text:
The Infinity Gauntlet

The Infinity Gauntlet is an American comic book storyline published by Marvel Comics. In addition to an eponymous, six-issue limited series written by Jim Starlin and pencilled by George Pérez and Ron Lim, crossover chapters appeared in related comic books. Since its initial serialization from July to December 1991, the series has been reprinted in various formats and editions.

The series' events are driven by Thanos, a nihilist character created for Marvel by Starlin in 1973. When Starlin began writing Silver Surfer in 1990, he and Lim began a new plot with Thanos that developed over sixteen monthly issues and a spin-off limited series before concluding in The Infinity Gauntlet. Pérez was brought in to draw The Infinity Gauntlet because he had more name recognition among fans and because Lim already had a full schedule. However, after completing three issues and part of the fourth, his own busy schedule and dissatisfaction with the story led to him being replaced by Lim.

At the start of The Infinity Gauntlet, the character Thanos has collected all six Infinity Gems and attached them to his gauntlet. With their combined power, he becomes "like a god" and sets out to win the affection of Mistress Death, the living embodiment of death in the Marvel Universe. When Thanos uses his powers to instantly erase half of the life in the universe from existence, Adam Warlock leads Earth's remaining heroes against him. After the Infinity Gauntlet is stolen by Thanos' villainous granddaughter Nebula, Thanos aids the remaining heroes in defeating her.

The series was a top seller for Marvel during publication and was followed by two immediate sequels, The Infinity War (1992) and The Infinity Crusade (1993). The story's events continued to be referenced in other Marvel comics for decades. The Infinity Gauntlet remained popular among fans, warranting multiple reprint editions and merchandise, with its themes and plot elements adapted into video games and animated cartoons. Most notable among later adaptations was the "Infinity Saga" of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which incorporated elements of the original comic story into a saga that spanned across almost two dozen connected films.

Background
Artist and character creator Jim Starlin introduced Thanos, the antagonist for the storyline, in Iron Man #55 (Feb. 1973). After providing artwork for Captain Marvel #24-25 (Jan. 1973 & March 1973), Starlin co-wrote #26 (May 1973) with Mike Friedrich, which featured Thanos (albeit in shadow) on a Marvel cover for the first time and marked the beginning of what was later coined the "First Thanos War". After collaborating with Friedrich for #27-28 (July & Sept. 1973), Starlin then assumed sole writing duties for the remainder of the sweeping cosmic saga from #29-33 (Nov. 1973 - July 1974). Starlin completed one final issue, #34 (Sept. 1974), laying the groundwork for the eventual death of hero Mar-Vell before leaving the title.

In 1975, Starlin began writing and illustrating Strange Tales, in which he made significant changes to Adam Warlock and developed the concept of the Infinity Gems. He reintroduced Thanos first as Warlock's ally, then as his opponent in a storyline known as the "Second Thanos War" that ran until 1977. Because of their close publications dates, the two Thanos Wars are sometimes considered to be one storyline. Both are considered "cosmic" stories and led to Starlin being known as a "cosmic" writer.

Starlin stopped doing regular work for Marvel after concluding the Second Thanos War, but occasionally returned for short projects like The Death of Captain Marvel graphic novel and creator-owned work such as the cosmic-themed Dreadstar through the 1980s. He also did high-profile work for DC Comics, such as Batman and Cosmic Odyssey. In a 1990 interview, Starlin described himself as the only writer who had been allowed to "play" with Thanos, although other writers had scripted some tie-in chapters of the First Thanos War.

Artist George Pérez was known for drawing comics featuring large casts. He came to prominence in the 1970s while working on Marvel's The Avengers before leaving the company to work for DC on comics such as New Teen Titans, Crisis on Infinite Earths, and Wonder Woman. In 1984, Pérez entered into an exclusive contract with DC.

Development
In 1988, Steve Englehart was writing Silver Surfer and one of his storylines involved the Infinity Gems and Mistress Death. He asked to do a follow-up story in which Mistress Death uses Thanos to get revenge on her enemies, but editor-in-chief Tom DeFalco did not know who Thanos was. After the character was explained to him, DeFalco liked the idea so much he wanted to save it for a big summer crossover instead. At the time, he indicated he wanted to format it like "The Evolutionary War", a 1988 crossover spread across the annuals of several continuing series instead of being contained in a limited series.

Because of his ties to Thanos, Starlin was invited back to Marvel to write the story. He returned because work for him at DC declined following his controversial Batman story "A Death in the Family" (1988). Inspired by the work he had recently read from Wilhelm Reich, Carlos Castaneda, and Roger Zelazny, Starlin wanted to purposely add multiple layers to his characters instead of letting them be one-dimensional. He started writing with the expectation that this would be the last Thanos story "at least for a while" and was midway through the story before deciding to make Thanos an antihero. He began writing Silver Surfer with #34, cover dated February 1990. To organize various plot and character points, Starlin made notes on 3-by-5 cards and pinned them to a large piece of plywood hung on his wall.

His first four issues reintroduced Thanos and was seen as the first act of the new Thanos storyline. Initially, Starlin and editor Craig Anderson planned for the story to remain contained within the pages of Silver Surfer. However, Marvel had recently been purchased and the new owners mandated all intellectual property be exploited to maximum potential. To capitalize on the excitement surrounding Thanos' return, the start of the second act was spun off into the two-issue limited series The Thanos Quest, released in September–October 1990. The plot then continued in Silver Surfer beginning with #44. In Silver Surfer #46, Starlin reintroduced Adam Warlock and his supporting cast. He included these characters because the editors told him a different writer wanted to use them, and they would let him unless Starlin wanted to use them first. Starlin was not impressed by the other writer's work, so he wrote Warlock into his Silver Surfer story. Again, Starlin and Anderson planned to conclude the story in the pages of Silver Surfer, but the sales of The Thanos Quest were high enough to warrant another spin-off. After Silver Surfer #50, the plot moved to The Infinity Gauntlet. Because of the time required to write the double-length issues of the limited series and coordinate tie-ins, Starlin had to leave the Silver Surfer series at #52.

The editorial staff did not oppose Starlin's plans to kill major characters, which he believes was partly because Anderson did not share many of the details with his peers. They did, however, limit which of "their" characters could have roles in the story. For example, X-Men editor Bob Harras only allowed Cyclops and Wolverine to appear. The rest of the X-Men cast were said to have died off-panel or were otherwise omitted. This hesitancy was due in part to the relative newness of summer crossover events.

Early in 1990, Marvel writer/artist Jim Valentino learned Pérez's contract with DC Comics was going to lapse in August. He contacted Pérez by phone to see if he would ink a cover to Guardians of the Galaxy, a comic Valentino was currently writing and penciling. Pérez agreed, and Valentino told Anderson, who was his editor as well. Anderson passed the information to Starlin, who called Pérez and asked him to pencil The Infinity Gauntlet. After working out the terms with Starlin and Anderson, Pérez agreed to the job. In a 1991 interview, Pérez speculated that he was asked because Silver Surfer and The Thanos Quest penciller Ron Lim was too busy.

Although Pérez had been a writer as well as an artist at DC, he agreed to work from full scripts on The Infinity Gauntlet because he was not familiar with the current state of Marvel's characters. From the start, Pérez found this to be "a little aggravating, unnerving" because of the limits it placed on him. Starlin gave Pérez a suggested layout with each script to use as a reference, but Pérez ignored them with Starlin's blessing. He exercised this freedom by giving some scenes more space, even moving some scenes to different pages. Early in the collaboration, he asked Starlin to increase the number of characters appearing in the story so his return to Marvel would "knock fans' socks off".

Before he had finished the interior art for the first issue, Pérez completed the pencils for the covers of the first four issues so they could be used as promotional material. Some characters however, like Thor and Quasar, were wearing outdated costumes on the cover of issue three and had to be redrawn, which frustrated Pérez. Starlin, who wrote the scripts months in advance, also had to make minor adjustments to account for changes in these characters and the Hulk.

During production, Pérez was also pencilling War of the Gods for DC Comics, a Wonder Woman miniseries he described as a "highly stressful" project. When he began to fall behind schedule on both projects, he wanted to quit War of the Gods but was contractually bound to complete it. Partly because of this stress and partly because he had become used to writing as well as drawing, he became overly critical of Starlin's scripts for The Infinity Gauntlet. Specifically, he felt Starlin's story could be told in fewer pages. His lack of enthusiasm caused him to work slower, and he began to fall further behind schedule. In a 1994 interview, Starlin claimed Pérez was also acting at the time, and that it was a bigger contributor to the scheduling problems than the comic workload.

When it became clear Pérez would not be able to meet the deadline for the fourth issue, DeFalco asked regular Silver Surfer penciler Ron Lim to complete issue #4. DeFalco suggested to Pérez that he let Lim finish the rest of the series, and Pérez agreed. Pérez understood the decision, and later said he felt Lim should have been the artist from the beginning. He inked Lim's covers for the remainder of the series to show he bore no ill will to the change. Although Marvel's management had feared sales would fall with Pérez's departure, sales rose with each issue Lim penciled.

To replace Pérez, Lim had to leave his regular work on the monthly Captain America title. He cites Pérez as an influence and found it "nerve-wracking" to supplant him. Furthermore, the large cast made it the most challenging book he had done at that point in his career. Still, he said it was "fun" to work on the design aspect of The Infinity Gauntlet.

When he saw sales figures for The Infinity Gauntlet, Pérez realized he probably lost "tens of thousands of dollars" in royalty payments by leaving the series, but he was glad he left when he learned a sequel was in development. Like Starlin, Pérez had begun the project believing it would be the last Thanos story, but management asked Starlin to write a sequel midway through The Infinity Gauntlet. By then, Starlin had already conceived follow-up concepts and knew it would be a trilogy.

Publication
Marvel's marketing department "mega-hyped" the event in the months leading up to its release according to journalist Sean Howe. One aspect of the promotion was sending direct market retailers a kit that included a letter explaining details of the series, a sign to put by their cash register, and a poster 18 inches wide by 36 inches tall. Marvel's promotional magazine Marvel Age featured a cover story on The Thanos Quest and a Starlin interview in issue #91 (August 1990), followed by a 7-page preview of The Infinity Gauntlet #1 in Marvel Age #99 (April 1991). The limited series was the cover feature on Comics Interview #94 in March 1991, which included an 8-page interview with Pérez, and Starlin was interviewed about the series in Comics Scene #19 in June 1991.

Marvel initially planned to release a new issue every two weeks, but deadline problems caused it to be released monthly. Issues had cover dates between July and December 1991. Each one was available in both comic specialty stores and newsstand outlets, which included supermarkets and department stores. Although the cover artwork was identical, the edition sold in comic stores featured additional artwork celebrating Marvel's 30th anniversary in place of the barcode found on the newsstand edition. Each issue was 48 pages and cover priced at $2.50 at a time when the average Marvel comic was $1.00 and 24 pages.

Tie-ins
To emphasize the connected nature of Marvel's comic books, some ongoing series starring characters seen in The Infinity Gauntlet had contemporary issues showing the main plot from a different point of view or explored consequences of certain events. These issues featured a triangle in the top right corner of their covers with the text "An Infinity Gauntlet Crossover". These tie-in issues did not impact the plot of the limited series and could be skipped by readers without creating plot holes. Doctor Strange #36 was set after the events of the crossover and featured a triangle with the text "An Infinity Gauntlet Epilogue".

Unlike other crossovers such as Armageddon 2001 (the competing 1991 crossover from DC Comics) which featured tie-ins from a large majority of their publisher's comics, The Infinity Gauntlet only had tie-ins from titles which were obviously connected to the event or from series which needed a boost in sales. According to Pérez, Marvel's stance toward the tie-ins for its low-selling titles was "do it or else". Starlin remained uninvolved, allowing writers to choose for themselves which story elements they wished to use.

Collected editions and reprints
The miniseries was collected in a single softcover edition released in 1992, a time when publishers only collected popular storylines, to coincide with the release of The Infinity War. It featured new cover artwork by Pérez and was enhanced with a foil logo. Later printings of this edition had alternate cover artwork from different artists and no enhancement. The suggested retail price was $19.95, five dollars more than the total retail cost of the individual issues it contained.

In June 2006, Marvel issued a second softcover collected edition to coincide with Keith Giffen and Andrea Di Vito's Annihilation, another cosmic-level crossover starring Thanos and the Silver Surfer. This edition used the cover art from issue #1 and had a trade dress matching the first edition collections of The Infinity War and The Infinity Crusade which were released shortly thereafter. The month of release, it sold approximately 2,500 copies and was the 33rd best-selling comic collection according to Diamond Distribution. Marvel also released a Silver Surfer collection subtitled "The Rebirth of Thanos" in 2006 which included four of the lead-in issues of Silver Surfer and both issues of The Thanos Quest.

A hardcover edition was released in July 2010 as the 46th entry in the Marvel Premiere Classic line. Like other volumes in this line, it was available with two covers. The standard cover featured a cutout of Thanos from the cover of issue #4 on a black matte background with the title in metallic red ink. The variant cover, available only to comic specialty stores, featured the cover art for issue #1 reduced 50% against a black and red background. The variant edition identifies itself as #46 on its spine.

In 2011, a third edition softcover was released. The first printing reused the artwork from the standard cover of the Premiere Classic edition. Later printings reverted to the cover of issue #1. Sales of the collection spiked after Thanos appeared in a post-credits scene of the 2012 film The Avengers, causing The Infinity Gauntlet to be the highest selling graphic novel in 2018.

In July 2014, Marvel released a 1,248 page omnibus edition of The Infinity Gauntlet. In addition to the limited series, the hardcover also included the lead-up issues of Silver Surfer, The Thanos Quest, and the marketed tie-ins. It also included additional issues of Incredible Hulk, Quasar, Silver Surfer, and Spider-Man which had not been advertised as tie-ins, but were connected to the story. Comic book stores and the book market both offered a regular edition featuring the cover to The Infinity Gauntlet #1, but comic shops could also order a variant edition with cover art by Starlin.

The first issue of The Infinity Gauntlet was included in the initial wave of Marvel's "True Believers" line in April 2015. Consisting solely of reprints offered at a discount price, comic books in this line are meant to introduce newer readers to the most popular titles in Marvel's history. A new printing was paired with a "True Believers" reprint of Silver Surfer #34 in April 2018.

In March 2018, Marvel released an Infinity Gauntlet slipcase set of 12 hardcover books. Material began with Infinity Gauntlet Prologue and included all three Infinity crossovers, their tie-ins, intervening material, and a 528-page "companion" hardcover. The Infinity Gauntlet Prologue was released independently of the set at the same time.

A deluxe paperback was released in February 2019. It contained the miniseries and additional content discussing the creation of the series.

Plot
Resurrected by Mistress Death to correct a perceived imbalance between life and death, the Mad Titan Thanos first encounters the Silver Surfer, and subsequently fakes his own death to proceed without interference. Thanos decides to reacquire the six Infinity Gems that he had previously used as a simple weapon. After defeating several of the Elders of the Universe and the In-Betweener, Thanos regains the gems and now has control over the six aspects of existence: Time, Space, Mind, Soul, Reality and Power. Ironically, now that Thanos is in possession of his "Infinity Gauntlet", Death advises him via an intermediary she cannot speak directly to him as he is now her superior.

When the Silver Surfer learns that Thanos is still alive and confronts him, Thanos traps the Silver Surfer's soul inside the Soul Gem. On "Soul World", the Silver Surfer encounters former enemy of Thanos, Adam Warlock. Warlock returns the Surfer to his body and promises to help defeat Thanos. The Surfer races to Earth to warn super-team the Avengers about the coming threat. Demonic entity Mephisto senses the power in the Infinity Gauntlet and offers to instruct Thanos in its use, while secretly waiting for an opportunity to steal it for himself.

Angry at Mistress Death's rejection, Thanos creates a shrine in her image, and then traps and burns Nebula – who pretended to be his "grand-daughter" – as an offering. When still rejected, Thanos in a fit of rage destroys several stars and then remembers the reason Mistress Death wanted him. With only the snap of his fingers, Thanos eliminates half of all living beings in the universe. The Surfer warns Doctor Strange about Thanos and encourages him to summon Earth's heroes. Cosmic entities Galactus and Epoch seek the source of the sudden imbalance, while Warlock and companions Gamora and Pip the Troll leave Soul World and occupy recently dead humans on Earth, reviving and altering the bodies to match their former appearance. Warlock appears before Doctor Strange and claims Thanos can only be defeated if Earth's remaining heroes unite under his command.

Warlock meets with a group of cosmic entities, who, despite the reluctance and withdrawal of the Living Tribunal and Eternity, agree to attack Thanos. The combined heroes attack while Warlock and the Surfer observe, with Thanos almost defeated after heeding Mephisto's advice to limit his power to demonstrate his devotion to Death, until Dr. Doom, a part of the team working against Thanos, arrogantly tries and fails to steal the gauntlet, to which Thanos then knocks Doom throughout all of space and kills most of the heroes.

After the heroes fail, the cosmic entities attack, with Mephisto and Mistress Death also joining in the assault on Thanos. Thanos, however, traps all the entities in stasis and changes the shrine to feature himself instead of Mistress Death. Believing he has defeated all of his enemies, Thanos separates his consciousness from his body and assumes an astral form taking the place of Eternity. Nebula uses this opportunity to steal the now-discarded Infinity Gauntlet. After restoring herself, Nebula banishes Thanos to drift through interstellar space, but he is rescued and brought to Earth by Doctor Strange. Warlock advises Thanos that whilst in Soul World he was able to examine the Titan's soul. Courtesy of his bond with the Soul Gem, Warlock knew Thanos would eventually lose the Infinity Gauntlet because, at his core, Thanos felt himself unworthy of the power. Overwhelmed by this revelation, Thanos agrees to help Warlock, Doctor Strange, and the Silver Surfer oppose Nebula.

Thanos tricks Nebula into restoring the universe to its prior condition, inadvertently reverting into a burn victim in the process. Nebula wills herself back to health before Thanos can retrieve the gauntlet, but during this distraction Warlock returns to Soul World and uses his connection to the gem to create disharmony between the other gems. This causes Nebula to remove the gauntlet, which an emerging Warlock claims for himself. Preferring death to imprisonment, Thanos apparently dies in a suicide bomb blast. The heroes have reservations about Warlock keeping the gauntlet, but he returns them to Earth. Warlock then travels 60 days into the future to visit an unnamed planet where Thanos is living as a farmer. Thanos advises Warlock he has given up his quest for power and plans to lead a quiet, introspective life.

At release
The Infinity Gauntlet was an instant success and became one of the most influential storylines in comics from the 1990s. Both of the nationwide comic distributors at the time (Diamond Distribution and Capital City Distribution) reported each issue was one of their top ten sellers for the month of its release. When Capital City released their top 100 best selling single issues of 1991, Infinity Gauntlet issues fell between the 42nd and 64th positions. Aside from the first issue of The Punisher War Zone, all of the higher ranked entries were issues of Spider-Man, Robin II: The Joker's Wild!, or the X-Men franchise. Wizard, a comic magazine known for embracing speculation in the comic market, listed The Infinity Gauntlet #1 as the ninth "Hottest Book" in September 1991, and two lead-in issues of Silver Surfer were ranked sixth and tenth. The first issue's resale value rose above its $2.50 cover price in the back issue market, plateauing around $9 or $10 in late 1992.

The debut issue of the follow-up series, Warlock and the Infinity Watch, was the top recommendation from Wizard for December 1991. It led directly into the first sequel, The Infinity War, which began in June 1992. The next sequel, The Infinity Crusade, began in June 1993. The tie-ins to The Infinity Gauntlet also sold well, leading the editors who had put limits on characters appearing in The Infinity Gauntlet to request their books tie in to its sequels. Although both sequels sold well, they were viewed by critics like Wizard's Pat McCallum as being motivated by sales rather than storytelling because of their excessive tie-ins and slow narratives.

In later years
By the end of the decade, interest in the continuing story dwindled, with sequels poorly received by fans, and Warlock and the Infinity Watch canceled in 1995. The same year, Marvel moved the Infinity Gems from their main continuity to an alternate universe called the Ultraverse, a property Marvel acquired when it bought Malibu Comics. The Ultraverse comics were then canceled in 1996. By 1998, Wizard was no longer listing Infinity Gauntlet in its monthly price guide. The first edition of the paperback collection saw its last printing in 1999.

The iconography of the gauntlet remained popular, however. When Marvel partnered with fellow Disney subsidiary ESPN to create promotional images for the 2010–11 NBA season, the October 22, 2010 issue of ESPN: The Magazine included an advertisement showing Kobe Bryant wearing the gauntlet. When IGN released an unranked list of the all-time best comic book events in 2011, The Infinity Gauntlet was included and was noted for being "a template on which all future cosmic events were based". Its lasting appeal is often attributed to Pérez's artwork and Starlin's unusual treatment of classic heroes.

When Thanos made a cameo appearance in the 2012 film The Avengers, there was renewed interest in The Infinity Gauntlet. This was further heightened in October 2014 when the title of the third and fourth Avengers films were revealed to be Infinity War – Part I and Infinity War – Part II. As the 2018 release of Infinity War neared, several comic news websites produced articles explaining the storyline and speculating on which elements would be included in the adaptation. Such as
 * The renewed attention from the films made the paperback collection of The Infinity Gauntlet the best-selling graphic novel in 2018.
 * The renewed attention from the films made the paperback collection of The Infinity Gauntlet the best-selling graphic novel in 2018.
 * The renewed attention from the films made the paperback collection of The Infinity Gauntlet the best-selling graphic novel in 2018.
 * The renewed attention from the films made the paperback collection of The Infinity Gauntlet the best-selling graphic novel in 2018.
 * The renewed attention from the films made the paperback collection of The Infinity Gauntlet the best-selling graphic novel in 2018.
 * The renewed attention from the films made the paperback collection of The Infinity Gauntlet the best-selling graphic novel in 2018.
 * The renewed attention from the films made the paperback collection of The Infinity Gauntlet the best-selling graphic novel in 2018.
 * The renewed attention from the films made the paperback collection of The Infinity Gauntlet the best-selling graphic novel in 2018.

Not all evaluations were positive – in a 2013 review for Multiversity Comics, Drew Bradley felt the story was "only great" if read in its entirety. At the time of his article, the collected edition of Act One was out of print, with much of Act Two not been reprinted in any form. Bradley felt the story would not live up to its hype if readers skipped the lead-in material. Writing for Digital Spy, Hugh Armitage complained about the comic's lack of real consequences, calling it "essentially [...] a really bizarre love story".

Legacy in comics
Aside from its immediate spin-off and sequels, the events of The Infinity Gauntlet have impacted storylines in later comics, including Thanos in 2003, Avengers (vol. 4) in 2011, and Secret Wars in 2016. Several of these later stories have downplayed the power of the gauntlet, often showing someone possessing it being beaten by a more powerful opponent.

The storyline from The Infinity Gauntlet has been revisited by other comic books in the years since its release. The series What If...?, which explores alternate outcomes to important events in the Marvel Universe, featured several issues in which different characters stole the gauntlet from Thanos or obtained it in another fashion. Beginning in August 2010, writer Brian Clevinger and artist Brian Churillathe retold the story for a younger audience in the four-issue limited series Avengers and the Infinity Gauntlet as part of the Marvel Adventures imprint. He used the basic framework of the story, but purposefully wrote it in a fashion that did not invite comparisons to the original, with which he did not believe he could compete. During the 2015 crossover Secret Wars, a five-issue limited series by Gerry Duggan and Dustin Weaver reused the title and featured similar elements.

Merchandise
During initial publication, Tenacity Incorporated offered a licensed black T-shirt featuring cover artwork from the series. It was available exclusively through ads placed in Marvel comics. The front side had the cover artwork from issue four, and the back had the cover artwork from issue three.

Although no contemporary toys were created for the series, several Thanos action figures have been created in the years since that include the Infinity Gauntlet either as an accessory or as part of the sculpt, such as the 12 inch Marvel Select toy and the 2 inch Super Hero Squad toy. In 2011, a Marvel Universe toyline two-pack included Thanos, Warlock, an Infinity Gauntlet accessory for Warlock, and a reprint of The Infinity Gauntlet #3. Some toy sets have incorporated the series logo on their packaging, such as the 2009 Minimate set with Thanos, Warlock, Mephisto, and Drax the Destroyer or the San Diego Comic Con exclusive set with Marvel Universe editions of Thanos, Mistress Death, Eros, Nebula, and a wearable Infinity Gauntlet made of foam.

A variety of licensed merchandise shaped the like Infinity Gauntlet has been created as well, including a coin bank and earrings from Think Geek, a bottle opener from Diamond Select Toys, a coffee mug from Entertainment Earth, and an oven mitt from Loot Crate.

Adaptations
Capcom adapted the storyline into two video games shortly after its release. The first, Marvel Super Heroes, was a fighting game released as an arcade game in 1995 before being ported to Sega Saturn and PlayStation in 1997. The second, Marvel Super Heroes In War of the Gems, was a beat 'em up released in 1996 for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System.

After the animated television series The Super Hero Squad Show introduced an "Infinity Sword" in its first season, its second season (2010–2011) loosely adapted The Infinity Gauntlet. Griptonite Games released a tie-in video game, Marvel Super Hero Squad: The Infinity Gauntlet, for several platforms in 2010.

In October 2011, WizKids announced they would adapt The Infinity Gauntlet into an organized play tournament for their collectible miniatures game Heroclix in 2012. Vendors who wanted to participate qualified for free game kits by purchasing a minimum amount of new Heroclix booster packs. It began in January and a new round was held once a month through August. At each round, players received a special game piece for participating and winners received limited edition pieces based on characters from the storyline. The eight participation pieces could be combined to create Thanos' shrine to Death and featured all of the gems. At the time of release, it was the largest Heroclix tournament.

In 2014, the early episodes of the second season of the animated cartoon Avengers Assemble adapted the storyline. It also included elements from the Thanos-centric 2013 crossover comic series Infinity written by Jonathan Hickman and penciled by Jim Cheung, Jerome Opeña, and Dustin Weaver, such as Thanos' allies, the Black Order.

Capcom released Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite for PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and Microsoft Windows in September 2017. While it features elements from the series, it is not a direct adaptation. To coincide with the game's release, Capcom held a global tournament series called "Battle for the Stones". The winner of the tournament received a cash prize and a light-up Infinity Gauntlet trophy.

An Infinity Gauntlet prop with gems was included in the 2011 film Thor as an Easter egg for fans before Marvel Studios decided the Avengers films would adapt The Infinity Gauntlet. A post-credits scene in Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) showed Thanos with a gauntlet without gems, and the one from Thor was stated to have been a fake in Thor: Ragnarok (2017). The 2018 film Avengers: Infinity War drew inspiration from The Infinity Gauntlet and depicts Thanos collecting the Infinity Stones and using them to kill half of the universe. Its 2019 sequel, Avengers: Endgame, focuses on the Avengers' attempts to undo Thanos' actions.

title: The Infinity Gauntlet


text:
Neuroeconomics

Neuroeconomics is an interdisciplinary field that seeks to explain human decision-making, the ability to process multiple alternatives and to follow through on a plan of action. It studies how economic behavior can shape our understanding of the brain, and how neuroscientific discoveries can guide models of economics.

It combines research from neuroscience, experimental and behavioral economics, and cognitive and social psychology. As research into decision-making behavior becomes increasingly computational, it has also incorporated new approaches from theoretical biology, computer science, and mathematics. Neuroeconomics studies decision-making by using a combination of tools from these fields so as to avoid the shortcomings that arise from a single-perspective approach. In mainstream economics, expected utility (EU) and the concept of rational agents are still being used. Neuroscience has the potential to reduce the reliance on this flawed assumption by inferring what emotions, habits, biases, heuristics and environmental factors contribute to individual, and societal preferences. Economists can thereby make more accurate predictions of human behavior in their models.

Behavioral economics was the first subfield to emerge to account for these anomalies by integrating social and cognitive factors in understanding economic decisions. Neuroeconomics adds another layer by using neuroscience and psychology to understand the root of decision-making. This involves researching what occurs within the brain when making economic decisions. The economic decisions researched can cover diverse circumstances such as buying a first home, voting in an election, choosing to marry a partner or go on a diet. Using tools from various fields, neuroeconomics works toward an integrated account of economic decision-making.

History
In 1989, Paul Glimcher joined the Center for Neural Science at NYU. Initial forays into neuroeconomic topics occurred in the late 1990s thanks, in part, to the rising prevalence of cognitive neuroscience research. Improvements in brain imaging technology suddenly allowed for crossover between behavioral and neurobiological enquiry. At the same time, critical tension was building between neoclassical and behavioral schools of economics seeking to produce superior predictive models of human behavior. Behavioral economists, in particular, sought to challenge neo-classicists by looking for alternative computational and psychological processes that validated their counter-findings of irrational choice. These converging trends set the stage for the sub-discipline of neuroeconomics to emerge, with varying and complementary motivations from each parent discipline.

Behavioral economists and cognitive psychologists looked towards functional brain imaging to experiment and develop their alternative theories of decision-making. While groups of physiologists and neuroscientists looked towards economics to develop their algorithmic models of neural hardware pertaining to choice. This split approach characterised the formation of neuroeconomics as an academic pursuit - not without criticism however. Numerous neurobiologists claimed that attempting to synchronise complex models of economics to real human and animal behavior would be futile. Neoclassical economists also argued that this merge would be unlikely to improve the predictive power of the existing revealed preference theory.

Despite the early criticisms, neuroeconomics grew rapidly from its inception in the late 1990s through to the 2000s. Leading many more scholars from father fields of economics, neuroscience and psychology to take notice of the possibilities of such interdisciplinary collaboration. Meetings between scholars and early researchers in neuroeconomics began to take place through the early 2000s. Important among them was a meeting that took place during 2002 at Princeton University. Organized by neuroscientist Jonathan Cohen and economist Christina Paxson, the Princeton meeting gained significant traction for the field and is often credited as the formative beginning of the present-day Society for Neuroeconomics.

The subsequent momentum continued throughout the decade of the 2000s in which research was steadily increasing and the number of publications containing the words "decision making" and "brain" rose impressively. A critical point in 2008 was reached when the first edition of Neuroeconomics: Decision Making and the Brain was published. This marked a watershed moment for the field as it accumulated the growing wealth of research into a widely accessible textbook. The success of this publication sharply increased the visibility of Neuroeconomics and helped affirm its place in economic teachings worldwide.

Major research areas
The field of decision-making is largely concerned with the processes by which individuals make a single choice from among many options. These processes are generally assumed to proceed in a logical manner such that the decision itself is largely independent of context. Different options are first translated into a common currency, such as monetary value, and are then compared to one another and the option with the largest overall utility value is the one that should be chosen. While there has been support for this economic view of decision-making, there are also situations where the assumptions of optimal decision-making seem to be violated.

The field of neuroeconomics arose out of this controversy. By determining which brain areas are active in which types of decision processes, neuroeconomists hope to better understand the nature of what seem to be suboptimal and illogical decisions. While most of these scientists are using human subjects in this research, others are using animal models where studies can be more tightly controlled and the assumptions of the economic model can be tested directly.

For example, Padoa-Schioppa & Assad tracked the firing rates of individual neurons in the monkey orbitofrontal cortex while the animals chose between two kinds of juice. The firing rate of the neurons was directly correlated with the utility of the food items and did not differ when other types of food were offered. This suggests that, in accordance with the economic theory of decision-making, neurons are directly comparing some form of utility across different options and choosing the one with the highest value. Similarly, a common measure of prefrontal cortex dysfunction, the FrSBe, is correlated with multiple different measures of economic attitudes and behavior, supporting the idea that brain activation can display important aspects of the decision process.

Neuroeconomics studies the neurobiological along with the computational bases of decision-making. A framework of basic computations which may be applied to Neuroeconomics studies is proposed by A. Rangel, C. Camerer, and P. R. Montague. It divides the process of decision-making into five stages implemented by a subject. First, a representation of the problem is formed. This includes analysis of internal states, external states and potential course of action. Second, values are assigned to potential actions. Third, based on the valuations, one of the actions is selected. Fourth, the subject evaluates how desirable the outcome is. In the final stage, learning, includes updating all of the above processes in order to improve future decisions.

Decision-making under risk and ambiguity
Most of our decisions are made under some form of uncertainty. Decision sciences such as psychology and economics usually define risk as the uncertainty about several possible outcomes when the probability of each is known. When the probabilities are unknown, uncertainty takes the form of ambiguity. Utility maximization, first proposed by Daniel Bernoulli in 1738, is used to explain decision-making under risk. The theory assumes that humans are rational and will assess options based on the expected utility they will gain from each.

Research and experience uncovered a wide range of expected utility anomalies and common patterns of behavior that are inconsistent with the principle of utility maximization – for example, the tendency to overweight small probabilities and underweight large ones. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky proposed prospect theory to encompass these observations and offer an alternative model.

There seem to be multiple brain areas involved in dealing with situations of uncertainty. In tasks requiring individuals to make predictions when there is some degree of uncertainty about the outcome, there is an increase in activity in area BA8 of the frontomedian cortex as well as a more generalized increase in activity of the mesial prefrontal cortex and the frontoparietal cortex. The prefrontal cortex is generally involved in all reasoning and understanding, so these particular areas may be specifically involved in determining the best course of action when not all relevant information is available.

The Iowa Gambling Task developing in 1994, involved picking from 4 decks of cards where 2 decks were riskier, containing higher payoffs accompanied by much heftier penalties. Most individuals realise after a few rounds of picking cards that the less risky decks have higher payoffs in the long run due to the small losses, however individuals with damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex continue picking from the riskier decks. These results suggested the ventromedial prefrontal region of the brain in strongly associated with recognising the long term consequences of risky behavior as patients with damage to the region struggled to make decisions that prioritised the future over the potential for immediate gain.

In situations that involve known risk rather than ambiguity, the insular cortex seems to be highly active. For example, when subjects played a 'double or nothing' game in which they could either stop the game and keep accumulated winnings or take a risky option resulting in either a complete loss or doubling of winnings, activation of the right insula increased when individuals took the gamble. It is hypothesized that the main role of the insular cortex in risky decision-making is to simulate potential negative consequences of taking a gamble. Neuroscience has found the insular is activated when thinking about or experiencing something uncomfortable or painful.

In addition to the importance of specific brain areas to the decision process, there is also evidence that the neurotransmitter dopamine may transmit information about uncertainty throughout the cortex. Dopaminergic neurons are strongly involved in the reward process and become highly active after an unexpected reward occurs. In monkeys, the level of dopaminergic activity is highly correlated with the level of uncertainty such that the activity increases with uncertainty. Furthermore, rats with lesions to the nucleus accumbens, which is an important part of the dopamine reward pathway through the brain, are far more risk averse than normal rats. This suggests that dopamine may be an important mediator of risky behavior.

Individual level of risk aversion among humans is influenced by testosterone concentration. There are studies exhibiting correlation between the choice of a risky career (financial trading, business) and testosterone exposure. In addition, daily achievements of traders with lower digit ratio are more sensitive to circulating testosterone. A long-term study of risk aversion and risky career choice was conducted for a representative group of MBA students. It revealed that females are in average more risk averse, but the difference between genders vanishes for low organizational and activational testosterone exposure leading to risk-averse behavior. Students with high salivary testosterone concentration and low digit ratio, disregarding the gender, tend to choose risky career in finance (e.g. trading or investment banking).

Serial and functionally localized model vs distributed, hierarchical model
In 2017 March, Laurence T. Hunt and Benjamin Y. Hayden argued an alternative viewpoint of the mechanistic model to explain how we evaluate options and choose the best course of action. Many accounts of reward-based choice argue for distinct component processes that are serial and functionally localized. The component processes typically include the evaluation of options, the comparison of option values in the absence of any other factors, the selection of an appropriate action plan and the monitoring of the outcome of the choice. They emphasized how several features of neuroanatomy may support the implementation of choice, including mutual inhibition in recurrent neural networks and the hierarchical organization of timescales for information processing across the cortex.

Loss aversion
One aspect of human decision-making is a strong aversion to potential loss. Under loss aversion, the perceived cost of loss is experienced more intensely than an equivalent gain. For example, if there was a 50/50 chance of either winning $100 or losing $100, and a loss occurred, the accompanying reaction would emulate losing $200; that is the sum of both losing $100 and the possibility of winning $100. This was first discovered in Prospect Theory by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky.

One of the main controversies in understanding loss aversion is whether the phenomenon manifests in the brain, perhaps as increased attention and arousal with losses. Another area of research is whether loss aversion is evident in sub-cortices, such as the limbic system, thereby involving emotional arousal.

A basic controversy in loss aversion research is whether losses are actually experienced more negatively than equivalent gains or merely predicted to be more painful but actually experienced equivalently. Neuroeconomic research has attempted to distinguish between these hypotheses by measuring different physiological changes in response to both loss and gain. Studies have found that skin conductance, pupil dilation and heart rate are all higher in response to monetary loss than to equivalent gain. All three measures are involved in stress responses, so one might argue that losing a particular amount of money is experienced more strongly than gaining the same amount. On the other hand, in some of these studies, there was no physiological signals of loss aversion. That may suggest that the experience of losses is merely on attention (what is known as loss attention); such attentional orienting responses also lead to increased autonomic signals.

Brain studies have initially suggested that there is increased medial prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex rapid response following losses compared to gains, which was interpreted as a neural signature of loss aversion. However, subsequent reviews have noticed that in this paradigm individuals do not actually show behavioral loss aversion casting doubts on the interpretability of these findings. With respect to fMRI studies, while one study found no evidence for an increase in activation in areas related to negative emotional reactions in response to loss aversion another found that individuals with damaged amygdalas had a lack of loss aversion even though they had normal levels of general risk aversion, suggesting that the behavior was specific to potential losses. These conflicting studies suggest that more research needs to be done to determine whether brain response to losses is due to loss aversion or merely to an alerting or orienting aspect of losses; as well as to examine if there are areas in the brain that respond specifically to potential losses.

Intertemporal choice
In addition to risk preference, another central concept in economics is intertemporal choices which are decisions that involve costs and benefits that are distributed over time. Intertemporal choice research studies the expected utility that humans assign to events occurring at different times. The dominant model in economics which explains it is discounted utility (DU). DU assumes that humans have consistent time preference and will assign value to events regardless of when they occur. Similar to EU in explaining risky decision-making, DU is inadequate in explaining intertemporal choice.

For example, DU assumes that people who value a bar of candy today more than 2 bars tomorrow, will also value 1 bar received 100 days from now more than 2 bars received after 101 days. There is strong evidence against this last part in both humans and animals, and hyperbolic discounting has been proposed as an alternative model. Under this model, valuations fall very rapidly for small delay periods, but then fall slowly for longer delay periods. This better explains why most people who would choose 1 candy bar now over 2 candy bars tomorrow, would, in fact, choose 2 candy bars received after 101 days rather than the 1 candy bar received after 100 days which DU assumes.

Neuroeconomic research in intertemporal choice is largely aimed at understanding what mediates observed behaviors such as future discounting and impulsively choosing smaller sooner rather than larger later rewards. The process of choosing between immediate and delayed rewards seems to be mediated by an interaction between two brain areas. In choices involving both primary (fruit juice) and secondary rewards (money), the limbic system is highly active when choosing the immediate reward while the lateral prefrontal cortex was equally active when making either choice. Furthermore, the ratio of limbic to cortex activity decreased as a function of the amount of time until reward. This suggests that the limbic system, which forms part of the dopamine reward pathway, is most involved in making impulsive decisions while the cortex is responsible for the more general aspects of the intertemporal decision process.

The neurotransmitter serotonin seems to play an important role in modulating future discounting. In rats, reducing serotonin levels increases future discounting while not affecting decision-making under uncertainty. It seems, then, that while the dopamine system is involved in probabilistic uncertainty, serotonin may be responsible for temporal uncertainty since delayed reward involves a potentially uncertain future. In addition to neurotransmitters, intertemporal choice is also modulated by hormones in the brain. In humans, a reduction in cortisol, released by the hypothalamus in response to stress, is correlated with a higher degree of impulsivity in intertemporal choice tasks. Drug addicts tend to have lower levels of cortisol than the general population, which may explain why they seem to discount the future negative effects of taking drugs and opt for the immediate positive reward.

Social decision-making
While most research on decision-making tends to focus on individuals making choices outside of a social context, it is also important to consider decisions that involve social interactions. The types of behavior that decision theorists study are as diverse as altruism, cooperation, punishment, and retribution. One of the most frequently utilized tasks in social decision-making is the prisoner's dilemma.

In this situation, the payoff for a particular choice is dependent not only on the decision of the individual but also on that of another individual playing the game. An individual can choose to either cooperate with his partner or defect against the partner. Over the course of a typical game, individuals tend to prefer mutual cooperation even though defection would lead to a higher overall payout. This suggests that individuals are motivated not only by monetary gains but also by some reward derived from cooperating in social situations. This idea is supported by neural imaging studies demonstrating a high degree of activation in the ventral striatum when individuals cooperate with another person but that this is not the case when people play the same prisoner's dilemma against a computer. The ventral striatum is part of the reward pathway, so this research suggests that there may be areas of the reward system that are activated specifically when cooperating in social situations. Further support for this idea comes from research demonstrating that activation in the striatum and the ventral tegmental area show similar patterns of activation when receiving money and when donating money to charity. In both cases, the level of activation increases as the amount of money increases, suggesting that both giving and receiving money results in neural reward.

An important aspect of social interactions such as the prisoner's dilemma is trust. The likelihood of one individual cooperating with another is directly related to how much the first individual trusts the second to cooperate; if the other individual is expected to defect, there is no reason to cooperate with them. Trust behavior may be related to the presence of oxytocin, a hormone involved in maternal behavior and pair bonding in many species. When oxytocin levels were increased in humans, they were more trusting of other individuals than a control group even though their overall levels of risk-taking were unaffected suggesting that oxytocin is specifically implicated in the social aspects of risk taking. However this research has recently been questioned.

One more important paradigm for neuroeconomic studies is ultimatum game. In this game Player 1 gets a sum of money and decides how much he wants to offer Player 2. Player 2 either accepts or rejects the offer. If he accepts both players get the amount as proposed by Player 1, if he rejects nobody gets anything. Rational strategy for Player 2 would be to accept any offer because it has more value than zero. However, it has been shown that people often reject offers that they consider as unfair. Neuroimaging studies indicated several brain regions that are activated in response to unfairness in ultimatum game. They include bilateral mid-anterior insula, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), medial supplementary motor area (SMA), cerebellum and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). It has been shown that low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of DLPFC increases the likelihood of accepting unfair offers in the ultimatum game.

Another issue in the field of neuroeconomics is represented by role of reputation acquisition in social decision-making. Social exchange theory claims that prosocial behavior originates from the intention to maximize social rewards and minimize social costs. In this case, approval from others may be viewed as a significant positive reinforcer - i.e., a reward. Neuroimaging studies have provided evidence supporting this idea – it was shown that processing of social rewards activates striatum, especially left putamen and left caudate nucleus, in the same fashion these areas are activated during the processing of monetary rewards. These findings also support so-called "common neural currency" idea, which assumes existence of shared neural basis for processing of different types of reward.

Sexual decision-making
Regarding the choice of sexual partner, research studies have been conducted on humans and on nonhuman primates. Notably, Cheney & Seyfarth 1990, Deaner et al. 2005, and Hayden et al. 2007 suggest a persistent willingness to accept fewer physical goods or higher prices in return for access to socially high-ranking individuals, including physically attractive individuals, whereas increasingly high rewards are demanded if asked to relate to low-ranking individuals.

Cordelia Fine is most well known for her research on gendered minds and sexual decision-making. In her book Testosterone Rex she critiques sex differences in the brain and goes into detail on the economic cost and benefits of finding a partner, as interpreted and analysed by our brains. Her showcases an interesting sub-topic of neuroeconomics.

The neurobiological basis for this preference includes neurons of the lateral intraparietal cortex (LIP), which is related to eye movement, and which is operative in situations of two-alternative forced choices.

Methodology
Behavioral economics experiments record the subject's decisions over various design parameters and use the data to generate formal models that predict performance. Neuroeconomics extends this approach by adding states of the nervous system to the set of explanatory variables. The goal of neuroeconomics is to help explain decisions and to enrich the data sets available for testing predictions.

Furthermore, neuroeconomic research is being used to understand and explain aspects of human behavior that do not conform to traditional economic models. While these behavior patterns are generally dismissed as 'fallacious' or 'illogical' by economists, neuroeconomic researchers are trying to determine the biological reasons for these behaviors. By using this approach, researchers may be able to find explanations for why people often act sub-optimally. Richard Thaler provides a prime example in his book Misbehaving, detailing a scenario where an appetiser is served before a meal and guest accidentally fill up of it. Most people need the appetiser to be completely hidden in order to stop themselves from the temptation, where as a rational agent would simply stop and wait for the meal. Temptation is just one of the many irrationalities that have been ignored due to difficulties of studying them

Neurobiological research techniques
There are several different techniques that can be utilized to understand the biological basis of economic behavior. Neural imaging is used in human subjects to determine which areas of the brain are most active during particular tasks. Some of these techniques, such as fMRI or PET are best suited to giving detailed pictures of the brain which can give information about specific structures involved in a task. Other techniques, such as ERP (event-related potentials) and oscillatory brain activity are used to gain detailed knowledge of the time course of events within a more general area of the brain. If a specific region of the brain is suspected to be involved in a type of economic decision-making, researchers may use Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) to temporarily disrupt that region, and compare the results to when the brain was allowed to function normally. More recently, there has been interest in the role that brain structure, such as white matter connectivity between brain areas, plays in determining individual differences in reward-based decision-making.

Neuroscience does not always involve observing the brain directly, as brain activity can also be interpret by physiological measurements such skin conductance, heart rate, hormones, pupil dilation and muscle contraction known as electromyography, especially of the face to infer emotions linked to decisions.

Neuroeconomics of Addiction
In addition to studying areas of the brain, some studies are aimed at understanding the functions of different brain chemicals in relation to behavior. This can be done by either correlating existing chemical levels with different behavior patterns or by changing the amount of the chemical in the brain and noting any resulting behavioral changes. For example, the neurotransmitter serotonin seems to be involved in making decisions involving intertemporal choice while dopamine is utilized when individuals make judgments involving uncertainty. Furthermore, artificially increasing oxytocin levels increases trust behavior in humans while individuals with lower cortisol levels tend to be more impulsive and exhibit more future discounting.

In addition to studying the behavior of neurologically normal individuals in decision-making tasks, some research involves comparing that behavior to individuals with damage to areas of the brain expected to be involved in decision-making. In humans, this means finding individuals with specific types of neural impairment. These case studies may have things like amygdala damage, leading to a decrease in loss aversion compared to controls. Also, scores from a survey measuring prefrontal cortex dysfunction are correlated with general economic attitudes, like risk preferences.

Previous studies investigated the behavioral patterns of patients with psychiatric disorders, or Neuroeconomics of Addiction, such as schizophrenia, autism, depression,,to get the insights of their pathophysiology. In animal studies, highly controlled experiments can get more specific information about the importance of brain areas to economic behavior. This can involve either lesioning entire brain areas and measuring resulting behavior changes or using electrodes to measure the firing of individual neurons in response to particular stimuli.

Experiments
As explained in Methodologies above, in a typical behavioral economics experiment, a subject is asked to make a series of economic decisions. For example, a subject may be asked whether they prefer to have 45 cents or a gamble with a 50% chance to win one dollar. Many experiments involve the participant completing games where they either make one-off of repeated decisions and psychological responses and reaction time is measured. For example, it is common to test peoples relationship with the future, known as future discounting, by asking them questions such as "would you prefer $10 today, or $50 in a year from today?" The experimenter will then measure different variables in order to determine what is going on in the subject's brain as they make the decision. Some authors have demonstrated that neuroeconomics may be useful to describe not only experiments involving rewards but also common psychiatric syndromes involving addiction or delusion.

Criticisms
From the beginnings of neuroeconomics and throughout its swift academic rise, criticisms have been voiced over the field's validity and usefulness. Glenn W. Harris and Emanuel Donchin have both criticized the emerging field, with the former publishing his concerns in 2008 with the paper 'Neuroeconomics: A Critical Reconsideration'. Harris surmises that much of the neuroscience-assisted insights into economic modelling is "academic marketing hype" and that the true substance of the field is yet to present itself and needs to be seriously reconsidered. He also mentions that methodologically, many of the studies in neuroeconomics are flawed by their small sample sizes and limited applicability.

A review of the learnings of neuroeconomics, published in 2016 by Arkady Konovalov, shared the sentiment that the field suffers from experimental shortcomings. Primary among them being a lack of analogous ties between specific brain regions and some psychological constructs such as "value". The review mentions that although early neuroeconomic fMRI studies assumed that specific brain regions were singularly responsible for one function in the decision-making process, they have subsequently been shown to be recruiting in multiple different functions. The practice of reverse inference has therefore seen much less use and has hurt the field. Instead, FMRI should not be a standalone methodology, but rather be collected and connected to self-reports and behavioral data. The validity of using functional neuroimaging in consumer neuroscience can be improved by carefully designing studies, conducting meta-analyses, and connecting psychometric and behavioral data with data from neuroimaging.

Ariel Rubinstein, an economist at the University of Tel Aviv, spoke about neuroeconomic research, saying "standard experiments provide little information about the procedures of choice as it is difficult to extrapolate from a few choice observations to the entire choice function. If we want to know more about human procedures of choice we need to look somewhere else". These comments echo a salient and consistent argument of traditional economists against the neuroeconomic approach that the use of non-choice data, such as response times, eye-tracking and neural signals that people generate during decision-making, should be excluded from any economic analysis.

Other critiques have also included claims that neuroeconomics is "a field that oversells itself"; or that neuroeconomic studies "misunderstand and underestimate traditional economic models".

Applications
Currently, the real-world applications and predictions of neuroeconomics are still unknown or under-developed as the burgeoning field continues to grow. Some criticisms have been made that the accumulation of research and its findings have so far produced little in the way of pertinent recommendations to economic policy-makers. But many neuroeconomists insist that the potential of the field to enhance our understanding of the brain's machinations with decision-making may prove highly influential in the future.

In particular, the findings of specific neurological markers of individual preferences may have important implications for well-known economic models and paradigms. An example of this is the finding that an increase in computational capacity (likely related to increased gray matter volume) could lead to higher risk tolerance by loosening the constraints that govern subjective representations of probabilities and rewards in lottery tasks.

Economists are also looking at neuroeconomics to assist with explanations of group aggregate behavior that have market-level implications. For example, many researchers anticipate that neurobiological data may be used to detect when individuals or groups of individuals are likely to exhibit economically problematic behavior. This may be applied to the concept of market bubbles. These occurrences are majorly consequential in modern society and regulators could gain substantial insights into their formulation and lack of prediction/prevention.

Neuroeconomic work has also seen a close relationship with academic investigations of addiction. Researchers acknowledged, in the 2010 publication 'Advances in the Neuroscience of Addiction: 2nd Edition', that the neuroeconomic approach serves as a "powerful new conceptual method that is likely to be critical for progress in understanding addictive behavior".

German neuroscientist Tania Singer spoke at the World Economic Forum in 2015 about her research in compassion training. While economics and neuroscience are largely spilt, her research is an example of how they can meld together. Her study revealed a preference change toward prosocial behavior after 3 months of compassion training. She also demonstrated a structural change in the grey matter of the brain indicating new neural connections had formed as a result of the mental training. She showed that if economists utilised predictors other than consumption, they could model and predict a more diverse range of economic behaviors. She also advocated that neuroeconomics could vastly improve policymaking as we can create contexts that predictably lead to positive behavioral outcomes such as prosocial behavior when caring emotions are primed. Her research demonstrates the impact neuroeconomics could have on our individual psyches, our societal norms and political landscapes at large.

Neuromarketing is another applied example of a distinct discipline closely related to neuroeconomics. While broader neuroeconomics has more academic aims, since it studies the basic mechanisms of decision-making, neuromarketing is an applied sub-field which uses neuroimaging tools for market investigations. Insights derived from brain imaging technologies (fMRI) are typically used to analyse the brain's response to particular marketing stimuli.

Another neuroscientist, Emily Falk contributed to the neuroeconomics and neuromarketing fields by researching how the brain reacts to marketing aimed at evoking behavioral change. Specifically, her paper on anti-smoking advertisements highlighted the disparity between what advertisements we believe will be convincing and what the brain responds to most positively. The advertisement the experts and trial audience agreed on as being the most effective anti-smoking campaign actually elicited very little behavioral change in smokers. Meanwhile, the campaign ranked least likely to be effective by the experts and audience, generated the strongest neural response in the medial prefrontal cortex and resulted in the largest number of people deciding to quit smoking. This revealed that often our brains may know better than us when it comes to what motivators lead to behavioral change. It also emphasises the importance of integrating neuroscience into mainstream and behavioral economics to generate more wholistic models and accurate predictions. This research could have impacts in promoting healthier diets, more exercise, or encouraging people to make behavioral changes that benefit the environment and reduce climate change.

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

title: Neuroeconomics


text:
Rutherford County

Rutherford County is the name of two counties in the United States:

 * Rutherford County, North Carolina
 * Rutherford County, Tennessee

title: Rutherford County


text:
Canonical form

In mathematics and computer science, a canonical, normal, or standard form of a mathematical object is a standard way of presenting that object as a mathematical expression. Often, it is one which provides the simplest representation of an object and allows it to be identified in a unique way. The distinction between "canonical" and "normal" forms varies from subfield to subfield. In most fields, a canonical form specifies a unique representation for every object, while a normal form simply specifies its form, without the requirement of uniqueness.

The canonical form of a positive integer in decimal representation is a finite sequence of digits that does not begin with zero. More generally, for a class of objects on which an equivalence relation is defined, a canonical form consists in the choice of a specific object in each class. For example:

 * Jordan normal form is a canonical form for matrix similarity.
 * The row echelon form is a canonical form, when one considers as equivalent a matrix and its left product by an invertible matrix.

In computer science, and more specifically in computer algebra, when representing mathematical objects in a computer, there are usually many different ways to represent the same object. In this context, a canonical form is a representation such that every object has a unique representation (with canonicalization being the process through which a representation is put into its canonical form). Thus, the equality of two objects can easily be tested by testing the equality of their canonical forms.

Despite this advantage, canonical forms frequently depend on arbitrary choices (like ordering the variables), which introduce difficulties for testing the equality of two objects resulting on independent computations. Therefore, in computer algebra, normal form is a weaker notion: A normal form is a representation such that zero is uniquely represented. This allows testing for equality by putting the difference of two objects in normal form.

Canonical form can also mean a differential form that is defined in a natural (canonical) way.

Definition
Given a set S of objects with an equivalence relation R on S, a canonical form is given by designating some objects of S to be "in canonical form", such that every object under consideration is equivalent to exactly one object in canonical form. In other words, the canonical forms in S represent the equivalence classes, once and only once. To test whether two objects are equivalent, it then suffices to test equality on their canonical forms. A canonical form thus provides a classification theorem and more, in that it not only classifies every class, but also gives a distinguished (canonical) representative for each object in the class.

Formally, a canonicalization with respect to an equivalence relation R on a set S is a mapping c:S→S such that for all s, s1, s2 ∈ S:
 * 1) c(s) = c(c(s))  (idempotence),
 * 2) s1 R s2 if and only if c(s1) = c(s2)  (decisiveness), and
 * 3) s R c(s)  (representativeness).

Property 3 is redundant; it follows by applying 2 to 1.

In practical terms, it is often advantageous to be able to recognize the canonical forms. There is also a practical, algorithmic question to consider: how to pass from a given object s in S to its canonical form s*? Canonical forms are generally used to make operating with equivalence classes more effective. For example, in modular arithmetic, the canonical form for a residue class is usually taken as the least non-negative integer in it. Operations on classes are carried out by combining these representatives, and then reducing the result to its least non-negative residue. The uniqueness requirement is sometimes relaxed, allowing the forms to be unique up to some finer equivalence relation, such as allowing for reordering of terms (if there is no natural ordering on terms).

A canonical form may simply be a convention, or a deep theorem. For example, polynomials are conventionally written with the terms in descending powers: it is more usual to write x2 + x + 30 than x + 30 + x2, although the two forms define the same polynomial. By contrast, the existence of Jordan canonical form for a matrix is a deep theorem.

History
According to OED and LSJ, the term canonical stems from the Ancient Greek word kanonikós (κανονικός, "regular, according to rule") from kanṓn (κᾰνών, "rod, rule"). The sense of norm, standard, or archetype has been used in many disciplines. Mathematical usage is attested in a 1738 letter from Logan. The German term kanonische Form is attested in a 1846 paper by Eisenstein, later the same year Richelot uses the term Normalform in a paper, and in 1851 Sylvester writes:

""I now proceed to [...] the mode of reducing Algebraical Functions to their simplest and most symmetrical, or as my admirable friend M. Hermite well proposes to call them, their Canonical forms.""

In the same period, usage is attested by Hesse ("Normalform"), Hermite ("forme canonique"), Borchardt ("forme canonique"), and Cayley ("canonical form").

In 1865, the Dictionary of Science, Literature and Art defines canonical form as:

""In Mathematics, denotes a form, usually the simplest or most symmetrical, to which, without loss of generality, all functions of the same class can be reduced.""

Examples
Note: in this section, "up to" some equivalence relation E means that the canonical form is not unique in general, but that if one object has two different canonical forms, they are E-equivalent.

Large number notation
Standard form is used by many mathematicians and scientists to write extremely large numbers in a more concise and understandable way, the most prominent of which being the scientific notation.

Number theory

 * Canonical representation of a positive integer
 * Canonical form of a continued fraction

Geometry
In analytic geometry:
 * The equation of a line: Ax + By = C, with A2 + B2 = 1 and C ≥ 0
 * The equation of a circle: $$(x - h)^2 + (y - k)^2 = r^2$$

By contrast, there are alternative forms for writing equations. For example, the equation of a line may be written as a linear equation in point-slope and slope-intercept form.

Convex polyhedra can be put into canonical form such that:
 * All faces are flat,
 * All edges are tangent to the unit sphere, and
 * The centroid of the polyhedron is at the origin.

Integrable systems
Every differentiable manifold has a cotangent bundle. That bundle can always be endowed with a certain differential form, called the canonical one-form. This form gives the cotangent bundle the structure of a symplectic manifold, and allows vector fields on the manifold to be integrated by means of the Euler-Lagrange equations, or by means of Hamiltonian mechanics. Such systems of integrable differential equations are called integrable systems.

Dynamical systems
The study of dynamical systems overlaps with that of integrable systems; there one has the idea of a normal form (dynamical systems).

Three dimensional geometry
In the study of manifolds in three dimensions, one has the first fundamental form, the second fundamental form and the third fundamental form.

Classical logic

 * Negation normal form
 * Conjunctive normal form
 * Disjunctive normal form
 * Algebraic normal form
 * Prenex normal form
 * Skolem normal form
 * Blake canonical form, also known as the complete sum of prime implicants, the complete sum, or the disjunctive prime form

Set theory

 * Cantor normal form of an ordinal number

Game theory

 * Normal form game

Proof theory

 * Normal form (natural deduction)

Rewriting systems
The symbolic manipulation of a formula from one form to another is called a "rewriting" of that formula. One can study the abstract properties of rewriting generic formulas, by studying the collection of rules by which formulas can be validly manipulated. These are the "rewriting rules"—an integral part of an abstract rewriting system. A common question is whether it is possible to bring some generic expression to a single, common form, the normal form. If different sequences of rewrites still result in the same form, then that form can be termed a normal form, with the rewrite being called a confluent. It is not always possible to obtain a normal form.

Lambda calculus

 * A lambda term is in beta normal form if no beta reduction is possible; lambda calculus is a particular case of an abstract rewriting system. In the untyped lambda calculus, for example, the term $$(\lambda x.(x x) \; \lambda x.(x x))$$ does not have a normal form. In the typed lambda calculus, every well-formed term can be rewritten to its normal form.

Graph theory
In graph theory, a branch of mathematics, graph canonization is the problem of finding a canonical form of a given graph G. A canonical form is a labeled graph Canon(G) that is isomorphic to G, such that every graph that is isomorphic to G has the same canonical form as G. Thus, from a solution to the graph canonization problem, one could also solve the problem of graph isomorphism: to test whether two graphs G and H are isomorphic, compute their canonical forms Canon(G) and Canon(H), and test whether these two canonical forms are identical.

Computing
In computing, the reduction of data to any kind of canonical form is commonly called data normalization.

For instance, database normalization is the process of organizing the fields and tables of a relational database to minimize redundancy and dependency.

In the field of software security, a common vulnerability is unchecked malicious input (see Code injection). The mitigation for this problem is proper input validation. Before input validation is performed, the input is usually normalized by eliminating encoding (e.g., HTML encoding) and reducing the input data to a single common character set.

Other forms of data, typically associated with signal processing (including audio and imaging) or machine learning, can be normalized in order to provide a limited range of values.

In content management, the concept of a single source of truth (SSOT) is applicable, just as it is in database normalization generally and in software development. Competent content management systems provide logical ways of obtaining it, such as transclusion.

title: Canonical form


text:
United States Senate Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services, sometimes abbreviated SASC for Senate Armed Services Committee, is a committee of the United States Senate empowered with legislative oversight of the nation's military, including the Department of Defense, military research and development, nuclear energy (as pertaining to national security), benefits for members of the military, the Selective Service System and other matters related to defense policy. The Armed Services Committee was created as a result of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 following the U.S. victory in World War II. The bill merged the responsibilities of the Committee on Naval Affairs, established in 1816, and the Committee on Military Affairs, also established in 1816.

Considered one of the most powerful Senate committees, its broad mandate allowed it to report some of the most extensive and revolutionary legislation during the Cold War years, including the National Security Act of 1947. The committee tends to take a more bipartisan approach than other committees, as many of its members formerly served in the military or have major defense interests located in the states they come from. The committee's regular legislative product is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which has been passed by Congress and signed into law annually since 1962.

The current chair is Democrat Jack Reed of Rhode Island, and the Ranking Member is Republican Roger Wicker of Mississippi (2023).

Jurisdiction
According to the Standing Rules of the United States Senate, all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects are referred to the Armed Services Committee:

 * 1) Aeronautical and space activities pertaining to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems or military operations.
 * 2) Common defense.
 * 3) Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force, generally.
 * 4) Maintenance and operation of the Panama Canal, including administration, sanitation, and government of the Canal Zone.
 * 5) Military research and development.
 * 6) National security aspects of nuclear energy.
 * 7) Naval petroleum reserves, except those in Alaska.
 * 8) Pay, promotion, retirement, and other benefits and privileges of members of the Armed Forces, including overseas education of civilian and military dependents.
 * 9) Selective service system.
 * 10) Strategic and critical materials necessary for the common defense.

111th Congress
Source:
 * Subcommittees

112th Congress
Source:

 * Subcommittees

113th Congress
Source:

 * Subcommittees

117th Congress
Source: