Friday, July 18, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
terrorism and education
before coming to the topic of terrorism lets come to the defination of terrorism . The word used so loosely has lost its original meaning .Currently, the term "terrorism" is applied to the use of force most often on the basis of whether the speaker agrees with the goal of the violence. Hence the expression "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Let's define an action as "terrorism" if the use of violence would reasonably be expected to harm innocent civilians. This is to be distinguished from a "military" action, where the use of violence is not reasonably expected to harm innocent civilians.
The word "terrorism" was first used in reference to the reign of terror during theFrench revolution. A 1988 study by the United States army found that more than one hundred definitions of the word exist and have been used.
Now lets come to the word education. The word Education is derived from the latin word 'Educare' which means 'to nourish' or 'to bring up'.
In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, a consensus quickly emerged that poverty and lack of education were major causes of terrorist acts and support for terrorism. Subscribing to that theory are politicians, journalists, and many scholars, as well as officials responsible for administering aid to poor countries. For example, James D. Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank, asserted that the war on terrorism "will not be won until we have come to grips with the problem of poverty and thus the sources of discontent."
Many well-regarded public intellectuals also concur. For example, Elie Wiesel claimed, "Education is the way to eliminate terrorism." And the Nobel laureate Kim Dae Jung asserted, "At the bottom of terrorism is poverty."
A large body of evidence exists on hate crimes, a close cousin to terrorism. These are crimes against members of a religious, racial, or ethnic group selected solely because they are part of that group. Hate crimes are usually less orchestrated than terrorist acts, and thus a cleaner measure of the "pure supply" of those willing to carry out hateful acts. The effect of both terrorism and hate crimes is to wreak terror in a greater number of people than those directly affected by the violence. sometimes the hate crimes are also termed as terrorist acts.
Looking at the backgrounds of the perpetrators of many violent attacks, it is clear that the xtremists were overwhelmingly well educated and in high-paying occupations. The list includes teachers, writers, university students, geographers, an engineer, a combat pilot, a chemist, and a computer programmer.
What does economic theory tell us about participation in terrorism? Consider the supply side first -- that is, why do people join terrorist organizations or commit terrorist acts? As is conventional in economics, involvement in terrorism is viewed as a rational decision that depends on the benefits, costs, and risks involved compared with those of other activities.
According to the standard model of crime, participation increases as one's market wage falls relative to the rewards associated with crime, and decreases if the risk of being apprehended after committing a crime, or the penalty for being convicted of a crime, rises. People are more likely to commit property crimes if they have lower wages or less education, though the occurrence of violent crimes, including murders, is typically found to be unrelated to economic opportunities. When it comes to terrorism, an important benefit from the standpoint of the terrorist is the furtherance of the goals of the terrorist organization. Affluent, educated people may care more about the political goals of a terrorist organization than impoverished illiterates do.
Instead of viewing terrorism as a response -- either direct or indirect -- to poverty or ignorance, we suggest that it is more accurately viewed as a response to political conditions and longstanding feelings of indignity and frustration that have little to do with economic circumstances. I suspect that is why international terrorist acts are more likely to be committed by people who grew up under repressive political regimes.
education, poverty and terrorism
It is sometimes thought that terrorism is fueled by the poverty, lack of education, and lack of opportunities that afflict so many people in the Arab world. Wealthier nations don't have the same problems, after all, but the truth is that most terrorists are well-educated men with good prospects for their futures.
better-off and better-educated people are more likely to support and participate in terrorist or militant acts than their less fortunate peers. In a December 2001 opinion survey of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, for example, 86 percent of adults who had attended high school supported armed attacks against Israeli targets, compared with 72 percent of their illiterate peers. And outright opposition to such attacks was much higher in the ranks of the illiterate: 26 percent voiced opposition, compared with only 12 percent of better-educated Palestinians. Many studies of those who actually commit terrorist attacks follow the same general pattern. Of 129 Lebanese Hezbollah militants who became Shahids (martyrs) between 1982 and 1994, only 28 percent came from impoverished families (while 33 percent of all Lebanese were living in poverty). Thirty-three percent of the killers had been to high school, compared with only 23 percent of the general population. A study of 285 Palestinian terrorists who carried out suicide bomb attacks for other groups between 1987 and 2002 found that they were nearly twice as likely to have finished high school and attended college as other Palestinians. Two of the bombers were the sons of millionaires.
It’s not just Palestinians who are like this — Israel’s “Bloc of the Faithful,” one of their most militant groups of Jews, is filled with “teachers, writers, entrepreneurs, engineers,” and other highly educated people. It’s not ignorance that breeds terrorism, but knowledge. The more educated a person is, the more they know about politics, economics, and world issues — and, therefore, the more likely they may become so outraged over injustices around them that they are willing to resort to violence in order to rectify them.
Another important factor is the lack of civil liberties: the more civil liberties a nation has, the less likely people are to engage in terrorism. It’s not hard to understand why this might be so. When a person is able to participate in society openly and to promote their ideas to others, there won’t be as much of a temptation to “participate” by resorting to violence. When they have a chance to make their ideas count through the ballot box, they are less likely to make their ideas count with a gun.
Politics is not far off from violence because even in a democracy, the will of some is imposed on everyone else. Excluding some from participating in what happens in society is a sure way to push them to find other means — and very often, the only “other means” available to them is violence of some sort.
“What is it that seduces some young people to terrorism? It simplifies things. The fanatic has no questions, only answers. Education is the way to eliminate terrorism.” (Elie Wiesel)
“If the mind is more open, that will automatically bring less fear. Education can narrow the gap between appearances and reality. The reality is that we and 'they' are not different.” (Dalai Lama)
“At the bottom of terrorism is poverty. That is the main cause. Then there are other religious, national, and ideological differences.” (Kim Dae Jung)
Thinking of terrorists, and especially suicide bombers, as people with 'nothing to lose' is intuitive. It is also very likely wrong. Any connection between poverty, education and terrorism is indirect, complicated and probably quite weak. Instead of viewing terrorism as a direct response to low market opportunities or ignorance, we suggest it is more accurately viewed as a response to political conditions and long-standing feelings of indignity and frustration.It is difficult to build an economic model of the link between poverty, education and terrorism, especially suicide bombings. Furthermore, we thankfully lack the depth of empirical evidence that would allow us to test these theories and draw more robust and universally valid conclusions. That said, there are plenty of factors that suggest wealthier and better educated individuals may indeed be more likely to support and participate in terrorism:
1. Wealthy and well-educated individuals may stand to gain the most from a change in the political order. A landowner in the West Bank stands to gain significantly from the creation of a free and prosperous Palestine, and so does a Palestinian doctor or architect. It is more difficult to extend this hypothesis to account for suicide bombings, but there may be a link to the degree that people care about the welfare of their families.
2. Education and wealth are positively correlated with drive. Whatever it is that pushes people to achieve academic excellence or business success is probably also a factor behind their pursuit of political/religious/national aims.
3. We may only observe more educated/wealthy suicide bombers. In cases , education may be a signal of higher ability to carry out successful attacks, or of a more solid commitment to the cause. In the case of 'self-starts', where no organisation is involved in recruiting candidates, wealthier and more educated individuals may be more capable of putting together a plan, gathering the necessary resources and successfully executing a terrorist strike.
4. Those with the higher levels of education are likely to have also received more religious or nationalistic education - and hence are likely to be placing more value on religious or national goals.
5. Education in general may also make people become more involved in the political process, even if that is by means of terrorism. For example, stydying history may make individuals place more value on posterity. History also allows students to see that drastic geopolitical changes have happened in the past and so could happen in the future. Less educated individuals, on the other hand, may find it difficult to believe that such changes do happen: 'it has always been the same around here'
.6. Societal pressure may be higher on the brightest, richest and most educated individuals. Much like a star athlete is expected to return with an Olympic medal and is deemed a failure if she doesn't, the 'best' of a society are expected to contribute disproportionately to that society's welfare. Dying in the name of a national or religious cause can achieve exactly that.I have recently had a request for a post on what economists have to say about terrorism. The short answer is, quite a lot.
The word "terrorism" was first used in reference to the reign of terror during theFrench revolution. A 1988 study by the United States army found that more than one hundred definitions of the word exist and have been used.
Now lets come to the word education. The word Education is derived from the latin word 'Educare' which means 'to nourish' or 'to bring up'.
In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, a consensus quickly emerged that poverty and lack of education were major causes of terrorist acts and support for terrorism. Subscribing to that theory are politicians, journalists, and many scholars, as well as officials responsible for administering aid to poor countries. For example, James D. Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank, asserted that the war on terrorism "will not be won until we have come to grips with the problem of poverty and thus the sources of discontent."
Many well-regarded public intellectuals also concur. For example, Elie Wiesel claimed, "Education is the way to eliminate terrorism." And the Nobel laureate Kim Dae Jung asserted, "At the bottom of terrorism is poverty."
A large body of evidence exists on hate crimes, a close cousin to terrorism. These are crimes against members of a religious, racial, or ethnic group selected solely because they are part of that group. Hate crimes are usually less orchestrated than terrorist acts, and thus a cleaner measure of the "pure supply" of those willing to carry out hateful acts. The effect of both terrorism and hate crimes is to wreak terror in a greater number of people than those directly affected by the violence. sometimes the hate crimes are also termed as terrorist acts.
Looking at the backgrounds of the perpetrators of many violent attacks, it is clear that the xtremists were overwhelmingly well educated and in high-paying occupations. The list includes teachers, writers, university students, geographers, an engineer, a combat pilot, a chemist, and a computer programmer.
What does economic theory tell us about participation in terrorism? Consider the supply side first -- that is, why do people join terrorist organizations or commit terrorist acts? As is conventional in economics, involvement in terrorism is viewed as a rational decision that depends on the benefits, costs, and risks involved compared with those of other activities.
According to the standard model of crime, participation increases as one's market wage falls relative to the rewards associated with crime, and decreases if the risk of being apprehended after committing a crime, or the penalty for being convicted of a crime, rises. People are more likely to commit property crimes if they have lower wages or less education, though the occurrence of violent crimes, including murders, is typically found to be unrelated to economic opportunities. When it comes to terrorism, an important benefit from the standpoint of the terrorist is the furtherance of the goals of the terrorist organization. Affluent, educated people may care more about the political goals of a terrorist organization than impoverished illiterates do.
Instead of viewing terrorism as a response -- either direct or indirect -- to poverty or ignorance, we suggest that it is more accurately viewed as a response to political conditions and longstanding feelings of indignity and frustration that have little to do with economic circumstances. I suspect that is why international terrorist acts are more likely to be committed by people who grew up under repressive political regimes.
education, poverty and terrorism
It is sometimes thought that terrorism is fueled by the poverty, lack of education, and lack of opportunities that afflict so many people in the Arab world. Wealthier nations don't have the same problems, after all, but the truth is that most terrorists are well-educated men with good prospects for their futures.
better-off and better-educated people are more likely to support and participate in terrorist or militant acts than their less fortunate peers. In a December 2001 opinion survey of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, for example, 86 percent of adults who had attended high school supported armed attacks against Israeli targets, compared with 72 percent of their illiterate peers. And outright opposition to such attacks was much higher in the ranks of the illiterate: 26 percent voiced opposition, compared with only 12 percent of better-educated Palestinians. Many studies of those who actually commit terrorist attacks follow the same general pattern. Of 129 Lebanese Hezbollah militants who became Shahids (martyrs) between 1982 and 1994, only 28 percent came from impoverished families (while 33 percent of all Lebanese were living in poverty). Thirty-three percent of the killers had been to high school, compared with only 23 percent of the general population. A study of 285 Palestinian terrorists who carried out suicide bomb attacks for other groups between 1987 and 2002 found that they were nearly twice as likely to have finished high school and attended college as other Palestinians. Two of the bombers were the sons of millionaires.
It’s not just Palestinians who are like this — Israel’s “Bloc of the Faithful,” one of their most militant groups of Jews, is filled with “teachers, writers, entrepreneurs, engineers,” and other highly educated people. It’s not ignorance that breeds terrorism, but knowledge. The more educated a person is, the more they know about politics, economics, and world issues — and, therefore, the more likely they may become so outraged over injustices around them that they are willing to resort to violence in order to rectify them.
Another important factor is the lack of civil liberties: the more civil liberties a nation has, the less likely people are to engage in terrorism. It’s not hard to understand why this might be so. When a person is able to participate in society openly and to promote their ideas to others, there won’t be as much of a temptation to “participate” by resorting to violence. When they have a chance to make their ideas count through the ballot box, they are less likely to make their ideas count with a gun.
Politics is not far off from violence because even in a democracy, the will of some is imposed on everyone else. Excluding some from participating in what happens in society is a sure way to push them to find other means — and very often, the only “other means” available to them is violence of some sort.
“What is it that seduces some young people to terrorism? It simplifies things. The fanatic has no questions, only answers. Education is the way to eliminate terrorism.” (Elie Wiesel)
“If the mind is more open, that will automatically bring less fear. Education can narrow the gap between appearances and reality. The reality is that we and 'they' are not different.” (Dalai Lama)
“At the bottom of terrorism is poverty. That is the main cause. Then there are other religious, national, and ideological differences.” (Kim Dae Jung)
Thinking of terrorists, and especially suicide bombers, as people with 'nothing to lose' is intuitive. It is also very likely wrong. Any connection between poverty, education and terrorism is indirect, complicated and probably quite weak. Instead of viewing terrorism as a direct response to low market opportunities or ignorance, we suggest it is more accurately viewed as a response to political conditions and long-standing feelings of indignity and frustration.It is difficult to build an economic model of the link between poverty, education and terrorism, especially suicide bombings. Furthermore, we thankfully lack the depth of empirical evidence that would allow us to test these theories and draw more robust and universally valid conclusions. That said, there are plenty of factors that suggest wealthier and better educated individuals may indeed be more likely to support and participate in terrorism:
1. Wealthy and well-educated individuals may stand to gain the most from a change in the political order. A landowner in the West Bank stands to gain significantly from the creation of a free and prosperous Palestine, and so does a Palestinian doctor or architect. It is more difficult to extend this hypothesis to account for suicide bombings, but there may be a link to the degree that people care about the welfare of their families.
2. Education and wealth are positively correlated with drive. Whatever it is that pushes people to achieve academic excellence or business success is probably also a factor behind their pursuit of political/religious/national aims.
3. We may only observe more educated/wealthy suicide bombers. In cases , education may be a signal of higher ability to carry out successful attacks, or of a more solid commitment to the cause. In the case of 'self-starts', where no organisation is involved in recruiting candidates, wealthier and more educated individuals may be more capable of putting together a plan, gathering the necessary resources and successfully executing a terrorist strike.
4. Those with the higher levels of education are likely to have also received more religious or nationalistic education - and hence are likely to be placing more value on religious or national goals.
5. Education in general may also make people become more involved in the political process, even if that is by means of terrorism. For example, stydying history may make individuals place more value on posterity. History also allows students to see that drastic geopolitical changes have happened in the past and so could happen in the future. Less educated individuals, on the other hand, may find it difficult to believe that such changes do happen: 'it has always been the same around here'
.6. Societal pressure may be higher on the brightest, richest and most educated individuals. Much like a star athlete is expected to return with an Olympic medal and is deemed a failure if she doesn't, the 'best' of a society are expected to contribute disproportionately to that society's welfare. Dying in the name of a national or religious cause can achieve exactly that.I have recently had a request for a post on what economists have to say about terrorism. The short answer is, quite a lot.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
solution to the puzzle
Solution to puzzle: Two logicians
Two perfect logicians, S and P, are told that integers x and y have been chosen such that 1 < x < y and x+y < 100. S is given the value x+y and P is given the value xy. They then have the following conversation.
P: I cannot determine the two numbers.S: I knew that.P: Now I can determine them.S: So can I.
Given that the above statements are true, what are the two numbers?
First of all, trivially, xy cannot be prime. It also cannot be the square of a prime, for that would imply x = y.
We now deduce as much as possible from each of the logicians' statements. We have only public information: the problem statement, the logicians' statements, and the knowledge that the logicians, being perfect, will always make correct and complete deductions. Each logician has, in addition, one piece of private information: sum or product.
P: I cannot determine the two numbers.
P's statement implies that xy cannot have exactly two distinct proper factors less than 100.Call such a pair of factors eligible.
For example, xy cannot be the product of two distinct primes, for then P could deduce the numbers. Likewise, xy cannot be the cube of a prime, such as 33 = 27, for then 3×9 would be a unique factorization; or the fourth power of a prime.
Other combinations are ruled out by the fact that the sum of the two factors must be less than 100. For example, xy cannot be 242 = 2×112, since 11×22 is the unique eligible factorization; 2×121 being ineligible. Similarly for xy = 318 = 2×3×53.
S: I knew that.
If S was sure that P could not deduce the numbers, then none of the possible summands of x+y can be such that their product has exactly one pair of eligible factors. For example, x+y could not be 51, since summands 17 and 34 produce xy = 578, which would permit P to deduce the numbers.
We can generate a list of values of x+y that are never the sum of precisely two eligible factors.
genSum(100);
eligiblesums: 11, 17, 23, 27, 29, 35, 37, 41, 47, 53.
(We can usegold bach conjecture ie. even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes, to deduce that the above list can contain only odd numbers. Although the conjecture remains unproven, it has been confirmed empirically up to 3×1017.)
P: Now I can determine them.
P now knows that x+y is one of the values listed above. If this enables P to deduce x and y, then, of the eligible factorizations of xy, there must be precisely one for which the sum of the factors is in the list. The table below, , shows all such xy, together with the corresponding x, y, and x+y. The table is sorted by sum and then product.
Note that a product may be absent from the table for one of two reasons. Either none of its eligible factorizations appears in the above list of eligible sums (example: 12 = 2×6 and 3×4; sums 8 and 7), or more than one such factorization appears (example: 30 = 2×15 and 5×6; sums 17 and 11.)
S: So can I.
If S can deduce the numbers from the table below, there must be a sum that appears exactly once in the table. Checking the table, we find just one such sum: 17.Therefore, we are able to deduce that the numbers are x = 4 and y = 13.
n.b. i am sorry the table could be published as some error is occuring but i think u will be able to figure out the solution after this....
Two perfect logicians, S and P, are told that integers x and y have been chosen such that 1 < x < y and x+y < 100. S is given the value x+y and P is given the value xy. They then have the following conversation.
P: I cannot determine the two numbers.S: I knew that.P: Now I can determine them.S: So can I.
Given that the above statements are true, what are the two numbers?
First of all, trivially, xy cannot be prime. It also cannot be the square of a prime, for that would imply x = y.
We now deduce as much as possible from each of the logicians' statements. We have only public information: the problem statement, the logicians' statements, and the knowledge that the logicians, being perfect, will always make correct and complete deductions. Each logician has, in addition, one piece of private information: sum or product.
P: I cannot determine the two numbers.
P's statement implies that xy cannot have exactly two distinct proper factors less than 100.Call such a pair of factors eligible.
For example, xy cannot be the product of two distinct primes, for then P could deduce the numbers. Likewise, xy cannot be the cube of a prime, such as 33 = 27, for then 3×9 would be a unique factorization; or the fourth power of a prime.
Other combinations are ruled out by the fact that the sum of the two factors must be less than 100. For example, xy cannot be 242 = 2×112, since 11×22 is the unique eligible factorization; 2×121 being ineligible. Similarly for xy = 318 = 2×3×53.
S: I knew that.
If S was sure that P could not deduce the numbers, then none of the possible summands of x+y can be such that their product has exactly one pair of eligible factors. For example, x+y could not be 51, since summands 17 and 34 produce xy = 578, which would permit P to deduce the numbers.
We can generate a list of values of x+y that are never the sum of precisely two eligible factors.
genSum(100);
eligiblesums: 11, 17, 23, 27, 29, 35, 37, 41, 47, 53.
(We can usegold bach conjecture ie. even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes, to deduce that the above list can contain only odd numbers. Although the conjecture remains unproven, it has been confirmed empirically up to 3×1017.)
P: Now I can determine them.
P now knows that x+y is one of the values listed above. If this enables P to deduce x and y, then, of the eligible factorizations of xy, there must be precisely one for which the sum of the factors is in the list. The table below, , shows all such xy, together with the corresponding x, y, and x+y. The table is sorted by sum and then product.
Note that a product may be absent from the table for one of two reasons. Either none of its eligible factorizations appears in the above list of eligible sums (example: 12 = 2×6 and 3×4; sums 8 and 7), or more than one such factorization appears (example: 30 = 2×15 and 5×6; sums 17 and 11.)
S: So can I.
If S can deduce the numbers from the table below, there must be a sum that appears exactly once in the table. Checking the table, we find just one such sum: 17.Therefore, we are able to deduce that the numbers are x = 4 and y = 13.
n.b. i am sorry the table could be published as some error is occuring but i think u will be able to figure out the solution after this....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
