Search

Three experiments explored what is learned from experience in a probabilistic environment. The task was a simulated medical decision-making task with each patient having one of two test results and one of two diseases. The test result was highly predictive of the disease for all participants. The base rate of the test result was varied between participants to produce different inverse conditional probabilities of the test result given the disease across conditions. Participants trained using feedback to predict a patient's disease from a test result showed the classic confusion of the inverse error, substituting the forward conditional probability for the inverse conditional probability when tested on it. Additional training on the base rate of the test result did little to improve performance. Training on the joint probabilities, however, produced good performance on either conditional probability. The pattern of results demonstrated that experience with the environment is not always sufficient for good performance. That natural sampling leads to good performance was not supported. Further, because participants not trained on joint probabilities did, however, know them but still committed the confusion of the inverse error, the hypothesis that having joint probabilities would facilitate performance was not supported. The pattern of results supported the conclusion that people learn all the necessary information from experience in a probabilistic environment, but depending upon what the experience was, it may interfere with their ability to recall to memory the appropriate sample set necessary for estimating or using the inverse conditional probability. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research note is a contribution to an important on-going debate in British sociology on the operationalisation of class. A comprehensive framework is proposed based on three interrelated choices. All three choices have both theoretical and empirical elements. First, researchers must choose which conceptual scheme to employ--conventional occupational class or neo-Marxist social class categories. Second, what is to be the unit of analysis--the respondent or the household? Third, what is to be the degree of coverage? -- whether or not to include the economically inactive. Consideration of all three choices is followed by a discussion of their interrelations and consequences. We suggest an extended version of Erikson's solution which incorporates not only the unit of analysis decision but also the degree of coverage decision. Thus a respondent based measure covering the economically active only is appropriate for studies of production behaviour and attitudes (work position).Alternatively, a household based measure inclusive of the economically inactive is appropriate for studies of consumption behaviour and attitudes (market or class position). Acceptance of the extended Erikson solution leaves only the choice of conceptual scheme. Our indicated preference is for social class on both theoretical and empirical grounds. Finally, we recommend several ways of improving the quality of datasets with regard to the problem of operationalising class. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Government policy in response to the recession in Britain during the 1980s can be interpreted as an attempt to alter the balance of class forces in favour of capital or as an attempt to alter the balance of public and private sector production and consumption in favour of the latter. The limitations of previous research on radicalism and radicalization are reviewed and on the basis of a purposefully designed panel survey, class and sector theories are examined in terms of both attitudinal and behavioural data. The importance of distinguishing between the structure of radicalism and the process of radicalization was highlighted by the finding that the variables which explain the former are not the same as those that explain the latter. The basic class and sector models were confirmed: employees and public sector producers/consumers were found to be more radical than employers and private sector producers/consumers respectively. Most support for dominant values was evident among the capitalist class and public sector controllers emerged as the new vanguard of radicalism. Finally the persistence of a radical value system in contemporary Britain remains clearly associated with partisanship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dorfman is eulogized as the creator and curator of the definitive account of Veblen's life and work. He argued that Veblen was the archetypal marginal man and that this explains his dissenting contribution. Dissemination of Dorfman's pathography of Veblen led to its hegemony - until now. Andrew Veblen was the first to challenge Dorfman's portrait of his younger brother's life in the mid 1920s. He asserted that his family were not linguistically, socially or economically deprived. However, it was not until Dorfman's private papers became publicly available in the 1990s, that his flawed view of Veblen became more widely and comprehensively contested. An alternative appreciation of Veblen is advanced with reference to his experiences in general and the works of Bellamy, Morris and Ibsen in particular. Data sources include Dorfman's original tome, Andrew Veblen's extensive correspondence with Dorfman, and Veblen's own writings. It is concluded that Veblen's radical views are entirely congruent with his life experiences during an era of capitalist transformation. The moral of this saga is that a dose of Veblenian scepticism is essential to intellectual health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cutting public expenditure in response to an economic crisis is not a new phenomenon or the sole prerogative of Conservative governments of Great Britain. The latest era of public spending cuts was initiated by the Labour administration between 1975 and 1979 and continued somewhat differently but more thoroughly and enthusiastically by the Conservatives since 1979. Arguably the latter phase differs from all previous versions of this policy in the sense that it represents an explicit attempt to reverse the historical trend of public expenditure growth and in the process restructure the welfare state. In this view, the spending cuts involve a reassertion of market forces and individualism as opposed to the welfare state and collectivism. This rolling back of the state can be seen as the end of the postwar Butskeffite consensus on the welfare state. The nature of the restructuring exercise is indicated by the scale and selective scope of the current policy, which is based on a package of interrelated public expenditure, and revenue strategies aimed at solving the crisis of British capitalism.

Although Hobson (1858-1940) and Veblen (1857-1929) both wrote extensively on imperialism, a systematic comparison of their views has yet to be undertaken. This is corrected with reference to three issues: their respective condemnation and explanation of, and remedy for, imperialism. The contexts in which they wrote is outlined and it is shown that on the basis of a shared definition of imperialism: (1) they both condemned imperialism on economic and political grounds, although Veblen's hostility was arguably the greater; (2) they both advanced dualistic explanations of imperialism, but whereas Hobson developed more fully and emphasized economic rather than ideological forces, the reverse was the case for Veblen; and (3) they agreed that modern imperialism could be remedied by the establishment of an international system of law and order. Veblen, however, was far less confident that this would solve totally the problem of imperialism and hence argued for the abolition of both capitalism and patriotism. The convergencies and divergencies in their analyses of imperialism may reflect the British liberal and American radical traditions that the politically involved Hobson and the iconoclast Veblen, respectively, operated within. There is a lesson for our time in their views. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on sociologist Thorstein Veblen's theory of evolutionary change. His contribution to sociology, and his theory of evolutionary change in particular, are among the most misrepresented and undervalued in the history of the subject. Veblen's contribution has become a battleground between the rival claims of economics and sociology as autonomous disciplines. His critics have failed to comprehend the totality of his contribution, and at the same time, that the limited and contradictory compass of interpretations of his work seems to have operated to delay recognition of the originality of his overall contribution. His mode of analysis included the assumptions that production was a social activity that was facilitated by cooperation and motivated by the "instinct of workmanship" and that technological knowledge was cumulative. However, despite its social nature and primacy for the survival of the group, the expression of workmanship varies in terms of the economic and cultural conditions that prevail during any one historical period.