ellauri072.html on line 477: What will happen when the age-old economy of scarcity gives way to the Age of Leisure? Professor Gabor, who won the 1971 Nobel Prize for physics offers a futuristic projection based on a static population and GNP, "classless, democratic, and uniformly rich." Fearful that total secruity "will create unbearable boredom and bring out the worst in Irrational Man," Gabor is anxious to retain "effort," "hardship," and the Protestant Ethic -- lest society dissolve in an orgy of anti-social, hedonistic nihilism (viz. the current drug explosion and the spoiled-brat students). To avoid such evils Gabor proposes that work and its attendant moral uplift be divorced from production and the service sector of the economy be vastly enlarged. But this is only the beginning -- enthusiastic about Social Engineering Gabor suggests using it to weed out potential misfits, trouble-makers and "power addicts"; supplementing I.Q. tests with E.Q. (Ethical Quotient) measurements; and modeling elementary and secondary education on the 19th century British public school which knew so well how to inculcate good citizenship, intellectual excellence and pride in achievement. The Third World, still wrestling with pre-industrial material want, is ignored -- since we can't afford any more industrial pollution presumably they will just have to adjust to their misery. Gabor's assessment of "the Nature of Man" shows a woefully naive Anglo-American ethnocentricity and complete ignorance of anthropology and his vision of post-industrial utopia operating on the moral axioms of the 19th century is as elitist as it is improbable.
ellauri096.html on line 647: Dynamic stochastic general equilibrium modeling is a method in macroeconomics that attempts to explain economic phenomena, such as economic growth and business cycles, and the effects of economic policy, through econometric models based on applied general equilibrium theory and microeconomic principles.
ellauri096.html on line 682: The associated policy implications were clear: There is no need for any form of government intervention since, ostensibly, government policies aimed at stabilizing the business cycle are welfare-reducing. Since microfoundations are based on the preferences of decision-makers in the model, DSGE models feature a natural benchmark for evaluating the welfare effects of policy changes. The Kydland/Prescott 1982 paper is often considered the starting point of RBC theory and of DSGE modeling in general and its authors were awarded the 2004 Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.
ellauri181.html on line 618: How then might we learn from Franklin's example? Yes, can we learn that we should only be bothered with what matters most to us. Yes! Perhaps the single most important lesson in life would be that we must learn what matters most to us! A lesson to you oversears teachers: model what you would teach, because you teach first by modeling. Teach what you would live but remember the failure of Ben's Quaker friend. It is not possible to give someone a value they would not own.
ellauri184.html on line 99: Norris Church was born Barbara Jean Davis and grew up in Atkins, Arkansas, the daughter of Free Will Baptists. At the age of three she won the title of Little Miss Little Rock. In her twenties she had a brief fling with a young Bill Clinton. She met Mailer in 1975 when he came to Russellville, Arkansas to promote his biography of Marilyn Monroe. The two fell into a passionate love affair, despite their 26-year age difference (sama kuin jos mä olisin vaihtanut Seijan niihin pieniin kiinalaisiin), and Church moved to New York a few months later. At the suggestion of Mailer, she changed her name to Norris Church when she began modeling with the Wilhelmina Modeling Agency. Norris was the last name of her first husband, and Mailer suggested Church since she had been a frequent church-goer while she was growing up. Eli siis tää Jee-suxen bio oli niikö lahja Norrixelle.
ellauri285.html on line 755: The first consequential re-evaluation of the mathematical modeling behind the critical positivity ratio was published in 2008 by a group of Finnish researchers from the Systems Analysis Laboratory at Aalto University (Jukka Luoma, Raimo Hämäläinen, and Esa Saarinen). The authors noted that "only very limited explanations are given about the modeling process and the meaning and interpretation of its parameters... [so that] the reasoning behind the model equations remains unclear to the reader"; moreover, they noted that "the model also produces strange and previously unreported behavior under certain conditions... [so that] the predictive validity of the model also becomes problematic."
ellauri285.html on line 757: Later, but of more critical importance, the Fredrickson and Losada work on modeling the positivity ratio aroused the skepticism of Nick Brown, a graduate student in applied positive psychology, who questioned whether such work could reliably make such broad claims, and perceived that the paper´s mathematical claims underlying the critical positivity ratio were suspect. Brown contacted and ultimately collaborated with physics and maths professor Alan Sokal and psychology professor Harris Friedman on a re-analysis of the paper´s data (hereafter the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal). They argued that Losada´s earlier work on positive psychology and Fredrickson and Losada´s 2005 critical positivity ratio paper contained "numerous fundamental conceptual and mathematical errors", errors of a magnitude that completely invalidated their claims.
ellauri285.html on line 759: Fredrickson wrote a response in which she conceded that the mathematical aspects of the critical positivity ratio were "questionable" and that she had "neither the expertise nor the insight" to defend them, but she maintained that the empirical evidence for the existence of a critical positivity ratio was solid. Brown, Sokal, and Friedman, the rebuttal authors, published their response to Fredrickson´s "Update" the next year, maintaining that there was no evidence for a critical positivity ratio. Losada declined to respond to the criticism (indicating to the Chronicle of Higher Education that he was too busy running his consulting business).[verification needed] Hämäläinen and colleagues responded later, passing over the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal claim of failed criteria for use of differential equations in modeling, instead arguing that there were no fundamental errors in the mathematics itself, only problems related to the model´s justification and interpretation.
ellauri285.html on line 761: A formal retraction for the mathematical modeling elements of the Losada and Fredrickson (2005) paper was issued by the journal, American Psychologist, concluding that both the specific critical positivity ratio of 2.9013 and its upper limit were invalid. The fact that the problems with the paper went unnoticed for years despite the widespread adulatory publicity surrounding the critical positivity ratio concept contributed to a perception of social psychology as a field lacking scientific soundness and rigorous critical thinking. Sokal later stated, "The main claim made by Fredrickson and Losada is so implausible on its face that some red flags ought to have been raised", as would only happen broadly in graduate student Brown´s initiating the collaboration that resulted in the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal.
ellauri285.html on line 777: Fredrickson responded to the critique by agreeing that Losada´s mathematical modelling was "questionable" and did not show that there are precise values of the ratio, but also arguing that the evidence for the benefits of a high positivity/negativity ratio is solid. Fredrickson noted that Losada declined to respond to the criticism.[11] The American Psychologist proceeded to formally retract as invalid the mathematical modeling elements of Fredrickson and Losada´s paper, including the specific critical positivity ratios of 2.9013 and its upper limit.
xxx/ellauri357.html on line 141: world, instead, taking a chance in the modeling industry.
11