Meta-analysis In statistics, meta-analysis comprises statistical methods for contrasting and combining results from different studies, in the hope of identifying patterns among study results, sources of disagreement among those results, or other interesting relationships that may come to light in the context of multiple studies.[1] Meta-analysis can be thought of as "conducting research about previous research." In its simplest form, meta-analysis is done by identifying a common statistical measure that is shared between studies, such as effect size or p-value, and calculating a weighted average of that common measure. This weighting is usually related to the sample sizes of the individual studies, although it can also include other factors, such as study quality. The motivation of a meta-analysis is to aggregate information in order to achieve a higher statistical power for the measure of interest, as opposed to a less precise measure derived from a single study. History[edit] Advantages[edit] [edit]
Second-order cybernetics Second-order cybernetics, also known as the cybernetics of cybernetics, investigates the construction of models of cybernetic systems. It investigates cybernetics with awareness that the investigators are part of the system, and of the importance of self-referentiality, self-organizing, the subject–object problem, etc. Investigators of a system can never see how it works by standing outside it because the investigators are always engaged cybernetically with the system being observed; that is, when investigators observe a system, they affect and are affected by it. Overview[edit] The anthropologists Gregory Bateson and Margaret Mead contrasted first and second-order cybernetics with this diagram in an interview in 1973.[1] It emphasizes the requirement for a possibly constructivist participant observer in the second order case: . . . essentially your ecosystem, your organism-plus-environment, is to be considered as a single circuit.[1] See also[edit] Gyroteleostasis References[edit]
Новая институциональная теория Новая институциональная теория («неоинституционализм») — современная экономическая теория, принадлежащая к неоклассическому направлению, начало которой положила книга Рональда Коуза «Природа фирмы», вышедшая в 1937 году. Однако интерес к этой сфере проявился лишь к концу 1970-х годов в США, а затем в Европе. Сам термин был введен в научный оборот Оливером Уильямсоном. В 1997 году было основано «Международное общество по новой институциональной экономической теории». Новую институциональную теорию часто путают с институционализмом, к которому эта теория не имеет прямого отношения[1]. Основные отличия[править | править исходный текст] Неоинституционализм — яркое проявление тенденции проникновения методов микроэкономического анализа в смежные социальные дисциплины. Неоинституционализм исходит из двух общих установок. Основное внимание неоинституциональная теория уделяет анализу таких факторов как трансакционные издержки, права собственности, контрактные агентские отношения. Аузан А.
Projects Design and Enterprise are two unique programmes that aim to support the development of a more resilient, resourceful and sustainable society. Explore our work on design and enterprise 4. Римский клуб 1. Затруднения и проблематика Я считаю, что создание Римского клуба, основной целью которого стало изучение и выявление нового положения, в котором оказался человек в век своей глобальной империи, явилось волнующим событием в духовной жизни человечества. Мы знаем, что наше путешествие в качестве Homo sapiens началось приблизительно сто тысячелетий назад, и вот уже сто веков, как ведется историческая летопись человечества. Человек не знает, как вести себя, чтобы быть по-настоящему современным человеком. А человеку, имеющему много общего со всеми другими живыми существами, не хватает лишь мудрости выжить. За последние десятилетия в новом порыве вдохновения человек одержал еще несколько головокружительных технических побед, однако не нашел еще времени ни научиться пользоваться их плодами, ни свыкнуться с новыми возможностями, которые они ему дали. 2. Мы с Александром Кингом поняли друг друга с первого слова. В ходе наших дискуссий произошло несколько весьма примечательных инцидентов. 3.
Zalman Schachter-Shalomi Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi in 2005. Zalman M. Schachter-Shalomi and commonly called "Reb Zalman" (pr: rǎb) (born 28 August 1924 in Zhovkva, Poland [now Ukraine][1]) is considered one of the major founders of the Jewish Renewal movement. Early life[edit] Born in Poland in 1924 and raised in Vienna, he was interned in detention camps under the Vichy French and fled the Nazi advance by coming to the United States in 1941. He was initially sent out to speak on college campuses by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, but left after experimenting with "the sacramental value of lysergic acid." [2] With subsequent rise of the hippie movement in the 1960s, he moved away from the Chabad lifestyle. Career and work[edit] Zalman Schachter-Shalomi and Ram Dass in February 2008 While pursuing a course of study at Boston University (including a class taught by Howard Thurman), he experienced an intellectual and spiritual shift. Themes and innovations[edit] Honors[edit] Works[edit] His publications include:
Integral City Integral City: Evolutionary Intelligences for the Human Hive (2008) is a book by Marilyn Hamilton. It posits a concept called the "Integral City", which is a city as a living human system. It is architecture and city planning based on Integral Theory. Overview[edit] Hamilton's book came out of her dissertation The Berkana Community of Conversations (Hamilton, 1999),[1] and other published articles and conference papers by Hamilton. Reception[edit] The book was reviewed in World Future Review,[2] Kosmos Journal,[3] Futurist,[4] Alternatives Journal,[5] Canadian Journal of Urban Research,[6] and EnlightenNext.[7] References[edit] Jump up ^ Marilyn Hamilton. External links[edit] Integral City, official website
Integral theory, social network service, startups, HCI, human-computer-interaction, systems theory, Ken Wilber, Prezi Integrale Theorie Die integrale Theorie, integrale Weltsicht oder auch integrale Philosophie ist eine Weltanschauung, die versucht, eine umfassende Sicht des Menschen und der Welt zu entwickeln, die prämoderne, moderne und postmoderne, östliche und westliche Weltsichten sowie spirituelle Einsichten und wissenschaftliches Denken vereint. Vertreter der integralen Theorie sind unter anderem Aurobindo Ghose, Jean Gebser und Ken Wilber, nach eigener, umstrittener Auffassung auch Rudolf Bahro. Überblick[Bearbeiten] Die integrale Theorie ist im Wesentlichen ein systematisches Modell für eine holistische Welterklärung. Nach Ken Wilber bestünde die Aufgabe eines integralen Theoretikers nicht darin, alle existierenden Theorien zu betrachten und zu entscheiden, welche davon „richtig“ sei. Ein weiterer wichtiger Aspekt integraler Theorie besteht darin, zwischen den verschiedenen Ansätzen zur menschlichen Subjektivität zu vermitteln. Rezeption[Bearbeiten] Politik[Bearbeiten] Literatur[Bearbeiten] Weblinks[Bearbeiten]
Секуляризация Секуляриза́ция (позднелат. saecularis — мирской, светский): Comparative mythology Various myths Comparative mythology is the comparison of myths from different cultures in an attempt to identify shared themes and characteristics.[1] Comparative mythology has served a variety of academic purposes. For example, scholars have used the relationships between different myths to trace the development of religions and cultures, to propose common origins for myths from different cultures, and to support various psychological theories. Comparativists versus particularists[edit] The anthropologist C. Comparative approaches to mythology held great popularity among eighteenth- and nineteenth-century scholars. Joseph Campbell in his many writings on what should constitute a total science of mythology describes the difference in the two approaches: "For, as a broad view of the field [of mythology] immediately shows, in every well-established culture realm to which a new system of thought and civilization comes, it is received creatively, not inertly. Linguistic[edit] Structural[edit]