews are anyways subjective in nature and are heavily influenced by the author's perspectives. But in the end, it is your decision. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 17:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey Usernamee anonymous! I asked our module leader, and he confirmed that yes we can use and put in a picture from a source other than wikimedia, as long as we reference and cite it well and clearly. Hope this helps and let me know if we are still putting an image in. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 11:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I think we shouldn't as it's not really necessary after the changes we've made and I didn't find an ideal image that is open-source. But thank you for the information! --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 11:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Okay! Also, I just realised that I meant that literature reviews are objective in nature even though they are influenced by the author's perspectives. Literature reviews are conducted to re-verify the limitations of previous research conducted, and therefore, it would be a good reference to include. Hope it is more clear now. Sorry for the typo! --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 13:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Political Science
This is political science draft ( will add a section on global violence as well )

Political scientists tends to conduct research through both qualitative and quantitative approaches data. The focus of its study are actions and attitudes of individuals, groups and institutions on local, national as well international levels. Empirical evidence used in Political Science is constructed by surveys and interviews, case studies as well as fieldwork, ethnographic works and analysis of past events.

For scholars within the domain of Political Science the burning issue in regards to the effectiveness of the lockdown are its impact on the political support and attitudes towards governmental institutions and actors, especially in democracies, as well as shifting patterns of the global political violence.

In terms of political support, main sources of evidence constitute surveys, questionnaires as well as the analysis of past experience of global pandemics and their correlation with public opinion the findings of multiple cross-national surveys have indicated an overall trend of a decline in trust for governments and other political institutions under democratic regimes. However, even though some results show a strong shift towards supporting more authoritarian style decision-making which erodes the democratic image ,others illustrate strong nationwide recognition of governmental actions. Moreover, there is evidence that there is now observable correlation between the imposition of the lockdown and shifts in ideologies. --Vovkpp (discuss • contribs) 07:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hey! I think, in terms of content, your writing looks good. Just a few thoughts and suggestions -- a) at some places, there are some grammatical mistakes but I can fix that for you so don't worry!, b) I really admire the structure with which you presented your ideas and I attempted to emulate that in my piece, so please let me know if any changes need to be made to that. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 19:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi! I just wanted to say that I felt that the last sentence of the first paragraph and the first sentence of the third paragraph are very similar and maybe you could join them together so that it is more concise. I've also sent you some of my ideas concerning this discipline in Whatsapp --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 21:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi! I thought these sources may help you to write about some of the political aspects we've discussed today.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp13411.pdf

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4074

As these are quite long papers I've added particular sections that may be of interest to the Google document --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 16:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I have changed the paragraph and added some of your recommendations but with several modifications from myself, so feel free to give your opinion and edit something.	--Vovkpp (discuss • contribs) 00:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Public Health
[Here is my paragraph on this discipline. I will add the references when I add this paragraph to the main page directly. Let me know what you guys think!]

Public Health researchers lay a large emphasis on quantitative methods of evidence collection. Their primary focus is the “disease trends and risk factors, outcomes of treatment or public health interventions, functional abilities, patterns of care, and health care costs and use.”

Specifically for pandemics like Covid-19, the most common method used for assessing combative strategies is an ‘intervention and prevention program evaluation,’ which is a combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies. This assessment method, outlined by Figure 1, aims to determine the effectiveness of lockdown measures by comparing the change in the indicators in the pre-lockdown months and post-lockdown months.

Majority of the evidence in public health research constitutes models of the number of cases against different factors such as geographical location, age-groups etc. Multiple cross-national and international studies have observed an overall downward trend in the number of cases after physical distancing measures (such as lockdowns) have been implemented, establishing a direct correlation between the two. (cite Lebanon and overall one) However, although India imposed a nationwide lockdown for 68 days, the number of infections increased, albeit a small fraction. This was due to inadequate public health facilities and a general social indifference.

Therefore, as a result of the methods mentioned, public health recommendations evolved during the entirety of the pandemic and still continue to change. However, overall, based on empirical evidence, the public health ministries of multiple countries continue to assert that lockdowns are the most effective preventative measure, especially when coupled with other combative strategies such as test and trace, mandatory quarantines, and effective healthcare. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 18:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi! I've read through your contribution again and I think the India example and social indifference may suit our discussion in the conflict paragraph. So they imposed the lockdown guided by the Public Health concerns but didn't consider the ways in which people may react to these measures and how that can undermine their effectiveness (Political Science evidence). Also, I feel that the quotation in the first paragraph is a bit overwhelming, could you explain some of the aspects mentioned there or remove the aspects you don't touch upon further in this chapter?

--Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 08:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hey! As discussed in the call, I have decided to remove the social indifference phrase, as it doesn't relate to the public health discipline. Also, I edited the quotation as you suggested. Thank you for your suggestions. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 11:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Conflict in evidence
So here is that conflict paragraph:

"Evidence in Public Health is limited to short-term impacts of the containment measures on health-related variables. It doesn’t account for how such measures may influence society and cause a crisis that can lead to health issues and increased mortality due to poverty, hunger, and other reasons in the long-term. The economic evidence concerns the long-term impact on the economy but it is based only on limited quantifiable factors. Due to the qualitative nature of evidence it collects and creates, Political Science brings in the concerns about the impact of measures on the behavior of people, for example, the likelihood of conflicts or lack of compliance with the proposed measures, which can also lead to loss of lives." --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 16:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 * HI! I suggest we put a sentence at the beginning, saying that "Overall, the conflicts of evidence among these disciplines seem to arise from their individual limitations.(or something similar ), what do you think ?--Vovkpp (discuss • contribs) 13:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I think that's a great idea, Vovkpp! Here is my version of the conflict paragraph:

"Overall, the conflicts of evidence among these disciplines seem to arise from their individual limitations. Two main conflicts have been identified — short-term vs long-term impacts and qualitative vs quantitative methodologies.

Evidence in Public Health is limited to the short-term impact of lockdowns on health-related variables. It doesn’t account for how it may influence the economy by exacerbating existing social and economic inequalities and causing a negative growth in GDP, or a recession. Recessions lead to increased unemployment levels and poverty, which can contribute to the worsening of other health conditions which can lead to higher death rates. Therefore, in the long term, lockdowns may indirectly lead to increased mortality rates.

Evidence in Economics considers the long-term impact on the economy but it is based only on limited quantifiable factors. Due to the qualitative nature of evidence it collects and creates, Political Science evaluates the concerns about the impact of measures on the behavior of people, for example, the likelihood of conflicts or lack of compliance with the proposed measures, which can also lead to loss of lives.

Hence, the imposition of a lockdown can be counterintuitive if an interdisciplinary approach is not taken."

Tell me what you guys think. Also, we need to find at least 2 more references to prove the claims made in this paragraph. Also, we need to specify the 'limited quantifiable factors' that we mention here, or give an example. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 14:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Good additions! Here is my new take on this paragraph and a few suggestions:

“Overall, many conflicts among these disciplines as well as their contested conclusions seem to arise from the limitations of evidence they rely on. The nature of their methodologies makes some disciplines consider short-term impacts rather than long-term ones and take either qualitative or quantitative factors into account but not both. Evidence in Public Health is limited to the short-term impact of lockdowns on health-related variables. It doesn’t account for how they may influence the economy by exacerbating existing social and economic inequalities and causing a negative growth in GDP or a recession. Recessions lead to increased unemployment levels and poverty, which can contribute to the worsening of the population health and higher death rates, especially in certain countries. Therefore, in the long term, lockdowns may indirectly lead to increase in mortality rates. Evidence in Economics considers the long-term impact on the economy but it is based only on limited quantifiable factors. Due to the qualitative nature of evidence it collects and creates, Political Science evaluates the concerns about the impact of measures on the behaviour of people, for example, the likelihood of conflicts because of, or lack of compliance with the proposed measures, which can also lead to loss of lives.”

--Here we can talk about the flaws in mitigation strategy some economists propose: test and trace system is necessary for it to work and there is no trace system people are ready to accept (security and freedom concerns, authoritative governments) (PS) and no tests that are sufficiently accurate and readily available in required quantities (HS)?

“Therefore, a higher degree of involvement of perspectives and evidence of different disciplines may lead to fewer dangerous policy experiments and more effective and quick suppression of pandemic.”

--'' Also, we distill these arguments from the papers we reference in the disciplines paragraphs, but maybe it would look better if we add references to them here as well? So that these points are clearly well supported? I'll find something for the limited quantifiable factors, I think I mentioned it in the Economics paragraph'' --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 16:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hey Usernamee anonymous. I agree! I think adding references to this paragraph is very important, as it gives a basis to all the claims and conclusions that we are drawing. I think we have done a good job adding them. Also, you forgot to cite 2 of them, so I cited them. Hope you don't mind. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 11:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


text:
LMIs in Control/pages/Small Gain Theorem

LMIs in Control/Matrix and LMI Properties and Tools/Small Gain Theorem

The Small Gain Theorem provides a sufficient condition for the stability of a feedback connection.

Theorem
Suppose $$B$$ is a Banach Algebra and $$Q \in B$$. If $$\|Q\| < 1$$, then $$(I-Q)^{-1}$$ exists, and furthermore,

$$(I - Q)^{-1} = \sum_{ k=0}^\infty Q^{k}$$

Proof
Assuming we have an interconnected system $$(G,K)$$:

$$y_1 = G(u_1 - y_2)$$ and, $$y_2 = K(u_2 - y_1)$$

The above equations can be represented in matrix form as

$$

\begin{align} \begin{bmatrix}I & 0\\0 & I\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}y_1\\y_2\end{bmatrix} &= \begin{bmatrix} \ 0 & -G \\ \ -K & 0 \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}y_1\\y_2\end{bmatrix} + \begin{bmatrix}G & 0\\0 & K\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}u_1\\u_2\end{bmatrix}

\end{align} $$

Making $$\begin{bmatrix}y_1 & y_2\end{bmatrix}^{T}$$ the subject, we then have:

$$

\begin{align} \begin{bmatrix}y_1\\y_2\end{bmatrix} &= \begin{bmatrix} \ I & G \\ \ K & I \\ \end{bmatrix}^{-1} \begin{bmatrix}G & 0\\0 & K\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}u_1\\u_2\end{bmatrix} &= \begin{bmatrix} \ (I - GK)^{-1}G & -G(I - KG)^{-1}K \\ \ -K(I - GK)^{-1}G & (I - KG)^{-1}K \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}u_1\\u_2\end{bmatrix}

\end{align} $$

If $$(I - GK)^{-1}$$ is well-behaved, then the interconnection is stable. For $$(I - GK)^{-1}$$ to be well-behaved, $$\|(I - GK)^{-1}\|$$ must be finite.

Hence, we have $$\|(I - GK)^{-1}\| < \infty$$

$$\|G\| \|K\| = \|Q\|$$ and $$\|Q\| < I$$ for the higher exponents of $$\|Q\|$$ to converge to $$0.$$

Conclusion
If $$\|Q\| < 1$$, then this implies stability, since the higher exponents of $$Q$$ in the summation of $$\sum_{ k=0}^\infty Q^{k}$$ will converge to $$0$$, instead of blowing up to infinity.


text:
The Story of Rhodesia/Administration & the Name Rhodesia

The name “Rhodesia”
The Company initially referred to each territory it acquired by its respective name—Mashonaland, Matabeleland and so on—but there was no official term for them collectively. Rhodes preferred the name "Zambesia" while Leander Starr Jameson proposed "Charterland". Many of the first settlers instead called their new home "Rhodesia", after Rhodes; this was common enough usage by 1891 for it to be used in newspapers. In 1892 it was used in the name of Salisbury's first newspaper, The Rhodesia Herald. The Company officially adopted the name Rhodesia in 1895, and three years later the UK government followed suit. "It is not clear why the name should have been pronounced with the emphasis on the second rather than the first syllable," the historian Robert Blake comments, "but this appears to have been the custom from the beginning and it never changed."

Administrative divisions & centers
Matabeleland and Mashonaland, both of which lay south of the Zambezi, were officially referred to collectively as "Southern Rhodesia" from 1898, and formally united under that name in 1901. Meanwhile, the areas to the river's north became North-Western and North-Eastern Rhodesia, which were governed separately, and amalgamated in 1911 to form Northern Rhodesia.

The overall centre of Company administration was Salisbury, which was also the Southern Rhodesian capital. The administrative centre in North-Eastern Rhodesia was Fort Jameson, while in North-Western Rhodesia the capital was Kalomo initially, and Livingstone from 1907. Livingstone became the capital of Northern Rhodesia when the two northern territories joined in 1911, and remained so at the end of Company rule.

Administrative posts, politics and legislature
The head of government in each territory under Company rule was in effect a regional administrator appointed by the Company. In Southern Rhodesia, a ten-man Legislative Council first sat in 1899, originally made up of the administrator himself, five other members nominated by the Company, and four elected by registered voters. The number of elected members rose gradually under Company rule until they numbered 13 in 1920, sitting alongside the administrator and six other Company officials in the 20-member Legislative Council. The Company's Royal Charter was originally due to run out in October 1914, but it was renewed for a further ten years in 1915.

In Northern Rhodesia, administration was entirely undertaken by the Company until 1917, when an Advisory Council was introduced, comprising five elected members. This council did little to lighten the Company's administrative burden north of the river, but endured until the end of Company rule.


text:
The Story of Rhodesia/Development

Railway and telegraph
Chief among the endeavours pursued by the Company during its early years were the construction of railroads and telegraph wires across the territory it governed. These respective arteries of transport and communication, vital both for the successful development of the new country and for the realisation of Rhodes's Cape to Cairo dream, were laid across the previously bare Rhodesian landscape with great speed. Strategically planned, the railways were not intended or expected to turn a profit during their early years; their construction was largely subsidised by the Company. The telegraph line from Mafeking in South Africa reached Salisbury—one third of the way from Cape Town to Cairo—in February 1892. Just under six years later, in December 1897, the Bechuanaland railway from Vryburg reached Bulawayo, making it possible to travel between the Cape and Rhodesia by train.

A narrow gauge railway towards Salisbury from the Mozambican port of Beira was begun by the Portuguese in 1892, and reached the Rhodesian border at Umtali after six years. Umtali and Salisbury were linked in 1899, on a different track gauge; the gauges between Beira and Salisbury were regularised the following year. The Second Boer War then restricted the further extension of the line from Vryburg, but the completion of the Beira–Salisbury railway allowed the importation of materials. Salisbury was connected to Bulawayo and the Cape in 1902. The Vryburg–Bulawayo railway was meanwhile extended up to the Zambezi, and across when the Victoria Falls Bridge opened in 1905. Continuing through North-Western Rhodesia, the railway reached Élisabethville in Katanga—by this time part of the Belgian Congo—in 1910.

The rise of Rhodesian tobacco
The Company originally hoped that gold prospecting between the Limpopo and Zambezi rivers would reveal mineral deposits comparable to those of the South African Rand, and indeed acquired its charter in part because its founders convinced Whitehall that a "second Rand" would be found and exploited in what would become Southern Rhodesia, thereby providing more than enough capital to develop the territory without help from London. Though much gold was discovered during the 1890s, these grand expectations were not met. The Company resolved after about a decade that it could not financially sustain its domain through gold mining alone, and therefore shifted its priority to the development of white agriculture.

To maximise the potential of new, white-run farms, the Company launched a wide-scale land settlement programme for white settlers. As part of this drive it reorganised the geographical distribution of native reserve areas, moving the reserves and often reducing them in size where the land was of particularly high quality. To ensure that the white farmers would retain the reliable access to markets that the nascent railway network provided, tribal reserve boundaries in various relevant places were redrawn by the Company to place the railway lines outside. The new hut taxes concurrently compelled black peasants to find paid work, which could be found in the new agricultural industry, though most tribesmen were reluctant to abandon their traditional lifestyles in favour of the capitalist labour market. Managers at farms and mines often had great trouble sourcing sufficient manpower.

Tobacco, initially just one of several crops earmarked for wholesale production, soon emerged as Southern Rhodesia's most prominent agricultural product, though its early development was far from stable: aside from the climactic uncertainties of the unfamiliar country and the mercurial quality of the product, the early industry was cursed by a debilitating boom and bust cycle that continued well into the 1920s. All the same, tobacco endured as the territory's staple crop, while the growers came to dominate Southern Rhodesian politics, holding a majority in the Legislative Council from 1911. Holding considerable political and economic power up to the end of Company rule in 1923, the Southern Rhodesian tobacco industry retained its prominent position for decades afterwards.

Immigration and economic performance
White immigration to the Company realm was initially modest, but intensified during the 1900s and early-1910s, particularly south of the Zambezi. The economic slump in the Cape following the Second Boer War motivated many White South Africans to move to Southern Rhodesia, and from about 1907 the Company's land settlement programme encouraged more immigrants to stay for good. The Southern Rhodesian mining and farming industries advanced considerably during this period; Southern Rhodesia's annual gold output grew in worth from £610,389 in 1901 to £2,526,007 in 1908. The territory first balanced revenue and expenditure in 1912. There were 12,586 Whites in Southern Rhodesia in 1904, and 23,606 in 1911; in 1927, four years after the end of Company rule, the Black and White populations in Southern Rhodesia were respectively 922,000 and 38,200.

The White population north of the river was far smaller, with only about 3,000 settlers spread across the 300,000 square miles (780,000 km2) of Northern Rhodesia. In the same area, there were roughly 1,000,000 Black people. The Whites in Northern Rhodesia were primarily concentrated in the far west, along the railway line between Bulawayo and Élisabethville in the Belgian Congo. A community of about 250 lived in the vicinity of Fort Jameson near the eastern border. In between were vast swathes of largely uninhabited bush, which lacked roads, railways and telegraph lines, making communication between the two White communities very difficult. The amalgamation of North-Western and North-Eastern Rhodesia in 1911 did little to improve the situation. Northern Rhodesia suffered as the result of its artificial nature—the country was not homogeneous in terms of population, history or geography—and unlike Southern Rhodesia, it never turned a profit or became self-supporting. During 1921 alone, the Company's administration of Northern Rhodesia lost it more than £1,250,000.

title: The Story of Rhodesia/Development


text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in Covid-19 Vaccine Distribution

Summary of Meeting 1 (20/11/2020 1:00PM GMT)
In Attendance: Ling Ling, Alexia, Jeanne (Nicola joined the meeting halfway)

General Discussion

-clarified the four marking rubrics and the limit of word count

-compared a few examples in past years

Brainstorming

No one showed interest on History. We think that Evidence and Truth are two issues which come quite similarly when being reflected in the sources available.

Alexia proposed the idea of “Power of technology in fashion industry”, which the other two group members found interesting. Disciplines like Computer science, Art design and Economics could be considered.

some ideas were discussed: the discipline of Economics tends to be dominated by males, whereas art design is like a field involving more females, power dynamics somehow may arise between economists and art designers in the form of ideological clashes

Ling Ling mentioned some possible angles for investigation e.g. how the development of fashion industry may impact on economic sustainability in long-term, see fashion design from the lens of economists

Nicola gave us some useful advice:

1. We should choose an interdisciplinary topic, which could be valuable in some sense.

2. The topic chosen is just like one tool being employed to identify and analyse the nature of Power in that specific context. We may look at fashion simply as one industry.

3. Power as an issue is very tricky. If writing about it, we need to dissect how it is manifested in one of the four forms that we learned from the lectures, and cannot use it simply as one word in day-to-day contexts.

Lily0212 (discuss • contribs) 01:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of Discussion in WhatsApp Group
Ling Ling rethought the old topic and came up with another new one as the following.

Topic: How to decide the ways of Covid-19 vaccine distribution to maximise social welfare?

Interdisciplinary issue: Evidence

Disciplines: Economics, Biology, Sociology

Experts in different disciplines have differing conceptions of Evidence and prioritised disciplinary perspectives.

==> clashes [But we need to be careful to only write about the differences in their ways of approaching, constructing and understanding knowledge, which makes the thing arguable.]

-subconscious bias in collecting and analysing evidence

Biology

-infection systems in human body, electronic image e.g. the older and certain groups are more vulnerable to the epidemic, should be given priority

Economics

-collect data and construct models, maximise social welfare, make assumptions

-may emphasise on the importance of young people as workforce to economic growth and development

-ignore the role of social factors e.g. the implications of culture and social beliefs on consumers’ behaviour

-maximize utility

Sociology

-based on other various social theories

-different research methods e.g. take interviews

Final conclusion: when combining together to facilitate government policy decision making…

We discussed this both online and in the seminar, and decided to switched to this topic and work on Evidence as the issue.

Regarding to our new topic, Nicola gave us these suggestions:

1. should emphasise on Evidence (talk about how multiple disciplines gather evidence, this discipline uses evidence like this and that discipline uses evidence like that)

2. how to structure the Chapter: many possible ways of formatting (traditional essay style; other creative ones)

Lily0212 (discuss • contribs) 02:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of Meeting 2 & Meeting 3
In Attendance: Ling Ling, Alexia, Jeanne

It appeared difficult to find much evidence used by different disciplines on COVID-19 vaccine distribution to support our arguments. So we decided to work on Truth as an issue.

We shared the links to check out:

Epidemiology, Health: Check this book out: Qualitative methods for health research, J. Green, N. Thorogood https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e7ca/dda07e4076073cf3f6777b73800492f878f5.pdf?_ga=2.187360104.1169024446.1606655436-1485175133.1603165432

Published by the School of Public Health Interim Framework for COVID-19 Vaccine Allocation and Distribution in the United States (centerforhealthsecurity.org)

Economics A Covid-19 Vaccine Will Need Equitable, Global Distribution (hbr.org)

Economics https://econlife.com/2020/05/covid-19-vaccine-distribution-dilemmas/

Report from the US department of Health about the vaccine distribution plan, Operation Warp Speed (OWS) https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/strategy-for-distributing-covid-19-vaccine.pdf It says for example that the distribution has to be ‘equitable’

The definition of “public health” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health (we get many useful insights from this definition)

Chapter title: Truth in Distributing COVID-19 Vaccines

Disciplines: Epidemiology, Economics, Sociology

Potential 5-part structure

1. Introduction - Ling Ling and Alexia

2. Epidemiology (hard science) - Alexia

3. Economics (social science) - Ling Ling

4. Sociology (social science) - Jeanne

5. Conclusion (potential clashes): Public health practice, policy makers - work together

Final edit: work together

Ways to think about Truth (use the following two rules to guide us when writing on the three disciplines)

1. How they construct truth

2. How what they believe to be true may not be true when they are trying to reflect the complex real-world situation (pros and cons of “truth”?)

Issue should be related to the disciplines, instead of the topic, the topic is just used like the excuse.

Ling Ling proposed the working timeline which the other group members also agree on.

 * Finish the 1st draft (work on individual parts): by the end of Friday Dec 4

 * Edit on others’ paragraphs: by the end of Tuesday Dec 8

--> do research and read articles on other parts, the references we found and put here

 * Final edit and improvement on the whole Chapter: by the end of Sunday Dec 13

 * Download and submit the PDF file to Moodle: Dec 14

Lily0212 (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


text: Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in Covid-19 Vaccine Distribution


text:
History of video games/Platforms/Apple II

History
The Apple II was launched in April 1977.

The Apple II was discontinued in 1993, having been a critical platform in the Computer market, and by extension the computer gaming market, for well over a decade and a half.

Around 2017 a massive effort was made to preserve as much Apple II software as possible, before media degradation made some software lost to history.

Technology
These specs are for the original Apple II. Later models offered enhanced capabilities.

Compute
The Apple II is powered by an 6502 processor clocked at 1 megahertz.

The Apple II originally shipped with 4 kilobytes of RAM, and could be expanded to 48 kilobytes.

Hardware
The Apple II shipped with an 8 kilobyte ROM.


text:
Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance/Archives/2020/October

Special:Contributions/136.228.206.219
Vandalism after warning. Please block. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Gave them a couple of days' block. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of pages formerly hosted at the ETHZ.
I'm wondering about semi-protection of pages formerly hosted at the ETHZ. Oberon/ETH Oberon/bootman is an example. My intention is to preserve old pages essentially as original. New information can be added to other pages such as Oberon/bootman. I might simply watch for an edit and then handle it but proactive protection might avoid disputes. Advice? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 15:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Has their been a history of disputes or is this a projected guess? —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There have been no edits of any of the pages I'm concerned about. Just thinking proactively. I guess you will suggest that protection is not required until there is an edit. OK, thanks, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 17:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the pro-activeness! But unless there has been a clear history of disputes, then I personally see no reason to protect atm. Please let us know if there are any disputes and we will take care of them. Thank you. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 02:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


text:
Template:360 Assembly/Example 95

For the purpose of this example it is assumed that R14 is equated to 14, R15 is equated to 15 etc., to provide cross reference - see EQU Assembler pseudo-instruction) * some typical assembler instructions showing comments to the right        L     R15,=A(MOVE)                    Load sub-routine address into R15                            BALR  R14,R15                         Go to the sub-routine ===> *                                             ....return here with return code in R15 * ***************************************** *  Move the input to output             * ***************************************** MOVE    EQU   *                               Start of a sub-routine called "Move"         USING *,R15                           Tell the assembler reg. 15 points to *                                             this address        MVC   OUTPUT,INPUT                    Move the input to the output area        SR    R15,R15                         Clear register contents (set Return code = 0)        BR    R14                             return to caller        DROP  R15                             Tell assembler we are no longer using *                                            register 15 and resume using previous register * TABLE  DC    C'ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ'   Table of letters of the alphabet INPUT  DS    Cl80                            Input area OUTPUT DS    Cl80                            Output area

title: Template:360 Assembly/Example 95


text:
User talk:Samsonjoe599

Cryptocurrency
On this page, you will get information regarding cryptocurrencies

title: User talk:Samsonjoe599


text:
User:ShayMTR/sandbox

User:ShayMTR/sandbox/Epistemology

title: User:ShayMTR/sandbox


text:
User:ShayMTR/sandbox/Epistemology

Table of contents
 Introduction  - What is epistemology?

Section 1: The Analysis of Knowledge
Section 1: References and further reading
 * 1) What is analysis?
 * 2) Justified true belief
 * 3) Gettier cases
 * 4) Adding an extra condition
 * 5) Reliabilism
 * 6) Virtue reliabilism
 * 7) Virtue responsibilism
 * 8) Maybe knowledge can't be analysed

Section 2: The Sources of Knowledge
Section 2: References and further reading
 * 1) Rationalism vs Empiricism
 * 2) Perception
 * 3) Intuition and deduction
 * 4) Innatism
 * 5) Memory and introspection
 * 6) Testimony
 * 7) Science

Section 3: The Problem of Scepticism

 * 1) Agrippa's trilemma
 * 2) Foundationalism
 * 3) Coherentism
 * 4) Other responses (infinitism, positism, foundherentism)
 * 5) Radical scepticism (sceptical scenarios and the closure principle)
 * 6) Contextualism
 * 7) Here is one hand, and here is another
 * 8) Even if I'm being deceived I know I'm right (veridicalism)
 * 9) Pragmatism

Section 4: Living in a World of Knowledge

 * 1) The epistemology of disagreement
 * 2) Epistemic responsibility
 * 3) Epistemic injustice
 * 4) Feminist epistemology
 * 5) Epistemology of the internet

title: User:ShayMTR/sandbox/Epistemology


text:
User:ShayMTR/sandbox/Epistemology/Justified true belief

In this chapter, we will introduce and discuss the tripartite (or "JTB") analysis of knowledge. The tripartite analysis of knowledge has been held by many philosophers throughout history and can trace its origins all the way back to Plato's discussion of a tripartite analysis of knowledge in the Theaetetus. The tripartite analysis of knowledge is often called JTB knowledge after its conditions of justification, truth and belief. Each of these conditions is claimed to be individually necessary for knowledge and together they are said to form the jointly sufficient conditions for knowledge.

Attacks of the JTB analysis have come in two main forms: (a) in this chapter, we will discuss objections to the individual necessity of each of the conditions and (b) in the next chapter, we will discuss a famous attempt to show that these conditions cannot always guarantee us knowledge and so are not jointly sufficient.

Justification
The justification condition is placed on knowledge to make sure that we don't know things by pure luck. It is reasonable to say that without any reasons one way or the other to believe a proposition is true or false, we would not have no rational way to judge whether it is true or not and so we can only be right about that proposition by luck alone. Justification can be thought of as anything that gives us those good reasons that we need to legitimately believe that a proposition is true. To understand why philosophers see "lucky knowledge" as a problematic concept, let's look at the following example:
 * You and a friend are playing a game where you try to guess the outcome of a coin flip
 * Your friend shouts out that they know that the coin is going to land heads up
 * By pure chance the coin does land on heads
 * But the coin could just have easily landed on tails making them completely wrong!

This example aims to show that there is something faulty in the idea that we can know things without having the right kind of justification because if we don't have justification for our belief, all that matters is whether our beliefs happen to come true or not. There is no difference between an expert undertaking complicated research in an area to come to a conclusion and a person that makes a random guess on the subject so long as they both happen to be right in the end. All it takes to change the guesser to a knower is the toss of a coin (until we add a justification condition to our analysis, of course!).

Attempts to argue against the necessity of justification to knowledge have attempted to create an equivalence between the JTB analysis of knowledge and true belief so that true belief alone is really all that is needed. For example, consider this passage by Plato from the Meno:

Soc. If a man knew the way to Larisa, or anywhere else, and went to the place and led others thither, would he not be a right and good guide? Men. Certainly. Soc. And a person who had a right opinion about the way, but had never been and did not know, might be a good guide also, might he not? Men. Certainly. Soc. And while he has true opinion about that which the other knows, he will be just as good a guide if he thinks the truth, as he who knows the truth? Men. Exactly. Soc. Then true opinion is as good a guide to correct action as knowledge

Opponents of the tripartite account could use this argument to make the claim that there is no meaningful difference between justified true belief and true belief and so justification isn't needed. However, even though true belief and justified true belief are both good guides to action, this doesn't mean that there is no meaningful difference between them. As we saw from the coin flip/expert research example, the difference between a person who merely has right opinion and somebody who has justified true belief is that the person who has justified true belief has a certain sense of epistemic legitimacy. If we want the status of knowledge not to be granted to people who happen to believe true things but are motivated by ignorance, intolerance or epistemic laziness, then our analysis of knowledge must make sure that it guarantees a certain bare minimum of epistemic legitimacy.

Truth
Most philosophers believe that truth is the most secure and uncontroversial of the conditions on knowledge. To understand why, let's reconsider our previous example:

 * You and a friend are playing a game where you try to guess the outcome of a coin flip
 * Your friend shouts out that they know that the coin is going to land heads up
 * Unlucky for them the coin lands heads down

If your friend were to continue to claim that they knew that the coin would land heads up after it lands the opposite way, you would probably think they'd gone a little bit insane. The basic point is, you can't know something is it isn't even true in the first place – knowledge simply aims at the truth.

Belief
Augustine defined belief as "to think with assent". In other words, belief can be defined simply as thinking that something is true. If you were to hear somebody say that they believe that ghosts exist but they don't really think it's true that they exist, you might think that they don't really believe in ghosts at all. Now let's consider what reaction we would have if we were to hear somebody say "I know that ghosts exist but I don't really believe that they do." It seems like the rational reaction to this statement would be similarly to think that this person doesn't really know that ghosts are real, for how could they possibly know something that they don't even believe.

However, a counterexample by Colin Radford has attempted to show that not all of our knowledge needs to be believed, some of it may be known implicitly or subconsciously.

 * Albert learned that Queen Elizabeth died in 1603 at school years ago.
 * When asked when Queen Elizabeth died, Albert doesn’t believe she died in 1603 because he can’t remember being taught about her at all. He doesn’t have any belief about which year she died because he is uncertain.
 * Randomly guessing, he answers 1603 and he can also answer many more similar history questions correctly with accuracy far better than chance.
 * Radford argues that Albert must know subconsciously and that this is an example of knowledge without belief.

Somebody who believed in the JTB analysis of knowledge could deny that this counts as an example of knowledge, but they would have to provide an explanation for how Albert could possibly get so many questions right without knowledge (for it seems very plausible that this example really could happen in real life).


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in Mindfulness and personal development

Introduction
Mindfulness was first presented in the Buddhist Satipatthana Sutta and has since grown in popularity as a technique said to lead to personal development, such as increased emotional awareness.

Today, the question remains as to how effective mindfulness is in personal development.

This article explores the evidence for mindfulness, and the different disciplinary methodologies for collecting this evidence, across the disciplines of philosophy, neuroscience and psychology. Some tensions exist between these disciplinary perspectives, including the lack of conversation between disciplines, inconsistent definitions and understanding of mindfulness-practise, and conflicting methodologies for gathering evidence. These issues lead to intra and interdisciplinary struggles in the formation of evidence and consensus between academics.

Philosophy
The Satipatthana Sutta, the foundational text of mindfulness in philosophy, communicates the effects of regular mindfulness practise, including the overcoming of grief, suffering and rumination, and the attainment of Nirvana. The Satipatthana Sutta reached these conclusions using Guatama Buddha's personal experience of mindfulness. Early Buddhist texts claim that Guatama persistently meditated until he believed he had fully awakened. The evidence for the effectiveness of mindfulness was his Enlightenment. In terms of modern philosophical thought, Sam Harris explains how mindfulness creates a state of mind which is "undisturbed", thus improving the "character of our experience, and therefore, the quality of our lives". Philosopher Joseph Goldstein believes mindfulness practitioners become more accepting, peaceful, and less selfish.

In this discipline, philosophers gather evidence for the effectiveness of mindfulness through their experiences of direct participation in the practice. In his work, Harris stresses his "2 years on silent retreat" spent studying with monks. This touches on the importance of the oral tradition in gathering evidence within Buddhist philosophy. Whether or not practitioners develop an undisturbed mind as a result of mindfulness, they believe it to be an efficient technique, as they trust the experiences of their mentors. Furthermore, from an eastern perspective, Thich Nhat Hanh is often considered the Father of Mindfulness. A monk since age 16, he describes mindfulness as a “miracle” by which “we master and restore ourselves,” drawing upon his decades of experience practicing mindfulness.

Overall, philosophers cite their qualitative experiences as evidence for the effectiveness of mindfulness, rather than referring to scientific research which is now available to them. Philosophers' preference for their own disciplinary evidence may be attributed to the ambiguity in defining mindfulness in other disciplines, and that the benefits of mindfulness- such as 'Nirvana'- are hard to measure quantitively in neuroscientific research.

Neuroscience
Quantitative neuroscientific evidence demonstrates the personal impacts of mindfulness. Such evidence is vital in understanding the relationship between mindfulness meditation, an individual's self-perception, and their emotional processing. Neuroscientists study what they define as formal mindfulness- individuals practise specific exercises meant to stabilise their awareness of the present.

Neuroscientists use evidence of functional changes in brain activity to infer a causal relationship between mindfulness and cognitive processes relating to specific neural pathways. Berkovich-Ohana (2011) used electroencephalography (EEG) to compare three groups of mindfulness-meditators (long-term, intermediate, and short-term), with non-meditators. More experienced meditators had lower gamma wave frequency/activation in their Default Mode Network (DMN), a region linked to self-processing and 'mind-wandering'/attention. Mindfulness-practise also linked to enhanced gamma activity in posterior regions, including the temporal lobes, indicating heightened sensory awareness. All changes represented long-term brain functions, strongly observable in meditative states, but also visible during participants' resting states. This evidence suggests that the personal impact of mindfulness (e.g. emotional awareness/regulation) is the result of long-term changes in neural activity in the DMN and posterior regions, related to awareness and consciousness.

Holzel et al. (2010) studied structural brain developments in participants who partook in a Mindfulness-based stress reduction programme (MBSR), using MRI scans. The imaging indicated increased grey matter concentration (development of neurons and neural networks) in the left hippocampus and the posterior cingulate cortex of the MBSR group, associated with emotional processing, responsiveness to stress, and cognition and self-awareness, respectively. This research demonstrates the structural effects of mindfulness, corresponding with its impact on emotional regulation.

In contrast with philosophers, neuroscientists take a predominantly quantitative approach to mindfulness, which standardises participants personal development. Although a quantitative approach precisely measures the impacts of mindfulness, it does not encompass the subjectivity of the experience like philosophy does. Additionally, analysing changes in the brain fails to consider that the impacts of mindfulness may have varying behavioural manifestations across individuals.

Western Clinical Psychology
In contrast with philosophy and neuroscience, psychological studies utilise two different definitions of mindfulness. The first emphasises awareness- the individual focuses on their internal presence. The second definition details the intentional practice of openness and care towards others and oneself. These definitions of mindfulness are fundamental for developing evidence to demonstrate its effects on individuals. However, evidence from individual studies has found that aiming to measure mindfulness using a binary definition creates a multitude of divided results. Regardless, several psychological studies still demonstrate positive changes in behaviour, including increased hopefulness and decreased anxiety.

The methodology in gathering evidence for mindfulness within psychology is both quantitative and qualitative. One frequently used method of analysis is the Kentucky Inventory Mindfulness Scale (KIMS), which has a self-reporting evidence scheme, and is replicable, to enable efficient statistical analyses. The Mindfulness Awareness and Attention Scale (MAAS) is another questionnaire, which creates correlative understanding whilst incorporating qualitative methods through its' self-reporting schemes. Christopher et al. (2009) analysed the progress in personal development whilst examining the use and cross-cultural applications of western mindfulness using these methods. In examining Thai and US undergraduate students, they found that Thai students demonstrated a more cohesive understanding of mindfulness, as reflected in their KIMS results. This highlights different cultural approaches to mindfulness- the immersion of the practice in Thai culture, and the 'intermittent' mindfulness experienced in western psychology. The MAAS scale obtained similar results surrounding the two groups' personal development and their conceptualisation of mindfulness.

Differing definitions of mindfulness and methodologies within psychology alter the evidence created within the discipline; an exhibition of this is the contrasting results of a study performed by Carmody et al. (2009), which detail that the evidence of mindfulness can be 'disidentification' which opposes the evidence of decreased anxiety, the result of a study by Sears (2009). Furthermore, the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods used in psychology utilises techniques from philosophy, and the scientific method in neuroscience, in the attempt to grasp the personal effects of mindfulness. However, the hybrid methodology does not include different disciplinary perspectives which prevent a necessary broader conceptualisation.

Conclusion
The lack of communication between disciplines means that scholars don’t share a common definition of mindfulness, nor a shared understanding of its effects, leading to tensions between disciplines. Due to the different approaches to evidence in philosophy, neuroscience, and psychology, no single discipline can fully conceptualise the effectiveness of mindfulness. Different methodologies, aims, and definitions of mindfulness in each discipline's research are the root cause of this conflict. Mindfulness is, therefore, an interdisciplinary practice, and should be treated as such in the collection of evidence. This may be done by combining methodologies and the understanding of evidence across disciplines to fully appreciate how mindfulness affects personal development using both quantitative (standard questionnaires and brain scans) and qualitative data, which considers individuals' unique experiences with the practise.