Sociology chapter
QMRJustifications for punishment include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. The last could include such measures as isolation, in order to prevent the wrongdoer's having contact with potential victims, or the removal of a hand in order to make theft more difficult.[7] Of the four justifications, only retribution is part of the definition of punishment and none of the other justifications is a guaranteed outcome, aside from obvious exceptions such as an executed man being incapacitated with regard to further crimes.
Game theory chapter
Definition[edit]
Given a normal form game and a parameter \epsilon >0, a totally mixed strategy profile \sigma is defined to be \epsilon -proper if, whenever a player has two pure strategies s and s' such that the expected payoff of playing s is smaller than the expected payoff of playing s' (that is u(s,\sigma _{-i})<u(s',\sigma _{-i})), then the probability assigned to s is at most \epsilon times the probability assigned to s'.
A strategy profile of the game is then said to be a proper equilibrium if it is a limit point, as \epsilon approaches 0, of a sequence of \epsilon -proper strategy profiles.
Example[edit]
The game to the right is a variant of Matching Pennies.
Matching Pennies with a twist
Guess heads up Guess tails up Grab penny
Hide heads up -1, 1 0, 0 -1, 1
Hide tails up 0, 0 -1, 1 -1, 1
Player 1 (row player) hides a penny and if Player 2 (column player) guesses correctly whether it is heads up or tails up, he gets the penny. In this variant, Player 2 has a third option: Grabbing the penny without guessing. The Nash equilibria of the game are the strategy profiles where Player 2 grabs the penny with probability 1. Any mixed strategy of Player 1 is in (Nash) equilibrium with this pure strategy of Player 2. Any such pair is even trembling hand perfect. Intuitively, since Player 1 expects Player 2 to grab the penny, he is not concerned about leaving Player 2 uncertain about whether it is heads up or tails up. However, it can be seen that the unique proper equilibrium of this game is the one where Player 1 hides the penny heads up with probability 1/2 and tails up with probability 1/2 (and Player 2 grabs the penny). This unique proper equilibrium can be motivated intuitively as follows: Player 1 fully expects Player 2 to grab the penny. However, Player 1 still prepares for the unlikely event that Player 2 does not grab the penny and instead for some reason decides to make a guess. Player 1 prepares for this event by making sure that Player 2 has no information about whether the penny is heads up or tails up, exactly as in the original Matching Pennies game.
Proper equilibria of extensive games[edit]
One may apply the properness notion to extensive form games in two different ways, completely analogous to the two different ways trembling hand perfection is applied to extensive games. This leads to the notions of normal form proper equilibrium and extensive form proper equilibrium of an extensive form game. It was shown by van Damme that a normal form proper equilibrium of an extensive form game is behaviorally equivalent to a quasi-perfect equilibrium of that game.
QMRVolunteer's dilemma
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The volunteer's dilemma game models a situation in which each of X players faces the decision of either making a small sacrifice from which all will benefit, or freeriding.
One example is a scenario in which the electricity has gone out for an entire neighborhood. All inhabitants know that the electricity company will fix the problem as long as at least one person calls to notify them, at some cost. If no one volunteers, the worst possible outcome is obtained for all participants. If any one person elects to volunteer, the rest benefit by not doing so.[1]
A public good is only produced if at least one person volunteers to pay an arbitrary cost. In this game, bystanders decide independently on whether to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the group. Because the volunteer receives no benefit, there is a greater incentive for freeriding than to sacrifice oneself for the group. If no one volunteers, everyone loses. The social phenomena of the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility heavily relate to the volunteer’s dilemma.[citation needed]
The payoff matrix for the game is shown below:
Volunteer's dilemma payoff matrix (example)
at least one other person cooperates all others defect
cooperate 0 0
defect 1 −10
When the volunteer's dilemma takes place between only two players, the game gets the character of the game 'chicken'. As seen by the payoff matrix, there is no dominant strategy in the volunteer’s dilemma. In a mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium, an increase in N players will decrease the likelihood that at least one person volunteers, which is a result of the bystander effect.
Examples in real life[edit]
The murder of Kitty Genovese[edit]
The story of Kitty Genovese is often used as a classic example of the volunteer's dilemma. Genovese was stabbed to death in an alley where various residential apartments overlooked the assault. Although many people were aware of the assault at the time (even though they may not have been aware of the exact scope and nature of the assault), only one person contacted the police.
It was assumed that people did not get involved because they thought others would contact the police, and people did not want to incur the costs of getting involved in the dispute.[2]
The meerkat[edit]
The meerkat exhibits the volunteer's dilemma in nature. One or more meerkats act as sentries while the others forage for food. If a predator approaches, the sentry meerkat lets out a warning call so the others can burrow to safety. However, the altruism of this meerkat puts it at risk of being discovered by the predator.
The dilemma is represented as a quadrant matrix
QMRGroup cohesiveness (also called group cohesion and social cohesion) arises when bonds link members of a social group to one another and to the group as a whole. Although cohesion is a multi-faceted process, it can be broken down into four main components: social relations, task relations, perceived unity, and emotions.[1] Members of strongly cohesive groups are more inclined to participate readily and to stay with the group.[2]
QMRDaniel Batson is a psychologist who examined this question and argues against the social exchange theory. He identified four major motives for altruism: altruism to ultimately benefit the self (egoism), to ultimately benefit the other person (altruism), to benefit a group (collectivism), or to uphold a moral principle (principlism). Altruism that ultimately serves selfish gains is thus differentiated from selfless altruism, but the general conclusion has been that empathy-induced altruism can be genuinely selfless.[33] The empathy-altruism hypothesis basically states that psychological altruism does exist and is evoked by the empathic desire to help someone who is suffering. Feelings of empathic concern are contrasted with feelings of personal distress, which compel people to reduce their own unpleasant emotions. People with empathic concern help others in distress even when exposure to the situation could be easily avoided, whereas those lacking in empathic concern avoid helping unless it is difficult or impossible to avoid exposure to another's suffering.[29] Helping behavior is seen in humans at about two years old, when a toddler is capable of understanding subtle emotional cues.[34]
QMREvolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life by Eva Jablonka; Marion Lamb. (2007).
QMRFourth person in Finnic languages[edit]
Some languages do not contrast voices, but have other similar constructions. For example, Finnic languages such as Finnish and Estonian have a "passive", expressed by conjugating the verb in "common person". Although it is generally referred to as the passive ("passiivi") in Finnish grammars, it may more appropriately be referred to as the fourth person form of a verb.
The function of the fourth person is simply to leave out the agent. The agent is almost always human and never mentioned. The grammatical role of the object remains unaltered, and thus transitivity may also be used. For example, the fourth-person construction Ikkuna hajotettiin, with a transitive verb, means "Someone broke the window", while the third-person construction Ikkuna hajosi uses the anticausative and means "The window broke".
QMRSome languages, including among Algonquian languages and Salishan languages, divide the category of third person into two parts: proximate for a more topical third person, and obviative for a less topical third person. The obviative is sometimes called the fourth person.
The term fourth person is also sometimes used for the category of indefinite or generic referents, which work like one in English phrases such as "one should be prepared" or people in people say that..., when the grammar treats them differently from ordinary third-person forms.[citation needed] The so-called "zero person"[1][2] in Finnish and related languages, in addition to passive voice may serve to leave the subject-referent open. Zero person subjects are sometimes translated as "one," but the problem with that is that English language constructions involving one, e.g. "One hopes that will not happen," are rare and could be considered to be expressing an overly academic tone, while Finnish sentences like "Ei saa koskettaa" ("0 cannot touch") are recognizable to, and even used by, young children.
QMRCeltic languages possess an inflection commonly called the "impersonal" or "autonomous" form,[10] of similar origin[citation needed] to the Latin "passive-impersonal". This is similar to a passive construction in that the agent of the verb is not specified. However its syntax is different from prototypical passives, in that the object of the action remains in the accusative.[11]
It is similar to the use of the pronoun "on" in French. It increasingly corresponds to the passive in modern English, in which there is a trend towards avoiding the use of the passive unless it is specifically required to omit the subject. It also appears to be similar to the "fourth person" mentioned in the preceding paragraph. However, what is called in Irish an briathar saor or the free verb does not suggest passivity but a kind of generalised agency.
The construction has equal validity in transitive and intransitive clauses, and the best translation into English is normally by using the "dummy" subjects "they", "one", or impersonal "you". For example, the common sign against tobacco consumption has its closest direct translation in English as "No smoking":
Ná caitear tabac
Don't use-impersonal tobacco.
An example of its use as an intransitive is:
Téithear go dtí an sráidbhaile go minic Dé Sathairn
Go-impersonal to the village often Saturday
"People often go to the village of a Saturday."
The difference between the autonomous and a true passive is that while the autonomous focuses on the action and overtly avoids mentioning the actor, there is nonetheless an anonymous agent who may be referred to in the sentence. For instance[12]
QMRThe dative case is known as the "fourth case" (chaturthi-vibhakti) in the usual procedure in the declension of nouns. Its use is mainly for the indirect object as Sanskrit has seven other cases including an instrumental. The term "dative" is grammatically similar to the Sanskrit word "datta". "Datta" means "gift" or "the act of giving".
QMRFormula for change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The formula for change was created by David Gleicher while he was working at Arthur D. Little in the early 1960s,[1] and refined by Kathie Dannemiller in the 1980s.[2] This formula provides a model to assess the relative strengths affecting the likely success of organisational change programs.
Dannemiller version: D x V x F > R[edit]
Three factors must be present for meaningful organizational change to take place. These factors are:
D = Dissatisfaction with how things are now;
V = Vision of what is possible;
F = First, concrete steps that can be taken towards the vision;
If the product of these three factors is greater than
R = Resistance
then change is possible. Because D, V, and F are multiplied, if any one is absent (zero) or low, then the product will be zero or low and therefore not capable of overcoming the resistance.
To ensure a successful change it is necessary to use influence and strategic thinking in order to create vision and identify those crucial, early steps towards it. In addition, the organization must recognize and accept the dissatisfaction that exists by listening to the employee voice while sharing industry trends, leadership ideas, best practices and competitor analysis to identify the necessity for change.
QMRThere are several variations of the decisional balance sheet.[14] In Janis and Mann's original description there are eight or more cells depending on how many choices there are.[15] For each new choice there are pairs of cells (one for advantages, one for disadvantages) for these four different aspects:[16]
anticipated utilitarian effects for self
anticipated utilitarian effects for significant others
anticipated effect on how one is regarded by significant others
anticipated effects on how one views oneself
John C. Norcross is among the psychologists who have simplified the balance sheet to four cells: the pros and cons of changing, for self and for others.[17] Similarly, a number of psychologists have simplified the balance sheet to a four-cell format consisting of the pros and cons of the current behaviour and of a changed behaviour.[18] Some authors separate out short- and long-term benefits and risks of a behaviour.[19] The example below allows for three options: carrying on as before, reducing a harmful behaviour to a level where it might be less harmful, or stopping it altogether; it therefore has six cells consisting of a pro and con pair for each of the three options.
QMRPDCA (plan–do–check–act or plan–do–check–adjust) an iterative four-step management method used in business for the control and continuous improvement of processes and products. It is also known as the Deming circle/cycle/wheel, Shewhart cycle, control circle/cycle, or plan–do–study–act (PDSA). Another version of this PDCA cycle is OPDCA. The added "O" stands for observation or as some versions say "Grasp the current condition." This emphasis on observation and current condition has currency with Lean manufacturing/Toyota Production System literature.[1]
Meaning[edit]
The PDCA cycle[2]
Continuous quality improvement with PDCA
PLAN
Establish the objectives and processes necessary to deliver results in accordance with the expected output (the target or goals). By establishing output expectations, the completeness and accuracy of the spec is also a part of the targeted improvement. When possible start on a small scale to test possible effects.
DO
Implement the plan, execute the process, make the product. Collect data for charting and analysis in the following "CHECK" and "ACT" steps.
CHECK
Study the actual results (measured and collected in "DO" above) and compare against the expected results (targets or goals from the "PLAN") to ascertain any differences. Look for deviation in implementation from the plan and also look for the appropriateness and completeness of the plan to enable the execution, i.e., "Do". Charting data can make this much easier to see trends over several PDCA cycles and in order to convert the collected data into information. Information is what you need for the next step "ACT".
ACT
If the CHECK shows that the PLAN that was implemented in DO is an improvement to the prior standard (baseline), then that becomes the new standard (baseline) for how the organization should ACT going forward (new standards are enACTed). If the CHECK shows that the PLAN that was implemented in DO is not an improvement, then the existing standard (baseline) will remain in place. In either case, if the CHECK showed something different than expected (whether better or worse), then there is some more learning to be done... and that will suggest potential future PDCA cycles. Note that some who teach PDCA assert that the ACT involves making adjustments or corrective actions... but generally it would be counter to PDCA thinking to propose and decide upon alternative changes without using a proper PLAN phase, or to make them the new standard (baseline) without going through DO and CHECK steps.
QMRDeming is best known in the United States for his 14 Points (Out of the Crisis, by W. Edwards Deming, Preface) and his system of thought he called the System of Profound Knowledge. The system comprises four components or "lenses" through which to view the world simultaneously:
Appreciating a system
Understanding variation
Psychology
Epistemology, the theory of knowledge[5]
QMRThere are four roles within a business Management system: Business Leader, Process Owner, Operational Manager, and Process Operator. The responsibilities of each of these roles are unique, but work together as a system. Some employees in an organization may perform as many as all four of these roles over the course of a day, week, month, or year.
The responsibilities of the roles all follow the PDCA (plan, do, check, and act) cycle.[citation needed][5]
Business leaders[edit]
Business leaders are responsible for creating the business plans[citation needed] (including strategic plans created during the strategic planning process) and associated resourcing plans necessary to cause the organization to be successful.
Senior leaders (corporate) are responsible for defining the customer and business objectives which an organization needs[citation needed] to achieve to be successful. This process includes overseeing the development of the organization's mission, vision (goal), and values.[citation needed] These persons are accountable for meeting customer and business objectives.
Lower leader-levels (business unit and functional) are responsible for translating senior leaders' business objectives into business objectives that make sense for their level and that support the accomplishment of the senior leaders' business objectives.[citation needed] These persons are accountable for meeting business unit and functional objectives.
Plan: The business leaders create and own the business performance objectives of the organization. Senior leaders need to first understand the requirements of their customers, stockholders, workforce, suppliers, and communities. They need to understand their competition. They need to understand the environmental, economic, technological, social, legal, and political environments that they do business within. Senior leaders need to consider all of these elements as they design a Business model and business Strategy map that will meet the customer and business requirements. Business Leaders then translate these requirements and business environment issues into business performance objectives. Business Leaders then create business plans and associated resourcing plans that will cause the organization to achieve these business objectives. The Business Leaders establish business performance metrics to measure the business’s capability to meet these business objectives. Many organizations create a Balanced scorecard to organize and communicate business performance metrics.
Do: The business leaders are responsible for communicating to the organization their business plans. As the organization conducts business, the Business Leaders are responsible to build bridges and remove barriers that will allow the business performance objectives to be met. The business performance metric data is produced and collected as business is performed by the organization.
Check: The business leaders periodically analyze the business performance data and use it to visualize the business’s capability to meet business objectives over time (performance trends), compare actual performance against performance targets, and identify performance issues.
Act: The business leaders are responsible to create improvement actions to address the performance issues that are identified during their analysis of the business performance data. These improvement actions are created to ensure the organization is able to achieve their business plans.
Process owner[edit]
The process owner is responsible for designing the processes necessary to achieve the objectives of the business plans that are created by the Business Leaders. The process owner is responsible for the creation, update and approval of documents (procedures, work instructions/protocols) to support the process. Many process owners are supported by a process improvement team. The process owner uses this team as a mechanism to help create a high performance process. The process owner is the only person who has authority to make changes in the process and manages the entire process improvement cycle to ensure performance effectiveness. This person is the contact person for all information related to the process. This person is accountable for the effectiveness of the process.
Plan: The process owners create and own the process performance objectives of the organization. The process owner first needs to understand the external and internal customer requirements for the process. This person uses the business plans as a source to help understand the long term and short term customer and business requirements. This person then translates these requirements into process performance objectives and establishes product (includes service) specifications. This person establishes process performance metrics to measure the process’s capability to meet the product specifications and overall process objectives. The set of metrics that are to be reviewed by operational managers and process operators are called key performance indicators (KPIs). The process owner then designs process steps to describe work that when performed will have the capability to produce products that meets the customer and business requirements.
Do: The process owner is responsible to communicate to the operational managers the details of the processes that the operational managers are responsible to execute. As the operational managers and process operators perform the processes, the process owner is responsible to build bridges and remove barriers that will allow the process performance objectives to be met. The process performance metric data is produced and collected as the process is performed by process operators. The process owner is continually involved with the operational managers and process operators as they use kaizen to continually improve the process as they are performing the work.
Check: The Process Owner periodically analyzes the process performance data and use it to visualize the process’s capability to operate within control limits over time (performance trends), compare actual performance against performance targets, and identify performance issues.
Act: The Process Owner is responsible for creating improvement actions that address performance issues that are identified during their analysis of the process performance data. Improvement actions may include the initiation of Lean projects to reduce waste from the process or include the initiation of Six Sigma projects to reduce variation in the process. Improvement actions may include the use of problem solving tools that would include risk assessment and root cause analysis. Risk assessment is used to identify and reduce, eliminate, or mitigate risk within the process. This is the proactive approach to avoid problems being created from the process. Root-cause analysis is the reactive way to respond to problems that occur from the process. Root-cause analysis is used to identify the causes of problems within the process and identify and implement improvement actions that will ensure these problems do not occur again.
Operational manager[edit]
The operational Manager is responsible for bringing the resources and processes together to achieve the objectives of the business plans that are created by the business leaders. This person is accountable for how well the process is performed.
Plan: The operational managers - in collaboration with each Process Operator, create Process Operator performance objectives for the employees they supervise. The Operational Manager needs to understand the performance requirements of the process. They match employees (Process Operators) with the competency and skill requirements of the process to be performed. They ensure that the Process Operators have the budget, facilities, and technology available to them that is necessary to achieve the performance objectives of the processes.
Do: The operational manager is responsible for teaching process operators how to perform the processes (work). Process Operator instruction usually consists of classroom and on-the-job training. The Operational Manager oversees the work and ensures Process Operators receive ongoing informal feedback as to their performance. As the Process Operators perform the processes, the Operational Managers are responsible to build bridges and remove barriers that will allow the process and Process Operator performance objectives to be met. Process and Process Operator performance metric data is produced and collected as the process is performed. The Operational Manager ensures that Process Operators are using Kaizen to continually improve the process as they are performing the work.
Check: The operational manager periodically analyzes the key performance indicators (KPIs) during the production cycle to evaluate the work group’s ability to achieve the process and process operator performance objectives. This data is used to visualize the process and process operator capability to meet business plan objectives over time (performance trends), compare actual performance against performance targets, and identify performance issues. They review this performance data and sort out process operator performance issues from process performance issues. Many organizations use a war room concept to post performance data. Within the war room, the operational manager conducts periodic review and analysis of this performance data.
Act: The operational manager is responsible for creating improvement actions to address the performance issues that are identified during their analysis of the process and Process Operator performance data. They address Process Operator performance with ongoing feedback to the Process Operator and/or by using an employee performance management review process. They communicate process performance issues to the Process Operator(s) and the Process Owner.
Process operator[edit]
The process operator is responsible for learning and perform the processes (work) necessary to achieve the objectives of the business plans that are created by Business Leaders. This person is accountable for performing the requirements of the process.
Plan: The process operators - in collaboration with their Operational Manager, create and own their performance objectives. Process Operators are responsible to understand the performance objectives of the process they are to perform and the specifications of the product they are to produce.
Do: Process operators are responsible for learning the processes (work) that they are to perform. They ensure the processes are performed to meet the process performance objectives and produce product that meets specification. As the Process Operators perform the processes, they are responsible to communicate to their Operational Manager (supervisor) the bridges that need to be built and the barriers that need to be removed to allow the process and Process Operator performance objectives to be met. Process and Process Operator performance metric data is produced and collected as the process is performed.
Check: The process operator periodically reviews the Key performance indicators (KPI’s). The Process Operator makes adjustments to their work based on their actual performance compared to KPI targets. The Process Operator is responsible for identifying and reporting any performance issues and stopping production if necessary.
Act: Process operators practice kaizen to continually challenge the process and communicate improvement suggestions to their operational manager (supervisor).
QMRIn a 1997 piece for International Security entitled "Competing Visions for U.S. Grand Strategy," Barry R. Posen and Andrew L. Ross outlined four major grand strategies applicable to U.S. foreign policy in the post-Cold War world:[7]
neo-isolationism
selective engagement
cooperative security
primacy
No comments:
Post a Comment