text:
Cybill Shepherd

Cybill Lynne Shepherd (born February 18, 1950) is an American actress, singer and former model. Her film debut and breakthrough role came as Jacy Farrow in Peter Bogdanovich's coming-of-age drama The Last Picture Show (1971) alongside Jeff Bridges. She also had roles as Kelly in Elaine May's The Heartbreak Kid (1972), Betsy in Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver (1976), and Nancy in Woody Allen's Alice (1990).

On television, her first major role was as Colleen Champion in the one season of the night-time drama The Yellow Rose (1983). Shepherd played Madelyn Hayes on the detective comedy-drama Moonlighting (1985–1989) opposite Bruce Willis, for which she won two Golden Globes for Best Actress in a Comedy/Musical TV Series out of three such nominations. She later starred as Cybill Sheridan on Cybill (1995–1998), for which she won her third Golden Globe Award as Best Actress in a Comedy/Musical TV series. Her later television roles included Phyllis Kroll on The L Word (2007–2009), Madeleine Spencer on Psych (2008–2013), Cassie in the television film The Client List (2010), and Linette Montgomery on The Client List (2012–2013).

Early life and career
Shepherd was born February 18, 1950, in Memphis, Tennessee. She is the second of three children. She had an older sister, Terry, and has a younger brother, William. Cybill was named with a blend of her grandfather Cy and her father Bill's names. While attending East High School, Shepherd won the "Miss Teenage Memphis" title and represented the city at the 1966 Miss Teenage America pageant at age 16, where she won the congeniality award. She competed at the 1968 "Model of the Year" contest at age 18, resulting in fashion model assignments through high school and afterwards.

According to Shepherd's autobiography, a 1970 Glamour magazine cover caught the eye of film director Peter Bogdanovich. His then-wife, Polly Platt, claimed that when she saw the cover in a check-out line in a Ralphs grocery store in southern California, he said "That's Jacy," referring to the role Bogdanovich was casting—and ultimately given to Shepherd—in The Last Picture Show (1971).

Celebrity
Her first film was The Last Picture Show, also starring Jeff Bridges and Timothy Bottoms. The film became a critical and box office hit, earning eight Academy Awards nominations and winning two. Shepherd was nominated for a Golden Globe. In 1972, Shepherd was cast opposite Charles Grodin in The Heartbreak Kid. She played Kelly, a young woman for whom Grodin's character falls while on his honeymoon in Miami. Directed by Elaine May and written by Neil Simon, it was another critical and box office hit. Also in 1972, Shepherd posed as a Kodak Girl for the camera manufacturer's then-ubiquitous cardboard store poster displays.

In 1974, Shepherd again teamed up with Peter Bogdanovich for the title role in Daisy Miller, based on the Henry James novella. The film—a period piece set in Europe—was a box office failure. That same year, she launched a singing career, releasing a studio album Cybill Does It...To Cole Porter for MCA Records. It was panned by Village Voice critic Robert Christgau, who wrote: "Her voice is surprisingly pleasant, but you'd never know how these songs sparkle. Since Cole didn't like to . . . do it with (or 'to') women very much, maybe the 'do' is as hostile as it sounds."

In 1975, she made At Long Last Love, a film musical directed by Bogdanovich, but, like Daisy Miller, it flopped. Shepherd returned with good reviews for her work in Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver (1976). According to Shepherd, Scorsese had requested a "Cybill Shepherd type" for the role. She portrayed Betsy, a volunteer for a presidential candidate with whom Robert De Niro's character, Travis Bickle, becomes infatuated.

A series of less-successful roles followed, including The Lady Vanishes, a remake of Alfred Hitchcock's 1938 film. Already sitting in on an acting class taught by Stella Adler, Shepherd was offered work at a dinner theater in Norfolk, Virginia, and turned to friend Orson Welles for advice. He encouraged her to get experience on stage in front of an audience, anywhere but Los Angeles or New York City, away from the harsh big-city critics so she moved back to her home town of Memphis to work in regional theatre.

Return to Hollywood
In 1982, Shepherd returned to New York and to the stage when she played alongside James MacArthur in a theatre tour of Lunch Hour by Jean Kerr. The following year, Shepherd went back to Los Angeles and was cast as Colleen Champion in the NBC television drama The Yellow Rose (1983), opposite Sam Elliott. Although critically acclaimed, the series lasted only one season. A year later, Shepherd was cast as Maddie Hayes on Moonlighting (1985–1989), a role that defined her career. The producers knew that her role depended on having "chemistry" with her co-star, and involved her in the selection of Bruce Willis. A lighthearted combination of mystery and comedy, the series won Shepherd two Golden Globe Awards.

She starred in Chances Are (1989) with Robert Downey Jr. and Ryan O'Neal, receiving excellent reviews. She then reprised her role as Jacy in Texasville (1990), the sequel to The Last Picture Show (1971), as the original cast (and director Peter Bogdanovich) reunited 20 years after filming the original. She appeared in Woody Allen's Alice (1990) and Eugene Levy's Once Upon a Crime (1992), as well as several television films. In 1997, she won her third Golden Globe award for Cybill (1995–1998), a television sitcom in which the title character, Cybill Sheridan, an actress struggling with hammy roles in B movies and bad soap operas, was loosely modeled on herself, including portrayals of her two ex-husbands and her then-teenage daughter.

In 2000, Shepherd's bestselling autobiography, Cybill Disobedience: How I Survived Beauty Pageants, Elvis, Sex, Bruce Willis, Lies, Marriage, Motherhood, Hollywood, and the Irrepressible Urge to Say What I Think, written in collaboration with Aimee Lee Ball, was published. That same year, Shepherd hosted a short-lived syndicated talk show version of the book Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, but left the show in early 2001. In 2003, she guest-starred on 8 Simple Rules as the sister of Cate Hennessy (portrayed by Katey Sagal). She has played Martha Stewart in two television films: Martha, Inc.: The Story of Martha Stewart (2003) and Martha: Behind Bars (2005).

From 2007 until it ended, Shepherd appeared on The L Word as Phyllis Kroll for the show's final three seasons. In 2008, she joined the cast of Psych as main character Shawn Spencer's mother, Madeleine Spencer. On November 7, 2008, Shepherd guest-starred in a February episode of the CBS drama Criminal Minds. In 2010 Shepherd appeared in an episode of No Ordinary Family and in November of the same year she guest-starred in an episode of $♯*! My Dad Says.

Shepherd appeared alongside Jennifer Love Hewitt in the 2010 television film The Client List and then in the 2012-13 series based on the film.

In July 2012, Shepherd made her Broadway debut in the revival of Gore Vidal's The Best Man at the Gerald Schoenfeld Theatre alongside James Earl Jones, John Stamos, John Larroquette, Kristin Davis, and Elizabeth Ashley to positive reviews.

Shepherd appeared as a mother grieving the death of her daughter in Do You Believe? (2015), a Christian-themed movie produced by Pure Flix Entertainment.

In 2019 she took on a role as an ex-cop senior struggling with illness who unexpectedly finds love on a road trip in the direct to cable Being Rose.

In 2023, Shepherd starred in the Lifetime film How to Murder Your Husband: The Nancy Brophy Story, where she portrayed Nancy Brophy, opposite Steve Guttenberg as Daniel Brophy, in a dramatization of the Murder of Daniel Brophy.

Personal life
Shepherd began a relationship with Peter Bogdanovich on the set of The Last Picture Show, during his marriage to Polly Platt, who Bogdanovich subsequently divorced. The relationship between the young star and her director lasted 8 years. In her autobiography, Shepherd revealed that she called her mother in 1978, crying and unhappy with the way her life and career were going. Her mother replied, "Cybill, come home." Shepherd went home to Memphis, where she met and began dating David M. Ford, a local auto parts dealer and nightclub entertainer. She became pregnant, and the couple married that year. Their daughter, Clementine Ford, was born in 1979. The marriage ended in divorce in 1982.

In 1987, Shepherd became pregnant by chiropractor Bruce Oppenheim and married him. They had twins named Ariel and Zachariah Shepherd Oppenheim born during the fourth season of Moonlighting. The couple divorced in 1990. She had an intimate relationship with author Larry McMurtry, whom she once called the love of her life.

In June 2012, Shepherd became engaged to psychologist Andrei Nikolajevic. By 2015, the engagement had been called off.

Political activism
Throughout her career, Shepherd has been an outspoken activist for issues such as gay rights and abortion rights. In 2009, she was honored by the Human Rights Campaign in Atlanta with one of two National Ally for Equality awards. She has been an advocate for same-sex marriage.

She was present at the opening of the National Civil Rights Museum in her hometown of Memphis, to which she lent financial support.

Religious beliefs
Shepherd was raised Christian, but stated that she eventually "lost touch" with the religion. In a 2007 interview with Metro Weekly, she described herself as being "a goddess-worshipping Christian Pagan Buddhist".

In October 2014, Shepherd said that she had reconnected with her Christian faith.

Emmy Awards
Nominations:
 * 1986 - Outstanding Lead Actress - Drama Series - Moonlighting
 * 1995 - Outstanding Lead Actress - Comedy Series - Cybill
 * 1996 - Outstanding Lead Actress - Comedy Series - Cybill
 * 1997 - Outstanding Lead Actress - Comedy Series - Cybill

In her autobiography, Shepherd addressed rumors that she was jealous of her co-stars Bruce Willis and Christine Baranski for winning Emmy awards while she has not: "The grain of truth in this controversy was that of course I was envious. Who doesn't want to win an Emmy?"

Golden Globe Awards
Wins:
 * 1985 - Best Actress in a TV series, Comedy/Musical - Moonlighting
 * 1986 - Best Actress in a TV series, Comedy/Musical - Moonlighting
 * 1995 - Best Actress in a TV series, Comedy/Musical - Cybill

Nominations:
 * 1971 - Most Promising Newcomer (Female) - The Last Picture Show
 * 1987 - Best Actress in a TV series, Comedy/Musical - Moonlighting
 * 1996 - Best Actress in a TV series, Comedy/Musical - Cybill

Discography

 * Cybill Does It...To Cole Porter (Paramount, 1974)
 * Mad About the Boy (Tombstone, 1976)
 * Cybill Getz Better (Inner City, 1976)
 * Vanilla (Gold Castle, 1979)
 * Somewhere Down the Road (Gold Castle, 1990)
 * Talk Memphis to Me (Drive Archive, 1997)
 * Songs from The Cybill Show (1999)
 * Live at the Cinegrill (2001)
 * At Home With Cybill (2004)
 * Jazz Baby Volumes 1–3 (2005)

Appearances

 * At Long Last Love (soundtrack) (1975)
 * Moonlighting (soundtrack) (1987)

title: Cybill Shepherd


text:
The Apartment

The Apartment is a 1960 American romantic comedy-drama film directed and produced by Billy Wilder from a screenplay he co-wrote with I. A. L. Diamond. It stars Jack Lemmon, Shirley MacLaine, Fred MacMurray, Ray Walston, Jack Kruschen, David Lewis, Willard Waterman, David White, Hope Holiday and Edie Adams.

The film follows an insurance clerk (Lemmon) who, in hopes of climbing the corporate ladder, allows more senior coworkers to use his Upper West Side apartment to conduct their extramarital affairs. He is attracted to an elevator operator (MacLaine) in his office building, unaware that she is having an affair with the head of personnel (MacMurray).

The Apartment was distributed by United Artists to widespread critical acclaim and was a commercial success, despite controversy owing to its subject matter. It became the 8th highest-grossing film of 1960. At the 33rd Academy Awards, the film was nominated for ten awards, and won five, including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Screenplay. Lemmon, MacLaine and Kruschen were Oscar-nominated. Lemmon and MacLaine won Golden Globe Awards for their performances. It provided the basis for Promises, Promises, a 1968 Broadway musical by Burt Bacharach, Hal David and Neil Simon.

The Apartment has come to be regarded as one of the greatest films ever made, appearing in lists by the American Film Institute and Sight and Sound magazine. In 1994, it was one of the 25 films selected for inclusion to the United States Library of Congress National Film Registry.

Plot
C.C. "Bud" Baxter is a lonely office drudge at an insurance corporation in New York City. To climb the corporate ladder, he allows four company managers to take turns borrowing his Upper West Side apartment, 51 West 67th Street, for their extramarital affairs. Baxter meticulously juggles the "booking" schedule, but the steady stream of women convinces his neighbors that he is a playboy.

Baxter solicits glowing performance reviews from the four managers and submits them to personnel director Jeff Sheldrake, who then promises to promote him – but Sheldrake also demands use of the apartment for his own affairs, beginning that night. As compensation for this short notice, he gives Baxter two theater tickets for that evening. Bud asks his secret crush, Fran Kubelik, an elevator operator in the office building, to join him. She agrees but first meets up with a "former fling", who turns out to be Sheldrake. When Sheldrake dissuades her from breaking up with him, promising to divorce his wife, they head to Baxter's apartment, while Baxter waits outside the theater.

During the company's raucous Christmas party several weeks later, Sheldrake's secretary, Miss Olsen, tells Fran that her boss has had affairs with other female employees, including herself. Fran confronts Sheldrake at Baxter's apartment, but he claims he loves her, then heads back to his suburban family after presenting her with a "Christmas present" of a $100 bill.

Realizing that Fran is the woman Sheldrake has been taking to his apartment, Baxter lets himself be picked up by a married lady at a local bar. When they arrive at his apartment, he discovers Fran, passed out on his bed from a suicidal overdose of sleeping pills. He ditches the woman from the bar and enlists Dr. Dreyfuss, a medical doctor living in the next-door apartment, to revive Fran. When Baxter makes Dreyfuss believe that he was the cause of the incident, Dreyfuss scolds him for philandering and advises him to "be a mensch."

The next day, Mrs. Dreyfuss brings breakfast over for Fran and pleads with her to make a lifestyle change and settle down. Mrs. Dreyfuss and Fran repeatedly point out the poor housekeeping in Baxter's bachelor pad, including the fact that he uses a tennis racket as a spaghetti strainer in the kitchen. Dr. Dreyfuss recommends that Fran spend two days recuperating in the apartment, during which time she grows close to Baxter, especially after he confesses to his own botched suicide attempt over unrequited feelings for his best friend's wife, who now sends him a fruitcake every Christmas. Fran says she has always suffered bad luck in her love life.

As Fran is sleeping in Baxter's room, one of the managers arrives for a tryst. Baxter persuades him and his companion to leave, but the manager recognizes Fran and informs his colleagues. The next day, confronted by Fran's brother-in-law, Karl Matuschka, who is looking for her, the jealous managers direct Karl to Baxter's apartment. Baxter and Fran are in the middle of eating meatballs and spaghetti, which Baxter strained using the tennis racket, when Karl rings the doorbell and demands that Fran return home to her sister, who is concerned about her. Baxter deflects the brother's-in-law anger over Fran's wayward behavior by once again assuming all responsibility. When Karl finds out about Fran's suicide attempt, he punches Baxter, knocking him to the floor. Fran reacts by kissing Baxter on the forehead for protecting her, exclaiming softly, "Oh you fool, you damn fool."

When Sheldrake learns that Miss Olsen tipped off Fran about his affairs, he fires her, but she retaliates by spilling all to Sheldrake's wife, who promptly throws her husband out. With no regrets for his behavior, Sheldrake believes that this situation just makes it easier to pursue Fran, although she hints that she is losing interest. Having promoted Baxter to an even higher position, which includes a key to the executive washroom, Sheldrake expects Baxter to loan out his apartment yet again for him and Fran. Baxter refuses to let Sheldrake bring anyone to his apartment again, "especially not Miss Kubelik". When Sheldrake threatens to fire him, Baxter gives back the washroom key instead of the apartment key – proclaiming that he has decided to become a mensch – and quits the firm. He decides to move out of the apartment and begins to pack his belongings, including the tennis racket and the handgun from his suicide attempt.

That night at a New Year's Eve party, Sheldrake indignantly tells Fran about Baxter quitting rather than letting him bring her to his apartment. Realizing that Baxter really loves her, Fran abandons Sheldrake and runs to the apartment. Running up the stairs, she hears an apparent gunshot. Fearing that Baxter has shot himself, she frantically pounds on the door. Baxter opens the door with a bottle of champagne in his hand, having just popped the cork. As they sit down to finish a game of cards started during Fran's recuperation, she reveals that she is on her own, like he is. When he asks about Sheldrake, she replies, "I'll send him a fruitcake every Christmas,” prompting him to declare his love for her. She hands him the cards and affectionately tells him to "Shut up and deal".

Production
Immediately following the success of Some Like It Hot, Wilder and Diamond wished to make another film with Lemmon. Wilder had originally planned to cast Paul Douglas as Sheldrake; however, after he died unexpectedly, MacMurray was cast.

The initial concept came from Brief Encounter by Noël Coward, in which Laura Jesson (Celia Johnson) meets Alec Harvey (Trevor Howard) for a thwarted tryst in his friend's apartment. However, due to the Hays Production Code, Wilder was unable to make a film about adultery in the 1940s. Wilder and Diamond also based the film partially on a Hollywood scandal in which high-powered agent Jennings Lang was shot by producer Walter Wanger for having an affair with Wanger's wife, actress Joan Bennett. During the affair, Lang used a low-level employee's apartment. Another element of the plot was based on the experience of one of Diamond's friends, who returned home after breaking up with his girlfriend to find that she had committed suicide in his bed.

Although Wilder generally required his actors to adhere exactly to the script, he allowed Lemmon to improvise in two scenes: In one scene, he squirts a bottle of nasal spray across the room, and in another, he sings while cooking spaghetti (which he strains through the grid of a tennis racket). In another scene, where Lemmon was supposed to mime being punched, he failed to move correctly, and was accidentally knocked down. Wilder chose to use the shot of the genuine punch in the film. Lemmon also caught a cold when one scene on a park bench was filmed in sub-zero weather.

Art director Alexandre Trauner used forced perspective to create the set of a large insurance company office. The set appeared to be a very long room full of desks and workers; however, successively smaller people and desks were placed to the back of the room, ending up with children. He designed the set of Baxter's apartment to appear smaller and shabbier than the spacious apartments that usually appeared in films of the day. He used items from thrift stores and even some of Wilder's own furniture for the set.

Music
The film's title theme, written by Charles Williams and originally titled "Jealous Lover", was first heard in the 1949 film The Romantic Age. A recording by Ferrante & Teicher, released as "Theme from The Apartment", reached #10 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart later in 1960.

Reception
The film made double its $3 million budget at the US and Canadian box office in 1960. Critics were split on The Apartment. Time and Newsweek praised it, as did The New York Times film critic Bosley Crowther, who called the film "gleeful, tender, and even sentimental" and Wilder's direction "ingenious". Esquire critic Dwight Macdonald gave the film a poor review, calling it "a paradigm of corny avantgardism". Others took issue with the film's controversial depictions of infidelity and adultery, with critic Hollis Alpert of the Saturday Review dismissing it as "a dirty fairy tale".

MacMurray, having generally played guileless characters, related that after the film's release he was accosted by women in the street who berated him for making a "dirty filthy movie", and one of them hit him with her purse. In 2001, Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert gave the film four stars out of four, and added it to his Great Movies list. The film critic Clarisse Loughrey has identified it as one of her two favorite movies, along with the 2010 film Boy. The film holds a 93% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 103 reviews with an average rating of 8.8/10; the site's consensus states that "Director Billy Wilder's customary cynicism is leavened here by tender humor, romance, and genuine pathos". On Metacritic, the film has a score of 94 out of 100 based on 21 reviews, and was awarded the "Must-See" badge.

Awards and nominations
Although Lemmon did not win the Oscar, Kevin Spacey dedicated his Oscar for American Beauty (1999) to Lemmon's performance. According to the behind-the-scenes feature on the American Beauty DVD, the film's director, Sam Mendes, had watched The Apartment (among other classic American films) as inspiration in preparation for shooting his film.

Within a few years after The Apartment's release, the routine use of black-and-white film in Hollywood ended. Since The Apartment only two black-and-white movies have won the Academy Award for Best Picture: Schindler's List (1993) and The Artist (2011).

In 1994, The Apartment was deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the United States Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the National Film Registry. In 2002, a poll of film directors conducted by Sight and Sound magazine listed the film as the 14th greatest film of all time (tied with La Dolce Vita). In the 2012 poll by the same magazine directors voted the film 44th greatest of all time. The film was included in "The New York Times Guide to the Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made" in 2002. In 2006, Premiere voted this film as one of "The 50 Greatest Comedies Of All Time". The Writers Guild of America ranked the film's screenplay (written by Billy Wilder & I.A.L. Diamond.) the 15th greatest ever. In 2015, The Apartment ranked 24th on BBC's "100 Greatest American Films" list, voted on by film critics from around the world. The film was selected as the 27th best comedy of all time in a poll of 253 film critics from 52 countries conducted by the BBC in 2017.

American Film Institute lists:
 * AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies (#93),
 * AFI's 100 Years...100 Laughs (#20),
 * AFI's 100 Years...100 Passions (#62),
 * AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies (10th Anniversary Edition) (#80).

Stage adaptation
In 1968, Burt Bacharach, Hal David and Neil Simon created a musical adaptation titled Promises, Promises which opened on Broadway at the Shubert Theatre in New York City. Starring Jerry Orbach, Jill O'Hara and Edward Winter in the roles of Chuck, Fran and Sheldrake, the production closed in 1972. An all-star revival began in 2010 with Sean Hayes, Kristin Chenoweth and Tony Goldwyn as the three leads. This version added famous Bacharach/David songs "I Say a Little Prayer" and "A House Is Not a Home" to the roster.

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

title: The Apartment


text:
More

More may refer to:

Computing

 * MORE (application), outline software for Mac OS
 * more (command), a shell command
 * MORE protocol, a routing protocol
 * Missouri Research and Education Network

Albums

 * More! (album), by Booka Shade, 2010
 * More (soundtrack), by Pink Floyd with music from the 1969 film
 * More... (Trace Adkins album), or the title song, 1999
 * More (Mary Alessi album), 2005
 * More (Beyoncé EP), 2014
 * More (Michael Bublé EP), 2005
 * More (Clarke-Boland Big Band album), 1968
 * More (Double Dagger album), 2009
 * More... (Montell Jordan album), 1996
 * More (Crystal Lewis album), 2001
 * More (Giuseppi Logan album), 1966
 * More (No Mercy album), 1998
 * More (No Trend album), 2001
 * More (Jeremy Riddle album), or the title song, 2017
 * More (Symphony Number One album), 2016
 * More (Tamia album), or the title song, 2004
 * More (Vitamin C album), 2001
 * More, by Mylon LeFevre, 1983
 * More, by Resin Dogs, 2007

Songs

 * "More" (Alex Alstone and Tom Glazer song), popularized by Perry Como, 1956
 * "More" (Alison Moyet song), 2003
 * "More" (J-Hope song), 2022
 * "More" (K/DA song), 2020
 * "More" (Matthew West song), 2003
 * "More" (Peaches song), 2009
 * "More" (The Sisters of Mercy song), 1990
 * "More" (Trace Adkins song), 2000
 * "More" (Usher song), 2010
 * "More" (Theme from Mondo Cane), from the 1963 film Mondo Cane
 * "More", by 5 Seconds of Summer from Youngblood, 2018
 * "More", by the Black Eyed Peas, performed on the Black Blue & You Tour, 2007
 * "More", by Doctor and the Medics from I Keep Thinking It's Tuesday, 1987
 * "More", by Grupa More, featuring Meri Cetinić, 1973
 * "More", by Halsey from Manic, 2020
 * "More", by Ice Prince from Fire of Zamani, 2012
 * "More", by Junkie XL from More More, 2007
 * "More", by Madonna from I'm Breathless, 1990
 * "More", by Nebula from Atomic Ritual, 2003
 * "More", by Sam Ryder from There's Nothing but Space, Man!, 2022
 * "More", by Selena Gomez & the Scene from Kiss & Tell, 2009

Bands

 * More (British band), a 1980s heavy metal band
 * More, a 1980s Yugoslav band featuring Doris Dragović

Places

 * More, Shropshire, a location in the United Kingdom
 * Möre, one of the original small lands of historical province Småland in southern Sweden

Radio, film, and television

 * More (1969 film), a film directed by Barbet Schroeder
 * More (1998 film), a short film by Mark Osborne
 * More (2017 film), a Turkish drama film
 * More FM, a New Zealand radio network
 * More Radio, an FM station in Swindon, North Wiltshire, UK
 * "More", an episode of The Good Doctor

Other uses

 * more, an English comparative determiner
 * More (surname), a family name, including a list of people with the surname
 * More!, a British women's fashion magazine
 * More (magazine), an American women's lifestyle magazine
 * More (cigarette), a cigarette brand marketed to women
 * More (store), a chain of supermarkets in India
 * Morè (clan), a Maratha clan of India
 * More (interjection), used in many Balkan languages
 * Mòoré language or Moré, a language spoken primarily in Burkina Faso by the Mossi
 * morebus, a bus brand operating around Bournemouth and Poole (England, UK)
 * Mayors Organized for Reparations and Equity (MORE), a coalition of U.S. mayors committed to paying reparations to African American citizens of their cities

title: More


text:
Social norm

Social norms are shared standards of acceptable behavior by groups. Social norms can both be informal understandings that govern the behavior of members of a society, as well as be codified into rules and laws. Social normative influences or social norms, are deemed to be powerful drivers of human behavioural changes and well organized and incorporated by major theories which explain human behaviour. Institutions are composed of multiple norms. Norms are shared social beliefs about behavior; thus, they are distinct from "ideas", "attitudes", and "values", which can be held privately, and which do not necessarily concern behavior. Norms are contingent on context, social group, and historical circumstances.

Scholars distinguish between regulative norms (which constrain behavior), constitutive norms (which shape interests), and prescriptive norms (which prescribe what actors ought to do). The effects of norms can be determined by a logic of appropriateness and logic of consequences; the former entails that actors follow norms because it is socially appropriate, and the latter entails that actors follow norms because of cost-benefit calculations.

Three stages have been identified in the life cycle of a norm: (1) Norm emergence – norm entrepreneurs seek to persuade others of the desirability and appropriateness of certain behaviors; (2) Norm cascade – when a norm obtains broad acceptance; and (3) Norm internalization – when a norm acquires a "taken-for-granted" quality. Norms are robust to various degrees: some norms are often violated whereas other norms are so deeply internalized that norm violations are infrequent. Evidence for the existence of norms can be detected in the patterns of behavior within groups, as well as the articulation of norms in group discourse.

Definition
There are varied definitions of social norms, but there is agreement among scholars that norms are:

 * 1) social and shared among members of a group,
 * 2) related to behaviors and shape decision-making,
 * 3) proscriptive or prescriptive
 * 4) socially acceptable way of living by a group of people in a society.

In 1965, Jack P. Gibbs identified three basic normative dimensions that all concepts of norms could be subsumed under:

 * 1) "a collective evaluation of behavior in terms of what it ought to be"
 * 2) "a collective expectation as to what behavior will be"
 * 3) "particular reactions to behavior" (including attempts sanction or induce certain conduct)

According to Ronald Jepperson, Peter Katzenstein and Alexander Wendt, "norms are collective expectations about proper behavior for a given identity." Wayne Sandholtz argues against this definition, as he writes that shared expectations are an effect of norms, not an intrinsic quality of norms. Sandholtz, Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink define norms instead as "standards of appropriate behavior for actors with a given identity." In this definition, norms have an "oughtness" quality to them.

Michael Hechter and Karl-Dieter Opp define norms as "cultural phenomena that prescribe and proscribe behavior in specific circumstances." Sociologists Christine Horne and Stefanie Mollborn define norms as "group-level evaluations of behavior." This entails that norms are widespread expectations of social approval or disapproval of behavior. Scholars debate whether social norms are individual constructs or collective constructs.

Economist and game theorist Peyton Young defines norms as "patterns of behavior that are self-enforcing within a group." He emphasizes that norms are driven by shared expectations: "Everyone conforms, everyone is expected to conform, and everyone wants to conform when they expect everyone else to conform." He characterizes norms as devices that "coordinate people's expectations in interactions that possess multiple equilibria."

Concepts such as "conventions", "customs", "morals", "mores", "rules", and "laws" have been characterized as equivalent to norms. Institutions can be considered collections or clusters of multiple norms. Rules and norms are not necessarily distinct phenomena: both are standards of conduct that can have varying levels of specificity and formality. Laws are a highly formal version of norms. Laws, rules and norms may be at odds; for example, a law may prohibit something but norms still allow it. Norms are not the equivalent of an aggregation of individual attitudes. Ideas, attitudes and values are not necessarily norms, as these concepts do not necessarily concern behavior and may be held privately. "Prevalent behaviors" and behavioral regularities are not necessarily norms. Instinctual or biological reactions, personal tastes, and personal habits are not necessarily norms.

Emergence and transmission
Groups may adopt norms in a variety of ways.

Some stable and self-reinforcing norms may emerge spontaneously without conscious human design. Peyton Young goes as far as to say that "norms typically evolve without top-down direction... through interactions of individuals rather than by design." Norms may develop informally, emerging gradually as a result of repeated use of discretionary stimuli to control behavior. Not necessarily laws set in writing, informal norms represent generally accepted and widely sanctioned routines that people follow in everyday life. These informal norms, if broken, may not invite formal legal punishments or sanctions, but instead encourage reprimands, warnings, or othering; incest, for example, is generally thought of as wrong in society, but many jurisdictions do not legally prohibit it.

Norms may also be created and advanced through conscious human design by norm entrepreneurs. Norms can arise formally, where groups explicitly outline and implement behavioral expectations. Legal norms typically arise from design. A large number of these norms we follow 'naturally' such as driving on the right side of the road in the US and on the left side in the UK, or not speeding in order to avoid a ticket.

Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink identify three stages in the life cycle of a norm:

 * 1) Norm emergence: Norm entrepreneurs seek to persuade others to adopt their ideas about what is desirable and appropriate.
 * 2) Norm cascade: When a norm has broad acceptance and reaches a tipping point, with norm leaders pressuring others to adopt and adhere to the norm.
 * 3) Norm internalization: When the norm has acquired a "taken-for-granted" quality where compliance with the norm is nearly automatic.

They argue that several factors may raise the influence of certain norms: Christina Horne and Stefanie Mollborn have identified two broad categories of arguments for the emergence of norms:
 * Legitimation: Actors that feel insecure about their status and reputation may be more likely to embrace norms.
 * Prominence: Norms that are held by actors seen as desirable and successful are more likely to diffuse to others.
 * Intrinsic qualities of the norm: Norms that are specific, long-lasting, and universal are more likely to become prominent.
 * Path dependency: Norms that are related to preexisting norms are more likely to be widely accepted.
 * World time-context: Systemic shocks (such as wars, revolutions and economic crises) may motivate a search for new norms.

 * 1) Consequentialism: norms are created when an individual's behavior has consequences and externalities for other members of the group.
 * 2) Relationalism: norms are created because people want to attract positive social reactions. In other words, norms do not necessarily contribute to the collective good.

Per consequentialism, norms contribute to the collective good. However, per relationalism, norms do not necessarily contribute to the collective good; norms may even be harmful to the collective.

Some scholars have characterized norms as essentially unstable, thus creating possibilities for norm change. According to Wayne Sandholtz, actors are more likely to persuade others to modify existing norms if they possess power, can reference existing foundational meta-norms, and can reference precedents. Social closeness between actors has been characterized as a key component in sustaining social norms.

Transfer of norms between groups
Individuals may also import norms from a previous organization to their new group, which can get adopted over time. Without a clear indication of how to act, people typically rely on their history to determine the best course forward; what was successful before may serve them well again. In a group, individuals may all import different histories or scripts about appropriate behaviors; common experience over time will lead the group to define as a whole its take on the right action, usually with the integration of several members' schemas. Under the importation paradigm, norm formation occurs subtly and swiftly whereas with formal or informal development of norms may take longer.

Groups internalize norms by accepting them as reasonable and proper standards for behavior within the group. Once firmly established, a norm becomes a part of the group's operational structure and hence more difficult to change. While possible for newcomers to a group to change its norms, it is much more likely that the new individual will adopt the group's norms, values, and perspectives, rather than the other way around.

Deviance from social norms
Deviance is defined as "nonconformity to a set of norms that are accepted by a significant number of people in a community or society" More simply put, if group members do not follow a norm, they become tagged as a deviant. In the sociological literature, this can often lead to them being considered outcasts of society. Yet, deviant behavior amongst children is somewhat expected. Except the idea of this deviance manifesting as a criminal action, the social tolerance given in the example of the child is quickly withdrawn against the criminal. Crime is considered one of the most extreme forms of deviancy according to scholar Clifford R. Shaw.

What is considered "normal" is relative to the location of the culture in which the social interaction is taking place. In psychology, an individual who routinely disobeys group norms runs the risk of turning into the "institutionalized deviant." Similar to the sociological definition, institutionalized deviants may be judged by other group members for their failure to adhere to norms. At first, group members may increase pressure on a non-conformist, attempting to engage the individual in conversation or explicate why he or she should follow their behavioral expectations. The role in which one decides on whether or not to behave is largely determined on how their actions will affect others. Especially with new members who perhaps do not know any better, groups may use discretionary stimuli to bring an individual's behavior back into line. Over time, however, if members continue to disobey, the group will give-up on them as a lost cause; while the group may not necessarily revoke their membership, they may give them only superficial consideration. If a worker is late to a meeting, for example, violating the office norm of punctuality, a supervisor or other co-worker may wait for the individual to arrive and pull him aside later to ask what happened. If the behavior continues, eventually the group may begin meetings without him since the individual "is always late." The group generalizes the individual's disobedience and promptly dismisses it, thereby reducing the member's influence and footing in future group disagreements.

Group tolerance for deviation varies across membership; not all group members receive the same treatment for norm violations. Individuals may build up a "reserve" of good behavior through conformity, which they can borrow against later. These idiosyncrasy credits provide a theoretical currency for understanding variations in group behavioral expectations. A teacher, for example, may more easily forgive a straight-A student for misbehaving—who has past "good credit" saved up—than a repeatedly disruptive student. While past performance can help build idiosyncrasy credits, some group members have a higher balance to start with. Individuals can import idiosyncrasy credits from another group; childhood movie stars, for example, who enroll in college, may experience more leeway in adopting school norms than other incoming freshmen. Finally, leaders or individuals in other high-status positions may begin with more credits and appear to be "above the rules" at times. Even their idiosyncrasy credits are not bottomless, however; while held to a more lenient standard than the average member, leaders may still face group rejection if their disobedience becomes too extreme.

Deviance also causes multiple emotions one experiences when going against a norm. One of those emotions widely attributed to deviance is guilt. Guilt is connected to the ethics of duty which in turn becomes a primary object of moral obligation. Guilt is followed by an action that is questioned after its doing. It can be described as something negative to the self as well as a negative state of feeling. Used in both instances, it is both an unpleasant feeling as well as a form of self-punishment. Using the metaphor of "dirty hands", it is the staining or tainting of oneself and therefore having to self cleanse away the filth. It is a form of reparation that confronts oneself as well as submitting to the possibility of anger and punishment from others. Guilt is a point in both action and feeling that acts as a stimulus for further "honorable" actions.

A 2023 study found that non-industrial societies varied in their punishments of norm violations. Punishment varied based on the types of norm violations and the socio-economic system of the society. The study "found evidence that reputational punishment was associated with egalitarianism and the absence of food storage; material punishment was associated with the presence of food storage; physical punishment was moderately associated with greater dependence on hunting; and execution punishment was moderately associated with social stratification."

Behavior
Whereas ideas in general do not necessarily have behavioral implications, Martha Finnemore notes that "norms by definition concern behavior. One could say that they are collectively held ideas about behavior."

Norms running counter to the behaviors of the overarching society or culture may be transmitted and maintained within small subgroups of society. For example, Crandall (1988) noted that certain groups (e.g., cheerleading squads, dance troupes, sports teams, sororities) have a rate of bulimia, a publicly recognized life-threatening disease, that is much higher than society as a whole. Social norms have a way of maintaining order and organizing groups.

In the field of social psychology, the roles of norms are emphasized—which can guide behavior in a certain situation or environment as "mental representations of appropriate behavior". It has been shown that normative messages can promote pro-social behavior, including decreasing alcohol use, increasing voter turnout, and reducing energy use. According to the psychological definition of social norms' behavioral component, norms have two dimensions: how much a behavior is exhibited, and how much the group approves of that behavior.

Social control
Although not considered to be formal laws within society, norms still work to promote a great deal of social control. They are statements that regulate conduct. The cultural phenomenon that is the norm is the prescriber of acceptable behavior in specific instances. Ranging in variations depending on culture, race, religion, and geographical location, it is the foundation of the terms some know as acceptable as not to injure others, the golden rule, and to keep promises that have been pledged. Without them, there would be a world without consensus, common ground, or restrictions. Even though the law and a state's legislation is not intended to control social norms, society and the law are inherently linked and one dictates the other. This is why it has been said that the language used in some legislation is controlling and dictating for what should or should not be accepted. For example, the criminalization of familial sexual relations is said to protect those that are vulnerable, however even consenting adults cannot have sexual relationships with their relatives. The language surrounding these laws conveys the message that such acts are supposedly immoral and should be condemned, even though there is no actual victim in these consenting relationships.

Social norms can be enforced formally (e.g., through sanctions) or informally (e.g., through body language and non-verbal communication cues). Because individuals often derive physical or psychological resources from group membership, groups are said to control discretionary stimuli; groups can withhold or give out more resources in response to members' adherence to group norms, effectively controlling member behavior through rewards and operant conditioning. Social psychology research has found the more an individual values group-controlled resources or the more an individual sees group membership as central to his definition of self, the more likely he is to conform. Social norms also allow an individual to assess what behaviors the group deems important to its existence or survival, since they represent a codification of belief; groups generally do not punish members or create norms over actions which they care little about. Norms in every culture create conformity that allows for people to become socialized to the culture in which they live.

As social beings, individuals learn when and where it is appropriate to say certain things, to use certain words, to discuss certain topics or wear certain clothes, and when it is not. Thus, knowledge about cultural norms is important for impressions, which is an individual's regulation of their nonverbal behavior. One also comes to know through experience what types of people he/she can and cannot discuss certain topics with or wear certain types of dress around. Typically, this knowledge is derived through experience (i.e. social norms are learned through social interaction). Wearing a suit to a job interview in order to give a great first impression represents a common example of a social norm in the white collar work force.

In his work "Order without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes", Robert Ellickson studies various interactions between members of neighbourhoods and communities to show how societal norms create order within a small group of people. He argues that, in a small community or neighborhood, many rules and disputes can be settled without a central governing body simply by the interactions within these communities.

Sociology
In sociology, norms are seen as rules that bind an individual's actions to a specific sanction in one of two forms: a punishment or a reward. Through regulation of behavior, social norms create unique patterns that allow for distinguishing characteristics to be made between social systems. This creates a boundary that allows for a differentiation between those that belong in a specific social setting and those that do not.

For Talcott Parsons of the functionalist school, norms dictate the interactions of people in all social encounters. On the other hand, Karl Marx believed that norms are used to promote the creation of roles in society which allows for people of different levels of social class structure to be able to function properly. Marx claims that this power dynamic creates social order. James Coleman (sociologist) used both micro and macro conditions for his theory. For Coleman, norms start out as goal oriented actions by actors on the micro level. If the benefits do not outweigh the costs of the action for the actors, then a social norm would emerge. The norm's effectiveness is then determined by its ability to enforce its sanctions against those who would not contribute to the "optimal social order."

Heinrich Popitz is convinced that the establishment of social norms, that make the future actions of alter foreseeable for ego, solves the problem of contingency (Niklas Luhmann). In this way, ego can count on those actions as if they would already have been performed and does not have to wait for their actual execution; social interaction is thus accelerated. Important factors in the standardization of behavior are sanctions and social roles.

Operant conditioning
The probability of these behaviours occurring again is discussed in the theories of B. F. Skinner, who states that operant conditioning plays a role in the process of social norm development. Operant conditioning is the process by which behaviours are changed as a function of their consequences. The probability that a behaviour will occur can be increased or decreased depending on the consequences of said behaviour.

In the case of social deviance, an individual who has gone against a norm will contact the negative contingencies associated with deviance, this may take the form of formal or informal rebuke, social isolation or censure, or more concrete punishments such as fines or imprisonment. If one reduces the deviant behavior after receiving a negative consequence, then they have learned via punishment. If they have engaged in a behavior consistent with a social norm after having an aversive stimulus reduced, then they have learned via negative reinforcement. Reinforcement increases behavior, while punishment decreases behavior.

As an example of this, consider a child who has painted on the walls of her house, if she has never done this before she may immediately seek a reaction from her mother or father. The form of reaction taken by the mother or father will affect whether the behaviour is likely to occur again in the future. If her parent is positive and approving of the behaviour it will likely reoccur (reinforcement) however, if the parent offers an aversive consequence (physical punishment, time-out, anger etc...) then the child is less likely to repeat the behaviour in future (punishment).

Skinner also states that humans are conditioned from a very young age on how to behave and how to act with those around us considering the outside influences of the society and location one is in. Built to blend into the ambiance and attitude around us, deviance is a frowned upon action.

Focus theory of normative conduct
Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren developed the focus theory of normative conduct to describe how individuals implicitly juggle multiple behavioral expectations at once. Expanding on conflicting prior beliefs about whether cultural, situational or personal norms motivate action, the researchers suggested the focus of an individual's attention will dictate what behavioral expectation they follow.

Types
There is no clear consensus on how the term norm should be used.

Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink distinguish between three types of norms:

 * 1) Regulative norms: they "order and constrain behavior"
 * 2) Constitutive norms: they "create new actors, interests, or categories of action"
 * 3) Evaluative and prescriptive norms: they have an "oughtness" quality to them

Finnemore, Sikkink, Jeffrey W. Legro and others have argued that the robustness (or effectiveness) of norms can be measured by factors such as: Christina Horne argues that the robustness of a norm is shaped by the degree of support for the actors who sanction deviant behaviors; she refers to norms regulating how to enforce norms as "metanorms." According to Beth G. Simmons and Hyeran Jo, diversity of support for a norm can be a strong indicator of robustness. They add that institutionalization of a norm raises its robustness. It has also been posited that norms that exist within broader clusters of distinct but mutually reinforcing norms may be more robust.
 * The specificity of the norm: norms that are clear and specific are more likely to be effective
 * The longevity of the norm: norms with a history are more likely to be effective
 * The universality of the norm: norms that make general claims (rather than localized and particularistic claims) are more likely to be effective
 * The prominence of the norm: norms that are widely accepted among powerful actors are more likely to be effective

Jeffrey Checkel argues that there are two common types of explanations for the efficacy of norms: According to Peyton Young, mechanisms that support normative behavior include:
 * Rationalism: actors comply with norms due to coercion, cost-benefit calculations, and material incentives
 * Constructivism: actors comply with norms due to social learning and socialization
 * Coordination
 * Social pressure
 * Signaling
 * Focal points

Descriptive versus injunctive
Descriptive norms depict what happens, while injunctive norms describe what should happen. Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren (1990) define a descriptive norm as people's perceptions of what is commonly done in specific situations; it signifies what most people do, without assigning judgment. The absence of trash on the ground in a parking lot, for example, transmits the descriptive norm that most people there do not litter. An Injunctive norm, on the other hand, transmits group approval about a particular behavior; it dictates how an individual should behave. Watching another person pick up trash off the ground and throw it out, a group member may pick up on the injunctive norm that he ought to not litter.

Prescriptive and proscriptive norms
Prescriptive norms are unwritten rules that are understood and followed by society and indicate what we should do. Expressing gratitude or writing a Thank You card when someone gives you a gift represents a prescriptive norm in American culture. Proscriptive norms, in contrast, comprise the other end of the same spectrum; they are similarly society's unwritten rules about what one should not do. These norms can vary between cultures; while kissing someone you just met on the cheek is an acceptable greeting in some European countries, this is not acceptable, and thus represents a proscriptive norm in the United States.

Subjective norms
Subjective norms are determined by beliefs about the extent to which important others want a person to perform a behavior.When combined with attitude toward behavior, subjective norms shape an individual's intentions. Social influences are conceptualized in terms of the pressure that people perceive from important others to perform, or not to perform, a behavior. Social Psychologist Icek Azjen theorized that subjective norms are determined by the strength of a given normative belief and further weighted by the significance of a social referent, as represented in the following equation: SN ∝ Σnimi , where (n) is a normative belief and (m) is the motivation to comply with said belief.

Mathematical representations
Over the last few decades, several theorists have attempted to explain social norms from a more theoretical point of view. By quantifying behavioral expectations graphically or attempting to plot the logic behind adherence, theorists hoped to be able to predict whether or not individuals would conform. The return potential model and game theory provide a slightly more economic conceptualization of norms, suggesting individuals can calculate the cost or benefit behind possible behavioral outcomes. Under these theoretical frameworks, choosing to obey or violate norms becomes a more deliberate, quantifiable decision.

Return potential model
Developed in the 1960s, the return potential model provides a method for plotting and visualizing group norms. In the regular coordinate plane, the amount of behavior exhibited is plotted on the X-axis (label a in Figure 1) while the amount of group acceptance or approval gets plotted on the Y-axis (b in Figure 1). The graph represents the potential return or positive outcome to an individual for a given behavioral norm. Theoretically, one could plot a point for each increment of behavior how much the group likes or dislikes that action. For example, it may be the case that among first-year graduate students, strong social norms exist around how many daily cups of coffee a student drinks. If the return curve in Figure 1 correctly displays the example social norm, we can see that if someone drinks 0 cups of coffee a day, the group strongly disapproves. The group disapproves of the behavior of any member who drinks fewer than four cups of coffee a day; the group disapproves of drinking more than seven cups, shown by the approval curve dipping back below zero. As seen in this example, the return potential model displays how much group approval one can expect for each increment of behavior.
 * Point of maximum return. The point with the greatest y-coordinate is called the point of maximum return, as it represents the amount of behavior the group likes the best. While c in Figure 1 is labeling the return curve in general, the highlighted point just above it at X=6, represents the point of maximum return. Extending our above example, the point of maximum return for first-year graduate students would be 6 cups of coffee; they receive the most social approval for drinking exactly that many cups. Any more or any fewer cups would decrease the approval.
 * Range of tolerable behavior. Label d represents the range of tolerable behavior, or the amount of action the group finds acceptable. It encompasses all the positive area under the curve. In Figure 1, the range of tolerable behavior extends is 3, as the group approves of all behavior from 4 to 7 and 7-4=3. Carrying over our coffee example again, we can see that first-years only approve of having a limited number of cups of coffee (between 4 and 7); more than 7 cups or fewer than 4 would fall outside the range of tolerable behavior. Norms can have a narrower or wider range of tolerable behavior. Typically, a narrower range of behavior indicates a behavior with greater consequences to the group.
 * Intensity. The intensity of the norm tells how much the group cares about the norm, or how much group affect is at stake to be won or lost. It is represented in the return potential model by the total amount of area subsumed by the curve, regardless of whether the area is positive or negative. A norm with low intensity would not vary far from the x-axis; the amount of approval or disapproval for given behaviors would be closer to zero. A high-intensity norm, however, would have more extreme approval ratings. In Figure 1, the intensity of the norm appears high, as few behaviors invoke a rating of indifference.
 * Crystallization. Finally, norm crystallization refers to how much variance exists within the curve; translated from the theoretical back to the actual norm, it shows how much agreement exists between group members about the approval for a given amount of behavior. It may be that some members believe the norm more central to group functioning than others. A group norm like how many cups of coffee first years should drink would probably have low crystallization since a lot of individuals have varying beliefs about the appropriate amount of caffeine to imbibe; in contrast, the norm of not plagiarizing another student's work would likely have high crystallization, as people uniformly agree on the behavior's unacceptability. Showing the overall group norm, the return potential model in Figure 1 does not indicate the crystallization. However, a return potential model that plotted individual data points alongside the cumulative norm could demonstrate the variance and allow us to deduce crystallization.

Game theory
Another general formal framework that can be used to represent the essential elements of the social situation surrounding a norm is the repeated game of game theory. Rational choice, a branch of game theory, deals with the relations and actions socially committed among rational agents. A norm gives a person a rule of thumb for how they should behave. However, a rational person acts according to the rule only if it is beneficial for them. The situation can be described as follows. A norm gives an expectation of how other people act in a given situation (macro). A person acts optimally given the expectation (micro). For a norm to be stable, people's actions must reconstitute the expectation without change (micro-macro feedback loop). A set of such correct stable expectations is known as a Nash equilibrium. Thus, a stable norm must constitute a Nash equilibrium. In the Nash equilibrium, no one actor has any positive incentive in individually deviating from a certain action. Social norms will be implemented if the actions of that specific norm come into agreement by the support of the Nash equilibrium in the majority of the game theoretical approaches.

From a game-theoretical point of view, there are two explanations for the vast variety of norms that exist throughout the world. One is the difference in games. Different parts of the world may give different environmental contexts and different people may have different values, which may result in a difference in games. The other is equilibrium selection not explicable by the game itself. Equilibrium selection is closely related to coordination. For a simple example, driving is common throughout the world, but in some countries people drive on the right and in other countries people drive on the left (see coordination game). A framework called comparative institutional analysis is proposed to deal with the game theoretical structural understanding of the variety of social norms.

title: Social norm


text:
Autonomous system

Autonomous system may refer to:

 * Autonomous system (Internet), a collection of IP networks and routers under the control of one entity
 * Autonomous system (mathematics), a system of ordinary differential equations which does not depend on the independent variable
 * Autonomous robot, robots which can perform desired tasks in unstructured environments without continuous human guidance
 * Autonomous underwater vehicle, a system that travels underwater without requiring input from an operator.

title: Autonomous system


text:
Talk:Santorum Amendment

Untitled
What does the amendment say? Is the quote given identical to the original amendment, or is it a watered down conference statement? It doesn't seem to have any content. At the very least, I would want to know on which side of the creationism/evolution debate it belongs. AxelBoldt

Johnson as author
What is the basis for saying Johnson was the author? This may be true, but I would like to know the source. Thanks. --VorpalBlade 14:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * As far as I know he helped draft the language, though the authorship may be shared with Santorum lackeys. A lexus-nexus search of articles from that time will show that. Joshuaschroeder 16:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * What is the basis for saying Johnson isn't a creationist? As defined on that wikipedia page he sure is one. Joshuaschroeder 16:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The two definitions at dictionary.com show:

cre·a·tion·ism n. Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible

creationism

n : the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis; "creationism denies the theory of evolution of species"

I think this is the most common meaning, and it doesn't apply to Johnson. By your definition, 90% of Americans are Creationists.

Just out of curiousity, what have you read by him? --VorpalBlade 18:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I have read Defeating Darwinism for one, which is basically anti-evolution in its endeavor and at the time of its publishing there really was no "Intelligent Design" reworking yet available. I've also read at least half a dozen articles by the man. He is definitely a lawyer and not a scientist (he has a hard time grappling with very basic scientific concepts in some of his books), but his goal is to influence the public sphere and not the scientific one and to that end he is a success in his own way.

Just because the dictionary defines creationism narrowly doesn't mean an encyclopedia should have such a narrow definition. Both creationists and non-creationists editting the page on creationism agree on the broader definition. Since the wikilink is to that article, if people are curious they can read why Johnson is considered a creationist by the broad standard. I wouldn't describe Johnson as a Young earth creationist, though as an article a few months back in Christianity Today pointed out, he does make arguments that are very sympathetic to them. He isn't as "old Earth" as many of the others in the ID movement. These all amount to nitpicking in areas that aren't really required for the nitpicking, and so if you want to include them here, that might be okay, but it would probably be better to include them on his wikipedia page. Joshuaschroeder 21:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The real question is not "is it technically accurate?" The real question should be "what is the most accurate, and least misleading, way to describe his books?"  I think mine is better.  Do you think mine is inaccurate?

 * The book you read is a simple book intended for high school students and college freshman. You should read Darwin on Trial and his other serious works.  --VorpalBlade 14:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I read parts of Darwin on Trial -- the parts about science any way. I think the current description is okay, though we may have to change it a bit to keep the thing NPOV. Joshuaschroeder 14:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I can live with that, I think. Maybe we should break it into two sentences.  --VorpalBlade 16:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

History

 * The Senate version of the bill H.R. 1 did not contain the amendment, which meant that a conference committee had to decide its ultimate fate.

Isn't the Senate version where Senator Santorum put in his amendment? Should that say that it was the House's version that didn't contain the amendment? I'm confuzled... 208.247.73.130 01:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Change
I changed "This was hailed as a major victory by creationists; for instance an email newsletter by the Discovery Institute..." to "This was hailed as a major victory by proponents of intelligent design and creationists; for instance an email newsletter by the Discovery Institute..." Creationism and intelligent design are different, and the Discovery Institute does not support creationism; it supports intelligent design. Therefore, by adding "proponents of intelligent design," it then makes sense to mention the Discovery Institute in the next part of the sentence.

 * Thanks. ID is a form of creationism though, both academically and legally. FeloniousMonk 03:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

added recent electoral results donalrobertsoniii 01:51, 10 November 2006.

General accuracy -- Santorum resolution, not amendment
This entire article needs checking for general accuracy.

1. The amendment was not proposed as a "sense of the Senate" resolution originally -- so the "sense of the Senate" language is in error if it's to show what was originally proposed. My understanding is that the original proposal was to make this law, and binding. That is not shown.

2. To be accurate, the article should note that as an amendment, it was rejected. What passed was the "Santorum Sense of the Senate Resolution," which was not an amendment to the proposed law.

3. Chief sponsor of the NCLB legislation, Sen. Ted Kennedy, would not allow the amendment. The backup position was a scripted colloquy between Kennedy and Santorum (probably available from the Congressional Record at the Library of Congress's Thomas site) in which the issue was discussed, and the amendment was downgraded to a non-binding, not-attached-to-the-bill Sense of the Senate Resolution. In that form, it passed.

4. The "amendment" was never an amendment, and no conference committee had to decide its fate. A sense of the house resolution does not go to conference committee. This is a fundamental error in congressional procedure, and the description as it stands marks this article as written by unknowing amateurs, or partisans. See comments under #2 above -- the Santorum Amendment died. What passed was a Sense of the Senate Resolution, which is non-binding.

5. To maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, stunts like listing the Discovery Institute as "The Congressional Record" in references to the main article should be stopped. The reference should be to the Discovery Institute. The language of the resolution, and the amendment before it, is probably available from the Congressional Record on-line version -- any link that purports to be to the Congressional Record should be to the Congressional Record, and not to a partisan organization that is not a part of Congress.Edarrell 18:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

 * It started life as a proposed amendment, and is most commonly known as the 'Santorum Amendment' (which garners some 30k Google hits), therefore per WP:COMMONNAME, it is the appropriate article title. And I would request that you cease and desist violating WP:AGF by making unsubstantiated and infammatory claims and violating WP:TALK by misrepresentation -- the article DOES NOT list "the Discovery Institute as 'The Congressional Record' in references to the main article" -- in fact the article never mentions "The Congressional Record". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC) [Blush] just realised that this was a really old comment, and that the recent edit to this article was just updating the headers. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

 * The article still doesn't seem clear on the distinction between the amendment and the sense of the Senate resolution. Was there an amendment text different from that proposed on June 13, 2001? If so it should be quoted. The resolution text that is quoted doesn't seem particularly creationist. It could be interpreted as a call to prepare students to deal with religiously inspired nonsense such as ID. Qemist (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Legislative history
Given that: ...I see no reason why this material is relevant. I am therefore proposing the removal of "Language in such a joint conference report is is considered highly reliable legislative history when courts interpret a statute." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) As far as I can tell, no source has discussed the effect that the Amendment's presence in the joint conference report would have in the interpretation of the No Child Left Behind Act; and
 * 2) Given that the material contained in the Amendment is highly peripheral to the contents of this Act, meaning that it is unlikely to affect its interpretation,
 * I think a lot of the article should be removed or edited.88.166.32.210 (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I think specific passages and specific reasoning is needed for such a recommendation (that's what I did -- why shouldn't you?). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Santorum Amendment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060910141925/http://www.bemidjistate.edu/dsiems/ID/teach.html to http://www.bemidjistate.edu/dsiems/ID/teach.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Santorum Amendment