User:Evarenon/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar Group 4/Superconcept essay

To what extent does entropy increase in Elsinore, throughout the play Hamlet? (Ollie and Thalia)
The concept of entropy is derived from the second law of thermodynamics which states that in an isolated system entropy (ie disorder) will increase over time. We will examine this concept in relation to Shakespearean tragedy. Shakespeare's tragedies, though each one is distinctive, are often said to possess similar qualities, for Kiernan Ryan 'there’s something distinctively Shakespearean about their tragic vision' (2016). Death of the main protagonists, at the end point of Shakespeare's plays, is one such re-occurring element. This in itself seems intrinsic to disorder, the movement from life to death a clear increase in the disorder of an organism. Additionally, the political disorder increases in Elsinore as the weakened and dying state of Denmark is exemplified by the death of the main figures of political authority including but not limited to Hamlet himself.

Furthermore Hamlet's decent into despair can also be interpreted as a decent into a state of increased entropy. According to the principles of physics the concept of entropy can only be applied to a closed system. In Hamlet, the Prince's loneliness is symbolic of this isolation, his psyche acting as the system while his thoughts constitute the individual components, subsequently allowing for the increase in entropy to take place. As units free of any such influence "depart more and more from any systematised order" Hamlet's thoughts may be seen as mimicking this behaviour. Throughout the play, the prince is plagued by an inability to act due to his preoccupation with thought. Here entropy's prerequisite condition of isolation comes into play as it acts as the seminal force behind the Prince's psychological deterioration. Walley goes as far as to suggest, that the inner fixation on melancholy and "pessimistic meditations" are key attributes of Shakespeare's tragedy and therefore characteristic of this genre.

In act V, scene ii of Hamlet, death arrives in excessiveness, Hamlet, his mother, Laertes and Cladius all dying here. A similar death count can be found in act V, scene iii of Romeo & Juliet. Olliedixon148 (discuss • contribs) 15:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

To what extend does entropy contribute to the distribution of the Syrian refugees in Europe (since 2012)? (Caroline and Muyao)
Originated from Physics, entropy is an extensive property of a thermodynamic system. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases. Such systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the state with maximum entropy. In another words, without any external forces, an isolated system tends to be more in disorder as time goes by. This essay aims at illustrating the distribution of Syrian refugees in the European continent by adopting the idea of Entropy. Hopefully with the mathematic model, measuring standard and quotas, we can address the global refugee and migration issue properly.

Since several years, the increase of refugees has been the major issues in the world. The European Union is dealing with the largest refugees’ crisis since the Second World war. One of the biggest issue raised by this is “how to properly resettling these people?”. With the use of mathematical modelling thinking, we may find more solutions.

The Syrian conflict, which began in 2011, is a good example. In fact, it generated one of the refugees’ most important flow that the world has experienced. At the end of 2015, Syria was the country with the more displaced people, seeking protection within Syria or abroad. Indeed, 4.9 million of 16.1 million refugees of 2015 were Syrian refugees.

Even though, most displaced Syrian are in the Middle East, Europe hosted about one million, which is really important too. To allocate all those refugees (even the non-Syrian one) between all the European countries, the European Commission published a distribution key. This consists of: “Gross Domestic Product and population size (40% weighting each) are the primary determinants, whereas the unemployment rate and number of asylum applications received in the past are weighted with 10% each, but capped in order not to exceed 30% of the Gross Domestic Product and population size effect ”. Therefore, every country has more or less a quota of refugees to host. Thanks to that, Germany, which had an estimated number of 530 000 displaced Syrians, is the European country with the most Syrian   (also because it is a welcoming country which had always attracted refugees).

In a nutshell, it is necessary with the help of external, weak and long-term effects to increase the level of the system of migrants' universal human values that will lead to a decrease in the social entropy of the society. The latter determines the success of the adaptation process and contributes to maintaining the stability of the country. By constrain a maximum quota of migrants that one country can accomodate, we use a kind of external force to lower down the entropy and curb the vicious circle of refugees flock into more chaotic nations.

How does simple strategic reasoning explain 21st-century global politics?
In a contemporary world with sophisticated structures, one might argue that global politics might seem very complex. However, even if a system is complex, it doesn't necessarily mean that its' governing rules are of high order. There are a tiny number of strategic reasonings leading the actors of global politics. Only the colossal number of actors of international relations - countries according to realism, and corporations according to marxism - make it complex.

The first rule believed to govern global politics comes from the realist school of thought. To understand how realist theories explain global politics we must first be aware of two things. First, realists consider states to be actors in the system. Second, they argue that the system is anarchic. This means that there is nobody above the states that can govern their interactions. States are not held accountable for their actions, thus allowing them to act solely in their own best interests. Essentially, this theory argues that actors in the field of global politics are rational beings, whose decisions are all guided by the desire to attain and maintain power since they answer to no one but themselves there is nothing stopping them from acting in this manner. One way in which this is exhibited is through countries acting to further their own economic interests. Countries with capitalistic economies continually aim to open up new markets so that they can perpetuate their own economy, regardless of the impact it has on other states. This helps to build up their own economy, which in turn gives them a sense of security. Having a booming economy allows them to maintain a position of power on the world stage, strengthen their military, and sustain the lifestyle of its people. Thus, the complexity of global politics according to this theory arises from all the different countries working for themselves, rather than together as idealists would like to believe.

Economic strength is often affiliated with a strong sense of security within a state, and actors need this feeling of security because all great states fear each other. As Anne-Marie Slaughter put it, the anarchy of the international system requires that States constantly ensure that they have sufficient power to defend themselves and advance their material interests necessary for survival. Even if a state can pursue other things such as prosperity, or maintaining human rights, these issues take a back seat to survival, and that is because if a state cannot survive, it will not pursue other goals. Fearful of one another, states quickly realise that the course of action with the highest success rate is to be overwhelmingly powerful. This simple logic creates incentives for states to look for opportunities to shift the balance of power in their favor.

Moreover, multinational corporations (other main actors of the world politics) are also led by one very simple rule: domination and personal gains. For example, this is why they advocate free-trade without tax barriers. However, those interests overcome ethics. Getting richer means staying in an unequal system, in which the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Lobbying groups are formed to make international institutions, as World Trade Organization take decisions in favor of them: to any of its conferences hundreds of corporate delegates are invited as trade advisors. In WTO corporations even have the same status as states. Furthermore, as corruption and tax fraud or avoidance – a legal way not to pay taxes – allows them to save money, it leads them not to respect laws, corrupt governments and fund international institutions dealing with important subjects. In 2013 GlaxoSmithKline – a pharmaceutical industry – gave World Health Organization 8 266 284 USD. Some European and American corporations, like Shell and British Petroleum, asked for an interesting lead of relations with Iraq: war and no treaty forbidding them to use Iraq’s petrol.

In conclusion, through the lens of simple reasoning it is possible to conjure up a blueprint of contemporary global politics, using the behavior of the actors of international relations. These actors are either states or corporations, which act in their own best interests, and which are absolved of their own actions. Their major argument for this philosophy is the need of survival, as the system is anarchic, and all great powers fear each other. The world is governed by a parameter of uncertainty, and thus, the race for power is never ending.

How can complexity theory be used to explain the fall of communism in Eastern Europe and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union? (Mia and Teo)
Complexity theory is a framework used to study complex systems. A complex system is composed of many individual components, all of which interact to form a whole that is more than the sum of its parts. In a complex system, the behavior of each individual element becomes important, creating dependency between a system and its constituents. Consequently, a shift or a removal of a single element in such a system leads to a disruption of the behavior of the entire system. Furthermore, complex systems are characterized by non-linear interactions, and as such are unpredictable and difficult to decompose.

However, because of the omnipresence of complexity, this framework is useful in examining a wide range of phenomena. A relevant historical example of a complex system is the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellite states, which collectively formed an essential part of the twentieth century post-war world order. This essay looks at the downfall of this system of communist states, employing complexity theory to understand how a multiplicity of factors and their interactions led to the fall of communism in Soviet satellite states and the subsequent disintegration of the Soviet Union itself.

During the Cold War, the majority of Eastern Europe came under Soviet control following an imposition of communist rule on these states, constituting what is known as the Eastern bloc, defined here as a complex system. The process of its weakening was gradual and involved a large number of interacting factors. Several of these can be identified as primary contributors to the system's collapse: economic deprivation, popular unrest, and reforms advanced by Soviet leader Gorbachev.

One may argue that the economic downfall of Eastern Europe and more specifically the Soviet Union formed the basis for the fall of communism as it served as fertile ground for nationalist feeling within the Eastern bloc. Arguably, the economic hardship further alienated the already disgruntled Eastern European population, thus leading to a rise in national sentiment and consequently the emergence of popular uprisings.

Nevertheless, there were other factors that contributed to the spread of uprisings such as Gorbachev’s innovative policies of glasnost and perestroika, transparency and openness, which advocated for greater public participation in politics and allowed for private ownership of businesses. Those liberalistic economic policies only had the effect of worsening the already weak Soviet economy, as the systems required for a free market were non-existent. This therefore proves how the two factors were inter related, showing that the collapse of communism couldn’t have not occurred without either of them.

It may also be claimed that popular unrest, which then culminated in the fall of communist regimes within Eastern Europe, was also a major factor as it represents the catalyst of the breakdown of the USSR. As one may argue that discontent primarily arose from economic hardship, the link between the two factors can be noticed. It was also deepened by the changing political environment, which was created by Gorbachev’s reforms as they gave the people a sentiment of urgency to revolt.

To conclude, the fall of communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union may be viewed as a complex system due to the links present between all of its factors. Thus all of the previously mentioned aspects were essential to this outcome. Teobogatu (discuss • contribs) 21:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

How did the rise of the American Abstract Expressionism movement in the late 1940's reinforce the laws of entropy?
Fine Art has been, and always will be, a reflection of the surrounding society. The rise of Abstract Expressionism painting occurred in the late 1940's, which coincided with the end of World War II. The style of painting in Abstract Expressionism evolved from European Surrealism and German Expressionism. Many pioneers of the movement had fled Europe during the war, finding safety in New York. After the oppression during World War II, Abstract Expressionism became a representation of the newfound freedom of the European immigrant artists.

The idea of entropy is rooted in the laws of thermodynamics, dealing with energy. It refers to the idea that everything in the universe will eventually shift from order to disorder. According to this law all complex systems evolve towards a state of lesser complexity. In art, entropy is defined as the 'inevitable and steady deterioration of a system'.

Abstract Expressionism was seen as an explosion of energy within painting. Artists gained the freedom to express their innermost emotions through energetic and disordered marks on a canvas.

To what extent has a systems thinking approach been taken in the development of models of memory in psychology?
A systems thinking approach aims to analyse the interaction of interdependent components in a system holistically - viewing the system as a complex, working whole rather than in individual parts with individual functions. The human brain is an immensely complex structure which we might never truly understand, however through a system thinking approach we can begin to. Systems thinking has greatly influenced the way in which we view human processes of memory. The approach has been used by renown psychologists in cognitive research into memory since the 19th century, playing a crucial part in the development of models of memory to a great extent.

Memory was first divided into the two main systems we recognise today by James (1890), who categorised them into primary (short-term) and secondary (long-term) storage, making a distinction between information we are able to store for brief and prolonged periods of time. The use of systems thinking here to differentiate between different types of memory has proven key to our understanding of the processes of memory, however, the way psychologists view this system has changed much since then.

Where James’s theory spoke little of the relationship between the short-term and long-term stores, Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) developed the Multi-Store Model of memory to demonstrate the possible links between the stores of memory. This linear system demonstrates a more complex systems thinking approach, looking at the individual functions of the stores as well as how they interact in order to perform their joint functions. However, this theory is not completely holistic as it implies that the process of memory is passive - not considering the influence of our motivation or strategy to remember information. Therefore, systems thinking in this model of memory is not used to a great extent as it doesn’t fully explore the relationships between the short-term and long-term memory stores.

Due to the limitations of Atkinson and Shiffrin’s oversimplified model, a second model, the Working Memory Model, was proposed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974) focussing on the STM as a system made up of further individual components with specific functions. This introduced the concept of the ‘central executive’ within the STM which determined which information from the senses received attention and passed it onto the correct processing unit. These processing units are the phonological store for auditory information, visuo-spatial sketchpad for visual and spatial information and the episodic buffer for events - all of which can transfer information to the LTM. By dividing the STM further and exploring it as a system in its own right, Baddeley and Hitch developed a more complex but accurate representation of memory processes, highlighting the importance of a systems thinking approach in the development of cognitive psychology. In the Working Memory Model, systems thinking it used to a much greater extent than in the Multi-Store Model, making suggestions about how different types of information are processed by different parts of the system as they are stored in different ways.

Tulving furthered the system thinking approach by introducing division between types of long term memory (LTM). He divided long term memory into procedural, semantic and episodic. Creating a division between memory of motor skills (procedural) and how we store information about events (episodic) and facts about the world (semantic). This division illustrates how different parts in the system concentrate on specific areas of memory. By creating further divisions within the study of memory Tulving contributed to developing the Multi Store Model of long term memory and our systematic approach to understanding our brain.

A systems thinking approach to models of memory in psychology has overall been used to a great extent in their development. The ability to narrow down specific elements of a system and understand how they interact allows us to further comprehend the complex system that is our brain. The complexity of brain function can only be understood by creating simple models of processes. The development of models in psychology have arisen out of the need to systematically understand the complexity how our brain functions. However, many of the models and theories relating to the processes of memory fail to reflect its complexity and the way in which external factors interact with the system. This, however, may be due to the nature of cognitive psychology as we know little about the processes of the human brain and lack the research methods to observe the working of these systems accurately.

To what extent does Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice reflect the principles of evolutionary biology? (Wen and Julie)
The scientific concept of evolution via natural selection was first detailed by Charles Darwin in 1859. It postulated that due to variation among individuals in a population, competition for finite resources due to overproduction of offspring, and inherent heritability of traits, certain successions within a population would be more likely to survive than others simply because they had more favourable adaptations to the environment.

Literary Darwinism, meanwhile, applies the principles of evolutionary biology to literary texts, on the basis that literature reflects a “universal human nature shaped by natural selection”, and thus can be analysed in terms of mate choice, kinship theories and social hierarchies.

The end of the eighteenth century saw an ideological shift regarding gender and marriage, and this was reflected in the tendency of novels in the period to focus on mate selection, a product of evolutionary psychology. This can be seen in Austen’s early nineteenth-century novel Pride and Prejudice (1813), which charts the changing relationship between Elizabeth Bennet--the second eldest of five daughters all needing to marry well--and the rich Fitzwilliam Darcy, as well as a romance between the eldest sister Jane Bennet and Mr Bingley.

One of the principles of Darwin's evolutionist biology reflected in this book is the characters' biological necessity to find the perfect 'mate', someone who will enable the climbing of social ladders and status for the women, and young beautiful women for the men. Most of the women, the Bennet girls' mother, and themselves, in the family seek to end up with rich men who will enable them to acquire resources successfully ( which is another facet of human's biological behavior) whilst the characters also have trouble deflecting their sexual pulsions. In this novel, resources and mating played the biggest role in the evolution in character's behavior, as they were pre-determined by these biological building blocks of human nature and relations.

In one of its primary subjects of marriage, the novel can be seen to demonstrate principles of mating strategies, in which long-term and short-term relationships have different costs and benefits and thus different strategies in an individual’s pursuit of either. Two characters can be analysed as an example of each: Jane and Lydia Bennett, on respective opposite ends of the mother/lover dichotomy as proposed by Strout et al. Jane is a “willing listener” with “constant complacency in her angelic air and manner”, which are also “open, cheerful and engaging, an undiminished beauty with good sense and disposition”. She has a “delicate sense of honour, (...) matched with the most generous and forgiving heart”. Lydia, in contrast, is “always unguarded and often uncivil”, “imprudent, wild (...) self-willed, careless (...) ignorant, idle, vain (...) the most determined flirt (...) the object of attention (...) and “never intended to marry at all”.

Graham argues that the family functions as a microcosm of a population: members compete and cooperate to gain limited resources, inhabit a range of ecological niches, and differ in personality and behaviour in accordance to Darwin’s principle of variation--of which the five Bennet sisters are a prominent example. Sibling order can define the niches filled, elaborates Graham, referring to Charlotte Lucas’ pragmatic agreement to marry the otherwise unappealing Mr Collins, after his rejection by her best friend Elizabeth. Charlotte’s “firstborn duties” incline her to settle for security, whereas second child Elizabeth can afford more idealism. Austen, in this literary framework, explores how differentiated siblings further define themselves through the process of marriage, in which the characters and the socio-economic statuses of their spouses will shape them. The five sisters help or harm each other’s marital prospects and are all strongly individualised in a way aligning with Sulloway’s rules of Darwinian personality development in children with dysfunctional parents. In particular, the eldest two have adapted to this unstable family ecosystem with Jane compensating as surrogate mother and Elizabeth notably taking on aspects of her father.