Podcast appearances and mentions of Paul F Lazarsfeld

Ein Vortrag der Historikerin Yvonne RobelModeration: Katja Weber********** Nichtstun wird in der Bundesrepublik manchmal als das Gegenteil von Arbeit wahrgenommen. Oder als Muße. Aber auch als Faulheit. Oder als Protest. Die Historikerin Yvonne Robel fragt nach der Bedeutung des Nichtstuns für die Gesellschaft. ********** Yvonne Robel ist Historikerin an der Forschungssstelle für Zeitgeschichte Hamburg. Ihre Habilitation hat sie unter dem Titel "Viel Lärm um Nichts. Eine Wahrnehmungsgeschichte des Nichtstuns in der Bundesrepublik" veröffentlicht. Ihren Vortrag hat sie am 12. Dezember 2024 gehalten, am Zentrum für Zeithistorische Forschung Potsdam unter dem Titel "Von ambivalenten Sehnsüchten und politischen Selbstverständigungen: Eine Wahrnehmungsgeschichte des Nichtstuns in der Bundesrepublik". ********** Schlagworte: +++ Nichtstun +++ Bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen +++ Punks +++ Urlaub +++ Müßiggang +++ Faulheit +++ Parks +++ Liegewiese +++ Subkultur +++ ********************Empfehlungen aus der Folge:Tom Hodgekinson: Anleitung zum Müßiggang (2013)Marie Jahoda, Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Hans Zeisel: Die Arbeitslosen von Marienthal. Ein soziographischer Versuch (1933)Björn Kern: Das Beste, das wir tun können, ist nichts (2016)Bertrand Russell: Lob des Müßiggangs (1935) **********Mehr zum Thema bei Deutschlandfunk Nova:Müßiggang: Die Crux mit dem NichtstunPhilosophie: Faulheit als produktive LebenspraxisFaulheit: Weniger Karriere, mehr Zeit**********Den Artikel zum Stück findet ihr hier.**********Ihr könnt uns auch auf diesen Kanälen folgen: TikTok und Instagram .

Birgit Birnbachers Roman «Wovon wir leben» zeigt die Tristesse der Arbeits- und Sozialwelten in einem Dorf, das immer noch von patriarchalen Strukturen geprägt ist.  Die österreichische Schriftstellerin gibt Auskunft, inwiefern Frauen heute immer noch unter anderen gesellschaftlichen und sozialen Zwängen stehen als Männer, warum das Thema Arbeitswelt sie nicht loslässt und was Arbeit für uns bedeutet. Ein Thema mit vielen Facetten – und einer Fülle von Gesprächsstoff für Nicola Steiner und Franziska Hirsbrunner. Die Krankenschwester Julia geht nach ihrer Kündigung zurück in ihr Heimatdorf, um wieder neu Kraft zu schöpfen. Doch das Dorf scheint wie ein Kadaver zu verwesen: die Fabrik, in der fast alle Bewohner des Dorfes tätig waren, hat geschlossen. Jetzt sitzen die Männer in der Kneipe herum, spielen Karten und trinken. Eines Tages kommt ein «Städter» ins Dorf, der ein Jahr lang eine Art Grundeinkommen «gewonnen» hat, und bringt neue Lebenskonzepte und Ideen ins Dorf und in Julias Leben. Dieses Buch steht im Zentrum der Folge: Birgit Birnbacher. Wovon wir leben. 192 Seiten. Zsolnay, 2023. Im Podcast zu hören sind: * Birgit Birnbacher, Schriftstellerin * Stephan Sigrist, Zukunftsforscher Weiter erwähnte Bücher: * Marie Jahoda, Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Hans Zeisel. Die Arbeitslosen von Marienthal. Ein soziographischer Versuch über die Wirkungen langandauernder Arbeitslosigkeit. edition suhrkamp. * Birgit Birnbacher. Ich an meiner Seite. Zsolnay. * Juli Zeh. Unterleuten. Luchterhand. * Mela Hartwig. Bin ich ein überflüssiger Mensch? Droschl. Bei Fragen oder Anregungen schreibt uns: literatur@srf.ch Mehr Literatur und den wöchentlichen Literaturnewsletter gibt es unter srf.ch/literatur

Hur smakar Moderaternas chips? Vad betyder partiets nya frågetecken och utropstecken? Och hur går det för högerns valkampanjer? Tyckpressen rivstartar efter sommaruppehållet! Gästar gör Göran Greider (ledarskribent på Dagens ETC), Amanda Broberg (vik. ledarskribent på DN) och Anne Kaun (professor i medie- och kommunikationsvetenskap).  Programledare: Max V Karlsson Panelens tips:Anne Kaun tipsar om "The People's Choice" av Paul F Lazarsfeld.Amanda Broberg tipsar om Söndagsvägen av Peter Englund.Max V Karlsson tipsar om "Ruling the Void" av Peter Mair.Ansvarig utgivare: Andreas Gustavsson

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Hindsight Devalues Science, published by Eliezer Yudkowsky on the LessWrong. This essay is closely based on an excerpt from Meyers's Exploring Social Psychology; the excerpt is worth reading in its entirety. Cullen Murphy, editor of The Atlantic, said that the social sciences turn up “no ideas or conclusions that can't be found in [any] encyclopedia of quotations . . . Day after day social scientists go out into the world. Day after day they discover that people's behavior is pretty much what you'd expect.” Of course, the “expectation” is all hindsight. (Hindsight bias: Subjects who know the actual answer to a question assign much higher probabilities they “would have” guessed for that answer, compared to subjects who must guess without knowing the answer.) The historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. dismissed scientific studies of World War II soldiers' experiences as “ponderous demonstrations” of common sense. For example: Better educated soldiers suffered more adjustment problems than less educated soldiers. (Intellectuals were less prepared for battle stresses than street-smart people.) Southern soldiers coped better with the hot South Sea Island climate than Northern soldiers. (Southerners are more accustomed to hot weather.) White privates were more eager to be promoted to noncommissioned officers than Black privates. (Years of oppression take a toll on achievement motivation.) Southern Blacks preferred Southern to Northern White officers. (Southern officers were more experienced and skilled in interacting with Blacks.) As long as the fighting continued, soldiers were more eager to return home than after the war ended. (During the fighting, soldiers knew they were in mortal danger.) How many of these findings do you think you could have predicted in advance? Three out of five? Four out of five? Are there any cases where you would have predicted the opposite—where your model takes a hit? Take a moment to think before continuing . . . In this demonstration (from Paul Lazarsfeld by way of Meyers), all of the findings above are the opposite of what was actually found.1 How many times did you think your model took a hit? How many times did you admit you would have been wrong? That's how good your model really was. The measure of your strength as a rationalist is your ability to be more confused by fiction than by reality. Unless, of course, I reversed the results again. What do you think? Do your thought processes at this point, where you really don't know the answer, feel different from the thought processes you used to rationalize either side of the “known” answer? Daphna Baratz exposed college students to pairs of supposed findings, one true (“In prosperous times people spend a larger portion of their income than during a recession”) and one the truth's opposite.2 In both sides of the pair, students rated the supposed finding as what they “would have predicted.” Perfectly standard hindsight bias. Which leads people to think they have no need for science, because they “could have predicted” that. (Just as you would expect, right?) Hindsight will lead us to systematically undervalue the surprisingness of scientific findings, especially the discoveries we understand—the ones that seem real to us, the ones we can retrofit into our models of the world. If you understand neurology or physics and read news in that topic, then you probably underestimate the surprisingness of findings in those fields too. This unfairly devalues the contribution of the researchers; and worse, will prevent you from noticing when you are seeing evidence that doesn't fit what you really would have expected. We need to make a conscious effort to be shocked enough. 1 Paul F. Lazarsfeld, “The American Solidier—An Expository Review,” Public Opinion Quarterly 13, no. 3 (1949): 377–404. 2 Daphna Baratz, ...

Do you have a friend, family member, or neighbor whose views you just cannot stand? They seem to have jumped off the deep end, living in a land of conspiracies and false truths? And you know, at the core of your heart, that they are just wrong? If so, this episode is for you. Today's blog, written by Musa al-Gharbi, the Paul F. Lazarsfeld Fellow in Sociology at Columbia University, is about persuasion, but also about humility, and owning up to the fact that most of the time, we know less than we are willing to acknowledge. The piece is called, “Three Strategies for Navigating Moral Disagreements” and is narrated by Jonathan Todd Ross. For comments and questions email communications@heterodoxacademy.org. Stay up to date with Musa on Twitter @musa_alGharbi. For comments and questions email communications@heterodoxacaemy.org. This episode was hosted by Zach Rausch. The artwork was inspired by Musa's piece and was created by Lexi Polokoff. You can follow her on Instagram @lexipolokoffart

------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter SubscribeStar: https://www.subscribestar.com/the-dissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao ------------------Follow me on--------------------- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheDissenterYT This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Dr. Musa al-Gharbi is a Paul F. Lazarsfeld Fellow in the Department of Sociology, and a Mellon-Sawyer Fellow on Trust and Mistrust of Experts for the Interdisciplinary Center on Innovative Theory and Empirics (INCITE), in partnership with the American Assembly, at Columbia University. His research explores how knowledge is produced, transmitted, evaluated and put to use (or not) — and how people's thinking is shaped by the social contexts they find themselves in. He applies these lenses to a range of topics including race, inequality, social movements, extremism, policing, national security, foreign policy — and more recently — U.S. political elections. In this episode, we go through several topics on politics and sociology, including: freedom of expression and ideological discrimination in academia, and outside academia; diversity in academia; Trump, who voted for him and why, and the 2016 elections; and the real political polarization we find in society nowadays. -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, PER HELGE LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BERNARDO SEIXAS, HERBERT GINTIS, RUTGER VOS, RICARDO VLADIMIRO, CRAIG HEALY, OLAF ALEX, PHILIP KURIAN, JONATHAN VISSER, JAKOB KLINKBY, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, JOHN CONNORS, PAULINA BARREN, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ARTHUR KOH, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, SUSAN PINKER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, PABLO SANTURBANO, SIMON COLUMBUS, PHIL KAVANAGH, JORGE ESPINHA, CORY CLARK, MARK BLYTH, ROBERTO INGUANZO, MIKKEL STORMYR, ERIC NEURMANN, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, BERNARD HUGUENEY, ALEXANDER DANNBAUER, OMARI HICKSON, FERGAL CUSSEN, YEVHEN BODRENKO, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, DON ROSS, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, OZLEM BULUT, NATHAN NGUYEN, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, J.W., JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, IDAN SOLON, ROMAIN ROCH, DMITRY GRIGORYEV, TOM ROTH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, ADANER USMANI, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, MIRAN B, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, MAX BEILBY, AL ORTIZ, NELLEKE BAK, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, AND SAIMA AFZAL! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, IAN GILLIGAN, SERGIU CODREANU, LUIS CAYETANO, TOM VANEGDOM, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, VEGA GIDEY, AND NIRUBAN BALACHANDRAN! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MICHAL RUSIECKI, ROSEY, JAMES PRATT, AND MATTHEW LAVENDER!

Old politics: small government conservatives against big government progressives. New politics: Dive Bar Republicans against the Democratic Party's Managerial Class. Musa al-Gharbi is the Paul F. Lazarsfeld fellow in Sociology at Columbia University, and joins to discuss what the new Managerial Class is, and how it thinks. This episode is sponsored by Ground News - The world's first news comparison platform. Download Ground News for free here: https://ground.news/orphanage

Center Co-Director Mike Murphy is joined by a group of experts to discuss how both parties should reorient their platforms to speak to minority voters as they become the majority in the U.S. and the higher numbers of voters of color who voted for Donald Trump in the 2020 election. Featuring: Musa al-Gharbi - Paul F. Lazarsfeld Fellow in Sociology at Columbia University Robert A. George - Columnist, Bloomberg Opinion Mike Madrid - Republican strategist; Spring 2019 Fellow, Center For the Political Future Shaniqua McClendon - Political Director, Crooked Media and Spring 2021 Fellow, Center for the Political Future

In the service of seeking truth, there would seem to be value in intellectual diversity, both in keeping ourselves honest and in the possibility of new ideas coming from unexpected quarters. That’s true in the natural sciences, but even more so in the humanities and social sciences, where the right/wrong distinction is sometimes less clear. But academia isn’t always diverse; as an empirical fact, there are a lot more liberals on university faculties than there are conservatives. I talk with Musa al-Gharbi about why this is true — self-selection? discrimination? — the extent to which it’s a real problem, and how we should better think about the value of diverse viewpoints.Support Mindscape on Patreon.Musa al-Gharbi received Masters degrees in philosophy from the University of Arizona and in sociology from Columbia University. He is currently a Paul F. Lazarsfeld Fellow in Sociology at Columbia, and until recently served as the Communications Director for Heterodox Academy. His essays have appeared in outlets such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Atlantic Magazine, Foreign Affairs, Voice of America, and Al-Jazeera.Web siteColumbia web pageEssaysPanel discussion on Populism and Tribalism in American LifeHeterodox AcademyTwitter

Passend zur aktuellen Situation - die Arbeitslosen von Mariental. Beschrieben wird, wie andauernde Arbeitslosigkeit die Menschen verändert. Ein Buch, das ein ewiger Klassiker ist.

April 11, 2013 This public workshop by Sarah Mountz explores the uniquely embodied and relational nature of storytelling and story receiving in Life History Interviews conducted with LGBTQ Young Adults (age 18-25) who have previously been incarcerated in girls detention facilities in New York State. Interviews were conducted as part of a research study grounded in the principles of Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) and facilitated by a Community Advisory Board composed of practitioners, legal advocates, researchers, activists, and young people. This talk is part of the "Paul F. Lazarsfeld Lecture Series," co-sponsored by the Columbia Center for Oral History (CCOH) and the Oral History Master of Arts Program (OHMA).

Ein Theaterstück als Entwurf zur Wahrung der Menschlichkeit, ein Kommentar zu den Auswüchsen unserer Gesellschaftsordnung basierend auf den soziographischen Versuch über die Wirkungen langandauernder Arbeitslosigkeit, Die Arbeitslosen von Marienthal aus dem Jahr 1932 von Marie Jahoda, Paul F. Lazarsfeld und Hans Zeisel. Wie man ein derart komplexes Thema in einem Theaterstück unterbringen kann erzählen Fanny Brunner und Hans-Jürgen Hauptmann.