text:
Dominant group

 * Surface differential rotation "will most easily be detected among stars that have relatively stable modulation over several rotations within a season from a dominant group of [ active regions (ARs)] that experience a noticeable change in mean AR latitude (corresponding to a change in mean rotational period) between consecutive observing seasons." Bold added.

"The original inquiry simply started out as curiosity about a phrase that appeared in a number of wikipedia articles yet stood unwritten about." Peer review indicated at that time this curiosity is best directed toward an original research effort. To begin such a project, an early proposal created a proof of concept (phase I). This has been completed. Subsequent analysis has produced a refinement that is now here as phase II:
 * 1) a focused research proposal and
 * 2) significant portions of the original research project.

As an original research project, the first question needing an answer is "What is the field of the research proposal focused at "dominant group"?

The form of the proposal follows the suggestion at research proposal.

Topics
The two-word term dominant group is the topic of this research proposal. What is it? Where did it come from? How did it come to be used in so many different fields and languages? And, through its relative synonyms, why does it exist? Dominant group may have some inherent fundamental concept associated with it that needs to be explored and understood.

Dominant group may be a subject-independent entity that often serves as an identifier designated by an author, based on observations of phenomena. It does not appear to have a rigorous definition yet appears in at least one glossary type specialists' dictionary. It enjoys current popularity in sociology and minor mention in such diverse fields as "quantum physics", "cometary chemistry", and, of course, "biology". Several theoretical definitions have been discovered.

The decision-making process that applies it within a written text is a topic of interest. Primary source authors performing original research from a theoretical or empirical perspective are apparently using the term based on their training.

From its apparent origins in Kirby's An Introduction to Entomology of 1826, as the plural dominant groups, the term has radiated to additional fields carrying a similar relative meaning, or in relative synonymy. Perhaps it is initially a concept within the natural theological (High Church Hutchinsonian) creation theory.

"The 'religious' grounds you refer to are in fact the attitudes of the dominant church denominations of the time, largely compromised by evolutionary ideas." The word "denominations" has its second most popular meaning in category 1018 RELIGIONS, CULTS, SECTS, which is a relative synonym for "group". The use here in the phrase "dominant church denominations" suggests that in 1826 (174 b2k) these denominations are the original dominant groups of natural theological creation theory.

Proposals
The proposal consists of a research purpose, research questions, hypotheses, research method, experimentation, discussion, ethics, timeline, costs, and funding.

Research purposes
Research purpose: authors are apparently using dominant group with experimental, observational, or theoretical significance and implications, for a purpose.

This proposal and associated effort involves exploration of individual articles to determine context, definition, or meaning, description with quotes from the authors to indicate context and meaning, explanation as a possible indicator or identifier, and prediction that uses possible meanings in fields where the term is currently absent.

Research questions

 * What is the nature of the relationship between dominant group and each article, field, and currently available definition(s)?
 * What is the difference between articles regarding usage, if any?
 * What is the effect of dominant group on the article?
 * Are there fields that do not use the 'term'?
 * Are the two words found together in any additional dictionaries or glossaries, or in any common language dictionaries?
 * What is the origin and first use of the term or its primordial concept and usage?

Hypotheses

 * Accident hypothesis: dominant group is an accident of whatever processes are operating.
 * Artifact hypothesis: dominant group may be an artifact of human endeavor or may have preceded humanity.
 * Association hypothesis: dominant group is associated in some way with the original research.
 * Bad group hypothesis: dominant group is the group that engages in discrimination, abuse, punishment, and additional criminal activity against other groups. It often has an unfair advantage and uses it to express monopolistic practices.
 * Control group hypothesis: there is a control group that can be used to study dominant group.
 * Entity hypothesis: dominant group is an entity within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
 * Evolution hypothesis: dominant group is a product of evolutionary processes, such groups are the evolutionary process, produce evolutionary processes, or are independent of evolutionary processes.
 * Identifier hypothesis: dominant group is an identifier used by primary source authors of original research to identify an observation in the process of analysis.
 * Importance hypothesis: dominant group signifies original research results that usually need to be explained by theory and interpretation of experiments.
 * Indicator hypothesis: dominant group may be an indicator of something as yet not understood by the primary author of original research.
 * Influence hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article containing original research to indicate influence or an influential phenomenon.
 * Interest hypothesis: dominant group is a theoretical entity used by scholarly authors of primary sources for phenomena of interest.
 * Metadefinition hypothesis: all uses of dominant group by all primary source authors of original research are included in the metadefinition for dominant group.
 * Null hypothesis: there is no significant or special meaning of dominant group in any sentence or figure caption in any refereed journal article.
 * Object hypothesis: dominant group is an object within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
 * Obvious hypothesis: the only meaning of dominant group is the one found in Mosby's Medical Dictionary.
 * Original research hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article by the author to indicate that the article contains original research.
 * Primordial hypothesis: dominant group is a primordial concept inherent to humans such that every language or other form of communication no matter how old or whether extinct, on the verge of extinction, or not, has at least a relative synonym for dominant group.
 * Purpose hypothesis: dominant group is written into articles by authors for a purpose.
 * Regional hypothesis: dominant group, when it occurs, is only a manifestation of the limitations within a region. Variation of those limitations may result in the loss of a dominant group with the eventual appearance of a new one or none at all.
 * Source hypothesis: dominant group is a source within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
 * Term hypothesis: dominant group is a significant term that may require a 'rigorous definition' or application and verification of an empirical definition.

Examples from primary sources within each field, such as botany, are to be used to prove or disprove each hypothesis.

Research methods

 * Small-group study: within each field, the meaning and context is analyzed from a small group of publications.
 * Survey: a survey is conducted using Google scholar, other online search engines, and where needed offline library resources, Wikipedia, Wikiversity, and additional Wikimedia resources.
 * Field experiment: testing each hypothesis and other possibilities is performed during the course of investigating uses of dominant group in articles.
 * Authors of primary source, original research articles may be surveyed using a questionnaire designed here at Wikiversity using available psychological tools to request and hopefully obtain information such as why the authors used the term.

Experimentations
Sampling: Google scholar, Wikipedia, Wikiversity, other Wikimedia sources and offline libraries are sampled for likely valuable examples.

Discussions
Data analysis: looking at and summarizing data with the intent to extract useful information, make inferences, and develop conclusions is necessary. Some of the conclusions may be primary or elemental.

Ethics
Research ethics: those usually associated with scientific research, especially original research, and as described in proof of concept.

Disclosure: again those usually associated with original research and included in proof of concept.

Timelines
Hopefully a conclusion can be reached in one year.

Costs
Costs: intellectual effort, computer use time and resources, possible publication costs, a trip to a conference in a neat location.

Funding
Funding: sufficient income to cover costs, diversion of person-hours from a day job, and as an incentive to perform the research or exploration to overcome specified risks (hopefully).

Projects
Steps or subarticles in the research project follow the proposal as a guide.

A second component of the project is to integrate parts of the research, e.g., Dominant group/Chemistry, into the learning resources for the subject Chemistry and the School of Chemistry at Wikiversity. Each of the subpages has an exploratory research purpose that may benefit each subject involved here at Wikiversity. This includes benefits to one or more Wikiversity courses in terminology or semantics.

As the understanding of dominant group improves so does the understanding of its use by explorers, researchers, and scientists. At the most general, dominant group may be a 'being' or 'beings', a 'body', a 'thing', or an 'entity'. For the term to be more specific than an 'entity' requires more specificity with respect to its intent or the theory of its use by the authors.

Red listings below indicate either a user page that may be improved to become a learning resource or an offline page that may be brought to Wikiversity for development as a learning resource.

Possible funding
An initial attempt to receive funding aimed at the Linguistics Program of the National Science Foundation of the USA has been concluded. Two additional potential funding agencies have been suggested.

National Science Foundation of the USA
Linguistics

The initial attempt to receive funding is aimed at the National Science Foundation of the USA. A proposal to an appropriate program director or manager contains the following parts:

 * Dominant group/Broader impacts
 * Dominant group/Data Management Plan
 * Dominant group/Intellectual Merit
 * Dominant group/Letter of intent
 * Dominant group/Letter of interest
 * Dominant group/Project Description
 * Dominant group/Project Summary
 * Dominant group/Proposal Certifications
 * Dominant group/Proposed Budget

With points of view and other matters described in

 * Dominant group/Funding
 * Dominant group/Journals
 * Dominant group/Origin
 * Dominant group/Proof of concept
 * Dominant group/Timeline and radiance

Science, Technology, and Society

National Endowment for the Humanities of the USA
"All applicants to National Endowment for the Humanities are required to use Grants.gov."

"The [US] federal government has mandated that all federal government grant-making agencies use Grants.gov as their primary way of receiving grant applications."

Learning resource development
Although dominant group is an original research project, it is also a learning resource with subpages.

In 2015 a small number of resources made the top 1,000 for hits during the year. These are
 * 1) 123. 11879 - Dominant group/Sociology
 * 2) 684. 2622 - Dominant group/Ethnicity
 * 3) 845. 1748 - Dominant group

Dominant group once again made the list of the top one hundred learning projects for 2015 (through October), holding its position at
 * 1) 10. 72261 - Dominant group

In 2014 a small number of resources made the top 1,000 for hits during the year. These are
 * 1) 171. 9009 - Dominant group/Sociology
 * 2) 829. 2650 - Dominant group
 * 3) 870. 2551 - Dominant group/Geology

Dominant group also made the top one hundred learning projects for 2014 at
 * 1) 10. 93361 - Dominant group. This included all of its subpages.

Learning resources that have been developed further include
 * 1) Dominant group/Anthropology/Term test
 * 2) Dominant group/Attribution and copyright
 * 3) Dominant group/Learning resource
 * 4) Dominant group/Metagenome/Term test
 * 5) Dominant group/Sociology/Term test
 * 6) Dominant group/Term test
 * 7) Dominant group/Test of term

Learning resource field
Each of the various subpages should fall into a specific field for which it may then be developed into a learning resource for that field and the role dominant group plays in that field. Some subpages have easily assigned learning resource fields:
 * Dominant group/Agriculture - Agriculture exists only in discussion for plant sciences merger.
 * Dominant group/Anthropology - the School of Anthropology "can contain projects for developing resources."
 * Dominant group/Archaeology
 * Dominant group/Art - although seven examples of "dominant group" usage associated with Art or the Arts are available, the specific subject and how to associate these results is unclear.
 * Dominant group/Arts - see if there is a difference between '/Art', '/Arts', and '/Performing arts'.
 * Dominant group/Astronomy - as part of the lecture/article Astronomy and the School of Physics and Astronomy.
 * Dominant group/Atmospheric science - three uses of "dominant group" offline.
 * Dominant group/Botany - there is a discussion ongoing to merge Topic:Botany with the School of Plant Sciences. Also, the topic of botany already contains many subtopics.
 * Dominant group/Business
 * Dominant group/Chemistry - Chemistry and the School of Chemistry.
 * Dominant group/Communication
 * Dominant group/Computer science
 * Dominant group/Culture - nineteen uses of "dominant group" that may be associated with either the psychology or the sociology of Culture.
 * Dominant group/Economics - School of Economics.
 * Dominant group/Education
 * Dominant group/Ethnicity - it is connected to Ethnic group and Social psychology. Social psychology is in turn connected to Psychology and its School and to Sociology.
 * Dominant group/Evolution
 * Dominant group/Geography - although the subject is geography for the School of Geography, much development is needed.
 * Dominant group/Geology - Geology redirects to the School of Geology which states "The school should not contain any learning resources. The school can contain projects for developing learning resources." Here it is listed under "Learning projects". Nothing directly links to Wikipedia.
 * Dominant group/History - History redirects to the School of History. The school page states "The school page itself should not contain many learning resources. It may contain some projects for developing learning resources, and it may also contain recommendations for specific programs of study. Most learning resources are linked to from specialized portals in the "Topic:" namespace."
 * Dominant group/Humanities - it's a category.
 * Dominant group/Language - it is connected with Linguistics and the school of linguistics, plus Semantics.
 * Dominant group/Law - School of Law.
 * Dominant group/Linguistics
 * Dominant group/Literature - individual 'Literature's exist.
 * Dominant group/Materials science - see Materials Science and Engineering.
 * Dominant group/Metagenome - concept only exists within Dominant group studies.
 * Dominant group/Music - the School of Music and Dance is discussing a split into the School of Music and the School of Dance.
 * Dominant group/Mythology - the School of Comparative Mythology.
 * Dominant group/Nursing
 * Dominant group/Paleontology
 * Dominant group/Performing arts
 * Dominant group/Philosophy
 * Dominant group/Physics
 * Dominant group/Planetary science
 * Dominant group/Political science
 * Dominant group/Psychology
 * Dominant group/Regions
 * Dominant group/Religion - Topic:Religious studies, the Wikiversity Division of Religious Studies is part of the Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies and the School of Theology.
 * Dominant group/Semantics
 * Dominant group/Sociology
 * Dominant group/Technology
 * Dominant group/Terminology
 * Dominant group/Theology
 * Dominant group/Zoology - Zoology doesn't exist at Wikiversity. Nor does Animal Sciences.

Semantics

 * Dominant group/Classes of meaning
 * Control group
 * Dominant group/Genus differentia definition
 * Dominant group/Lexical definition
 * Metadefinition
 * Dominant group/Ontological definition
 * Pragmatics
 * Dominant group/Relative synonyms
 * Dominant group/Rigorous definition
 * Rigorous definition
 * Semantics
 * Semiotics
 * Dominant group/Small group study
 * Dominant group/Synonymous definition
 * Syntactics
 * Terminology
 * Dominant group/Theoretical definition
 * Theory of definition
 * Two-word terms

Relationships
The nature of the relationship between dominant group and each article, field, and currently available definition(s) needs to be explored.

Of the classes of articles containing the term dominant group, those containing “despotism”, “superiority”, “master”, “control”, “power”, and “influence” are from synonymous categories. It is possible that classes of numerousness are closely synonymous through “superiority”, as “superior numbers”.

Control group is a special relative synonym of dominant group.

Differences
Of the classes of articles containing the term dominant group, “diffuseness (radiance)” and “diversity” are not closely synonymous. Of some 1040 categories of synonymy, these concepts fall within the 1,024 categories of synonymy outside those of dominant group, and its relative synonyms, and may contribute to “theoretical definitions” or other types of definitions.

Groups
By definition, group is a number of things or persons being in some relation to one another.

By definition, relation is the manner in which two or more things or persons may be associated; thereby, being members of the group.

A majority by definition often refers to the mathematical concept of a subset of a statistical population (population) or a group consisting of more than half of its members. For a majority, the relation is often between the population and the subset; i.e., more than half, perhaps here on some basis or criteria for dominance such as a majority.

The most common usage of the word 'group' by category is "61. CLASSIFICATION".

Dominants
By definition, dominance:

 * 1) The state of being dominant; of prime importance; supremacy.
 * 2) Being in a position of power, authority or ascendancy over others.
 * 3) The superior development or preference for one side of the body or of one of a pair of organs; such as being right-handed.
 * 4) The property of a gene such that it supresses the expression of its allele.

By definition, dominant: as an adjective

 * 1) Ruling; governing; prevailing; controlling; as, the dominant party, church, spirit, power.
 * The dominant party controlled the government.
 * 1) Predominant, common, prevalent, of greatest importance.
 * The dominant plants of the Carboniferous were lycopods and early conifers.
 * 1) * 2009, H. Stephen Stoker, General, Organic, and Biological Chemistry, page 10
 * All other elements are mere "impurities" when their abundances are compared with those of these two dominant elements.

By definition, dominant as a noun:

 * "a: a dominant genetic character or factor
 * b: any of one or more kinds of organism (as a species) in an ecological association that exerts a controlling influence on the environment and thereby largely determines what other kinds of organisms share in the association"
 * : "the fifth note of the diatonic scale".

The most common use of the word dominant is in category "171. INFLUENCE".

The most common use of the word dominance is in category "737. AUTHORITY".

By most common language usages at least in English, the two words dominant and dominance are not identical.

Meta-terms
By categories, the artificial term, or meta-term, "influence classification", from searching Wiktionary yields "There were no results matching the query.", and without quotes yields disconnected sentences, one for the first term, another for the second.

"A meta-term is a variable with a number of associated attributes. The attributes can be independently processed".

Metadefinitions
The metadefinition (meta definition or Meta definition) layer can be defined as a higher level definition. A ‘meta definition’ may consist of the definition of several objects. The metadefinition of a particular definition is the set of attributes that address and satisfy a number of purposes or functions for that definition to be a definition.

As an illustration of this, the metadefinition of a dominant group may consist of the definitions of the following objects:

 * 1) a relation,
 * 2) a population,
 * 3) a basis or "criteria for dominance", and
 * 4) a country (of the dominant group), region, territory, or the like.

Inclusion effects
A study of the effect of dominant group on the article should include that of alternate forms, for example, Al-dominant group and dominant Group D rocks.

The use of dominant group may be from an alternate word group, "On the few occasions that discussion diverted from the dominant consensus, awareness of alternative languages and logics was vital in establishing a consistent oppositional argument. In the following exchange, for example, John refers to an ‘ecocentric’ ethic to argue against the prevailing logic of the group". A later portion of a sentence "John eventually acquiesced to the dominant group logic," (bold added) suggests synonymy between "prevailing logic" and "dominant ... logic", where "of the group" has been replaced not with "group dominant logic" or "dominant logic of the group" but with "dominant group logic". The phrase "dominant consensus" suggests a subgroup that may be a majority of the group; hence, a dominant group.

Meanings
"Of the meaning of 'dominant group' he writes: 'Now when a technical word is coined to designate some non-linguistic phenomenon, or when a word (such as 'dominant') is taken over from ordinary speech and used to designate the phenomenon, a new semantic rule is required. Otherwise, the range of application of the word will be unspecified.'" Here, the quote within the quote and the "he writes" refer to Goudge. At the very least, "the range of application of the word" may be unspecified.

Each field within which the term dominant group is used has the same problem: "unless and until a rigorous definition of the term 'dominant group' is rendered, the argument fails to establish its conclusion due to the fact that one of its premises is meaningless."

Fields
The field to which an appropriate rigorous or justifiable empirical meaning of dominant group may be home to is linguistic anthropology or cultural anthropology. But, heavy occurrence of the term in psychology articles necessitates inclusion of this field. Dominant group is a two-word, scientific or technical term putting it in the field of terminology, where its meaning is a study of semantics.

With its earliest readily accessible origin in the 1826 book by Kirby and Spence, 185 B.P. or 174 b2k (before 2000), the term may qualify as a topic in the history of science.

The term enjoys current popularity in sociology.

The fourth area of possible interest is linguistics.

Considering the wide variety of fields within which dominant group occurs, philosophy should be added to the list.

One field wherein dominant group does not occur according to Google scholar is acanthocytosis. A second field is airscapes.

In dominant group/origin is the discovery of a use of dominant group in 1826 (174 b2k), the earliest use so far. A relative synonym for dominant group, specifically "dominant party", has been discovered dating to 1820.

From theoretical astronomy is the exploration of the word 'entity'. Here it is described that in terms of generalness: 'being' > 'body' > 'thing' > 'entity' is the realization that dominant group for any field is an 'entity' and perhaps a 'thing', although a group of people may be thought of as a 'body' or a 'being'. The best concept home appears to be 'entity'.

Proliferations
The term dominate group is found in the context of articles from many fields, as noted in its timeline and radiance and journals of most recent occurrence.

Exploration into alternate terms which are relative synonyms for dominant group suggest that as many as 10% of the articles (about 9,870,000) recovered by, for example, a Google scholar advanced search, are likely to contain one of these relative synonyms. Dominant alone occurs in about 3,570,000 articles, group alone in about 5,670,000, and both, though not necessarily associated, occur in about 2,940,000.

A search backward in time using only "dominant" to see what other words it is used to modify has discovered "dominant party", which is a relative synonym for dominant group in 1820.

Biological dictionary
According to a Google scholar search using "Dictionary of Biology" + "dominant group", there is a "[CITATION] Dictionary Of Biology R Rita - Anmol Publications PVT. LTD." This suggests without direct verification online that this dictionary contains a definition of "dominant group" in biology.

Medical dictionary
A definition of dominant group: "a social group that controls the value system and rewards in a particular society." occurs in Mosby's Medical Dictionary.

On Google scholar is "[CITATION] 1.2 A Practical Medical Dictionary (1911) TL Stedman… - The nature of difference: sciences of race …, 2009 - The MIT Press" that contains "Dictionary of Anthropology" + "dominant group" in some form. But, continued searching within this dictionary has revealed that "dominant" and "group" do not occur juxtaposed as "dominant group".

Accident hypothesis
Dominant group is an accident of whatever processes are operating.

Artifact hypothesis
Dominant group may be an artifact of human endeavor or may have preceded humanity.

Association hypothesis
Dominant group is associated in some way with the original research.

Bad group hypothesis
Dominant group is the group that engages in discrimination, abuse, punishment, and additional criminal activity against other groups. It often has an unfair advantage and uses it to express monopolistic practices.

Control group hypothesis
There is a control group that can be used to study dominant group.

Entity hypothesis
Dominant group is an entity within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.

Evolution hypothesis
Dominant group is a product of evolutionary processes, such groups are the evolutionary process, produce evolutionary processes, or are independent of evolutionary processes.

Identifier hypothesis
Dominant group is an identifier used by primary source authors of original research to identify an observation in the process of analysis.

Importance hypothesis
Dominant group signifies original research results that usually need to be explained by theory and interpretation of experiments.

Indicator hypothesis
Dominant group may be an indicator of something as yet not understood by the primary author of original research.

Influence hypothesis
Dominant group is included in a primary source article containing original research to indicate influence or an influential phenomenon.

Interest hypothesis
Dominant group is a theoretical entity used by scholarly authors of primary sources for phenomena of interest.

Metadefinition hypothesis
All uses of dominant group by all primary source authors of original research are included in the metadefinition for dominant group. Examples of this are in small group study.

Null hypothesis
Specifically, there is no significant or special meaning of dominant group in any sentence or figure caption in any refereed journal article.

Two definitions of a theoretical definition are "the meaning of a word in terms of the theories of a specific discipline" and that "which attempts to formulate a theoretically adequate characterization of the objects to which it is applied."

Def. "a social group that controls the value system and rewards in a particular society" is called a dominant group. This definition is in Mosby's Medical Dictionary only.

Using Google scholar as a search engine, the following theoretical definition has been found within the refereed journal "The Sociological Quarterly": "For purposes of this analysis, I define a dominant ethnic group as the ethnic group in a society that exercises power to create and maintain a pattern of economic, political, and institutional advantage, which in turn results in the unequal (disproportionately beneficial to the dominant group) distribution of resources." While this definition is specific to ethnic groups rather than all groups that may have within them a dominant group, it is a theoretical definition of a dominant group and serves to disprove the null hypothesis.

A second theoretical definition occurs in the refereed "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology": "[A] group is dominant if it possesses a disproportionate share of societal resources, privileges, and power."

These two theoretical definitions disprove the null hypothesis.

Object hypothesis
Dominant group is an object within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.

Obvious hypothesis
Def. "a social group that controls the value system and rewards in a particular society" is called a dominant group.

The only meaning of dominant group is found in Mosby's Medical Dictionary above.

A risk inherent in original research is that the topic (here: dominant group) has already been investigated and reported on in the archival refereed literature in some specific subject area, such as anthropology, where search engines either have not discovered it, or have not listed it as within the first ten to one hundred reported to the searcher.

This is a problem, or challenge, inherent in any research endeavor, especially at the beginning (the most vulnerable period).

Meanings of dominant group
The discovery of two theoretical definitions of "dominant group" (described in the section 'Null hypothesis') goes a long ways toward disproving the 'obvious hypothesis'.

An additional theoretical definition has been found from Charles Robert Darwin:

Def. “[u]nder the many conditions of life which this world affords, any group which is numerous in individuals and species and is widely distributed, may properly be called dominant" [a dominant group]. [Letter 110. To W.H. Harvey, August, 1860]

From the naturalist, William Kirby in 1826 comes the following definition of "dominant group":

Def. groups of insects whose geographical distribution "extends to the tropics, [but] fall short of the polar circles" are called dominant groups.

 * 1) Mosby's Medical Dictionary dates from 2009, whereas Darwin's dates from 1860 and Kirby's dates from 1826.
 * 2) Darwin mentions groups of individuals and species and Kirby's mentions groups of insects, whereas Mosby's definition refers specifically to a social group within a society.
 * 3) Mosby's definition includes "controls the value system and rewards" whereas neither Darwin nor Kirby indicates any such concern even if it may be present.

Comparison and contrast between these theoretical definitions and the definition found in Mosby's Medical Dictionary indicates that the obvious hypothesis has been disproved.

Evaluating further exploration
Evaluating further whether this exploration is a waste of time and effort depends on what can be achieved and possibly published for available funding.

Part of assessing the value of continuing involves examining the current state of the art in a number of similar subject areas where articles may occur regarding other terms.

Theoretical impact
It may be the case with "dominant group" that its association with three theories of evolution: natural selection, evolutionary progressivism (eugenics), and the modern evolutionary synthesis, has directly precipitated the radiation and diversity of applications of the term.

The discovery of two early occurrences of "dominant group" prior to Darwin's 1859 book Origin of species suggests that Darwin incorporated the term as part of his theory, perhaps to explain it with 'natural selection'.

"The Ants and the Staphylini have been supposed to represent each other in the tropical and temperate zones. In the temperate zone, and especially in our own country, the Staphylini are a dominant group, and the ants a secondary one."

“The fact that a group is egoistic and dominant proves that it is well formed and that it approaches the make-up of a man.”

Competition
Further, a hot, popular topic is likely to have competitors. Although, I make no claim that dominant group is either.

"Personally, i think the best way to proceed would be with a rewritten article on Dominant Group."

"I agree with a re-writing of Dominant Group -- in fact, I had assumed there was an article already."

An additional challenge with an 'open for reading' original research project such as this is simply that anyone reading what has been discovered so far may leap frog ahead and publish before this research can reach that point.

Available from Amazon.com is a book published on June 17, 2011, entitled, "Dominant group". The advertisement states, "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online. A dominant group is the group whose interests a system is meant to serve and whose identity it is meant to represent. The system is a form of government where representatives of a particular group hold a number of posts disproportionately large to the percentage of the total population that the particular group represents and uses them to advance the position of their particular group to the detriment of others. A group is dominant if it possesses a disproportionate share of societal resources, privileges, and power. A dominant group need not be a numerical majority, though it often is." This book contains the now deleted "dominant group" articles from Wikipedia.

Compositional definition
When any definitional technique such as genus differentia succeeds in producing a definition of "dominant group" other than those already discovered that meets all five conditions, the obvious hypothesis is disproved.

Genera differentia
Combining two genera ('class' and 'sect') with two differentia ('superior' and 'ruling') provides a series of definitions for dominant group.

Def. a superior class ruling a sect is called a dominant group. Here, the superiority of the class may be based on numerousness, but it need not be. And, the sect may have a location (a region or country) within which occurs the superior class. As the superior class rules the sect, it rules the region or location ("in their own countries", after Darwin) of the sect.

From the meteors example: "The dominant group in all cases are stony meteors." The superior class of stony meteors rules the sect of meteors.

The word superiority does not lend itself well to a verb form, but another synonym from the same category may suffice.

Def. a ruling class that excels its sect is called a dominant group. The ruling class of stony meteors excels the sect of meteors.

Def. a ruling class that transcends its sect is called a dominant group. This is another example. The ruling class of stony meteors transcends the sect of meteors.

Def. a class that rules superiority and the sect is called a dominant group. This is close to "a social group that controls the value system and rewards in a particular society." The definition of "dominant group" that occurs in Mosby's Medical Dictionary. By reducing Mosby's definition to "a class (group) that controls the superiority (value system) and the sect (rewards, such as membership in the class)", the core meaning of "dominant group" is isolated. Adding the redundancy "social" and "a particular society" may not be needed to convey meaning but does add emphasis.

Five conditions
With Mosby's definition and the meteor's usage, the essential attributes are set out. (Rule 1)

The genera (class and sect) are relative synonyms of 'group'. But, they can be put into a hierarchy (class > sect). The differentia (rules and superiority) or (superior and rules) are free for multiple uses: 'a ruling class', 'rules superiority', or 'transcends its sect' so as to avoid circularity. (Rule 2)

The genera and differentia must be applicable to everything to which the defined term applies and nothing else. (Rule 3) This requires a careful examination of each of the small group study examples.

The purpose of a definition is to explain the meaning of a term which may be obscure or difficult, by the use of terms that are commonly understood and whose meaning is clear. (Rule 4) Initially, this appears to be the case, but words leading to a precising definition may be needed as with Mosby's definition and the meteor's usage.

The genera differentia definitions are not negative. (Rule 5)

Choosing better relative synonyms may resolve any issues with Rule 3 and Rule 4.

Original research hypothesis
Dominant group is included in a primary source article by the author to indicate that the article contains original research.

Primordial hypothesis
Dominant group is a primordial concept inherent to humans such that every language or other form of communication no matter how old or whether extinct, on the verge of extinction, or not, has at least a relative synonym for dominant group.

Purpose hypothesis
Dominant group is written into articles by authors for a purpose.

Regional hypothesis
Dominant group, when it occurs, is only a manifestation of the limitations within a region. Variation of those limitations may result in the loss of a dominant group with the eventual appearance of a new one or none at all.

Source hypothesis
Dominant group is a source within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.

Term hypothesis
Specifically, "dominant group" is a significant term that may require a 'rigorous definition' or application and verification of an empirical definition.

Definitions
“[D]efinitions are always of symbols, for only symbols have meanings for definitions to explain.” A term can be one or more of a set of symbols such as words, phrases, letter designations, or any already used symbol or new symbol.

In the theory of definition, “the symbol being defined is called the definiendum, and the symbol or set of symbols used to explain the meaning of the definiendum is called the definiens.” “The definiens is not the meaning of the definiendum, but another symbol or group of symbols which, according to the definition, has the same meaning as the definiendum.”

Lexical definitions
A lexical definition is usually a dictionary definition and "is either true or false."

A definition of dominant group: "a social group that controls the value system and rewards in a particular society." occurs in Mosby's Medical Dictionary.

From planetary science under the subject of meteors is this use of the term "dominant group": "The dominant group in all cases are stony meteors." The article is entitled, "On the composition of meteors". The phrase "in all cases" refers to various meteor showers experienced here on Earth.

In the article precising definition, there is that "[a] precising definition is a definition that extends the lexical definition of a term for a specific purpose by including additional criteria that narrow down the set of things meeting the definition." The precising definition is usually aimed at the definiens. For Mosby's Medical Dictionary definition of "dominant group" this is "a social group that controls the value system and rewards in a particular society."

An attempt at a precising definition might be "a social group that in all cases are stony meteors". Independent of verb plurality "are" versus "is", the latter "definition" regarding "stony meteors" clearly contradicts the idea of a "social group". This suggests that the 'meteors' definition (if it can be called that) is a stipulative definition: "a type of definition in which a ... currently-existing term is given a specific meaning for the purposes of ... discussion in a given context." Similar to stipulative definitions are "[t]heoretical definitions, used extensively in science" (quote is from the article stipulative definition). From the article on theoretical definitions, such a definition "gives the meaning of a word in terms of the theories of a specific discipline."

For Mosby's Medical Dictionary definition there is the use of "a social group". As a specific discipline this suggests either sociology or psychology. From social psychology is "[o]n our use of the term, a dominant group need not be a numerical majority (although it often will be)." This article is published in the "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology" dated August 2005.

Eight editions of Mosby's Medical Dictionary have occurred, but only the more recent seven (1987 - 2nd to 2009 - 8th) are accessible by either Google scholar or a full web search using Google. Of these, "dominant group" is defined in and additionally occurs within another term's definition in the 8th edition only.

This suggests but does not confirm that the definition in Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition (2009), is a precising definition of the term as used in 2005, where "a social group that controls the value system and rewards in a particular society." "need not be a numerical majority (although it often will be)."

Within the article, precising definition, it is stated "a precising definition does not [contradict the lexical definition]." That is the case above.

Although the exact wording of some earlier definition of "dominant group" from either sociology or psychology has not been found, it seems likely from chronology that it includes "need not be a numerical majority (although it often will be)." in some meaningful way.

The 'meteors' article, published in 1958, states "stony meteors, i.e. 68 p.c." "among all the 217 meteors". The abbreviation "p.c." is for "per cent" or "per centage". Here there is commonality between some early sociological or psychological definition of "dominant group" as a majority and as a majority of meteors.

So far in the ongoing timeline and radiance exploration, the earliest sociological use of "dominant group" occurs in the article "Art in a Democracy" from 1923: "It is but natural that when aristocratic ideals should impose themselves upon any polity the art of that polity should reflect the taste, the culture, the ways of life, and the very being of the dominant classes." and “At any rate, here is confirmation of the thesis that art voices the will of the dominant group in society.”

For the earliest discovered psychology article (1930), "a member of [the dominant group] will excel submissive persons in academic endeavors."

Neither of these uses of the term precisely excludes "need not be a numerical majority (although it often will be)." , but appear to be additional precising definitions or may be stipulative or theoretical definitions of some other definition.

The use of "dominant group" in the 'meteors' article does not contradict the 'majority' usage of social psychology, but is obviously at odds with "a social group", or at least the "social" portion. Further, the term's use in the 'meteors' article does seem to contradict the earliest uses of "dominant group" in sociology (aristocratic classes, 1923) but not necessarily the earliest in psychology (1930).

In searching titles at url=http://www.jstor.org, the term "majority" has its earliest occurrence in 1672, "psychology" in 1800, "sociology" in 1845, and "dominant group" in 1877. For combinations, "dominant group" + majority, the earliest occurrence is in 1877, "dominant group" + psychology is 1884, "dominant group" + sociology is 1897, "dominant group" + majority + psychology is 1912, and "dominant group" + majority + sociology is 1912. The last two combinations occur in the same article: "Race Psychology: Standpoint and Questionnaire, With Particular Reference to the Immigrant and the Negro" in the American Journal of Sociology. "Dominant group" appears on page 756 and majority appears on 741. "Majority" appears to refer to the majority of Poles in Pozen, Poland, while "dominant group" appears to refer to the majority in the United States relative to immigrants and "the Negro" (minorities). This usage tends to confirm but does not indicate that "dominant group", majority, psychology, and sociology are associated in 1912.

If confirmed from additional sources, the association of these four terms suggests that the more recent usage for non-majority groups may be a precising on this undiscovered earlier definition to possible dominant minority groups. The earlier usage, then, involves a majority.

Synonymous definitions
A synonymous definition is a definition “defining a single word [or symbol] by giving another single word [or symbol] which has the same meaning.” But, synonymous definitions have limitations:
 * 1) “some words have no exact synonyms” ,
 * 2) a synonymous definition “cannot be used in the construction of precising or theoretical definitions.”, and
 * 3) no synonym should appear in the definiens of a genus–differentia definition.

From JSTOR, url=http://www.jstor.org, the earliest occurrence in an article of the above and other words of interest are

Synonyms for “dominant” together with their category of most common usage are where the categories 36, 171, 462, 670, and 739, and words "note", "music", "chief", "influential", "most important", and "ruling" are actually listed.

The overlap in synonymy between “majority” and “dominant” is categories 36 and 747. Although many of the others could be used in description to construct stipulative definitions.

In Mosby's Medical Dicitionary definition that a dominant group is "a social group that controls the value system and rewards in a particular society." is a synonym for "ruling": "controls", which is a verb form of "controlling". Although this synonym is absent from "need not be a numerical majority (although it often will be)." , there is the question of what's defining a "dominant group" when it's not the majority?

Both the current lexical definition and some as yet unfound earlier lexical definition from which the current one may have been precised appear to have problems. Both problems are matters of synonymy. The most common usage of "dominant" and thereby the most likely category to find the closest synonyms to exact synonyms is in category "171. INFLUENCE". For "majority" this is category "100. PLURALITY". The further away from exact synonymy the category is, the less exact relatively is the synonymy. This suggests that terms outside category 171 may be okay for lexical definitions as the one in Mosby's Medical Dictionary of "dominant group" using "controls". The same for some earlier unfound lexical definition using "majority", category 100.

This degree of relative synonymy also allows an answer to "what's defining a "dominant group" when it's not the majority?" An answer is in the synonyms for "majority", especially in category 100, but especially not in categories 36 or 747 because of the overlap in relative synonymy. Yet, here again both categories 36 and 747 are relatively away from categories 100 and 171 in meaning. These could be used in precising or theoretical definitions.

With relative synonymy instead of exact synonymy, relative synonyms may be useable in a genus–differentia definition.

This same approach of relative synonymy should be applied to the word "group". Although use within "dominant group" suggests that "group" is a noun, "group" can be used as a verb.

With a two-word term, genus classes (or categories ) may consist of three varieties:
 * 1) category1 + category2,
 * 2) "dominant" + category2, or
 * 3) category1 + "group".

Here "category1" refers to any category of relative synonyms for "dominant" (adjective or noun), and "category2" is the same for "group" (noun or verb).

The added possibilities of "group" as a verb suggests usages like "dominantly grouped", with the adverb "dominantly", or "dominant grouping".

These variations in part due to analyzing a two-word term allow additional possibilities to consider in forming genus differentia definitions.

Genus–differentia definition
A genus-differentia definition is a type of intentional definition composed by two parts:
 * 1) a genus (or family): An existing definition that serves as a portion of the new definition; and
 * 2) the differentia: The portion of the definition that is not provided by the genera.

The rules for definition by genus and differentia are in the Wikipedia article definition.

For the term dominant group there is
 * 1) the 2009 lexical definition of "dominant group" as "a social group that controls the value system and rewards in a particular society." which occurs in Mosby's Medical Dictionary and
 * 2) some as yet unfound lexical definition existing around or before 2005 which contains the phrase "need not be a numerical majority (although it often will be)." in a meaningful way.

The text from the 'meteors' article served to demonstrate that around 1958, some unfound lexical definition of "dominant group" contained "a numerical majority", but not necessarily the phrase "a social group".

Possible starting points for the exploration of genus-differentia definitions are
 * 1) "a social group",
 * 2) a group or "need not be [a social group] (although it often will be)",
 * 3) "a numerical majority", and
 * 4) a synonym for "need not be a numerical majority".

An initial objective might be some earlier definition that handles classes of use of the term "dominant group".

The first two possibilities have a shortcoming already present in the second two. This shortcoming has been described by Millet in the article entitled, "Defining the "Dominant Group"", in the journal of Canadian Ethnic Studies, specifically, the article "[t]races the evolution of the dominant group in Canada since 1931 by examining criteria for dominance that have evolved over time." Also of interest is that "the category of "dominant group" has unclear limits and varies from one geographical region to another."

Some attempts at a genus for "dominant group" may be

 * 1) a group that is a numerical majority within a region is called a dominant group.
 * 2) a group that is most numerous within a region is called a dominant group.
 * 3) a group that is in first place within a region is called a dominant group.

The second and third definitions allow for a majority among many as a special case, but not necessarily as a requirement.

While the most common usage of "most", "plurality", and "majority" is category "100. PLURALITY" for synonymy, a category that overlaps with "dominant" is "36. SUPERIORITY" which contains the phrase "first place".

A first genus then is "a first place group" or "a group in first place". The "differentia" become the criteria of ordering the groups such as by classes:

 * 1) numerousness (plurality to majority to all),
 * 2) violence (despotism),
 * 3) diffuseness (radiance),
 * 4) diversity,
 * 5) superiority,
 * 6) mastery,
 * 7) control,
 * 8) power, or
 * 9) influence.

The phrase "first place" can be applied to almost every category of synonymy from "1. EXISTENCE" to "1040. RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS". From Google scholar this phrase occurs in about 2,500,000 articles. On Wikipedia it occurs in 16,217 articles. This suggests that "first place" grants too much.

Perhaps an approximate comparison of article popularity for these classes on Google scholar will shed some insight.

Any of the far more popular genus classes require substantial differentia to bring the focus of meaning to perhaps within a factor of three in popularity (and perhaps intent by author) of "dominant group". Adding "dominance" into the focusing suggests that differentia very close to "171. INFLUENCE" in synonymy are needed.

Term filtering is described in Dominant group/Two-word terms.

Theoretical definitions
Here's a theoretical definition:

Article title: "Dominant Group Ethnic Identity in the United States: The Role of 'Hidden’ Ethnicity in Intergroup Relations". "For purposes of this analysis, I define a dominant ethnic group as the ethnic group in a society that exercises power to create and maintain a pattern of economic, political, and institutional advantage, which in turn results in the unequal (disproportionately beneficial to the dominant group) distribution of resources."

Def. "the ethnic group in a society that exercises power to create and maintain a pattern of economic, political, and institutional advantage, which in turn results in the unequal (disproportionately beneficial to the dominant group) distribution of resources" is called a dominant ethnic group.

"[A] group is dominant if it possesses a disproportionate share of societal resources, privileges, and power."

Def. "if [a group] possesses a disproportionate share of societal resources, privileges, and power" it is called a dominant group.

Rigorous definitions
The key question is: has a rigorous definition already been rendered in context for the term "dominant group"? And, before that, what is a rigorous definition?

 * Temporal encoding

Perhaps, "a rigorous definition for the term temporal encoding" may be helpful, as it is close but still not in evolutionary biology. This rigorous "definition relies on the identification of an encoding time window".

Definition: "an encoding time window [is] the duration of a neuron's spike train assumed to correspond to a single symbol in the neural code."

Theorem: "[t]he duration of the encoding time window is dictated by the time scale of the information being encoded."

 * Stem cell

A rigorous definition of the term “stem cell” is as follows.

Definition: A cell is a stem cell if and only if it has the properties:
 * 1) unlimited self-renewal and
 * 2) within-tissue multipotentiality.

This definition has limited flexibility in that it “does not necessarily exclude cross-tissue plasticity.”

 * Axiomatic definition

It has been stated that "the rigorous definition of distance" fulfills "the three axioms that define an Euclidean metric" so that a "generalized metric can be defined using as distance an appropriate function ... that fulfills the three axioms of an Euclidean metric". Having met these three axioms as a criteria of an Euclidean metric, the definition of the generalized metric is said to be a "rigorous definition of distance".

An axiomatic definition is a rigorous definition: "the definition must clearly state the rules that are considered as binding, and on the other hand give the implementor enough freedom to achieve efficiency by leaving certain less important aspects undefined." This rigorous definition is for "an axiomatic definition of the programming language PASCAL".

Test
"A high diversity of terrestrial vertebrates with dinosaurs as the dominant group is strongly indicated but not much of it is yet recorded." The foregoing text suggests that 'dominant group' is being used as a test of available information on dinosaurs, specifically from the early to middle Jurassic of Africa as of early 2011.

Timeline and radiance
While "dominant group" may appear in a publication within a specific subject area, it may not necessarily be the case that a change in meaning specific to that subject area has occurred. In timeline and radiance, article titles and references are included where the term is used for the apparent first appearance.

Although Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859 appears to be the origin or first use of the term "dominant group", both "dominant" and "group" as words and terms have been around for centuries longer. Is there a possible earlier origin?

Further searching of older literature has produced three occurrences with two separate meanings of "dominant group" in two distinct subjects. In the period 1853-7, Alexis de Tocqueville writes of a dominant group with respect to government. In 1840 and earlier in 1826, dominant group is used to refer to specific groups of insects, the latter by geographical distribution.

Small group study
Within each subject area, the meaning and context is analyzed from a small group of publications per the metadefinition. The publications chosen should have a downloadable form so that occurrences of dominant group can be found and context regarding its components available. The results for each dominant group are within small group study. For each small group subject area, each article content is used to analyze the contextual meanings. Individual studies are located at subpages:

 * 1) /Agriculture/,
 * 2) /Anthropology/,
 * 3) /Archaeology/,
 * 4) /Astronomy/,
 * 5) /Economics/,
 * 6) /Geology/,
 * 7) /Metagenome/,
 * 8) /Planetary science/,
 * 9) /Sociology/.

The above subpages demonstrate that a metadefinition successfully characterizes the use of dominant group by various authors and in many subjects.

A second use of the small group study is to include relative synonyms without dominant group specifically mentioned within the text.

To add learning resources to Wikiversity and to explore alternatives for the authors' use of dominant group in context, additional subpages are either under development or are already in resource space and are included in the template for dominant group below.

Field experiment
Test each hypothesis.

Darwin's compelling use of the term may have influenced others to include it. The term may have evolved into alternate new forms.

Google scholar standard
Using different "since" years on Google scholar yields about 398,000 (1992), 271,000 (1993), 335,000 (1994), 304,000 (1995), 402,000 (1996), 274,000 (1997), 347,000 (1998), 302,000 (1999), 572,000 (2000), 252,000 (2001), 286,000 (2002), 252,000 (2003), 291,000 (2004), 238,000 (2005), 275,000 (2006), 217,000 (2007), 265,000 (2008), 170,000 (2009), 357,000 (2010), 36,300 (2011), for a total of 5,844,300, suggesting that the remainder 3,515,700 are from earlier than 1992.

Using "dominant group" yields 66,700 articles, patents, and citations. The phrase "dominant group theory" yielded two: "oppositional theory – theory that incorporates a logic and rhetoric that opposes mainstream thinking and dominant group theory." and "interest group pluralism replaced legal pluralism as the dominant group theory." .

A second search yields about 66,800, with 26,700 (1992), 25,600 (1993), 22,600 (1994), 22,500 (1995), 23,600 (1996), 22,700 (1997), 21,700 (1998), 19,300 (1999), 19,600 (2000), 18,800 (2001), 18,100 (2002), 17,500 (2003), 17,200 (2004), 17,000 (2005), 16,600 (2006), 16,000 (2007), 14,400 (2008), 10,900 (2009), 6,650 (2010), and 2,390 (2011). This suggests that the number of articles containing "dominant group" is decreasing from 1992 to 2004, with a significant increase from 2004 to present (probably mostly in sociology).

Difference table for "dominant group" (dg) articles and articles containing "the":

Funding
Obtaining funding (income to cover research costs) is important because research takes a toll on time, energy, and resources. It may not lead to profit-making yet may be valuable in its contribution to society. The results of the research or exploration that contribute to the better good of society should be made available for the public good and funded accordingly.

For exploratory research into "dominant group", its meaning and implications, funding is being sought and these efforts are included in Dominant group/Funding.

Hypotheses

 * 1) Although proof of concept for dominant group has succeeded, approximately 22 hypotheses regarding the two-word term may apply.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Dominant group


title: File:Logarithm.1.A.20110824.pdf


text:
Motivation and emotion/Book/2011/Competitiveness and happiness

Introduction
Does over-competitiveness cause unhappiness? This is the central question addressed by this chapter and touches upon many facets of psychological research, including not only competitiveness and happiness but also personality, anxiety and goal achievement.

Happiness has not always formed an essential area of psychological research, despite the fact that it forms an integral part of the individual, and it holds a special fascination for society as an ephemeral yet aspirational state. From the beginning stages of the humanist psychological approach, as highlighted by scientists such as Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow, to the concept of subjective well-being, the work of Ed Diener and the introduction of positive psychology, championed by Martin Seligman and Mikhail Csikszentmihalyi, the field of psychology has sought to develop an engagement with, and understand, this difficult area of human emotion.

At the same time, competitiveness has been a similarly important yet neglected area of psychological research. It can be argued that the concept of competitiveness underpins main areas of psychological science - from achievement theory to social psychology. With the rise of professional sports and the advent of sports psychology renewed efforts toward the study of competitiveness and its effect upon human endeavour have captured the attention of mainstream media.

As such the focus upon these areas has intensified the question of whether over-competitiveness causes unhappiness. Competitiveness has essentially become a virtue in fields such as business and drama whilst the pursuit of happiness now involves topics as diverse as religion, economics and therapy. However, despite this evolution, it is important to consider the formation and current thinking regarding these two concepts before delving into the relationship that exists between over-competitiveness and unhappiness.

Happiness: From Aristotle to Subjective Well-Being
The definition and nature of happiness has long been debated by philosophers, politicians and scientists. Influential thinkers throughout human history including Aristotle, St Thomas Aquinas and Arthur Schopenhauer have weighed in with differing accounts of what constitutes happiness and according to Kim-Prieto, Diener, Tamir, Scollon & Diener (2005) there are almost 4000 studies listed under the topic of “happiness” in the PsychInfo database.

“Happiness depends on ourselves” was the central tenet of Aristotle’s thoughts about happiness and this is a theme that is heavily echoed throughout history (Bok, 2010). Aristotle contended that happiness was not an emotion as such but rather a state of mind that is attained after a life lived according to the virtues prescribed by Greek society of the time. His statement “he is happy who is active in accordance with complete virtue... not for some chance period but throughout a complete life” (Aristotle, Ross, & Brown, 2009) reflects not only this belief but also summarises much of the early thinking about the subject.

Moving towards the contemporary thinking regarding happiness ‘subjective well-being’ is preferred as a catch-all phrase for the theories involved in this area. Wilson (1967) noted that not much substantiative evolution in the research and discussion of happiness had taken place since the time of Aristotle. Wilson summarised the concept of subjective well-being through a review of the data in the areas that individuals feel dictate happiness, stating that a happy person is “young, healthy, well-educated, well-paid, extroverted, optimistic, worry-free, religious, married person with high self-esteem, job morale, modest aspirations, of either sex and of a wide range of intelligence”. Wilson focussed on argument that external factors and situations influence happiness from a bottom-up process perspective (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999).

The foundation above has been built upon by many researchers including Diener (1984) who refined the broad framework constructed by that statement by examining the internal factors that influence happiness including personality, cognitive assessment and comparative measures of worth, through which an individual filters their reported experience of happiness. This was seen as a response to studies including those by Andrews and Withey (1976) which highlighted the inability of external factors to explain the complete nature of happiness. The integration of these processes has led researchers to investigate the relationship between happiness with well-being finding that the two concepts seem to have a positive correlation in the developed world (Blanchflower & Oswald, 2002).

Finally, the field of positive psychology, a relatively new movement in psychology, signalled a significant shift in the attitude of researchers in relation to happiness. Namely this change reflected a desire for studies that aimed to improve understanding about the positive experiences of life rather than attempting to address the negative outcomes associated with mental disorders. Seligman (2003) posited in his editorial referencing the future of positive psychology that not only was the movement about happiness but that the great lesson about the debates regarding the nature of happiness is that it can only be agreed upon that happiness can come from many different factors. This echoes the position of Averill and More (1993) that the reason psychology had, to date, failed to resolve the happiness debate was that happiness can take on so many meanings involving counterintuitive and paradoxical outcomes.

Over-competitiveness: Too much of a good thing?
As opposed to the more abstract, emotional basis of happiness discussed above competitiveness takes the form of a different psychological construct – that of motivation. In essence, motivation can be defined as the driving force behind the actions of an individual (Reeve, 2009). In the case of competitiveness this driving force lies with the desire for social comparison, with the belief that displays of superior competence and achievement show that an individual is better than others and hence of greater worth in the eyes of society (Van der Vliert & Janssen, 2002).

However the term competitiveness is argued by some researchers (Mautz & Jennions, 2011) to be much more primal – coming from the process of mate selection. It can even be argued that the field of evolutionary psychology is symbolic of competitiveness as an overarching theory regarding fitness of adaptations, social constructs and emotional development (Neuberg, Kenrick, & Schaller, 2010). It should be remembered though that within the scope of this chapter competitiveness will be defined in the narrow sense of motivation rather than the broader, more generic sense.

With the working definition of competitiveness narrowed to the motivational aspects of the term rather than the evolutionary aspects it is important to explore what this definition means for the individual. Helmreich and Spence (1978) proposed that competitiveness exists as a measurable trait related to achievement motivation and devised a scale that highlighted how reliant an individual was upon that motivational method.

Competitiveness has been positively correlated with achievement (Harackiewcisz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997), positive creative outcomes (Franken & Brown, 1992) and economic success (Kirkcaldy & Furnham, 1993). These outcomes are typically associated with happiness.

The level of competitiveness that an individual displays is a function of a continuum rather than falling into a binary system of either competitive or non-competitive (Helmreich & Spence, 1978). It is important to realise that this means that an individual’s competitiveness can fall into a range that underlines an over-reliance upon competitive motivation and social comparison. Individuals who exhibit behaviours that are considered to be emblematic of over-competitiveness can be labelled as hypercompetitive – a term that has received empirical support and allowed for the design of appropriate measuring instruments (Ryckman, Hammer, Kaczor, & Gold, 1990).

Hypercompetitiveness has been defined by Karen Horney as an indiscriminate need by individuals to compete and win (and to avoid losing) at any cost as a means of maintaining or enhancing feelings of self-worth (Horney, 1936) and has been correlated with poor personality development and high levels of narcissism to such a degree as to pose a mental health issue (Ryckman, Thornton, & Butler, 1994).

The relationship between over-competitiveness and unhappiness
Hypercompetitive individuals strongly identify their feelings of self-worth, well-being and happiness with how other individuals perceive their worth via social comparison (Van der Vliert & Janssen, 2002). As suggested by Horney (1936), this comparison is not exercised with any forethought but rather takes the form of unrestrained competition without regard to consequence or distinction.

This reliance on others to dictate success for an individual creates reliance upon what is called extrinsic motivation for that individual to achieve happiness. For individuals who utilise extrinsic motivation the importance lies with the outcome of activities rather than enjoyment of the activity itself (Dweck & Leggett, 1988) which has been suggested to reduce the amount of happiness that an individual can gain from an activity and inhibits an individual from achieving an optimal experience (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).

Furthermore, for overly-competitive individuals, repeated exposure to poor social comparison or failure can result in a severe drop in feelings of happiness and self-efficacy with a strong relationship proposed towards learned helplessness (Abrahamson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978). Learned helplessness in these cases manifests as a belief that an individual’s ability to succeed will never overcome the requirements of a task – with a drop in performance and a subsequent rise in unhappiness seemingly inevitable (Roth, 1980).

The link between competitiveness and unhappiness is not necessarily limited to the individual either, with researchers showing that a positive relationship between over-competitiveness and unhappiness exists on both the individual (Nicholls, 1984) and societal levels (Van der Vliert & Janssen, 2002). It has also been suggested that this increase in unhappiness and well-being may be due to the decreased focus on leisure and socialisation (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002).

This need to gain happiness from social comparison extends into areas that may not be immediately apparent. Sides-Moore and Tochkov (2011) found that a high level of competitiveness can contribute to college women developing depression and body image problems due to the need to compare their own body shape to a model’s body shape. A decrease in self-confidence was also apparent in other research conducted in this area (Heatherton, 1993).

Decreased self-confidence and competitiveness have also been suggested to play a role in the display of cognitive anxiety by Martens, Vealey and Burton (1990) who also declared that cognitive anxiety was strongly related to negative affect (unhappiness) in athletes due to the reduced ability of those suffering from cognitive anxiety to visualise positive outcomes or achieve better results than their peers in competition.

Furthermore the process of linking, or the concept of aligning happiness with the completion of activities, is quite common for individuals who display high levels of competitiveness with research suggesting that this process is related to increased levels of unhappiness (Schofield, Dickson, Mummery, & Street, 2002). Schofield et al. (2002) suggested that the connection of abstract outcomes to the completion of specific tasks artificially inflates the importance of the task and promotes increased pressure to perform.

However, again utilising the population of athletes, some researchers still feel that the psychological definitions of happiness and well-being are not sufficient to develop a theoretical foundation for exploration of any relationship between the two and competitiveness (Lundqvist, 2011) marking a direction for future research. It is also worth exploring the theory posited by Neumann (1975) that the modern business world, which rewards hypercompetitiveness, can create a reality in which achievement driven by extrinsic motivational factors does not bring an increase in happiness because any success is considered insufficient when compared to the next success needed to maintain social standing.

Summary
From the literature reviewed it can be noted that while competitiveness has a relatively clear definition, the definitions for over-competitiveness and happiness are not quite so clear cut. However, it should be noted that despite these problems research showed a strong relationship between an increase in competitiveness and an increase in unhappiness.

This unhappiness was not restricted to any singular reason or any field of interest with research showing that individuals who varied from female college students to professional triathletes exhibited this increase. Furthermore, it was suggested that unhappiness was able to be tracked as a collective trait for an entire society that held competitive values in high esteem.

The mechanisms that suggest a correlation between over-competitiveness and unhappiness are not distinct either. Although social comparison is a recurring theme in research regarding this topic, factors ranging from extrinsic motivation to cognitive anxiety have also been suggested to contribute to this link. Just as over-competitiveness can lead to unhappiness in any field of interest, there is no single factor to manage in an attempt to find a solution in order to try and mitigate this relationship.

It is clear that unanswered questions remain on this topic and that future research can address some of the ambiguity that exists in this difficult area of psychology. The task remains for contemporary researchers to evaluate the accuracy of previous definitions of happiness and adapt conventional theories of competitiveness to suit a world that is constantly evolving. This is especially important as people begin to focus upon the role that a demanding society plays in the subjective well-being and mental health of the planet as a whole.

Short answer questions

 * 1) Briefly outline the development of happiness from a psychological perspective.
 * 2) Briefly outline the differences between definitions of competitiveness from a psychological perspective.
 * 3) What are some practical examples of happiness?
 * 4) What are some practical examples of competitiveness?
 * 5) What is hypercompetitiveness?
 * 6) What are some reasons that an overly-competitive person might be unhappy?
 * 7) What directions can psychology take in future research about the link between over-competitiveness and unhappiness?


text:
User talk:RJasmine

 Hello RJasmine, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Abd 02:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

 Hi! My name is WikiversityJack. I am a pumpkin and a Wikiversity mascot. My aunt told me that fun + learning = Wikiversity. Let me know if I can help you out.

Motivation and emotion
Hi. Welcome to the unit and to Wikiversity! I look forward to learning with you and I hope you find the topic and the unit rewarding. Please feel free to let me know if you have any suggestions or would like help at any point along the way. Sincerely, James Neill, -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:RJasmine


text:
User talk:Wolliff (WMF)

 Hello Wolliff, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Abd 02:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wolliff (WMF)


text:
User talk:Ashleetronerud

 Hello Ashleetronerud, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Abd 02:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

 Hi! Our name is Vicky-Verity. We are twins and are Wikiversity mascots. We think Wikiversity is a great place to learn and make friends (when we aren't sleeping). Leave us a message!

Motivation and emotion
Hi. Welcome to the unit and to Wikiversity! I look forward to learning with you and I hope you find the topic and the unit rewarding. Please feel free to let me know if you have any suggestions or would like help at any point along the way. Sincerely, James Neill, -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Files Missing License Information
Thank you for uploading files to Wikiversity. See Media for copyright and license requirements for Wikiversity files. All files must have copyright and/or license information added to the file.

Instructions for adding copyright and/or license information are available at License tags. Files must be updated within seven days or they may be removed without further notice. See Requests For Deletion for more information.

The following files are missing copyright and/or license information:
 * File:Binge eating1.jpg

MaintenanceBot (discuss • contribs) 03:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ashleetronerud


text:
Clifford's circle theorems

In geometry, Clifford's theorems, named after the English geometer William Kingdon Clifford, are a sequence of theorems relating to intersections of circles.

The first theorem considers any four circles passing through a common point M. Four new circles can be constructed to pass through their other intersection points taken in triplets, so that each intersection's triple touches three circles only. Then these four circles also pass through a single point P.

The second theorem considers five circles passing through a single point M. Each subset of four circles defines a new point P according to the first theorem. Then these five points all lie on a single circle C.

The third theorem consider six circles that pass through a single point M. Each subset of five circles defines a new circle by the second theorem. Then these six new circles C all pass through a single point.

The sequence of theorems can be continued indefinitely.

title: Clifford's circle theorems


text:
User:Waihorace

Hi! I am Waihorace and I am a member of the Small Wiki Monitoring Team. If you would like to contact me, it is recommended that you leave your message on my talk page on Meta-Wiki.

title: User:Waihorace


text:
User talk:Ishmail-mahmood

 Hello Ishmail-mahmood, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Abd 03:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ishmail-mahmood


text:
Salticid studies/First records of Hakka (Araneae: Salticidae) in North America

''This is a draft document. The final published version resides at http://peckhamia.com/peckhamia/PECKHAMIA_94.1.pdf and was uploaded to Commons as File:Peckhamia 94.1.pdf.''

Hakka Berry & Prószyński 2001 is a genus of jumping spiders comprising a single species, Hakka himeshimensis (Doenitz & Strand 1906), endemic to East Asia, and belonging to the subfamily Heliophaninae. We document the first records of this genus and species from North America, as well as evidence of established populations at Marblehead, Massachusetts and Cape May Point, New Jersey. It is hypothesized that this coastal species is a recent anthropogenic introduction, most likely introduced via cargo imported through a New England or Mid-Atlantic seaport. A brief review of the genus Hakka is also presented.

New records
On October 26, 2010, Peter Cristofono was searching for interesting minerals to photograph along Granite Pier in Rockport, Massachusetts (42°40'4.4"N 70°37'20.4"W). Granite Pier is an artificial wharf created from locally mined blocks of alkaline granite (Cristofono, pers. comm.). While surveying the pier, Cristofono encountered an interesting spider on a block of granite. He photographed the spider and submitted it to BugGuide for identification (Figure 3). One of us (Kaldari) identified it as a salticid, but commented that it was not one he had seen before. The spider was then largely forgotten.

The next summer (2011), numerous photos of similar spiders were posted to BugGuide by Tom Adams. These photos were dated from late July and taken in Marblehead, Massachusetts. The spiders were found on granite outcroppings on the south side of an area known as Marblehead Neck (42°29'27.7"N 70°50'49.7"W). The “Neck”, a peninsula extending into Massachusetts Bay, is connected to Marblehead proper by a causeway on the southeastern side of the town. Marblehead Neck is primarily a residential area, although several parks, including the 18 acre Massachusetts Audubon Marblehead Neck Wildlife Sanctuary, preserve some of the natural habitats.

In early August, one of us (Walton) came across Adams' photographs on BugGuide. From his initial search of online references, Walton was unable to determine any satisfactory identification for what was a large (7–10 mm) and distinctive species. The only match Walton was able to find was Cristofono's photo from the year before, which was still unidentified. After contacting G. B. Edwards, who was also unfamiliar with the species in the photographs, Walton decided to travel to Marblehead to see if he could track down these jumping spiders. In a series of visits to Marblehead (August 12, 13, 17, and 19), Walton, assisted by Adams, located and videotaped (http://www.archive.org/details/HakkaHimeshimensis) both male and female spiders from the same location as Adams' earlier images. The six adults and 20–30 juveniles seen by Walton during this period, as well as the adults found and photographed previously by Adams, were all located on granite outcroppings within or near the intertidal zone. Walton observed both adult males and females moving across the rock surfaces, as well as in the crevices and cracks of the granite (Figures 4–8). The spiders invariably retreated to these natural refuges when approached by humans.

In addition to videotaping the spiders, Walton also collected two adult males (17 August) and sent a single specimen each to Edwards and Kaldari. Subsequently, an adult female and adult male (coll. 19 August) went to Edwards as additional vouchers for deposit in the FSCA. On August 21, Kaldari identified the species as Hakka himeshimensis based on examination of the male pedipalp (Figure 11). The identification was confirmed by Edwards and J. Prószyński (pers. comm.). The pedipalp of the male Hakka himeshimensis has several distinctive characters, including a large groove separating the embolar base from the rest of the bulb, the bulb overlapping the tibia proximally, a large sinuous embolus, and small ridges on the inner surface of the retrolateral tibial apophysis, all of which were present in the specimen from Marblehead. Several somatic characters also matched the specimens, such as the dorsal color pattern of both sexes, reddish setae surrounding the eyes, a very narrow clypeus, and robust brown chelicerae.

A month later, Walton was in Cape May Point, New Jersey (Cape May County) doing a research project with the Cape May Bird Observatory. On September 29, he and some friends were observing wildlife in the area and the group took a dirt road north from the Higbee Beach Wildlife Management Area to the south side of the Cape May Canal opposite the terminal of the Cape May–Lewes Ferry (38°57'57.1"N 74°57'43.7"W). At approximately 3:30 pm, Jeff Kingery called Walton's attention to a spider on rocks forming the retaining structure and fill of the canal bank (Figure 10). Walton recognized the spider as a male Hakka himeshimensis. Walton subsequently observed 15 to 20 other similar spiders along a 50 foot stretch of the embankment. All of the adults appeared to be males; the gender of the dozen or so immatures was not determined. During the next hour, Jeff and Becky Kingery took pictures of several of these spiders (Figure 9). Walton was able to collect a single adult male which will be deposited in the FSCA as an additional voucher.

Pathways for introduction
At all three North American locations (Figure 1), H. himeshimensis was found on rocky coastal embankments. This habitat is similar to areas where H. himeshimensis has been collected in Japan (Chikuni 2008). This species appears to be primarily, or even exclusively, a spider of coastal habitats. Its proximity to maritime transport and coastal freight yards likely affords it frequent opportunities to travel outside of its native range as a stow-away. In addition, its adaptation to coastal landforms and climates increases the likelihood that it will become successfully established near any ports it is transported to.

Accidental importation through maritime trade is a common pathway by which non-indigenous species reach the United States (Work et al. 2005). Between the New Jersey and Massachusetts populations of H. himeshimensis lie three of the busiest international trading hubs in the U.S.: Boston, New York City, and Philadelphia.

The Port of Boston, which lies a mere 21 km (13 miles) from Marblehead, touts itself as “the oldest continually active port in the Western Hemisphere, and New England’s maritime hub.” In 2009, the port handled over 18 million metric tons of cargo, nearly 11 million of which consisted of imports from other countries. The freighters of two international firms, China Ocean Shipping Company and Hanlin, call at Boston weekly and provide direct service to four ports in China as well as to others in East Asia.

The Port of Philadelphia lies approximately 110km (68 miles) from Cape May Point, New Jersey, and handles over 18 million metric tons of imports annually. The port was recently identified as a likely point of entry for another Asian introduction, the brown marmorated stink bug, Halyomorpha halys (Stål) (Hamilton 2009).

Midway between the Massachusetts and New Jersey locations lies the The Port of New York and New Jersey, the third busiest seaport in the United States by tonnage. In 2009, the port handled over 58 million metric tons of foreign imports. A resurgence of traffic to the port in the past decade has been credited specifically to increases in direct maritime shipping from Asia.

Although H. himeshimensis is most likely to be a recent introduction, the possibility of spiders being accidentally transported from East Asia to the Northeastern coast of the United States has existed for over 200 years. After the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783, ending the American Revolutionary War, trade with China and other Asian territories opened up to American merchants. Early commerce between Qing dynasty China and the United States, now referred to as the Old China Trade, proved to be extremely lucrative and contributed to a thriving mercantile industry along the Eastern Seaboard (Dulles 1930). Major hubs for the Old China Trade included New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, and Salem, all cities near the recently discovered populations of H. himeshimensis.

As is evident from the examples above, opportunities for H. himeshimensis to travel from Asia to the United States have been numerous. It is even possible the species has been introduced more than once. Surveys of additional locations along the Atlantic coast may give us a better idea of the species' current extent, and its likely source (or sources) of introduction.

Brief review of Hakka
As noted above, Hakka belongs to the subfamily Heliophaninae, which is true of all the genera in the following discussion. Hakka currently includes a single species, H. himeshimensis, which is known from a small number of specimens from China, Korea, Japan, and Hawaii (Logunov & Marusik 2000, Berry and Prószyński 2001). Prószyński (2006) proposed placing two similar species within Hakka: Icius yadongensis Hu 2001 and Pseudicius marshi (Peckham & Peckham 1903), based on similarities in palpal structure. Icius yadongensis is an Asian species, which not only shares palpal similarities with H. himeshimensis, but also two characteristics of the female epigyne: anterior-directed copulatory ducts which curve back posteriorly to the spermathecae, and a heavily sclerotized posterior edge (Figure 12). Pseudicius marshi is from South Africa; its female is unknown. From a geographic standpoint, the latter species seems less likely to belong to Hakka. Morphologically, it has a color pattern more consistent with Heliophanus (where it was originally described), a speciose and diverse genus in Africa, and the related genus Heliophanillus. The palp is not inconsistent with Pseudicius where it was most recently placed. The illustration of the male shows very enlarged forelegs and only 3 ventral tibial spines, typical of Pseudicius; lack of enlarged forelegs and 5–6 ventral tibial spines are some of the characters used to distinguish Hakka from Pseudicius (Berry & Prószyński 2001). At the present time, we would support the transfer of I. yadongensis to Hakka, however, P. marshi seems best placed where it is.

Image credits

 * Figure 1: Ryan Kaldari, based on map data from Natural Earth
 * Figure 2: Ryan Kaldari, based on a map by Alexander Karnstedt
 * Figure 3: Peter Cristofono
 * Figures 4–8: Dick Walton
 * Figure 9: Jeff Kingery
 * Figure 10: Dick Walton
 * Figure 11: Ryan Kaldari
 * Figure 12: G. B. Edwards


text:
User:Lynnberry/(1) Writing outlines/abstracts

(1) Writing outlines/abstracts

Aim of essay: Write a descriptive text that shows awareness of the interplay of business and politics in a sport/physical activity at both a local and global level.

Preparation: Get an overview of the interplay in your chosen sport. What involvement does business and politics have? What would we have to be aware of? Would we need to modify our speech and actions? What might be off-limits? etc.

Possible outline/abstract structure:
 * Title
 * The Hook - What is the essay about and why is this interesting or important (eg why should we care?)?
 * What aspect are you covering? What is your scope? For example, you may cover 3 out of a possible 6 views that exist in a particular sport.
 * Why is the reason you've chosen these aspects and why are these important?
 * What views/ideas/solutions exist and what are the reactions to these?
 * Which ones are getting the most attention and why?
 * If you are writing a narrative, what were the consequences of events/actions?


text:
User:Lynnberry/What is an abstract?

Writing an abstract
What is it?

 * summary of the information (usually an article or report) which is to follow
 * usually printed below the title and above (or before) the article
 * either a summary of the introduction and the main conclusions, or a summary of all the sections of the paper: the introduction, key issues, solutions, conclusion
 * a mini version of the paper (often the only section read)

What is its purpose?

 * give the reader a concise overview of the whole article
 * useful way to find out what an article is about without having to read all of it

Conventions

 * typically between 150 and 250 words
 * no referencing; it should make sense on its own
 * don’t need to refer to anything in the article, such as tables and figures
 * abbreviations should be avoided

Tips:
 * avoid unnecessary detail; write only what is needed to understand your point or meaning
 * keep sentences clear, and check the flow of writing by reading aloud to hear how it sounds.

Before you start writing you need to be clear on the aspect under discussion: what you will discuss and why. The strength of your article depends on the depth of your discussion, that is, considering a range of questions about the aspect, eg who is saying what, why, what are the reactions, what attracting the most/least attention and why, what is being ignored, among others.

Examples from www.latrobe.edu.au/learning/assets/downloads/abstract.doc

title: User:Lynnberry/What is an abstract?