Bureaucrats, Check users, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, vuser
9,362
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Wednesday May 01, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchWikipedia versus Encyclopedia Britannica (view source)
Revision as of 18:35, 9 June 2008
, 18:35, 9 June 2008Israel Labor Party, Ferdinand I
The purpose of this page is to take 10 random articles from Wikipedia that have exactly equivalent articles in Encyclopedia Brittanica, and compare their contents (as extracted from June 3 through June 5, 2008), in a way that is more scientifically authentic than the [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/ "rigged" Nature news study].
The purpose of this page is to take 6 random articles from Wikipedia that have exactly equivalent articles in Encyclopedia Brittanica, and compare their contents (as extracted from June 3 through June 9, 2008), in a way that is more scientifically authentic than the [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/ "rigged" Nature news study] that cherry-picked articles. Note that it required 84 "Random article" clicks to find 6 articles that matched availability in Britannica.
Those interested in engaging in discussion about these extracted articles are welcome to contribute to [[Talk:Editing Wikipedia versus Encyclopedia Britannica|our Talk page]].
Those interested in engaging in discussion about these extracted articles are welcome to contribute to [[Talk:Editing Wikipedia versus Encyclopedia Britannica|our Talk page]].
==Random articles not matched==
==Random articles not matched==
#Arkadiusz Onyszko - not found in EB.
#Arkadiusz Onyszko - not found in EB.
#Rocketeer (comics) - "Rocketeer" not found in EB.
#Rocketeer (comics) - not found in EB.
#Hinduism in Hungary - not found in EB.
#Hinduism in Hungary - not found in EB.
#Bureau of Information and Propaganda - not found in EB, but returned article on "Cominform".
#Bureau of Information and Propaganda - not found in EB, but returned article on "Cominform".
#Coupe de France 1996-97 - not found in EB.
#Coupe de France 1996-97 - not found in EB.
#Hyloscirtus sarampiona - not found in EB.
#Hyloscirtus sarampiona - not found in EB.
# - not found in EB.
#Tokachi Subprefecture - not found in EB.
# - not found in EB.
#Lawrence Daws - not found in EB.
# - not found in EB.
#Washington State Route 505 - not found in EB.
# - not found in EB.
#James N. Rosenau - not found in EB.
# - not found in EB.
#Askvoll - not found in EB.
# - not found in EB.
#Waking Life OST - not found in EB.
# - not found in EB.
#Hira - not found in EB.
# - not found in EB.
#Timeline of the 2005 Pacific hurricane season - not found in EB.
# - not found in EB.
#Leif Engqvist - not found in EB.
# - not found in EB.
#Ralph Avenue (IND Fulton Street Line) - not found in EB.
# - not found in EB.
#1987 NFL season - not found in EB.
#Ampelakia - not found in EB.
#2001 Japan Airlines mid-air incident - not found in EB.
#Grammy Award for Best R&B Album - not found in EB.
#Harmon S. Graves - not found in EB.
#Nu Aquilae - not found in EB.
#Ankara University - not found in EB.
#Angry Gamer - not found in EB.
#Transport in Edinburgh - not found in EB.
#Louis Piazzoli - not found in EB.
#Oregon Commentator - not found in EB.
#Hoobastank - not found in EB.
#Wire Lock - not found in EB.
#Austin Gresham - not found in EB.
#Ramana Lagemann - not found in EB.
#Glossary of terms in Hinduism - not found in EB.
#Summer Moved On - not found in EB.
#House Hasson Hardware - not found in EB.
#List of closed railway stations in Greater Manchester - not found in EB.
#Countdown to Doomsday (documentary) - not found in EB.
#Meble-Rys Gościbia Sułkowice - not found in EB.
#George E. Kent - not found in EB.
#Juan Carlos Pérez Góngora - not found in EB.
#1991 hurricane season - not found in EB.
#Crandall, Indiana - not found in EB.
#1782 in architecture - not found in EB.
#VoteToImpeach - not found in EB.
#The Postmarks - not found in EB.
#2007–2008 Belgian government formation - not found in EB.
#Reggie Haynes - not found in EB.
#Deep water coral - not found in EB.
#True Blue: Oxford Boat Race Mutiny - not found in EB.
#Icewind Dale: Heart of Winter - not found in EB.
#Keith Hutchings - not found in EB.
#Conor Cruise O'Brien - not found in EB.
#Jennings, Florida - not found in EB.
#Shorea agamii - not found in EB.
#Nordic Vikings - not found in EB.
#Harald Bredesen - not found in EB.
#Victor Matfield - not found in EB.
#Working Group on Arbitrary Detention - not found in EB.
#Berchtesgadener Land - not found in EB.
#San Bernardo, Nariño - not found in EB.
#Little Bird (Beach Boys song) - not found in EB.
#John Cornwell (writer) - not found in EB.
#Talnakhite - not found in EB.
#Little Five Points - not found in EB.
#Andrew Laing - not found in EB.
----
----
==Caledonia==
==Caledonia==
<references/>
<references/>
:External links
* [http://www.terakoya.com/link/index_e.htm List of Jodo Shinshu Organisations] with Links
* [http://www.terakoya.com/link/index_e.htm List of Jodo Shinshu Organisations] with Links
----
----
==Topic==
==Theory of mind==
===Encyclopedia Britannica version===
===Encyclopedia Britannica version===
History of analytic philosophy > Analytic philosophy today > The theory of mind
In the theory of mind, the major debate concerned the question of which materialist theory of the human mind, if any, was the correct one. The main theories were identity theory (also called reductive materialism), functionalism, and eliminative materialism.
===Wikipedia version===
===Wikipedia version===
"'''Theory of mind'''" is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one's own.<ref>Premack, D. G. & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? ''Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1,'' 515-526.</ref>
'Theory of Mind' is different from 'Philosophy of Mind', although there are philosophical approaches to issues raised in discussions of Theory of Mind.
:General category usage
In developmental psychology, theory of mind is a basic understanding of how the mind works and how it influences behavior.
:Theory of mind: interpersonal understanding of mental states
Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others. As originally defined, it enables one to understand that mental states can be the cause of—and thus be used to explain and predict—others’ behavior.<ref>Premack, D. G. & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? ''Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1,'' 515-526.</ref> Being able to attribute mental states to others and understanding them as causes of behavior means, in part, that one must be able to conceive of the mind as a “generator of representations”<ref>Courtin, C. (2000) The impact of sign language on the cognitive development of deaf children: The case of theories of mind. ''Cognition, 77,''25-31.</ref><ref>Courtin, C., & Melot, A.-M. (2005) Metacognitive development of deaf children: Lessons from the appearance-reality and false belief tasks. ''Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5,'' 266-276.</ref> and to understand that others’ mental representations of the world do not necessarily reflect reality and can be different from one’s own. It also means one must be able to maintain, simultaneously, different representations of the world. It is a ‘theory’ of mind in that such representations are not "directly observable".<ref>Premack, D. G. and Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? ''Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1,'' 515-526.</ref> Many other human abilities—from skillful social interaction to language use—are said to involve a theory of mind.
Beyond the basic definition of ToM, there is considerable debate as to precisely what other kinds of abilities and understandings constitute a theory of mind, when these abilities develop, and who can be said to have a theory of mind. How one defines the basic mental states that underlie ToM structures the possibilities and limits of the field. Inherent in ToM is the understanding that others are intentional agents, that is, individuals whose behavior is goal- or perception-driven—and so debate about ToM has also reignited previous arguments on the nature of intentionality. In addition, efforts at defining the "mind"—generally understood as the totality of one’s conscious thoughts and perceptions—are relevant to the discussion of ToM. Although these debates are important, they do not inhibit the ToM research and progress in the fields of [[philosophy]], [[psychology]], and [[neuroscience]]. In fact, empirical research often sheds light back on the nature of these concepts.
Research on theory of mind in a number of different populations (human and animal, adults and children, normally- and atypically-developing) has grown rapidly in the almost 30 years since Premack and Woodruff's paper "Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?",<ref>Premack, D. G. and Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? ''Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1,'' 515-526.</ref> as have the theories of theory of mind. The emerging field of neuroscience has also begun to address this debate, through brain imaging of subjects who fail ToM tests and through exploration of the potential neural basis of the abilities that underlie ToM, in particular, so-called "[[mirror neurons]]" (see final section).
Theory of mind appears to be an innate potential ability in humans (and, some argue, in certain other species), but one requiring social and other experience over many years to bring successfully to adult fruition. It is probably a continuum, in the sense that different people may develop more, or less, effective theories of mind, varying from very complete and accurate ones, through to minimally functional. It is often implied or assumed (but not stated explicitly) that this does not merely signify conceptual understanding "other people have minds and think," but also some kind of understanding and working model that these thoughts and states and emotions are real and genuine for these people and not just ungrounded names for parroted concepts. [[Empathy]] is a related concept, meaning [[experience|experientially]] recognizing and understanding the states of mind, including beliefs, desires and particularly emotions of others without injecting your own, often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes."
:Philosophical roots
Contemporary discussions of ToM have their roots in philosophical debate—most broadly, from the time of Descartes’ "Second Meditation," which set the groundwork for considering the science of the mind. Most prominent recently are two contrasting approaches, in the philosophical literature, to theory of mind: ''theory-theory'' and ''simulation theory''. The theory-theorist imagines a veritable theory—"folk psychology"—used to reason about others' minds. The theory is developed automatically and innately, though instantiated through social interactions.<ref>Carruthers, P. (1996). Simulation and self-knowledge: a defence of the theory-theory. In P. Carruthers & P.K. Smith, Eds. ''Theories of theories of mind.'' Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref> The mental states attributed to others are unobservable—theoretical notions that explain and predict behavior in the same way that doctors interpret abnormal blotches on an x-ray as cancerous tumors—and yet knowable by intuition or insight.
On the other hand, simulation theory suggests ToM is not, at its core, theoretical. Two kinds of simulationism have been proposed.<ref>Gordon, R.M. (1996). 'Radical' simulationism. In P. Carruthers & P.K. Smith, Eds. ''Theories of theories of mind.'' Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref> The first simulation theory suggests that each person simulates being in another's shoes, extrapolating from each one's own mental experience. The second kind of simulation theory proposes that each person comes to know her own and others' minds through what Gordon<ref>Gordon, R.M. (1996). 'Radical' simulationism. In P. Carruthers & P.K. Smith, Eds. ''Theories of theories of mind.'' Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref> names a logical "ascent routine" which answers questions about mental states by re-phrasing the question as a metaphysical one. For example, if Zoe asks Pam, "Do you think that dog wants to play with you?", Pam would ask herself, "Does that dog want to play with me?" to determine her own response. She could equally well ask that to answer the question of what Zoe might think.
One of the differences between the two theories that have influenced psychological consideration of ToM is that theory-theory describes ToM as a detached theoretical process that is an innate feature, whereas simulation theory portrays ToM as a kind of knowledge that allows one to mimic the mental state of another person. These theories continue to inform the definitions of theory of mind at the heart of scientific ToM investigation.
:Theory of mind development
Earlier in the twentieth century, [[Jean Piaget|Piaget]] articulated a view with similarities to ToM: that in early childhood [[egocentrism]], a child does not understand that others’ views and thoughts differ from his or her own.<ref>Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1948/1967). The Child's Conception of Space. New York: W.W. Norton.</ref> There is now general agreement among researchers that human children pass tests of theory of mind much earlier than they leave Piaget's egocentric stage—by the age of 3 or 4 years. There is considerable disagreement regarding which behaviors necessarily indicate the presence of a developing theory of mind in young (1- to 3-year-old) humans. Much research focuses on investigating behaviors which may be precursors to the development of a fully functional theory of mind. These behaviors include [[joint attention]], gaze following, proto-declarative pointing, comprehending objects' animacy, and awareness of others as intentional agents.<ref>Terje Falck-Ytter, Gustaf Gredebäck & Claes von Hofsten, ''[http://www.psyk.uu.se/hemsidor/spadbarnslabbet/PDF/F_Y_NN_2006.pdf Infants predict other people's action goals]'', Nature Neuroscience 9 (2006)</ref>
Gaze following—following another's gaze with one's own—is seen in infants by about the age of six months, while markers of joint attention, including shared mutual gaze, appear later, around the age of 9-12 months. Additionally, behaviors such as proto-declarative pointing—pointing in order to draw another's attention to an object in the environment—also emerge around the end of the first year.<ref>Barresi, J. and Moore, C. (1996). Intentional relations and social understanding. ''Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19,''107-122.</ref> This ability to engage in shared attention is considered to be crucial for a child to learn about his or her social environment. A longitudinal study conducted by Charman et al. (2000)<ref>Charman, T., Baron-Cohen, S., Sweetenham, J., Baird, G., Cox, A., & Drew, A. (2000). Testing joint attention, imitation, and play as infancy precursors to language and theory of mind. ''Cognitive Development, 15,'' 481-498.</ref> demonstrated that children who displayed the highest rates of joint attention at 20 months were generally the same children who scored highest on theory of mind tasks at 44 months. Some researchers believe that these behaviors and ''social referencing'' (using the emotional response of others to determine one's own response to a novel object or situation) suggest that children are beginning to have an awareness of adults' internal, mental functioning.
An ability to distinguish between animate and inanimate objects represents another step along the path toward development of a theory of mind. In studies conducted to answer the question of when people attribute animacy to objects, Tremoulet and Feldman (2000)<ref>Tremoulet, P.D., & Feldman, J. (2000). Perception of animacy from the motion of a single object. ''Perception, 29,'' 943-951.</ref> demonstrated that objects that were perceived to be most animate were those whose motion appeared to violate laws of Newtonian physics or those moving objects that appeared to have a goal. (Most normally developing humans will acquire the ability to distinguish between animate and inanimate objects.)
After learning to define certain objects as animate, children can then begin to develop the concept of other beings as intentional "agents." An agent is an object that acts in a goal-directed manner, essentially planning actions and then carrying them out in the most efficient way possible in order to attain some end. Using a habituation procedure, Gergely et al. (1995)<ref>Gergely, G., Nadasdy, Z., Csibra, G., & Biro, S. (1995). Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. ''Cognition, 56,'' 165-193.</ref> found that 12-month-old children were able to demonstrate an understanding that intentional agents act in rational ways. Meltzoff and Moore (1999)<ref>Meltzoff, A.N., & Moore, M.K. (1999). Persons and representation: Why infant imitation is important for theories of human development. In J. Nadel & G. Butterworth, Eds. ''Imitation in Infancy: Cambridge Studies in Cognitive Perceptual Development'', 9-35. New York: Cambridge University Press.</ref> have shown that children as young as several hours or days old may mimic simple behaviors, which may be part of a developing ToM; other researchers have argued that 14- to 18-month-old infants are capable of understanding intention and so have a basic comprehension of others as intentional and mental agents.<ref>Carpenter, M., Akhtar, N., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Fourteen- through 18-month-old infants differentially imitate intentional and accidental actions. ''Infant Behavior & Development, 21,'' 315-330.</ref><ref>Meltzoff, A.N. (1995). Understanding the intentions of others: Re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. ''Developmental Psychology, 31,'' 838-850.</ref> In a study of 18 month olds' ability to understand the intentions of others, Meltzoff found that children mimic intentional, but not unintentional, behaviors of (adult) humans in their environment, and that they imitate considerably less often when a machine is performing the behavior. This experiment suggests that infants younger than two years of age may be considering the intentions of others and interpret humans, and not machines, as intentional beings.
:Empirical investigation
Whether children younger than 3 or 4 years old may have a theory of mind is a topic of debate among researchers. It is a challenging question, due to the difficulty of assessing what pre-linguistic children understand about others and the world. Tasks used in research into the development of ToM must take into account the [[umwelt]]—(the German word ''Umwelt'' means "environment" or "surrounding world")—of the pre-verbal child.
::False-belief task
The canonical test of ToM ability is the false-belief task. One of the most important milestones in theory of mind development is gaining the ability to attribute ''false belief'': that is, to recognize that others can have beliefs about the world that are wrong. To do this, it is suggested, one must understand how knowledge is formed, that people’s beliefs are based on their knowledge, that mental states can differ from reality, and that people’s behavior can be predicted by their mental states. Numerous versions of the false-belief task have been developed, based on the initial task done by Wimmer and Perner (1983).<ref>Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception. ''Cognition, 13,'' 103-128.</ref>
In the most common version of the false-belief task (often called the [[Sally-Anne_test|‘Sally-Anne’ task]]), children are told or shown a story involving two characters. For example, in one version, the child is shown two dolls, Sally and Anne, playing with a marble. The dolls put away the marble in a box, and then Sally leaves. Anne takes the marble out and plays with it again, and after she is done, puts it away in a different box. Sally returns and the child is then asked where Sally will look for the marble. The child passes the task if she answers that Sally will look in the first box where she put the marble; the child fails the task if she answers that Sally will look in the second box, where the child knows the marble is hidden, even though Sally cannot know, since she did not see it hidden there. In order to pass the task, the child must be able to understand that another’s mental representation of the situation is different from their own, and the child must be able to predict behavior based on that understanding.
The false-belief task has, in a number of studies, been modified so as to make certain that children who fail the tasks do so because they lack the ToM ability required, and not because the tasks are too cognitively demanding for them. Low-verbal false-belief tasks have tried to eliminate the possibility that the language of the task is too complicated for young or language-delayed children to understand. Such tasks often employ thought bubbles rather than explicit words to show a character thinking. The results of research using false-belief tasks have been fairly consistent: most normally-developing children are unable to pass the tasks until around the age of three or four. The conclusion from this research has thus been that most children do not begin to have any mature theory of mind abilities until this time. Passing these tasks does not necessarily mean that a child has a theory of mind like that of an adult—in fact, studies with mental verb acquisition show that at the age when children can pass the false-belief task, they still have difficulty in understanding differences between mental states—but being able to pass them is an indication that a child has developed the kinds of understanding, like false-belief, necessary for gaining adult ToM abilities, and that they are on their way to an adult ToM. Inability to pass the false-belief task–and thus the apparent inability to understand false belief–at an age when one is expected to be able to do so is usually taken as an indication of a developmental delay or other disruption that has affected ToM development.
::Appearance-reality task
Other tasks have been developed to try to solve the problems inherent in the false-belief task. In the "appearance-reality", or "Smarties" task, experimenters ask children what they believe to be the contents of a box that looks as though it holds a candy called "Smarties." After the child guesses (usually) "Smarties," each is shown that the box in fact contained pencils. The experimenter then re-closes the box and asks the child what she thinks another person, who has not been shown the true contents of the box, will think is inside. The child passes the task if she responds that another person will think that there are "Smarties" in the box, but fails the task if she responds that another person will think that the box contains pencils. Gopnik & Astington (1988) found that children pass this test at age four or five years.
::Other tasks
The "false-photograph" task<ref>Zaitchik, D. (1990). When representations conflict with reality: the preschooler’s problem with false beliefs and “false” photographs. ''Cognition, 35,'' 41-68.</ref><ref>Leslie, A., & Thaiss, L. (1992). Domain specificity in conceptual development. ''Cognition, 43,'' 225-51.</ref> is another task that serves as a measure of theory of mind development. In this task, children must reason about what is represented in a photograph that differs from the current state of affairs. Within the false-photograph task, there is either a location or identity change.<ref>Sabbagh, M.A., & Moses L.J. (2006). Executive functioning and preschoolers’ understanding of false beliefs, false photographs, and false signs. ''Child Development, 77(4),'' 1034-1049.</ref> In the location-change task, the child is told a story about a character that puts an object in one location (e.g., chocolate in a green cupboard) and takes a Polaroid photograph of the scene. While the photograph is developing, the object is moved to a different location (e.g., to a blue cupboard). The child is then asked two control questions, “When we first took the picture, where was the object? Where is the object now?” The subject is also asked a false-photograph question, “Where is the object in the picture?” The child passes the task if she correctly identifies the location of the object in the picture and the actual location of the object at the time of the question.
In order to make tasks more accessible for young children, non-human animals, and autistic individuals, theory of mind research has begun employing non-verbal paradigms. One category of tasks uses a preferential looking paradigm, with looking time as the dependent variable. For instance, Woodward found that 9-month-old infants preferred to look at behaviors performed by a human hand than those made by an inanimate hand-like object.
:Autism
The theory of mind (ToM) impairment describes a difficulty someone would have with perspective taking. This is also sometimes referred to as ''[[mind-blindness]]''. This means that individuals with a ToM impairment would have a hard time seeing things from any other perspective than their own. <ref>{{cite book | author = Moore, S.| date = 2002 | title = Asperger Syndrome and the Elementary School Experience | publisher = Shawnee Mission, KS: Autism Asperger Publishing Company}}</ref> Individuals who experience a theory of mind deficit have difficulty determining the intentions of others, lack understanding of how their behavior affects others, and have a difficult time with social reciprocity. <ref>{{cite book | author = Baker, J.| date = 2003 | title = Social Skills Training: for children and adolescents with Asperger Syndrome and Social-Communication Problems | publisher = Mission, KS: Autism Asperger Publishing Company}}</ref> In 1985 [[Simon Baron-Cohen]], [[Alan M. Leslie]] and [[Uta Frith]] published research which suggested that children with [[autism]] do not employ a theory of mind,<ref>{{cite journal |author=Baron-Cohen S, Leslie AM, Frith U|title=Does the autistic child have a 'theory of mind'? |journal=Cognition |volume=21 |issue=1 |pages=37–46 |year=1985 |doi=10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8 |pmid=2934210 |url=http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/~aleslie/Baron-Cohen%20Leslie%20&%20Frith%201985.pdf |format = PDF | accessdate=2008-02-16}}</ref> and suggested that children with autism have particular difficulties with tasks requiring the child to understand another person's beliefs. These difficulties persist when children are matched for verbal skills (Happe, 1995, Child Development) and have been taken as a key feature of [[autism]].
::Method
Three groups of children—20 children with autism, 14 children with Down's syndrome and 27 typically developing children—were used as participants for the experiment. The mean verbal mental age (vMA) of the children with autism (5 years, 5 months) was higher than the mean vMA of the children with Down's syndrome (2 years, 11 months) and the typically developing children (assumed 4 years, 5 months). The autistic group had an advantage in terms of age (experience) and verbal ability. If success on the task depends on these factors, then this group should perform as well as or better than the other groups.
The 61 children were tested individually with the [[Sally-Anne test]], a [[psychological test]], used in [[developmental psychology]] to measure a person's [[social cognition|social cognitive]] ability to attribute false beliefs to others.
::Results
'Naming', 'reality', and 'memory' questions were answered correctly by all the children. However, the results were different for the questions about 'belief'. The results for children with Down’s Syndrome and typically developing subjects were quite similar. Of the 27 typically developing children, 23 passed the 'belief' question, and 12 out of 14 children with Down’s Syndrome passed the belief question on both trials (85% and 86% respectively). By contrast, only 4 of the 20 children classified as having autism (20%) passed the belief question on both trials. The 16 children with autism who gave the wrong response on both trials pointed to where the marble really was rather than to where Sally must believe it to be. The results seem to support the notion that children with autism may have under-developed 'theory of mind'.
::Discussion
The belief question was answered correctly by only 20% of the children with autism. This suggests that children with autism may be impaired in or lack a theory of mind. A characteristic of children with autism is a lack of engaging in pretend play. The use of dolls rather than real people could have confounded the findings. In 1988, the study was replicated by [[Alan M. Leslie]] and [[Uta Frith]] using people rather than dolls, and the results followed the same pattern as the original experiment.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Leslie AM, Frith U|title=children with autism's understanding of seeing, knowing and believing |journal=British Journal of Developmantal Psychology |volume=6 |issue= |pages=315-324 |year=1988 |doi= |pmid= |publisher=The British Psychological Society |url=http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/~aleslie/Leslie%20Frith%201988.pdf |format= PDF| accessdate=2008-02-16}}</ref>
Many individuals classified as having autism have severe difficulty assigning mental states to others, and they seem to lack theory of mind capabilities.<ref>Baron-Cohen, S. (1991). Precursors to a theory of mind: Understanding attention in others. In A. Whiten, Ed., ''Natural theories of mind: Evolution, development, and simulation of everyday mindreading'' (233-251). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.</ref> Researchers who study the relationship between autism and theory of mind attempt to explain the connection in a variety of ways. One account assumes that theory of mind plays a role in the attribution of mental states to others and in childhood pretend play.<ref name=Leslie>Leslie, A. M. (1991). Theory of mind impairment in autism. In A. Whiten, Ed., ''Natural theories of mind: Evolution, development, and simulation of everyday mindreading.'' Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.</ref> According to Leslie,<ref name=Leslie/> theory of mind is the capacity to mentally represent thoughts, beliefs, and desires, regardless of whether or not the circumstances involved are real. This might explain why individuals with autism show extreme deficits in both theory of mind and pretend play. However, Hobson proposes a social-affective justification,<ref>Hobson, R.P. (1995). Autism and the development of mind. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.</ref> which suggests that an person with autism deficits in theory of mind result from a distortion in understanding and responding to emotions. He suggests that typically developing human beings, unlike individuals with autism, are born with a set of skills (such as social referencing ability) which will later enable them to comprehend and react to other people’s feelings. Other scholars emphasize that autism involves a specific developmental delay, so that children with the impairment vary in their deficiencies, because they experience difficulty in different stages of growth. Very early setbacks can alter proper advancement of joint-attention behaviors, which may lead to a failure to form a full theory of mind.<ref>Baron-Cohen, S. (1991). Precursors to a theory of mind: Understanding attention in others. In A. Whiten, Ed., ''Natural theories of mind: Evolution, development, and simulation of everyday mindreading'' (233-251). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.</ref>
:Theory of mind in the brain
With the advent of [[neuroimaging]] techniques, particular brain regions that seem to be important for theory of mind have been identified by researchers including [[Chris Frith]]<ref> Frith U, Frith CD. Development and neurophysiology of mentalizing. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003 Mar 29;358(1431):459-73. </ref> and Rebecca Saxe.<ref>[http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146%2Fannurev.psych.55.090902.142044 UNDERSTANDING OTHER MINDS: Linking Developmental Psychology and Functional Neuroimaging - Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1):87 - Abstract<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> These studies identify the medial frontal cortex, temporal poles and temporoparietal junction as the brain regions which are most active when people perform theory of mind tasks.
A paper published in 2004 by Samson and colleagues in Nature Neuroscience <ref>Samson D, Apperly IA, Chiavarino C, Humphreys GW. Left temporoparietal junction is necessary for representing someone else's belief. Nat Neurosci. 2004 May;7(5):499-500. </ref> shows that people who have a stroke which damages the temporoparietal junction of the brain (between the [[temporal lobe]] and [[parietal lobe]] have difficulty with some theory of mind tasks. This shows that theory of mind abilities are associated with specific parts of the human brain.
::Mirror Neurons
Recent research by Vittorio Gallese and [[Giacomo Rizzolatti]] (reviewed in <ref>Rizzolatti G, Craighero L. The mirror-neuron system. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2004;27:169-92. </ref>) has shown that some visuomotor [[neuron]]s, which are referred to as [[mirror neuron]]s, first discovered in the premotor cortex of [[rhesus monkey]]s, may be involved in theory of mind abilities. Single-electrode recording revealed that these neurons fired when a monkey performed an action and when the monkey viewed another agent carrying out the same task. Similarly, [[fMRI]] studies with human participants have shown brain regions which are assumed to contain mirror neurons are active when one person sees another person's goal directed action.<ref>Iacoboni, M., Molnar-Szakacs, I., Gallese, V., Buccino, G., Mazziotta, J.C. (2005). Grasping the intentions of others with one's own mirror neuron system. PLoS Biology, 3(3), 529-535.</ref> These data have been used to suggest that mirror neurons provide the basis for theory of mind in the brain, and to support Simulation Theory (see above) <ref>Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. ''Trends in Cognitive Science, 2(12),'' 493-501.</ref>
However, there is also evidence against the link between mirror neurons and theory of mind. First, macaque monkeys have mirror neurons but do not seem to have a 'human-like' capacity to understand theory of mind. Second, [[fMRI]] studies of theory of mind typically activate the medial frontal cortex, temporal poles and temporoparietal junction,<ref> Frith U, Frith CD. Development and neurophysiology of mentalizing. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003 Mar 29;358(1431):459-73. </ref> but these brain areas are not part of the human mirror neuron system. Some investigators believe that mirror neurons merely facilitate learning through imitation and may provide a precursor to the development of ToM.
:Non-human theory of mind
As the title of Premack and Woodruff's 1978 article "Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?" indicates, it is also important to ask if other animals besides humans have a [[genetics|genetic]] endowment and [[social psychology|social]] environment that allows them to acquire a theory of mind in the same way that human children do. This is a contentious issue because of the problem of inferring from [[animal behavior]] the existence of [[thought|thinking]], of the existence of a concept of [[self (psychology)|self]] or [[self-awareness]], or of particular thoughts.
Non-human research still has a major place in this field, however, and is especially useful in illuminating which nonverbal behaviors signify components of theory of mind, and in pointing to possible stepping points in the evolution of what many claim to be a uniquely human aspect of social cognition. While it is difficult to study human-like theory of mind and mental states in species which we do not yet describe as "minded" at all, and about whose potential mental states we have an incomplete understanding, researchers can focus on simpler components of more complex capabilities. For example, many researchers focus on animals' understanding of intention, gaze, perspective, or knowledge (or rather, what another being has seen). Part of the difficulty in this line of research is that observed phenomena can often be explained as simple stimulus-response learning, as it is in the nature of any theorizers of mind to have to extrapolate internal mental states from observable behavior. Recently, most non-human theory of mind research has focused on monkeys and great apes, who are of most interest in the study of the evolution of human social cognition.
There has been some controversy over the interpretation of evidence purporting to show theory of mind ability—or inability—in animals. Two examples serve as demonstration: first, Povinelli et. al (1990)<ref>Povinelli, D.J., Nelson, K.E., & Boysen, S.T. (1990). Inferences about guessing and knowing by chimpanzees (''Pan troglodytes''). ''Journal of Comparative Psychology, 104,'' 203-210.</ref> presented chimpanzees with the choice of two experimenters from which to request food: one who had seen where food was hidden, and one who, by virtue of one of a variety of mechanisms (having a bucket or bag over his head; a blindfold over his eyes; or being turned away from the baiting) does not know, and can only guess. They found that the animals failed in most cases to differentially request food from the "knower." By contrast, Hare, Call, and Tomasello (2001)<ref>Hare, B., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2001). Do chimpanzees know what conspecifics know and do not know? ''Animal Behavior, 61,'' 139-151.</ref> found that subordinate chimpanzees were able to use the knowledge state of dominant rival chimpanzees to determine which container of hidden food they approached.
Tomasello and like-minded colleagues who originally argued that great apes did not have theory of mind have since reversed their position. Povinelli and his colleagues, however, maintain that Tomasello's group has misinterpreted the results of their experiments. They point out that most evidence in support of great ape theory of mind involves naturalistic settings to which the apes may have already adapted through past learning. Their "reinterpretation hypothesis" explains away all current evidence supporting attribution of mental states to others in chimpanzees as merely evidence of risk-based learning; that is, the chimpanzees learn through experience that certain behaviors in other chimpanzees have a probability of leading to certain responses, without necessarily attributing knowledge or other intentional states to those other chimpanzees. They therefore propose testing theory of mind abilities in great apes in novel, and not naturalistic settings. Kristin Andrews takes the reinterpretation hypothesis one step further, arguing that it implies that even the well-known false-belief test used to test children's theory of mind is susceptible to being interpreted as a result of learning.
:See also
{{col-begin}}
{{col-break}}
* [[Autism]]
* [[Cephalopod intelligence]]
* [[Cetacean intelligence]]
* [[Consciousness]]
{{col-break}}
* [[Dystopia]]
* [[Empathy]]
* [[Identity theory of mind]]
* [[Mental body]]
{{col-break}}
* [[Mind]]
* [[The Mind of an Ape]]
* [[Mind-body problem]]
* [[Mirror neurons]]
{{col-break}}
* [[Philosophy of mind]]
* [[Quantum mind]]
* [[Sirenia]]
{{col-break}}
{{col-end}}
:References and notes
{{reflist|2}}
*Excerpts taken from: Davis, E. (2007) Mental Verbs in Nicaraguan Sign Language and the Role of Language in Theory of Mind. Undergraduate senior thesis, Barnard College, Columbia University.
:External links
{{Wikibooks|Consciousness}}
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/ The Computational Theory of Mind]
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/ The Identity Theory of Mind]
*[http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/staff/plm/c81ind/lecture6.pdf Sally-Anne and Smarties tests]
*[http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050427_mind_readers.html Scientists Say Everyone Can Read Minds]
[[Category:Cognitive science]]
----
----
==Topic==
==Israel Labor Party==
===Encyclopedia Britannica version===
===Encyclopedia Britannica version===
'''Israel Labour Party''': Hebrew ''Mifleget ha-'Avoda ha-Yisra'elit , byname Avoda'' Israeli social-democratic political party founded in January 1968 in the union of three socialist-labour parties. It and its major component, [[Mapai]], dominated Israel's government from the country's independence in 1948 until 1977, when the rival [[Likud]] coalition first came to power. Thereafter, Labour and Likud alternated in government, though the country's fragmented party system and unique security needs sometimes resulted in so-called “[[unity governments]]” of both Labour and Likud.
The major partner in the labour alliance and (by its antecedents) the oldest party in Palestine-Israel was [[Mapai]] (an acronym for Mifleget Po'ale Eretz Yisra'el [“Party of the Workers of the Land of Israel”]). Mapai was formed in 1930 through the merger of two older labour parties, Ahdut ha-'Avoda (“Unity of Workers”), which was founded in 1919, and ha-Po'el ha-Tza'ir (“Young Worker”), which was founded in 1905 and was the first party of David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister. Mapai quickly became the dominant party among Jews in Palestine, and, after Israel achieved its independence in 1948, it controlled the government for 29 years (from 1968 as part of the Israel Labour Party). Among the party's leading figures throughout the second half of the 20th century were [[Levi Eshkol]] (prime minister, 1963–69), [[Abba Eban]] (foreign minister, 1966–74), [[Golda Meir]] (prime minister, 1969–74), [[Yitzhak Rabin]] (prime minister, 1974–77 and 1992–95), and [[Shimon Peres]] (prime minister, 1984–86 and 1995–96). Rabin and Peres were awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1994 for their efforts to establish a lasting peace treaty with the Palestinians.
The second partner in the Israel Labour Party was [[Ahdut ha-'Avoda–Po'ale Tziyyon]] (“Unity of Labour–Workers of Zion”), founded in 1944 by a group of dissident Mapai members who broke away from the party to protest its alleged reformist tendencies. It attracted significant support from those living in Israel's [[kibbutzim]], or collective settlements. It rejoined Mapai in a “Labour Alignment” in 1965 and then joined in the founding of the Israel Labour Party three years later.
The third partner was [[Rafi]] (an acronym for Reshimat Po'ale Yisra'el [“Israel Workers List”]), formed in 1965 when [[Ben-Gurion]], after a political and personal feud with Eshkol, withdrew with his supporters to form a new party. Although most Rafi members joined the new Israel Labour Party in 1968, Ben-Gurion and a few followers formed their own tiny party, known as the State List.
Since its founding, the Israel Labour Party has usually formed a Labour Alignment (Ma'arach) with [[Mapam]], a left-wing Zionist and socialist party. The Ma'arach has also included two Arab lists, Progress and Development and the Arab Bedouin List. In 1999, under the leadership of [[Ehud Barak]] (who was elected prime minister that year), the party ran under the banner of One Israel with Gesher (which had run on a single list with Likud during the previous election) and Meimad (a moderate religious party). In the election of 2001, Likud's [[Ariel Sharon]] easily defeated Barak, who subsequently resigned as leader of the Labour Party, and the party was reduced to 25 seats in the Knesset (parliament). In 2003 the party was once again easily defeated by Likud, and its representation in the Knesset fell to 19 seats, its worst-ever election result.
The party has generally supported greater concessions to the [[Palestinians]] in the peace process than Likud, and it has endorsed the controversial “land-for-peace” principle (though elements of the party have always supported the building of settlements in the territories Israel conquered in 1967). The Labour Party has also taken a fairly pragmatic approach to both economic and foreign policy, eschewing extremist approaches. For most of its history, it supported state economic planning and extensive social benefits, but later, particularly in the 1990s, it moderated its traditional socialist policies in favour of greater economic liberalization and deregulation. The party is particularly strong among secular and Ashkenazi (European) Jews, trade unionists, and those living on the kibbutzim.
===Wikipedia version===
===Wikipedia version===
The '''Israeli Labor Party''' ({{lang-he|מפלגת העבודה הישראלית}}, ''Mifleget HaAvoda HaYisraelit''), generally known in Israel as '''Avoda''' ({{lang-he|עבודה}}) is a [[center-left]] [[political party]] in [[Israel]]. It is a [[social democracy|social democratic]] and [[Labor Zionism|Zionist]] party, a member of the [[Socialist International]] and an observer member of the [[Party of European Socialists]]. Since 1999 the party has been allied to the small left-wing, [[Religious Zionism|religious zionist]] [[Meimad]], in an agreement whereby Meimad gets the tenth seat on Labor's list.
:History
The foundations for the formation of the Israeli Labour Party were laid shortly before the [[Israeli legislative election, 1965|1965 Knesset elections]] when [[Mapai]], the largest left-wing party in the country formed an alliance with [[Labour Unity]]. The alliance was an attempt by Mapai to shore up the party's share of the vote following a break-away of eight MKs (around a fifth of Mapai's Knesset faction) led by [[David Ben-Gurion]] to form a new party, [[Rafi (political party)|Rafi]], in protest against Mapai's failure to approve a change to the country's proportional representation voting system.
The alliance, called the [[Alignment (political party)|Labour Alignment]] won 45 seats in the elections, and was able to form the government in coalition with the [[National Religious Party]], [[Mapam]], the [[Independent Liberals (Israel)|Independent Liberals]], [[Agudat Israel Workers]], [[Progress and Development]] and [[Cooperation and Brotherhood]]. After the [[Six-Day War]] broke out, Rafi and [[Gahal]] joined the coalition.
In 1968, Mapam and Rafi officially joined the Labour Alignment (though Ben-Gurion resigned from Rafi and created another new party, the [[National List]], in protest), with it renamed just ''Alignment''. Although Mapam retained its independence within the alliance, Mapai, Labour Unity and Rafi decided to officially merge into one body; the '''Israeli Labor Party'''.
As the largest faction within the Alignment, Labor came to dominate it. Mapam left during the [[Israeli legislative election, 1973|eighth Knesset]], but rejoined shortly afterwards. They broke away again during the [[Israeli legislative election, 1984|eleventh Knesset]], angry at [[Shimon Peres]]'s decision to form a national unity government with [[Likud]]. Although the Independent Liberals merged into the Alignment in the 1980s, they had no Knesset representation at the time.
Shortly before the [[Israeli legislative election, 1992|1992 elections]], the Alignment ceased to exist, with all factions formally merged into the Labor Party. Led by [[Yitzhak Rabin]], the party won the elections and formed the government. Rabin's decision to advance peace talks with the Palestinians to the point of signing the [[Oslo Accords]] led to his [[Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin|his assassination]] by [[Yigal Amir]] in 1995. Peres decided to call early elections in 1996 to give him a mandate for advancing the peace process. However, his ploy failed; although Labor won the most seats in the [[Israeli legislative election, 1996|Knesset election]], he lost to the [[Israeli prime ministerial election, 1996|election for Prime Minister]] to [[Benjamin Netanyahu]] following a wave of [[suicide bombing]]s by [[Hamas]]. Netanyahu and Likud were thus able to form the government.
With his coalition falling apart, Netanyahu decided to call early elections in 1999. [[Ehud Barak]] won the internal primaries, and was nominated as the Labor candidate for Prime Minister. Meanwhile, the party entered an electoral alliance with [[Meimad]] and [[Gesher (political party)|Gesher]] called [[One Israel]]. Barak won the [[Israeli prime ministerial election, 1999|Prime Minister election]], whilst One Israel won the [[Israeli legislative election, 1999|Knesset elections]], albeit with only 26 seats.
Barak started by forming a 75-member coalition together with [[Shas]], [[Meretz-Yachad|Meretz]], [[Yisrael BaAliyah]], the [[National Religious Party]] and [[United Torah Judaism]]. The coalition with religious parties (NRP, Shas and UTJ) caused tensions with the secularist Meretz, who quit the coalition after a disagreement with Shas over the authority of the Deputy Education Minister. The rest of the parties left before the [[Camp David 2000 summit]]. Following the [[October 2000 riots]] and the violence of the [[al-Aqsa Intifada]], Barak resigned from office. He then lost a [[Israeli prime ministerial election, 2001|special election for Prime Minister]] to [[Likud]]'s [[Ariel Sharon]]. However, Labor remained in Sharon's coalition as he formed a [[National government|national unity government]] with Likud, Labor, Shas, Yisrael BaAliyah and United Torah Judaism, and were given two of the most important cabinet portfolios; Peres was appointed [[Foreign Affairs Minister of Israel|Minister of Foreign Affairs]] and [[Benjanin Ben-Eliezer]] was made [[List of Defense Ministers of Israel|Defense Minister]]. Labor supported [[Operation Defensive Shield]], which was conducted in April 2002 against Palestinian terrorists in the [[West Bank]]. After harsh criticism that Peres and Ben-Elizer were "puppets" of Sharon and not promoting the peace process, Labor quit the government in 2003.
Prior to the [[Israeli legislative election, 2003|2003 elections]], [[Amram Mitzna]] won the party primaries, and led the party into the election with a platform that included unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. The party was routed in the elections, winning only 19 seats (its lowest ever), whilst Sharon's Likud won 38 (40 after [[Yisrael BaAliyah]] merged into the party). Subsequently, due to internal opposition, Mitzna resigned from the party leadership,<ref>[http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-2608896,00.html Mitzna's resignation speech]</ref> and soon there after was replaced by Shimon Peres. Despite being omitted from the original right-wing coalition, Sharon invited Labor into the coalition to shore up support for the [[Israel's unilateral disengagement plan|disengagement plan]] (effectively Mitzna's policy which he had earlier lambasted) after the [[National Union (Israel)|National Union]] and the [[National Religious Party]] had left the government.
On [[8 November]] [[2005]] Shimon Peres was replaced as the leader of the Labor party by the election of left-wing Histadrut union leader [[Amir Peretz]] in an internal Labor party ballot. Peretz stated his intention to reassert Labor's traditional [[socialist]] policies and took Labor party out of the government, prompting Sharon to resign and call for new [[Israeli legislative election, 2006|elections in March 2006]].
:Current status
In the [[Israeli legislative election, 2006|elections in March 2006]] the party placed second with 19 seats, a loss of 3 from the previous elections.
After the March 2006 election Labor joined Ehud Olmert's coalition government as the junior partner with Kadima. Labor was awarded a number of ministries including the defense ministry, which went to Labor leader Amir Peretz. The IDF performed poorly in the Second Lebanon War with Hezbollah in June-July 2006. Both Olmert and Peretz suffered the blame for this performance.
On 28 May 2007, Labor members went to the polls in party primaries. Amir Peretz finished third in the primaries, trailing both former Prime Minister [[Ehud Barak]] and political newcomer [[Ami Ayalon]] - the former head of [[Shin Bet]], Israel's primary intelligence agency. Neither Ayalon nor Barak achieved the 40% necessary for an outright victory, so a second round of voting took place on 12 June 2007. Both Barak and Ayalon stated that they would withdraw from Ehud Olmert's coalition unless the Prime Minister resigns.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6699993.stm Israel party votes to oust leader] BBC News, 29 May 2007</ref> On the night of the 12th of June, 2007, Ehud Barak won back the leadership of the party.
:Ideology
::Past
Mapai evolved from the [[socialist]] [[Poale Zion]] movement and adhered to the [[Socialist Zionist]] ideology promulgated by [[Nahum Syrkin]] and [[Ber Borochov]]. During Ben-Gurion's leadership (1930s-1950s) Mapai focused mainly on the [[Zionist]] agenda, since it was the most urgent issue then - establishing a national homeland for [[Jew]]s.
After the founding of the [[state of Israel]], Mapai engaged in nation building - the establishment of the [[Israel Defense Forces]] (while dismantling every other armed group), the establishment of many settlements, the settling of more than 1,000,000 Jewish immigrants and the desire to unite all the inhabitants of Israel under a new Zionist Jewish Israeli culture (an ideology known as the "[[Melting pot]]" כור היתוך).
Labor in the past was even more [[hawkish]] on security and defense issues than it is today. During its years in office, Israel has fought the [[Suez Crisis|1956 Sinai War]], the [[1967 Six Day War]] and the [[1973 Yom Kippur War]].
::Current
In recent years (up until 2005), the ILP became a centrist party. It was no longer considered [[socialist]] or [[social democratic]] (though it retained membership in the [[Socialist International]]) but had a centrist platform, similar to the third-way of [[Labour Party (UK)|British Labour Party]] under [[Tony Blair]]. Economic policies in Israel being seldom hotly debated even within the major parties, actual policies depended much more on initiative by the civil service than on political ideologies. Therefore, Labor's terms in office during this period did not differ significantly in terms of economic policy from those of its rival.
In 2003, the ILP experienced a small split when former members [[Yossi Beilin]] and [[Yael Dayan]] joined [[Meretz-Yachad]] to form a new left wing party.
In November 2005, [[Amir Peretz]], leader of the social democratic [[One Nation (Israel)|One Nation]] which had merged into the ILP, was elected chairman of the party, defeating [[Shimon Peres]]. Under Peretz, and especially in the [[Israeli legislative election, 2006|2006 electoral campaign]], the party took a significant ideological turn, putting social and economic issues on top of its agenda, and advocating a moderate social democratic approach (including increases in minimum wage and social security payments), in sharp contrast to the [[neo-liberal]] policies led by former Finance Minister [[Binyamin Netanyahu]].
In 2006, several members of the ILP left to join the new centrist grouping, [[Kadima]]; these included former Labor leader Shimon Peres, [[Haim Ramon]], and [[Dalia Itzik]].
:Party leaders
*[[Levi Eshkol]] 1968-1969 (also leader of the Alignment)
*[[Golda Meir]] 1969-1974 (also leader of the Alignment)
*[[Yitzhak Rabin]] 1974-1977 (also leader of the Alignment)
*[[Shimon Peres]] 1977-1992 (also leader of the Alignment)
*[[Yitzhak Rabin]] 1992-1995
*[[Shimon Peres]] 1995-1997
*[[Ehud Barak]] 1997-2001
*[[Binyamin Ben-Eliezer]] 2001-2002
*[[Amram Mitzna]] 2002-2003
*[[Shimon Peres]] 2003-2005
*[[Amir Peretz]] 2005-2007
*[[Ehud Barak]] 2007-
:Other prominent members
Prominent former members include:
*[[Yigal Allon]] - Acting Prime-Minister
*[[Moshe Dayan]] - Defense Minister
*[[Abba Eban]] - Minister of Foreign Affairs
*[[Chaim Herzog]] - President of Israel
*[[Efraim Katzir]] - President of Israel
*[[Yitzhak Navon]] - President of Israel
*[[Zalman Shazar]] - President of Israel
*[[Ezer Weizman]] - President of Israel
:Current MKs
#[[Amir Peretz]] (slot reserved for ILP Chairman)
#[[Isaac Herzog]]
#[[Ophir Pines-Paz]]
#[[Avishay Braverman]] (former president of the [[Ben-Gurion University of the Negev]])
#[[Yuli Tamir]] (slot reserved for women)
#[[Ami Ayalon]] (former head of [[Shin Bet]])
#[[Eitan Cabel]] (slot reserved for ILP General Secretary)
#[[Binyamin Ben-Eliezer]]
#[[Shelly Yachimovich]] (slot reserved for women)
#[[Michael Melchior]] (slot reserved for [[Meimad]])
#[[Matan Vilnai]]
#[[Colette Avital]] (slot reserved for women)
#[[Efraim Sneh]]
#[[Dani Yatom]]
#[[Nadia Hilou]] (slot reserved for women)
#[[Shalom Simhon]] (slot reserved for ''[[Moshav]]im'')
#[[Orit Noked]] (slot reserved for ''[[Kibbutz]]im'')
#[[Yoram Marciano]] (slot reserved for poor neighbourhoods)
#[[Raleb Majadele]] (slot reserved for [[Arab]] sector)
:References
{{reflist}}
:External links
*[http://www.havoda.org.il/ Official website] {{he icon}}
*[http://www.knesset.gov.il/faction/eng/FactionPage_eng.asp?PG=0 Israel Labor Party] Knesset website {{en icon}}
*[http://www.knesset.gov.il/faction/eng/FactionPage_eng.asp?PG=122 Labor-Meimad] Knesset website {{en icon}}
{{Israeli political parties}}
[[Category:Labour parties|Israel]]
[[Category:Political parties in Israel]]
[[Category:Social Democratic parties]]
[[Category:Socialist International]]
[[Category:Zionist political parties in Israel]]
[[Category:Parties related to PES]]
----
----
==Topic==
==Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor==
===Encyclopedia Britannica version===
===Encyclopedia Britannica version===
'''Ferdinand I'''
born March 10, 1503, Alcalá de Henares, Spain
died July 25, 1564, Vienna, Habsburg domain [now in Austria]
Ferdinand I, engraving by Barthel Beham, 1531
Archiv fur Kunst und Geschichte, Berlin
Holy Roman emperor (1558–64) and king of Bohemia and Hungary from 1526, who, with his [[Peace of Augsburg]] (1555), concluded the era of religious strife in Germany following the rise of Lutheranism by recognizing the right of territorial princes to determine the religion of their subjects. He also converted the elected crowns of Bohemia and Hungary into hereditary possessions of the house of Habsburg.
The younger brother of the Holy Roman emperor [[Charles V]], Ferdinand was granted Austria, with the regency of both the Habsburg German lands and Württemberg. For more than three decades he was Charles's deputy in German affairs, representing him at imperial diets and serving as president of the Reichsregiment (imperial governmental council). Initially he followed Charles's policies almost unquestioningly. Hostile toward Protestantism, he bore some responsibility for the Lutheran secession from the Diet of Speyer (1529), and, after he had lost Württemberg to the Lutheran landgrave Philip the Magnanimous of Hesse (1534), he helped the emperor defeat the Protestant Schmalkaldic League in 1546–47. Aggrieved, however, at Charles's refusal to reinstate him in recaptured Württemberg and at the emperor's attempts to ensure the succession of his son Philip (the future Philip II of Spain) to the imperial crown, Ferdinand began to take a more independent stand. The imperial heir since 1531, he was not finally placated until Charles agreed in 1553 to exclude Philip from the German succession, which then passed to Ferdinand's son, the future Maximilian II. On the Protestant issue, Ferdinand, unlike Charles, eventually became convinced of the need for a compromise. In 1552 he negotiated the Treaty of Passau with the Lutheran elector Maurice of Saxony, who was at war with the emperor; and in 1555 he signed the Peace of Augsburg, which, with few interruptions, brought half a century of peace to Germany's warring religious factions.
In foreign affairs Ferdinand was no less successful. In 1526, on the death of his brother-in-law, King Louis II of Bohemia and Hungary, Ferdinand claimed both domains. He took possession of Bohemia without difficulty but faced a rival claimant, [[János Zápolya]], in Hungary. Each was elected by a rival faction, and Hungary remained divided among Ferdinand, Zápolya, and the [[Ottoman Empire]]. In 1538, by the Peace of Nagyvárad (German: Grosswardein), Ferdinand became Zápolya's successor, but he was unable to enforce the agreement in his lifetime. The Ottoman Empire almost continually threatened Europe during Ferdinand's reign. The Turks failed to take Vienna in 1529 but threatened Austria again in 1532 and 1541. After repeated and mostly futile pleas for assistance from the German princes, Ferdinand finally reestablished an uneasy peace in 1562, when he agreed to pay tribute to the Ottoman sultan for Austria's share of Hungary.
Ferdinand took over Charles's imperial functions in 1555 and was elected emperor in 1558 after his brother's abdication. With his accession, the Habsburg domains became separated into more easily governable Austrian and Spanish parts, with Spain going to Philip and Germany to Ferdinand. The new emperor centralized his administration and, though only with limited success, sought to revive Roman Catholicism in his lands. His eldest son, Maximilian, succeeded him in 1564. Though always overshadowed by his brother Charles V, Ferdinand had become one of the most successful Habsburg rulers of the 16th century, increasing the hereditary possessions of the Austrian Habsburgs significantly and restoring peace to the empire after decades of religious warfare.
===Wikipedia version===
===Wikipedia version===
----
'''Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor''' ([[Alcala de Henares]] (near [[Madrid]]), [[Kingdom of Castile]] (now [[Spain]]), [[10 March]] [[1503]] – [[Prague]], [[Bohemia]] (now [[Czech Republic]]), [[25 July]] [[1564]]) was a [[Central Europe]]an [[monarch]] from the [[Habsburg|House of Habsburg]]. His titles from birth were ''[[Archduke of Austria]]'', from his father, and ''[[Infante]]'' of [[Kingdom of Castile|Castile]], [[Kingdom of León|León]], [[Kingdom of Aragon|Aragon]] and [[Kingdom of Navarre|Navarre]] from his mother.
He ruled the [[Habsburg Monarchy|Austrian Hapsburg]] possessions as '''Archduke of Austria''' most of his public life, at the behest of his elder brother, [[Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor]] and [[King of Spain]]. Ferdinand was [[Archduke]] of [[Archduchy of Austria|Austria]] from 1521-1564. After the death of his brother-in-law [[Louis II of Hungary and Bohemia|Louis II]], Ferdinand ruled as King of [[Bohemia]] and [[Kingdom of Hungary|Hungary]] (1526–1564). When Charles voluntarily retired in 1556, Ferdinand became his successor as Holy Roman Emperor (de facto in 1556, de jure in 1558),<ref name=valero>{{cite web |url=http://w3.univ-tlse2.fr/espagnol/agreg/2006/Rapport_final_2006_corrig%E9_Gouala.pdf |title=Rapport établi par M. Alet VALERO |accessdate=2008-05-02 |date=2006 |format=[[Portable Document Format|PDF]] |publisher=CENTRE NATIONAL DE DOCUMENTATION PÉDAGOGIQUE}}</ref> while Spain, the [[Spanish Empire]], [[Kingdom of Naples|Naples]], [[Kingdom of Sicily|Sicily]], [[Duchy of Milan|Milan]], [[Seventeen Provinces|the Nethelands]], and [[Franche-Comté]] went to [[Philip II, of Spain|Philip]], son of Charles.
Ferdinand's motto was [[Fiat justitia et pereat mundus]] ("Let justice be done, though the world perish").
:Biography
::Early years
Ferdinand was born on 10 March 1503 in [[Alcala de Henares]], 40 km from [[Madrid]], the son of the [[Infanta]] [[Joanna of Castile]] (1479–1555), the future Queen of Castile known as ''Joanna the Mad'', and Habsburg Archduke [[Philip I of Castile|Philip ''the Handsome'']] (1478–1506), [[Duke of Burgundy]] and future King of Castile, who was heir to Emperor [[Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor|Maximilian I]]. Ferdinand shared his birthday with his maternal grandfather [[Ferdinand II of Aragon|Ferdinand II ''the Catholic'', King of Aragon]].
{{House of Habsburg after Ferdinand I}}
Charles entrusted Ferdinand with the government of the [[Habsburg Monarchy|Habsburg hereditary lands]], roughly modern-day [[Austria]] and [[Slovenia]]. In 1531 Ferdinand was elected [[King of the Romans]], making him Charles's designated heir as emperor. Ferdinand deputised as ruler during his brother's many absences from imperial lands.
After Charles's abdication as emperor in 1556, which was not formal until 1558, Ferdinand assumed the title of Holy Roman Emperor, Charles having agreed to exclude his own son, Philip, from the German succession, which instead passed to Ferdinand's eldest son [[Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor|Maximilian II]] (1527–1576).
::Hungary and the Ottomans
[[Image:Ferdinand I (1503-1564).jpg|thumb|250px|left|Ferdinand I]]
After Sultan [[Suleiman the Magnificent]] defeated Ferdinand's brother-in-law [[Louis II of Hungary and Bohemia|Louis II]], King of [[Bohemia]] and of [[Hungary]], at the [[battle of Mohács]] on [[29 August]] [[1526]], Ferdinand was elected King of Bohemia in his place. [[Nicolaus Olahus]], secretary of Louis, attached himself to the party of King Ferdinand, but retained his position with the queen-[[dowager]] [[Mary of Habsburg]]. The [[Kingdom of Hungary|throne of Hungary]] became the subject of a dynastic dispute between Ferdinand and [[John Zápolya]], [[voivode]] of [[Transylvania]]. Each was supported by different factions of the nobility in the Hungarian kingdom; Ferdinand also had the support of Charles V. After defeat by Ferdinand at the [[Battle of Tokaj]] in 1527, Zápolya gained the support of [[Suleiman the Magnificent|Suleiman]]. Ferdinand was able to win control only of western Hungary because Zápolya clung to the east and the Ottomans to the conquered south. Zápolya's widow, [[Isabella Jagiełło]], ceded [[Royal Hungary]] and Transylvania to Ferdinand in the [[Treaty of Weissenburg]] of 1551. In 1554 [[Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq]] was sent to [[Istanbul]] by Ferdinand to discuss a border treaty over disputed land with Suleiman.
The most dangerous moment of Ferdinand's career came in 1529 when he took refuge in Bohemia from a massive but ultimately unsuccessful assault on his capital by Suleiman and the Ottoman armies at the [[Siege of Vienna]]. A further Ottoman attack on [[Vienna]] was repelled in 1533. In that year Ferdinand signed a peace treaty with the [[Ottoman Empire]], splitting the Kingdom of Hungary into a Habsburg sector in the west and John Zápolya's domain in the east, the latter effectively a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire.
In 1538, by the [[Treaty of Nagyvárad]], Ferdinand became Zápolya's successor. He was unable to enforce this agreement during his lifetime because [[John II Sigismund Zápolya]], infant son of John Zápolya and Isabella Jagiełło, was elected King of Hungary in 1540. Zápolya was initially supported by King [[Sigismund I the Old|Sigismund]] of [[Poland]], his mother's father, but in 1543 a treaty was signed between the Habsburgs and the Polish ruler as a result of which Poland became neutral in the conflict. Prince [[Sigismund II Augustus|Sigismund Augustus]] married [[Elisabeth of Austria (1526-1545)|Elisabeth of Austria]], Ferdinand's daughter.
::Government
[[Image:Ferdinand I by Martin Rota.jpg|thumb|left|180px|Engraving by Martin Rota]]
The western rump of Hungary over which Ferdinand retained dominion became known as [[Royal Hungary]]. As the ruler of Austria, Bohemia and Royal Hungary, Ferdinand adopted a policy of centralization and, in common with other monarchs of the time, the construction of an [[absolute monarchy]]. In 1527 he published a constitution for his hereditary domains (''Hofstaatsordnung'') and established Austrian-style institutions in [[Bratislava|Pressburg]] for Hungary, in [[Prague]] for Bohemia, and in [[Wrocław|Breslau]] for [[Silesia]]. Opposition from the nobles in those realms forced him to concede the independence of these institutions from supervision by the Austrian government in [[Vienna]] in 1559.
In 1547 the [[Bohemian Estates]] rebelled against Ferdinand after he had ordered the Bohemian army to move against the German [[Protestantism|Protestants]]. After suppressing Prague with the help of his brother Charles V's [[Spain|Spanish]] forces, he retaliated by limiting the privileges of Bohemian cities and inserting a new bureaucracy of royal officials to control urban authorities. Ferdinand was a supporter of the [[Counter-Reformation]] and helped lead the [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] response against what he saw as the heretical tide of Protestantism. For example, in [[1551]] he invited the [[Society of Jesus|Jesuits]] to Vienna and in [[1556]] to Prague. Finally, in [[1561]] Ferdinand revived the [[Archdiocese of Prague]], which had been previously liquidated due to the success of the Protestants.
Ferdinand died in [[Vienna]] and is buried in [[St. Vitus Cathedral]] in [[Prague]].
:Name in other languages
[[German language|German]], [[Czech language|Czech]], [[Slovak language|Slovak]], [[Croatian language|Croatian]]: ''Ferdinand I.''; [[Hungarian language|Hungarian]]: ''I. Ferdinánd''; [[Spanish language|Spanish]]: ''Fernando I.''
[[Image:Annajagiello.jpg|thumb|left|200px|Anna, Queen of Bohemia and Hungary.]]
:Marriage and children
On 25 May 1521 in [[Linz]], Austria, Ferdinand married [[Anna of Bohemia and Hungary]] (1503–1547), daughter of [[Vladislaus II of Bohemia and Hungary]] and his wife [[Anne de Foix]]. They had fifteen children:
===Wikipedia version===
{| class="wikitable"
! Name || Birth || Death || Notes
|-
| [[Elisabeth of Austria (1526-1545)|Elisabeth of Austria]] || [[July 9]], [[1526]] || [[June 15]], [[1545]] || In 1543 she was married to future King [[Sigismund II Augustus]] of [[Poland]] and [[Lithuania]].
|-
| [[Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor]] || [[July 31]], [[1527]] || [[October 12]], [[1576]] || Married to his first cousin Maria of Spain and had issue.
|-
| [[Anna of Austria (1528-1590)|Anna of Austria]] || [[July 7]] [[1528]] || [[October 16]]/[[October 17]], [[1590]] || Married [[Albert V, Duke of Bavaria]].
|-
| [[Ferdinand II, Archduke of Austria]] || [[June 14]], [[1529]] || [[January 24]], [[1595]] || Married to Philippine Welser and then married his niece [[Anne Juliana Gonzaga]].
|-
| [[Maria of Habsburg, Archduchess of Austria|Maria of Austria]] || [[May 15]] [[1531]] || [[December 11]] [[1581]] || Consort of [[Wilhelm, Duke of Jülich-Cleves-Berg]].
|-
| Magdalena of Austria || [[August 14]], [[1532]] || [[September 10]], [[1590]] || A nun.
|-
| [[Catharine of Austria]] || [[September 15]], [[1533]] <td> [[February 28]], [[1572]] || In 1553 she was married to king [[Sigismund II Augustus]] of [[Poland]] and [[Grand Duke]] of [[Lithuania]].
|-
| Eleonora of Austria || [[November 2]], [[1534]] || [[August 5]], [[1594]] || Married [[William I, Duke of Mantua]].
|-
| Margaret of Austria || [[February 16]], [[1536]] || [[March 12]], [[1567]] || A nun.
|-
| Johann of Austria ||[[April 10]], [[1538]] || [[March 20]], [[1539]] || Died in childhood.
|-
| [[Barbara of Austria]] || [[April 30]], [[1539]] || [[September 19]], [[1572]] || Married [[Alfonso II d'Este]].
|-
| [[Charles II, Archduke of Austria]] <td> [[June 3]], [[1540]] || [[July 10]], [[1590]] || father of [[Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor]].
|-
| Ursula of Austria || [[July 24]], [[1541]] || [[April 30]], [[1543]] || Died in childhood.
|-
| Helen of Austria || [[January 7]], [[1543]] || [[March 5]], [[1574]] || A nun.
|-
| [[Johanna of Austria]] || [[January 24]], [[1547]] || [[April 10]], [[1578]] || Married [[Francesco I de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany]]. Ancestors of [[Charles II of England]] and [[Louis XIII of France]].
</td></tr></table>
:Ancestors
'''Ferdinand's ancestors in three generations'''
===Encyclopedia Britannica version===
{{Ahnentafel4
| 1 = '''Ferdinand I'''
| 2 = [[Philip I of Castile]]
| 3 = [[Joanna of Castile]]
| 4 = [[Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor]]
| 5 = [[Mary of Burgundy]]
| 6 = [[Ferdinand II of Aragon]]
| 7 = [[Isabella I of Castile]]
| 8 = [[Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor]]
| 9 = [[Eleanor of Portugal, Empress]]
|10 = [[Charles the Bold]]
|11 = [[Isabella of Bourbon]]
|12 = [[John II of Aragon]]
|13 = [[Juana Enriquez]]
|14 = [[John II of Castile]]
|15 = [[Infanta Isabel of Portugal]]
}}
[[Image:2002 Austria Renaissance Ferdinand I back.jpg|thumb|160px|[[Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)#2002 coinage|The Renaissance coin]]]]
:Ferdinand I Coin
Ferdinand I has been the main motif for many collector coins and medals, the most recent one is the famous silver 20 euro [[Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)#2002 coinage|Renaissance coin]] issued in [[June 12]] [[2002]]. A portrait of Ferdinand I is shown in the reverse of the coin, while in the obverse a view of the Swiss Gate of the Hofburg Palace can be seen.
:See also
*[[Kings of Germany family tree]]. He was related to every other king of Germany.
:External links
{{commons2|Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor}}
*[http://genealogy.euweb.cz/habsburg/habsburg4.html#E2Fe1 A pedigree of the Habsburg]
:Notes
{{reflist}}
{{Holy Roman Emperors}}
{{German monarchs}}
===Wikipedia version===
<!-- Metadata: see [[Wikipedia:Persondata]] -->
{{Persondata
|NAME = Ferdinand I
|ALTERNATIVE NAMES =
|SHORT DESCRIPTION = Holy Roman Emperor
|DATE OF BIRTH = [[10 March]] [[1503]]
|PLACE OF BIRTH = [[Alcala de Henares]]
|DATE OF DEATH = [[25 July]] [[1564]]
|PLACE OF DEATH = Vienna, Austria
}}
[[Category:Holy Roman Emperors]]
[[Category:House of Habsburg]]
[[Category:German kings]]
[[Category:Bohemian monarchs]]
[[Category:Roman Catholic monarchs]]
[[Category:Hungarian monarchs]]
[[Category:Rulers of Austria]]
[[Category:Rulers of Styria]]
[[Category:Dukes of Carinthia]]
[[Category:Counts of Tyrol]]
[[Category:Knights of the Garter]]
[[Category:Knights of the Golden Fleece]]
[[Category:People from Madrid]]
[[Category:1503 births|Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor]]
[[Category:1564 deaths|Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor]]
----
----
