text:
One-drop rule

The one-drop rule was a legal principle of racial classification that was prominent in the 20th-century United States. It asserted that any person with even one ancestor of black ancestry ("one drop" of "black blood") is considered black (Negro or colored in historical terms). It is an example of hypodescent, the automatic assignment of children of a mixed union between different socioeconomic or ethnic groups to the group with the lower status, regardless of proportion of ancestry in different groups.

This concept became codified into the law of some U.S. states in the early 20th century. It was associated with the principle of "invisible blackness" that developed after the long history of racial interaction in the South, which had included the hardening of slavery as a racial caste system and later segregation. Before the rule was outlawed by the Supreme Court in the Loving v. Virginia decision of 1967, it was used to prevent interracial marriages and in general to deny rights and equal opportunities and uphold white supremacy.

Antebellum conditions
Before the American Civil War, free individuals of mixed race (free people of color) were considered legally white if they had less than either one-eighth or one-quarter African ancestry (only in Virginia). Many mixed-race people were absorbed into the majority culture based simply on appearance, associations and carrying out community responsibilities. These and community acceptance were the more important factors if a person's racial status were questioned, not their documented ancestry.

Based on late 20th-century DNA analysis and a preponderance of historical evidence, US president Thomas Jefferson is widely believed to have fathered the six mixed-race children with his slave Sally Hemings, who was herself three-quarters white and a paternal half-sister of his wife Martha Wayles Jefferson. Four of them survived to adulthood. Under Virginia law of the time, while their seven-eighths European ancestry would have made them legally white if they'd been free, being born to an enslaved mother made them automatically enslaved from birth. Jefferson allowed the two oldest to escape in 1822 (freeing them legally was a public action he elected to avoid because he would have had to gain permission from the state legislature); the two youngest he freed in his 1826 will. Three of the four entered white society as adults. Subsequently, their descendants identified as white.

Although racial segregation was adopted legally by southern states of the former Confederacy in the late 19th century, legislators resisted defining race by law as part of preventing interracial marriages. In 1895, in South Carolina during discussion, George D. Tillman said,

"It is a scientific fact that there is not one full-blooded Caucasian on the floor of this convention. Every member has in him a certain mixture of ... colored blood ... It would be a cruel injustice and the source of endless litigation, of scandal, horror, feud, and bloodshed to undertake to annul or forbid marriage for a remote, perhaps obsolete trace of Negro blood. The doors would be open to scandal, malice, and greed."

The one-drop rule was not formally codified as law until the 20th century, from 1910 in Tennessee to 1930 as one of Virginia's "racial integrity laws", with similar laws in several other states in between.

Native Americans
In the early colonial years, children born of one Indigenous and one non-Native parent usually had a white father and an Indigenous mother. This was largely due to the majority of the early colonists being male and high instances of rape. As many Native American tribes had matrilineal kinship systems, they considered the children to be born to the mother's family and clan. If they were raised in the culture, they were considered members of the community, and therefore, fully Native American.

Prior to colonization, and still in traditional communities, the idea of determining belonging by degree of "blood" was, and is, unheard of. Native American tribes did not use blood quantum law until the U.S. government introduced the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, instead determining tribal status on the basis of kinship, lineage and family ties. However, many land cession treaties, particularly during Indian removal in the 19th century, contained provisions for "mixed-blood" descendants of European and native ancestry to receive either parcels of land ceded in the treaty, or a share in a lump sum of money, with specifications as to the degree of tribal ancestry required to qualify. Though these did not typically apply a one-drop rule, determining the ancestry of individual claimants was not straightforward, and the process was often rife with fraud.

Among patrilineal tribes, such as the Omaha, historically a child born to an Omaha mother and a white father could belong officially to the Omaha tribe only if the child were formally adopted into it by a male citizen. In contemporary practice, tribal laws around citizenship and parentage can vary widely between nations.

Between 1904 and 1919, tribal members with any amount of African ancestry were disenrolled from the Chitimacha tribe of Louisiana, and their descendants have since then been denied tribal membership.

20th century and contemporary times
In 20th-century America, the concept of the one-drop rule has been primarily applied by White Americans to those of sub-Saharan Black African ancestry, when some Whites were trying to maintain some degree of overt or covert white supremacy. The poet Langston Hughes wrote in his 1940 memoir: "You see, unfortunately, I am not black. There are lots of different kinds of blood in our family. But here in the United States, the word 'Negro' is used to mean anyone who has any Negro blood at all in his veins. In Africa, the word is more pure. It means all Negro, therefore black. I am brown."

This rule meant many mixed-race people, of diverse ancestry, were simply seen as African-American, and their more diverse ancestors forgotten and erased, making it difficult to accurately trace ancestry in the present day.

Many descendants of those who were enslaved and trafficked by Europeans and Americans have assumed they have Native American ancestry. Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s 2006 PBS documentary on the genetic makeup of African Americans, African American Lives, focused on these stories of Native American heritage in African-American communities. DNA test results showed, after African, primarily European ancestors for all but two of the celebrities interviewed. However, many critics point to the limitations of DNA testing for ancestry, especially for minority populations.

During World War II, Colonel Karl Bendetsen stated that anyone with "one drop of Japanese blood" was liable for forced internment in camps.

Today there are no enforceable laws in the U.S. in which the one-drop rule is applicable. Sociologically, however, while the concept has in recent years become less acceptable within the Black community, with more people identifying as biracial, research has found that in White society, it is still common to associate biracial children primarily with the individual's non-White ancestry.

Legislation and practice
Both before and after the American Civil War, many people of mixed ancestry who "looked white" and were of mostly white ancestry were legally absorbed into the white majority. State laws established differing standards. For instance, an 1822 Virginia law stated that to be defined as mulatto (that is, multi-racial), a person had to have at least one-quarter (equivalent to one grandparent) African ancestry. Social acceptance and identity were historically the keys to racial identity. Virginia's one-fourth standard remained in place until 1910, when the standard was changed to one sixteenth. In 1930, even the one sixteenth standard was abandoned in favor of a more stringent standard. The act defined a person as legally "colored" (black) for classification and legal purposes if the individual had any African ancestry.

Although the Virginia legislature increased restrictions on free blacks following the Nat Turner's Rebellion of 1831, it refrained from establishing a one-drop rule. When a proposal was made by Travis H. Eppes and debated in 1853, representatives realized that such a rule could adversely affect whites, as they were aware of generations of interracial relationships. During the debate, a person wrote to the Charlottesville newspaper:

"[If a one-drop rule were adopted], I doubt not, if many who are reputed to be white, and are in fact so, do not in a very short time find themselves instead of being elevated, reduced by the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, to the level of a free negro."

The state legislators agreed. No such law was passed until 1924, apparently assisted by the fading recollection of such mixed familial histories. In the 21st century, such interracial family histories are being revealed as individuals undergo DNA genetic analysis.

The Melungeons are a group of multiracial families of mostly European and African ancestry whose ancestors were free in colonial Virginia. They migrated to the frontier in Kentucky and Tennessee. Their descendants have been documented over the decades as having tended to marry persons classified as "white". Their descendants became assimilated into the majority culture from the 19th to the 20th centuries.

Pursuant to Reconstruction later in the 19th century, southern states acted to impose racial segregation by law and restrict the liberties of blacks, specifically passing laws to exclude them from politics and voting. From 1890 to 1908, all of the former Confederate states passed such laws, and most preserved disfranchisement until after passage of federal civil rights laws in the 1960s. At the South Carolina constitutional convention in 1895, an anti-miscegenation law and changes that would disfranchise blacks were proposed. Delegates debated a proposal for a one-drop rule to include in these laws. George D. Tillman said the following in opposition:

"If the law is made as it now stands respectable families in Aiken, Barnwell, Colleton, and Orangeburg will be denied the right to intermarry among people with whom they are now associated and identified. At least one hundred families would be affected to my knowledge. They have sent good soldiers to the Confederate Army, and are now landowners and taxpayers. Those men served creditably, and it would be unjust and disgraceful to embarrass them in this way. It is a scientific fact that there is not one full-blooded Caucasian on the floor of this convention. Every member has in him a certain mixture of ... colored blood. The pure-blooded white has needed and received a certain infusion of darker blood to give him readiness and purpose. It would be a cruel injustice and the source of endless litigation, of scandal, horror, feud, and bloodshed to undertake to annul or forbid marriage for a remote, perhaps obsolete trace of Negro blood. The doors would be open to scandal, malice, and greed; to statements on the witness stand that the father or grandfather or grandmother had said that A or B had Negro blood in their veins. Any man who is half a man would be ready to blow up half the world with dynamite to prevent or avenge attacks upon the honor of his mother in the legitimacy or purity of the blood of his father."

In 1865, Florida passed an act that both outlawed miscegenation and defined the amount of black ancestry needed to be legally defined as a "person of color". The act stated that "every person who shall have one-eighth or more of negro blood shall be deemed and held to be a person of color." (This was the equivalent of one great-grandparent.) Additionally, the act outlawed fornication, as well as the intermarrying of white females with men of color. However, the act permitted the continuation of marriages between white persons and persons of color that were established before the law was enacted.

The one-drop rule was not made law until the early 20th century. This was decades after the Civil War, emancipation, and the Reconstruction era. It followed restoration of white supremacy in the South and the passage of Jim Crow racial segregation laws. In the 20th century, it was also associated with the rise of eugenics and ideas of racial purity. From the late 1870s on, white Democrats regained political power in the former Confederate states and passed racial segregation laws controlling public facilities, and laws and constitutions from 1890 to 1910 to achieve disfranchisement of most blacks. Many poor whites were also disfranchised in these years, by changes to voter registration rules that worked against them, such as literacy tests, longer residency requirements and poll taxes.

The first challenges to such state laws were overruled by Supreme Court decisions which upheld state constitutions that effectively disfranchised many. White Democratic-dominated legislatures proceeded with passing Jim Crow laws that instituted racial segregation in public places and accommodations, and passed other restrictive voting legislation. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court allowed racial segregation of public facilities, under the "separate but equal" doctrine.

Jim Crow laws reached their greatest influence during the decades from 1910 to 1930. Among them were hypodescent laws, defining as black anyone with any black ancestry, or with a very small portion of black ancestry. Tennessee adopted such a "one-drop" statute in 1910, and Louisiana soon followed. Then Texas and Arkansas in 1911, Mississippi in 1917, North Carolina in 1923, Alabama and Georgia in 1927, and Virginia in 1930. During this same period, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Utah retained their old "blood fraction" statutes de jure, but amended these fractions (one-sixteenth, one-thirty-second) to be equivalent to one-drop de facto.

Before 1930, individuals of visible mixed European and African ancestry were usually classed as mulatto, or sometimes as black and sometimes as white, depending on appearance. Previously, most states had limited trying to define ancestry before "the fourth degree" (great-great-grandparents). But, in 1930, due to lobbying by southern legislators, the Census Bureau stopped using the classification of mulatto. Documentation of the long social recognition of mixed-race people was lost, and they were classified only as black or white.

The binary world of the one-drop rule disregarded the self-identification both of people of mostly European ancestry who grew up in white communities, and of people who were of mixed race and identified as American Indian. In addition, Walter Plecker, Registrar of Statistics, ordered application of the 1924 Virginia law in such a way that vital records were changed or destroyed, family members were split on opposite sides of the color line, and there were losses of the documented continuity of people who identified as American Indian, as all people in Virginia had to be classified as white or black. Over the centuries, many Indian tribes in Virginia had absorbed people of other ethnicities through marriage or adoption, but maintained their cultures. Suspecting blacks of trying to "pass" as Indians, Plecker ordered records changed to classify people only as black or white, and ordered offices to reclassify certain family surnames from Indian to black.

Since the late 20th century, Virginia has officially recognized eight American Indian tribes and their members; the tribes are trying to gain federal recognition. They have had difficulty because decades of birth, marriage, and death records were misclassified under Plecker's application of the law. No one was classified as Indian, although many individuals and families identified that way and were preserving their cultures.

In the case of mixed-race American Indian and European descendants, the one-drop rule in Virginia was extended only so far as those with more than one-sixteenth Indian blood. This was due to what was known as the "Pocahontas exception". Since many influential First Families of Virginia (FFV) claimed descent from the American Indian Pocahontas and her husband John Rolfe of the colonial era, the Virginia General Assembly declared that an individual could be considered white if having no more than one-sixteenth Indian "blood" (the equivalent of one great-great-grandparent).

The eugenist Madison Grant of New York wrote in his book, The Passing of the Great Race (1916): "The cross between a white man and an Indian is an Indian; the cross between a white man and a Negro is a Negro; the cross between a white man and a Hindu is a Hindu; and the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew." As noted above, Native American tribes which had patrilineal descent and inheritance, such as the Omaha, classified children of white men and Native American women as white.

Plecker case
Through the 1940s, Walter Plecker of Virginia and Naomi Drake of Louisiana had an outsized influence. As the Registrar of Statistics, Plecker insisted on labeling mixed-race families of European-African ancestry as black. In 1924, Plecker wrote, "Two races as materially divergent as the White and Negro, in morals, mental powers, and cultural fitness, cannot live in close contact without injury to the higher." In the 1930s and 1940s, Plecker directed offices under his authority to change vital records and reclassify certain families as black (or colored) (without notifying them) after Virginia established a binary system under its Racial Integrity Act of 1924. He also classified people as black who had formerly self-identified as Indian. When the United States Supreme Court struck down Virginia's law prohibiting inter-racial marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), it also declared Plecker's Virginia Racial Integrity Act and the one-drop rule unconstitutional.

Many people in the U.S., among various ethnic groups, continue to have their own concepts related to the one-drop idea. They may still consider those multiracial individuals with any African ancestry to be black, or at least non-white (if the person has other minority ancestry), unless the person explicitly identifies as white. On the other hand, the Black Power movement and some leaders within the black community also claimed as black those persons with any visible African ancestry, in order to extend their political base and regardless of how those people self-identified.

Other countries of the Americas

Among the colonial slave societies, the United States was nearly unique in developing the one-drop rule; it derived both from the Southern slave culture (shared by other societies) and the aftermath of the American Civil War, emancipation of slaves, and Reconstruction. In the late 19th century, Southern whites regained political power and restored white supremacy, passing Jim Crow laws and establishing racial segregation by law. In the 20th century, during the Black Power movement, black race-based groups claimed all people of any African ancestry as black in a reverse way, to establish political power.

In colonial Spanish America, many soldiers and explorers took indigenous women as wives. Native-born Spanish women were always a minority. The colonists developed an elaborate classification and caste system that identified the mixed-race descendants of blacks, Amerindians, and whites by different names, related to appearance and known ancestry. Racial caste not only depended on ancestry or skin color, but also could be raised or lowered by the person's financial status or class.

The same racial culture shock has come to hundreds of thousands of dark-skinned immigrants to the United States from Brazil, Colombia, Panama, and other Latin American nations. Although many are not considered black in their homelands, they have often been considered black in US society. According to The Washington Post, their refusal to accept the United States' definition of black has left many feeling attacked from all directions. At times, white and black Americans might discriminate against them for their lighter or darker skin tones; African Americans might believe that Afro-Latino immigrants are denying their blackness. At the same time, the immigrants think lighter-skinned Latinos dominate Spanish-language television and media. A majority of Latin Americans possess some African or American Indian ancestry. Many of these immigrants feel it is difficult enough to accept a new language and culture without the additional burden of having to transform from white to black. Yvette Modestin, a dark-skinned native of Panama who worked in Boston, said the situation was overwhelming: "There's not a day that I don't have to explain myself."

Professor J. B. Bird has said that Latin America is not alone in rejecting the historical US notion that any visible African ancestry is enough to make one black:

"In most countries of the Caribbean, Colin Powell would be described as a Creole, reflecting his mixed heritage. In Belize, he might further be described as a 'High Creole', because of his extremely light complexion."

Brazil

People in many other countries have tended to treat race less rigidly, both in their self-identification and how they regard others. Just as a person with physically recognizable African ancestry can claim to be black in the United States, someone with recognizable European ancestry may be considered white in Brazil, even if mixed race.

In December 2002, The Washington Post ran a story on the one-drop rule and differences in Latin American practices. In the reporter's opinion:

"Someone with Sidney Poitier's deep chocolate complexion would be considered white if his hair were straight and he made a living in a profession. That might not seem so odd, Brazilians say, when you consider that the fair-complexioned actresses Rashida Jones of the television show 'Boston Public' and Lena Horne are identified as black in the United States."

According to Jose Neinstein, a native white Brazilian and executive director of the Brazilian-American Cultural Institute in Washington, in the United States, "If you are not quite white, then you are black." However, in Brazil, "If you are not quite black, then you are white." Neinstein recalls talking with a man of Poitier's complexion when in Brazil: "We were discussing ethnicity, and I asked him, 'What do you think about this from your perspective as a black man?' He turned his head to me and said, 'I'm not black,' ... It simply paralyzed me. I couldn't ask another question."

Puerto Rico
During the Spanish colonial period, Puerto Rico had laws such as the Regla del Sacar or Gracias al Sacar, by which a person of black ancestry could be considered legally white so long as the individual could prove that at least one person per generation in the last four generations had also been legally white. Thus persons of some black ancestry with known white lineage were classified as white, the opposite of the "one-drop rule" in the United States.

Racial mixtures of blacks and whites in modern America
Given the intense interest in ethnicity, genetic genealogists and other scientists have studied population groups. Henry Louis Gates Jr. publicized such genetic studies on his two series African American Lives, shown on PBS, in which the ancestry of prominent figures was explored. His experts discussed the results of autosomal DNA tests, in contrast to direct-line testing, which survey all the DNA that has been inherited from the parents of an individual. Autosomal tests focus on SNPs.

The specialists on Gates' program summarized the make-up of the United States population by the following:

 * 58 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5% European ancestry (equivalent of one great-grandparent);
 * 19.6 percent of African Americans have at least 25% European ancestry (equivalent of one grandparent);
 * 1 percent of African Americans have at least 50% European ancestry (equivalent of one parent) (Gates is one of these, he discovered, having a total of 51% European ancestry among various distant ancestors); and
 * 5 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5% Native American ancestry (equivalent to one great-grandparent).

In 2002, Mark D. Shriver, a molecular anthropologist at Penn State University, published results of a study regarding the racial admixture of Americans who identified as white or black: Shriver surveyed a 3,000-person sample from 25 locations in the United States and tested subjects for autosomal genetic make-up:

 * Of those persons who identified as white:
 * Individuals had an average 0.7% black ancestry, which is the equivalent of having 1 black and 127 white ancestors among one's 128 5×great-grandparents.
 * Shriver estimates that 70% of white Americans have no African ancestors (in part because a high proportion of current whites are descended from more recent immigrants from Europe of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, rather than those early migrants to the colonies, who in some areas lived and worked closely with Africans, free, indentured or slave, and formed relations with them).
 * Among the 30% of identified whites who have African ancestry, Shriver estimates their black racial admixture is 2.3%; the equivalent of having had three black ancestors among their 128 5×great-grandparents.
 * Among those who identified as black:
 * The average proportion of white ancestry was 18%, the equivalent of having 22 white ancestors among their 128 5×great-grandparents.
 * About 10% have more than 50% white ancestry.

Black people in the United States are more racially mixed than white people, reflecting historical experience here, including the close living and working conditions among the small populations of the early colonies, when indentured servants, both black and white, and slaves, married or formed unions. Mixed-race children of white mothers were born free, and many families of free people of color were started in those years. 80 percent of the free African-American families in the Upper South in the censuses of 1790 to 1810 can be traced as descendants of unions between white women and African men in colonial Virginia, not of slave women and white men. In the early colony, conditions were loose among the working class, who lived and worked closely together. After the American Revolutionary War, their free mixed-race descendants migrated to the frontiers of nearby states along with other primarily European Virginia pioneers. The admixture also reflects later conditions under slavery, when white planters or their sons, or overseers, frequently raped African women. There were also freely chosen relationships among individuals of different or mixed races.

Shriver's 2002 survey found different current admixture rates by region, reflecting historic patterns of settlement and change, both in terms of populations who migrated and their descendants' unions. For example, he found that the black populations with the highest percentage of white ancestry lived in California and Seattle, Washington. These were both majority-white destinations during the Great Migration of 1940–1970 of African Americans from the Deep South of Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi. Blacks sampled in those two locations had more than 25% white European ancestry on average.

As noted by Troy Duster, direct-line testing of the Y-chromosome and mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) fails to pick up the heritage of many other ancestors. DNA testing has limitations and should not be depended on by individuals to answer all questions about heritage. Duster said that neither Shriver's research nor Gates' PBS program adequately acknowledged the limitations of genetic testing.

Similarly, the Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism (IPCB) notes that: "Native American markers" are not found solely among Native Americans. While they occur more frequently among Native Americans, they are also found in people in other parts of the world. Genetic testing has shown three major waves of ancient migration from Asia among Native Americans but cannot distinguish further among most of the various tribes in the Americas. Some critics of testing believe that more markers will be identified as more Native Americans of various tribes are tested, as they believe that the early epidemics due to smallpox and other diseases may have altered genetic representation.

Much effort has been made to discover the ways in which the one-drop rule continues to be socially perpetuated today. For example, in her interview of black/white adults in the South, Nikki Khanna uncovers that one way the one-drop rule is perpetuated is through the mechanism of reflected appraisal. Most respondents identified as black, explaining that this is because both black and white people see them as black as well.

Allusions
Charles W. Chesnutt, who was of mixed race and grew up in the North, wrote stories and novels about the issues of mixed-race people in southern society in the aftermath of the Civil War.

The one-drop rule and its consequences have been the subject of numerous works of popular culture. The American musical Show Boat (1927) opens in 1887 on a Mississippi River boat, after the Reconstruction era and imposition of racial segregation and Jim Crow in the South. Steve, a white man married to a mixed-race woman who passes as white, is pursued by a Southern sheriff. He intends to arrest Steve and charge him with miscegenation for being married to a woman of partly black ancestry. Steve pricks his wife's finger and swallows some of her blood. When the sheriff arrives, Steve asks him whether he would consider a man to be white if he had "negro blood" in him. The sheriff replies that "one drop of Negro blood makes you a Negro in these parts". Steve tells the sheriff that he has "more than a drop of negro blood in me". After being assured by others that Steve is telling the truth, the sheriff leaves without arresting Steve.

title: One-drop rule


text:
Talk:Newcomb's paradox

Paradox requirements
This is not a paradox because there is only one possible outcome based on the definition of the problem. Bensaccount 03:48, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A paradox leads logically to self contradiction. This does no such thing. Only illogical argument with the problem itself will lead to contradiction. The problem leads only to a single final outcome. Bensaccount 04:04, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * agreed, there's zero paradox unless you disregard the [admittedly very bizarre] problem statement. the problem statement precludes "free will" because it's necessarily a pre-determined/super-deterministic situation if we accept that the predictor is indeed infallible. the "possibilities" involving the predictor being wrong contradict the premise; to entertain those possibilities is to discuss a completely different problem statement. to call it a paradox is simply begging the question. Mcslinky (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

This is indeed a paradox as two widely -0principles of decision making (Expected Utility and Dominance) contradict one another as to which is the best decision.

Kaikaapro 00:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

 * There is no contradiction. Chosing both boxes gives you $1000, chosing B only gives you $1000000. No contradiction. It's only counter-intuitive concept of backward causality which fools some people to argue for taking both boxes.--88.101.76.122 (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Uh, no. There is no stipulation that choosing B only gives you $1000000. That only follows if the past success of the predictor necessitates the predictor's future success, but there is no such necessity. If backwards causality of the sort posited here is logically impossible (and I believe it is), then it is more likely that the predictor will fail this time, regardless of how unlikely that is. -- 98.108.225.155 (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * It's a paradox that people seem convinced of one or the other. If you accept that the money exists and is already in the box or boxes, then choosing to take both cannot evaporate the money in the opaque box, but it can prove the predictor wrong for the first time.  Or can it?  Is the money truly there or not there before the box is opened?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomez2002 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Kaikaapro, there is no paradox; the apparent clash merely indicates that the expected utility is being miscalculated by assigning an incorrect Bayesian value to the predictor's assessment. Regardless of what the predictor has done in the past, dominance assures us that we still benefit by taking both boxes. -- 98.108.225.155 (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a paradox in a logical sense, though it would appear to be counter-intuitive to many people, which would lead them to assume a paradox was involved rather than faulty assumptions. The accuracy of the predictions is outlined in the problem, and should be assumed. Effectively the choice made is the prediction made. Even allowing for some error (almost always correct) then it would still pay off to assume 100% accuracy anyway. Ninahexan (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the problem, properly stated. The superbeing Omega has been running this experiment, and has so far predicted each person's choice accurately. You are shown two boxes. One is see through, and has 1000$ in it. The other is opaque. Omega tells you this. "You may pick both boxes, or just box B. I have made a prediction about what you will chose.  If I predicted you will take both boxes, then box B is empty.  If I predicted that you will only take box B, then box B has 1 million dollars in it.  My decision has been made, and the contents of Box B have been set.  There is no randomness in this chamber.  Make your decision now." One argument is "Every person who has picked just B has gotten 1 million, and every person who has picked both has gotten 1000, so the choice is obvious. I should be one of those who picked B." The other argument is "No matter what Omega's prediction was, I will get more money if i pick both boxes, therefore I should pick both." Note that Omega being infallible is not an assumption of the problem, but there have been zero failures so far. 74.211.60.216 (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Mcslinky Is there a concrete change to the article being proposed? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Whether the paradox is real
After several days research and thought, I am firmly convinced 1) that this is a paradox with a non-trivial analysis and 2) that the original version (while imperfect) was closer to NPOV than the current version.

Bensaccount's primary complaint seems to be that because "reverse causation is defined into the problem" there is only one solution. However, free will is also "defined into the problem" - otherwise Chooser is not really making a choice. Using Bensaccount's framework, we have two mutually incompatible conclusions yet neither of the premises (free will and the ability to predict the future) can be easily or obviously dismissed as untrue.

 * Ok well proven, I didnt see that before. I stand corrected. Bensaccount 00:54, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * These two things don't contradict each other. Either you will freely decide to take both boxes and your decision will cause box B to be empty. Or, you'll freely decide to take only box B, and you will cause box to contain one million.--88.101.76.122 (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it not logical to suggest that the predictor is the one lacking free will, having their choice dictated by the free will of the future chooser? Ninahexan (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are the paradoxical facts of the problem, properly stated. 1. Every person who has selected Box B has gotten 1 million dollars. 2. Every person who has selected both has gotten $1000. 3. Picking both gets $1000 more than picking B, regardless of the prediction. 4. The prediction has already been made. Both arguments are equally compelling, and give opposite advice, and anyone who believes one argument thinks the other is silly. This paradox is unlikely ot get resolved. We can't actually assume that there is at least one person who has selected box B only, if that fact hasn't been stated in the problem. The combination of lack of reverse causality and his past infallibility create the paradox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.60.216 (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

 * 1 and 2 are only compelling if the person is trusting of authority. They think that 'doing the right thing' will reward them, even if the die has been cast.  Believers in 3 and 4 would think that the fact that the money is physically in the box or boxes, totally outweighs doing what the administrators of the test appear to be suggesting.  Is it 'magical thinking' to imagine that box two will fill with money if it isn't already there?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomez2002 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

A strange variation
Long article and posts, I searched but did not read exhaustively. The following may be redundant.

I heard of a variation on this problem. Assume you have a friend standing on the other side of the table. Box B is also transparent (on the friend's side - you still can't see the contents). Your friend WANTS you to take both boxes.

What do you do? 67.172.122.167 (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This variant is not a paradox. Assume that your friend has your best interest at heart. This is a reasonable assumption. Your friend is advising you to take both, because s/he knows that choice gives you more money. 74.211.60.216 (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Aaaronsmith (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Random device?
Just responding to this paragraph of the article:

''If the player believes that the predictor can correctly predict any thoughts he or she will have, but has access to some source of random numbers that the predictor cannot predict (say, a coin to flip, or a quantum process), then the game depends on how the predictor will react to (correctly) knowing that the player will use such a process. If the predictor predicts by reproducing the player's process, then the player should open both boxes with 1/2 probability and will receive an average of $251,000; if the predictor predicts the most probable player action, then the player should open both with 1/2 - epsilon probability and will receive an average of ~$500,999.99; and if the predictor places $0 whenever they believe that the player will use a random process, then the traditional "paradox" holds unchanged.''

This is all a bit tricky. Firstly, talking about a "coin" is misleading, since an (ideal) coin always has probability 1/2, but the writer is talking about what the player should do if they have access to a random device that can be set to decide between two outcomes with any desired probability. (This had me confused for a long while!)

In case 1 (the predictor replicates the process) then if you select a 50/50 probability, the expected value of payout is a straight average of all four possibilities ($500,500). (The writer's figure of $251,000 would be correct if your choices were Box A or both boxes. They are Box B or both.) This doesn't circumvent the paradox at all, though: choosing to open both boxes is superior to using the random device for the same reason as before (whatever is in Box B, you get more if you take both than if you don't) and choosing to open one box is superior to using the random device, since it gives a higher expected payout.

Case 2 is unclearly written, but I think the writer is saying "what if" the predictor responds to randomness by always going for the more likely outcome. In this case, setting the device to choose both boxes with probability 0.5 minus epsilon (where epsilon is a very small quantity) means there will always be a million in Box B. The average payout would be just under $1,000,500. (Again, the figure given would be correct if the choice were between Box A or both boxes.) This would be clearly the optimum strategy, and so there would be no paradox, if the predictor did indeed work like that.

But I don't see why we should be entitled to assume that the predictor can predict thoughts but not the outcome of a random device. If we simply stipulate that the predictor is capable of predicting the ACTUAL decision by unspecified means, then even mentioning a random device achieves nothing. The paradox remains: "You have two possible decisions, either of which can be shown by seemingly reasonable argument to be superior to the other."

Am I right? 2.25.135.6 (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Well, if we accept that the brain is an inherently random device, then the problem is solved rather trivially: Take both boxes, because you're using a random device to make the desicion, so box B will be empty.  But now we're not a random device, because we always give the same answer.  But we still can't pick just box B.  This could probably also turn into a trust problem. 176.35.126.251 (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Michael Langan
Chris Langan has also proposed a solution to the problem. This was published in Noesis (number 44, December 1989 - January 1990). Noesis was the Journal of the Noetic Society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.9.208.63 (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--greenrd (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Related thought experiment (please do not try this at home)
Imagine a world in which all couples have four children. After the (genX) mother reaches menopause, the government arrests three of their (genX+1) children, and either secretly kills them or doesn't. It then tells the (genX) parents that it has predicted whether they will kill their fourth (genX+1) child: if their (genX-1) parents killed one of their (genX) siblings, then the government will have predicted the (genX) couple will behave like their parents and kill their fourth (genX+1) child and the government will therefore release the other three. Conversely, if their (genX-1) parents did not kill one of their (genX) siblings, then the government will have predicted the (genX) couple will behave like their parents and will not kill their fourth (genX+1) child and the government has therefore already killed the other three.

Assuming the couple wants to perpetuate their genes, it is actually logical for them to kill the fourth child. If the government released the other three children, it will therefore use this choice to predict their children's behaviour and will not kill the genX+2 children. Each generation will contain 150% of the genes of the previous one.

If the couple refuses to kill the fourth child, the government will kill all but one of his children, so their genes will gradually die out.

John Blackwell (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is stupid. How does it even get started? This is like a loop in computer programming with no beginning. It doesn't even make sense.--greenrd (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

A clear definition of "optimal"
Does Newcomb provide a clear definition of "optimal"? It's explicit that we seek to determine which of two strategies is optimal, but there are multiple valid definitions of "optimal":

 * Maximising the minimum guaranteed amount of money gained
 * Maximising the expected amount of money gained
 * Maximising the maximum possible amount of money gained

87.113.40.254 (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Neither strategy is optimal, but the first is very flawed
I see something like a paradox here, but it's not between the two listed strategies. Rather, the first strategy is flawed: That is, if the prediction is for both A and B to be taken, then the player's decision becomes a matter of choosing between $1,000 (by taking A and B) and $0 (by taking just B), in which case taking both boxes is obviously preferable. But, even if the prediction is for the player to take only B, then taking both boxes yields $1,001,000, and taking only B yields only $1,000,000—taking both boxes is still better, regardless of which prediction has been made.

This strategy neglects two crucial details:

 * The predictor's decision will be influenced by the player's decision.
 * Specifically, the predictor's decision will match the player's decision with a high probability ("almost certain").
 * The predictor's decision will, in turn, influence the maximum possible prize.

In fact, considering that last point, it seems that Newcomb's problem is a bit like a one-sided version of the Prisoner's Dilemma.

Consider if the predictor is Laplace's demon. In this case:
 * Choosing box B has an expected value of $1,000,000.
 * Choosing both has an expected value of $1,000.

In this case, the second strategy (always choose B) is clearly superior.

This raises two issues, however:
 * The issue of 'free will' (which Laplace's demon precludes the existence of.)
 * Universes where a perfect predictor cannot exist (due to e.g. a lack of time travel and a surplus of quantum mechanics)

Most of the 'free will' concern is not really an issue: a rational player often sacrifices some or all of their free will in order to maximize the expected value. For example, consider the Monty Hall problem: a rational player will always switch (regardless of what they consider maximum.)

Things get more complicated in universes like ours, where a perfect predictor cannot exist.

Let us consider another predictor that is always wrong (Laplace's angel?). In this case:
 * Choosing box B has an expected value of $0.
 * Choosing both has an expected value of $1,001,000.

In this case, the first strategy (always choose both) is clearly superior.

It should be evident by now that the best strategy depends on the accuracy of the predictor.

Let P(C|B) represent the probability that the predictor was correct, given that the player chose only box B. Let P(C|AB) represent the probability that the predictor was correct, given that the player chose both boxes.

If the player chooses box B, the expected outcome is P(C|B) * $1,000,000. If the player chooses boxes A+B, the expected outcome is (1 - P(C|AB)) * $1,000,000 + $1,000.

It should be readily apparent that the "perfect predictor" is a special case where P(C) = 1.

Therefore, the best meta-strategy is one of these two:

 * Choose a strategy that maximizes P(C|B) and chooses box B only.
 * Choose a strategy that minimizes P(C|AB) and chooses both boxes.

Which of these two is superior depends on the maximum achievable P(C|B) and the minimum achievable P(C|AB).

In fact, neither of the proposed strategies is truly optimal. They are too simple.

For example, if the predictor's accuracy is very high, an excellent strategy would be this:

 * 1) Arrange for a friend to call you after the brain scan, but before you make your choice, and say "Stop! I did the math again, and you should choose both boxes."
 * 2) Arrange for your friend to tell you "The best bet is to choose box B only" after the next step.
 * 3) Erase or block the memory of the previous two steps (lots of alcohol may help)

The only "paradox" I see is that, barring trickery like the above:

 * A completely rational player will always choose the best available strategy and stick with it, and is therefore very predictable, maximizing P(C). Therefore, such a player is better off choosing box B only.
 * A non-rational player (one with free will) may change strategies in the absence of new information, minimizing P(C). Therefore, such a player is better off choosing box A+B.
 * However, by trying to choose a strategy, such a player becomes rational, and thus more predictable -- and the strategy of choosing A+B yields a lower expected outcome than the strategy of choosing B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevie-O (talk • contribs) 18:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

 * 'The predictor's decision will be influenced by the player's decision.' The predictor has already made its decision. The player is making a decision based on the concrete fact that two boxes contain 1,000 or 1,001,000 dollars - does he risk taking zero dollars?  Tell me what decision would lead to losing $1,000,000?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomez2002 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

What a pedantic opening paragraph
The section titled The Problem currently begins with this paragraph:

Are these really the first 130 words we want people reading on this topic? Can the bulk of this pedantry wait a few paragraphs, after we've explained what the paradox actually is? --Doradus (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Ok, I've moved most of this text to the end of the section. --Doradus (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Applicability to the Real World = Original (and bad) Research?
Current text:

"Nozick's additional stipulation, in a footnote in the original article, attempts to preclude this problem by stipulating that any predicted use of a random choice or random event will be treated as equivalent, by the predictor, to a prediction of choosing both boxes. However, this assumes that inherently unpredictable quantum events (e.g. in people's brains) would not come into play anyway during the process of thinking about which choice to make,[12] which is an unproven assumption. Indeed, some have speculated that quantum effects in the brain might be essential for a full explanation of consciousness (see Orchestrated objective reduction), or - perhaps even more relevantly for Newcomb's problem - for an explanation of free will.[13]"

But Nozick's original stipulation clearly deals with consulting external decision-makers, randomness outside of the mind, ie, it's a ban on "opting out." It doesn't at all "assume" quantum events "would not come into play," because it's not internal randomness that matters, it's external randomness. The citations aren't even arguing this point, (12) is about a computational model of the problem and concedes that "You can be modeled as a deterministic or nondeterministic transducer," the article doesn't seem to care whether your mind is random or not. So maybe the easiest way to treat this is as original research. --Thomas B♘ talk 21:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Does the problem actually continue to divide philosophers?
I think the Guardian reference is sensationalist and shouldn't be considered a reliable source in this instance; the underlying principle of the "paradox" has been identified and both solutions very succinctly presented. Are philosophers really "divided" about this, or do they simply discuss the different solutions and understand that the solutions are each valid for a game with different probabilities? Or am I giving philosophers too much credit in understanding probability? Bright☀ 09:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The philpapers source poll shows philosophers give different answers; presumably the dispute is over something like the subjective normative question "what should I do if, without time to prepare in any way, I am suddenly faced with this problem?" Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Error in Expected Utility Calculation.
Sorry if this has been pointed out, but a correct expected utility calculation requires knowing the probability that box B contains $1,000,000, NOT the probability that the "Predictor's" prediction is correct. So a correct calculation of expected utility would support choosing both boxes (even if we lack the info to calculate the exact expected utility). This seems like a simple case of philosophers not being good at math. Anyone object to a section pointing this out, using sources cited in the expected utility article? Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Is the problem description complete?
When I search on the net I see descriptions of the problem stress that the predictor is perfect or near-perfect in its predictions. This seems to be missing in the problem definition section and is only (ambiguously) mentioned briefly before in the introduction. If this information is relevant to the problem then it should appear in the problem description. 2001:44B8:233:200:2CBA:8688:FA10:5812 (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is "free will" even a consideration here? It does not exist.
Why is there any special attention being given to the false-concept of "free will?' The idea of "free will" is defined as human thought not being under the jurisdiction of the molecular and atomic workings of human biochemistry and biology.  I'm sorry, but human thought is 100%-dependend on the biochemistry of neurons and other cells firing, and those neural actions are controlled b the laws of chemistry and physics.

The only way "free will" can exist is if human thought, on its own, can overpower the laws of physics... which is hogwash. 50.239.107.122 (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 * well don't get angry 51.37.199.71 (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Newcombs's scammer
If there is a predictor that is said to "almost always be correct" that person must have gotten to that point somehow. Thus the conclusion becomes that there is never any money under box B. How? Simply through the addition of the claim that random choice would lead to Box B being empty. Random choice would be the only way to destroy the predictor's perfect score and always leave him with a 50/50 record (or a statistically irrelevant deviation). If the person chooses A+B, they get the 1000$ and the predictor keeps his job. If the person chooses just box B, the predictor claims randomness, the chooser gets nothing, the predictor keeps his job.

Related articles/concepts
The unexpected hanging paradox likewise deals with knowledge and reasoning about the future.

Focal point (game theory) deals with "attractive" strategies (not very formally put). Elias (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The missing factor: number of plays
What can change the game is the number of times it's played. 188.80.215.136 (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Newcomb's paradox


text:
National Alliance on Mental Illness

The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) is a United States-based nonprofit organization originally founded as a grassroots group by family members of people diagnosed with mental illness. NAMI identifies its mission as "providing advocacy, education, support and public awareness so that all individuals and families affected by mental illness can build better lives" and its vision as "a world where all people affected by mental illness live healthy, fulfilling lives supported by a community that cares". NAMI offers classes and trainings for people living with mental illnesses, their families, community members, and professionals, including what is termed psychoeducation, or education about mental illness. NAMI holds regular events which combine fundraising for the organization and education, including Mental Illness Awareness Week and NAMIWalks.

Headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, NAMI has around 1,000 state and local affiliates and is represented in all 50 U.S. states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. Funding comes from individual contributions, corporate sponsorships, events, and grants. NAMI publishes a magazine around twice a year called The Advocate. NAMI also runs a HelpLine five days a week.

History
NAMI was founded in Madison, Wisconsin, by Harriet Shetler and Beverly Young. The two women both had sons diagnosed with schizophrenia, and "were tired of being blamed for their sons' mental illness". Unhappy with the lack of services available and the treatment of those living with mental illness, the women sought out others with similar concerns. The first meeting held to address these issues in mental health led to the formation of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill in 1979. In 1997, the legal name was changed to the acronym NAMI by a vote of the membership due to concerns that the name National Alliance for the Mentally Ill did not use person-first language. In 2005, the meaning of NAMI was changed to the backronym National Alliance on Mental Illness.

Mission
NAMI identifies its mission as to promote recovery by preserving and strengthening family relationships "affected by mental illness". NAMI's programs and services include education, support groups, informational publications, and presentations. Although originally focused primarily on family members, in more recent years NAMI has moved toward trying to include people diagnosed with mental illness as well (although activists have criticized these efforts). In addition, NAMI has a strong focus on discriminatory attitudes and behaviors about mental illness (what they term stigma); another identified goal is "to increase public and professional understanding", and "to improve the mental health system".

Structure
The National Alliance on Mental Illness is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit run by a board of directors who are elected by membership. NAMI National is the umbrella organization; state and local affiliates operate semi-independently, in an attempt to more accurately represent those in the surrounding communities. Since 2020, NAMI has been using a five-year strategic plan.

The current chief executive officer is Daniel H. Gillison, Jr., who prior to NAMI led the American Psychiatric Association Foundation (APAF), the nonprofit arm of American Psychiatric Association.

The national chief executive officer from 2014-2019 was Mary Giliberti, who resigned on April 24, 2019. Gilberti has a law degree from Yale University and clerked for Judge Phyllis A. Kravitch. Before coming to NAMI, Giliberti worked as a senior attorney at Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law for almost ten years and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee from 2008 to 2014. She worked for NAMI National during this time as the director of public policy and advocacy for federal and state issues. In 2017, she was "appointed by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service (HHS) to serve as one of 14 non-federal members of HHS’ Interdepartmental Serious Mental Illness Coordinating Committee."

National and state NAMI organizations function to provide Governance, Public Education, Political Advocacy, and management of NAMI's Educational Programs. At the local level, local NAMI chapters also provide assistance in obtaining mental health resources, scheduling and administration of NAMI's programs, and hosting local meetings and events for NAMI members.

In February 2020, NAMI Sioux Falls merged with the South Dakota Office. The move was a result of a decision by the national NAMI office.

Celebrities
NAMI has partnered with a number of celebrities and influencers, including:

• AJ Lee

• Alessandra Torresani

• Andrea Barber

• Brittany McGowan

• Carly Chaikin

• Chris Hubbard

• Chris Wood

• Clark Gregg

• Corinne Foxx

• David Kendrick

• DeWanda Wise

• Frank Shamrock

• Jamie Gray Hyder

• Jeannie Mai

• Maria Bamford

• Marin Hinkle

• Master P

• Maurice Benard

• Mauro Ranallo

• Mayim Bialik

• Morgan Stewart

• Nadya Okamoto

• Naomi Judd

• Rachel Bloom

• Stefania Owen

• Sterling K. Brown

• Sutton Stracke

• Taraji P. Henson

• Tritonal

• Utkarsh Ambudkar

• Vincent Valentine

• Wil Wheaton

• Willa Amai

CEO Alliance for Mental Health
Beginning in 2020, NAMI CEO Daniel Gillison, Jr. has assembled a coalition of leaders of national mental health organizations to "chart a new course" for the country's care system. The coalition includes representatives from the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, Massachusetts Association of Mental Health, Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute, Mental Health America, National Association for Behavioral Healthcare, National Council for Mental Wellbeing, and Treatment Advocacy Center, among others.

Community partners
NAMI works with non-partisan VoteRiders to spread state-specific information on voter ID requirements.

Additional partners include:

 * Alpha Kappa Alpha
 * Counter Logic Gaming
 * Fox Sports
 * HOSA-Future Health Professionals
 * Instagram
 * Jack and Jill of America
 * The Jed Foundation
 * Lokai
 * Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research at Broad Institute
 * Tumblr
 * Women's Health

Philosophy and positions
NAMI generally endorses a medical model approach to mental illnesses, and previously was a major proponent of terming them "serious brain disorders" during the "decade of the brain". NAMI endorses the term anosognosia, or "that someone is unaware of their own mental health condition or that they can’t perceive their condition accurately". While NAMI previously referred to mental illnesses as "serious brain disorders", current advice on their "How we talk about NAMI" page recommends against this language.

Advocacy
NAMI advocates to improve the lives of people affected by mental health conditions. Their policy priorities include improving healthcare, crisis response, and stopping discrimination and harmful practices.

Programs
NAMI programs are generally in the area of support and education for individuals and families, often for no cost. The programs are set up through local NAMI Affiliate organizations, with different programs varying in their targeted audience.

NAMI Family-to-Family
The NAMI Family-to-Family Education Program is a free eight-week course targeted toward family and friends of individuals with mental illness, providing education from a medical model perspective of mental illness. Originally offered as a twelve-week program, but updated to a shorter model in 2020, the courses are taught by a NAMI-trained family member of a person diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder. Family-to-Family is taught in 44 states, and two provinces in Canada. The program was developed by clinical psychologist Joyce Burland. Facilitators are required to teach material from the curriculum without alteration.

Purpose
The Family-to-Family program provides general information about mental illness and how it is currently treated from a medical model perspective. The programs cover mental illnesses including schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, etc., as well as the indications and side effects of medications. Family-to-Family takes a biologically-based approach to explaining mental illness and its treatments.

According to the NAMI website, Family-to-Family program states its goals as teaching coping and advocacy skills, providing mutual support, how to "handle a crisis", "information on mental health conditions and how they affect the brain", and locating resources in the community

Evidence Base
The NAMI Family-to-Family program has initial research evidence; one randomized clinical trial showed gains in empowerment, increases in problem solving and reductions in participant anxiety scores following the class; these changes persisted at 6 month follow up. These studies confirm an earlier finding that Family-to-Family graduates describe a permanent transformation in the understanding and engagement with mental illness in themselves and their family. Because a randomized controlled trial is at risk of poor external validity by mechanism of self-selection, Dixon and colleges sought out to strengthen the evidence base by confirming the benefits attributed to Family-to-Family with a subset of individuals who declined participation during initial studies

The NAMI Family-to-Family program was found to increase self efficacy in family members involved in caring for a family member with schizophrenia while reducing subjective burden and need for information. In light of recent research, Family-to-Family was added to the SAMHSA National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices (NREPP), although as of January 2018 this database and designation has been eliminated by SAMHSA.

NAMI Peer-to-Peer
The NAMI Peer-to-Peer is an eight-week educational program aimed at adults diagnosed with a mental illness. The NAMI Peer-to-Peer program describes the course as a holistic approach to recovery through lectures, discussions, interactive exercises, and teaching stress management techniques. The program provides information about biological explanations of mental illness, symptoms, and personal experiences. The program also includes information about interacting with healthcare providers as well as decision making and stress reducing skills. The Peer-to-Peer philosophy is advertised as being centered around certain values such as individuality, autonomy, and unconditional positive regard. The program is also available in Spanish

Preliminary studies have suggested Peer-to-Peer provided many of its purported benefits (e.g. self-empowerment, disorder management, confidence). Peer interventions in general have been studied more extensively, having been found to increase social adjustment

NAMI In Our Own Voice
The NAMI In Our Own Voice (IOOV) program started as a mental health consumer education program for people living with schizophrenia in 1996, and was further developed to IOOV with grant funding from Eli Lily & Co. in 2002. The program was based on the idea that those successfully living with mental illness were experts in a sense, and sharing their stories would benefit those with similar struggles. The program approached this by relaying the idea that recovery is possible, attempting to build confidence and self-esteem. Because of the initial success of the program and positive reception, IOOV also took on the role of public advocacy.

NAMI In Our Own Voice involves two trained speakers presenting personal experiences related to mental illness, in front of an audience. Unlike the majority of NAMI's programs, IOOV consists of a single presentation educating groups of individuals with the acknowledgement many are likely unfamiliar with mental illness. The program's aims include raising awareness regarding NAMI and mental illness in general, addressing stigma, and empowering those affected by mental illness. Other than those directly affected by mental illness, In Our Own Voice often educates groups of individuals like law enforcement, politicians, and students.

In Our Own Voice has been shown to be superior at reducing self stigmatization of families when compared to clinician led education. Research into the effectiveness of the NAMI In Our Own Voice program has shown the program also can be of benefit to Graduate level therapists and adolescents. A 2016 study evaluating IOOV in California found significant reductions in desire for social distancing after attending an IOOV presentation, although no validated measures were used in the evaluation.

NAMI Basics
The NAMI Basics Program is a six-session course for parents or other primary caregivers of children and adolescents living with mental illness. NAMI Basics is conceptually similar to NAMI Family-to-Family in that it aims to educate families, but recognizes providing care for a child living with mental illness presents unique challenges in parenting, and that mental illness in children typically manifest differently than in adults. Because of the development of the brain and nervous system throughout childhood and adolescence, information regarding mental illness biology and its presentation is fundamentally different from with adults. The NAMI Basics program has a relatively short time course to accommodate parents' difficulty in attending because of their caregiver status.

NAMI Connection
The NAMI Connection Recovery Support Group Program is a weekly support group for adults living with mental illness. The program is for adults 18+ diagnosed with mental illness and groups are usually weekly for 90 minutes. The support groups are led by trained facilitators who identify as having experienced mental illness themselves.

NAMI On Campus
NAMI On Campus is an initiative for university students to start NAMI On Campus organizations within their respective universities. NAMI On Campus was started to address the mental health issues of college-aged students. Adolescence and early adulthood are periods where the onset of mental illness is common, with 75 percent of mental illnesses beginning by age 24. When asked what barriers, if any, prevented them from gaining support and treatment, surveys found stigma to be the number one barrier.

Ending the Silence
This 50-minute or one hour program is available for students, school staff, and family members. It involves two presenters: one who shares educational information and one who is a young adult living well in recovery who shares their personal story. This program has been shown to improve the mental health knowledge of middle- and high school students.

In 2017, Former Second Lady of the United States Tipper Gore gave a $1 million donation to the Ending the Silence program.

Funding
NAMI receives funding from both private and public sources, including corporations, federal agencies, foundations and individuals. NAMI maintains that it is committed to avoiding conflicts of interest and does not endorse nor support any specific service or treatment. Records of NAMI's quarterly grants and contributions since 2009 are freely available on its website.

In 2017, NAMI had a 16% increase in overall revenue.

Corporate sponsors
NAMI's current and recent corporate sponsors include:

• Acadia Pharmaceuticals

• Alkermes

• Bank of America

• Beacon Health Options

• Boehringer Ingelheim

• Boeing

• Bristol Myers Squibb

• Chiesi Global Rare Diseases

• Corcept Therapeutics

• Genentech

• Janssen

• Kaiser Permanente

• KPMG Foundation

• Lululemon

• Lundbeck

• Myriad Genetics

• Neurocrine Biosciences

• NeuroStar

• Northrop Grumman

• Novo Nordisk

• Otsuka Pharmaceutical

• Pfizer

• Sunovion

• Takeda Pharmaceutical Company

• Teva Pharmaceuticals

NAMIWalks
The 2017 annual report noted "$11.3 million raised across the country by 68,000 participants."

COVID-19 Mental Health Support Fund
NAMI launched the COVID-19 Mental Health Support Fund in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The fund received donations from its corporate partners as well as the Center for Disaster Philanthropy, Hearst Foundation, Johnson & Johnson, Kind, LivaNova, Starbucks and Thrive Global. NAMI also launched the Frontline Wellness program to support healthcare workers, funded by the American College of Emergency Physicians, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and various corporations.

Criticism
The funding of NAMI by multiple pharmaceutical companies was reported by the investigative magazine Mother Jones in 1999, including that an Eli Lilly and Company executive was then "on loan" to NAMI working out of NAMI headquarters.

During a 2009 investigation into the drug industry's influence on the practice of medicine, U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) sent letters to NAMI and about a dozen other influential disease and patient advocacy organizations asking about their ties to drug and device makers. The investigation confirmed pharmaceutical companies provided a majority of NAMI's funding, a finding which led to NAMI releasing documents listing donations over $5,000.

Dr. Peter Breggin, a leader of the anti-psychiatry movement and opponent of COVID-19 lockdowns, refers to NAMI as an "AstroTurf lobbying organization" of the "psychopharmaceutical complex."

title: National Alliance on Mental Illness


text:
Eye of the Beholder

Eye of the beholder is a phrase meaning something is a matter of personal opinion. It is shortened from the aphorism "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", which originally appeared in the 1876 novel Molly Bawn. It may refer to:

Books

 * Eye of the Beholder, a 1999 novel by Jayne Ann Krentz
 * The Eye of the Beholder, a 1980 novel by Marc Behm, basis for the 1999 film
 * The Eye of the Beholder: The Life of Muhammad as Viewed by the Early Muslims: A Textual Analysis, a 1995 book by Uri Rubin
 * Eye of the Beholder: Johannes Vermeer, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, and the Reinvention of Seeing, a 2015 book by Laura J. Snyder

Music

 * Eye of the Beholder (album), a 1988 album by the Chick Corea Elektric Band
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (song), a 1988 song by Metallica

Television

 * Eye of the Beholder (TV series), a 1974 Canadian travel documentary miniseries

Episodes

 * "Eye of the Beholder" (Adam-12)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (Aladdin)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (All Saints)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (American Dragon: Jake Long)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (American Gothic)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (Ben 10: Ultimate Alien)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (Bewitched)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (BraveStarr)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (Castle)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (Dallas)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (Degrassi: The Next Generation)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (Disney's Adventures of the Gummi Bears)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (The Famous Jett Jackson)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (Fear the Walking Dead)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (Gargoyles)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (Hercules: The Legendary Journeys)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (Highlander: The Series)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (Hustle)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (Knots Landing)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (Mummies Alive!)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (The Mystic Knights of Tir Na Nog)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (Northern Exposure)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (Seeing Things)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (Sleepwalkers)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (Shark)
 * "The Eye of the Beholder" (Star Trek: The Animated Series)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (Star Trek: The Next Generation),
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (ThunderCats)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (The Twilight Zone, 1959)
 * "Eye of the Beholder" (The Twilight Zone, 2002)

Video games

 * Eye of the Beholder (video game), a 1991 video game, followed by two sequels
 * Eye of the Beholder (2002 video game), an adaptation of the 1991 game

Other media

 * Eye of the Beholder (film), a 1999 thriller
 * Eye of the Beholder, a 1998 sculpture by Christopher Hall

title: Eye of the Beholder


text:
Talk:One-drop rule

Dead Link and Weird Source

 * Between 1904 and 1919, tribal members with any amount of African ancestry were disenrolled from the Chitimacha tribe of Louisiana, and their descendants have since then been denied tribal membership.

The source for this info is a dead website, with no Web Archive page - when it is opened in Archive, it has one snapshot that goes to the same white screen the current version hangs on before redirecting to a "buy this page" format. Additionally, this information is absent from the Chitimacha page, but it is mentioned on Tribal disenrollment. However, that page links to a different version of the same website, which still does that redirect. In my cursory searches, I can't find anything that sources this information. This is nowhere near my area of expertise, and I would feel weird for changing the main page out of the blue like this. Could this sentence either be sourced again or removed? Anafyral (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

 * The original site can be accessed using the Wayback Machine. Here is a link that can be added for future convenience: https://web.archive.org/web/20201023033323/http://lalosttribe.com/. The most recent working archive is from October 23, 2020, and includes subpages that are directed to when clicking on the "Read Our Story" and "Meet the Tribe" headers, though images on the Meet the Tribe subpage do not appear to work.
 * The Twitter (now known as "X") account on the website is also archived, with one post including a link to a YouTube video. While the link no longer works, the video itself is still available, and can be accessed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcZjA-RZaiI&t=38s. It is the only video on their channel. JPGrimm103 (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Source for Law Implementation Timeline

 * The one-drop rule was not formally codified as law until the 20th century, from 1910 in Tennessee to 1930 as one of Virginia's "racial integrity laws", with similar laws in several other states in between.

There is no source for the timeline of when these laws are implemented, nor any clarity regarding "similar laws" and "other states". For clarification, a timeline of when these laws are codified, with the names of the laws and states in question should be added. This can add context for those who want to learn more about specific laws, and provide some insight on legal decisions being made in these states during this timeframe. JPGrimm103 (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Please ignore this suggestion, timeline is provided later in the article under Legislation and practice:
 * Tennessee adopted such a "one-drop" statute in 1910, and Louisiana soon followed. Then Texas and Arkansas in 1911, Mississippi in 1917, North Carolina in 1923, Alabama and Georgia in 1927, and Virginia in 1930. During this same period, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Utah retained their old "blood fraction" statutes de jure, but amended these fractions (one-sixteenth, one-thirty-second) to be equivalent to one-drop de facto.
 * JPGrimm103 (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:One-drop rule


text:
List of American sabre fencers

This is a list of American Sabreurs. (Only noted and contemporary American sabreurs are included):

 * Armitage, Norman
 * Becker, Christine
 * Green, Charlotte "Sherry"
 * Jacobson, Emily
 * Jacobson, Sada
 * Kovacs, Stephen (1972–2022)
 * Kwartler, Allan S.
 * Lee, Ivan (born 1981)
 * Morehouse, Tim
 * Muhammad, Ibtihaj
 * Rogers, Jason
 * Smart, Keeth
 * Spencer-El, Akhi
 * Thompson, Caity
 * Ward, Rebecca
 * Westbrook, Peter
 * Williams, James
 * Worth, George
 * Zagunis, Mariel

title: List of American sabre fencers


text:
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch

The Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (, lit. 'Civil Law Book'), abbreviated BGB, is the civil code of Germany, codifying most generally-applicably private law. In development since 1881, it became effective on 1 January 1900, and was considered a massive and groundbreaking project.

The BGB served as a template in several other civil law jurisdictions, including Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Brazil, Greece, Estonia, Latvia and Ukraine. It also had a major influence on the 1907 Swiss Civil Code, the 1942 Italian Civil Code, the 1966 Portuguese Civil Code, and the 1992 reformed Dutch Civil Code.

German Empire

The introduction in France of the Napoleonic code in 1804 created in Germany a similar desire to draft a civil code (despite the opposition of Friedrich Carl von Savigny’s Historical School of Law) which would systematize and unify the various heterogeneous laws that were in effect in the country. However, such an undertaking during the German Confederation would have been difficult because the appropriate legislative body did not exist.

In 1871, most of the various German states were united into the German Empire. In the beginning, civil law legislative power was held by the individual states, not the Empire (Reich) that was composed of those states. An amendment to the constitution passed in 1873 (named Lex Miquel-Lasker in reference to the amendment's sponsors, representatives Johannes von Miquel and Eduard Lasker) transferred this legislative authority to the Reich. Various committees were then formed to draft a bill that was to become a civil law codification for the entire country, replacing the civil law systems of the states.

A first draft code, in 1888, did not meet with favour. A second committee of 22 members, comprising not only jurists but also representatives of financial interests and of the various ideological currents of the time, compiled a second draft. After significant revisions, the BGB was passed by the Reichstag in 1896. It was put into effect on 1 January 1900, and has been the central codification of Germany's civil law ever since.

Nazi Germany
In Nazi Germany, there were plans to replace the BGB with a new codification that was planned to be entitled "Volksgesetzbuch" ("people's code"), which was meant to reflect Nazi ideology better than the BGB, but these plans did not become reality. However, some general principles of the BGB such as the doctrine of good faith (§ 242 BGB, Grundsatz von Treu und Glauben) were used to interpret the BGB in a Nazi-friendly way. Therefore, the political need to draft a completely new code to match the Nazis' expectations subsided, and instead the many flexible doctrines and principles of the BGB were re-interpreted to meet the (legal) spirit of that time. Especially through the good faith doctrine in § 242 BGB (see above) or the contra bonos mores doctrine in § 138 BGB (sittenwidriges Rechtsgeschäft), voiding transactions perceived as being contra bonos mores, i.e. against public policy or morals, the Nazis and their willing judges and lawyers were able to direct the law in a way to serve their nationalist ideology.

Germany after 1945
When Germany was divided into a democratic capitalist state in the West and a socialist state in the East after World War II, the BGB continued to regulate the civil law in both parts of Germany. Over time the BGB regulations were replaced in East Germany by new laws, beginning with a family code in 1966 and ending with a new civil code (Zivilgesetzbuch) in 1976 and a contract act in 1982. Since Germany's reunification in 1990, the BGB has again been the codification encompassing the civil law of Germany.

In West and reunited Germany, the BGB has been amended many times. The most significant changes were made in 2002, when the Law of Obligations, one of the BGB's five main parts, was extensively reformed. Despite its status as a civil code, legal precedent does play a limited role; the way the courts construe and interpret the regulations of the code has changed in many ways, and continues to evolve and develop, due particularly to the high degree of abstraction throughout. In recent years lawmakers have tried to bring some outside legislation "back into the BGB". For example, aspects of tenancy legislation, which had been transferred to separate laws such as the Miethöhegesetz ("Rental Rate Act") are once again covered by the BGB.

The BGB continues to be the centerpiece of the German legal system. Other legislation builds on principles defined in the BGB. The German Commercial Code, for example, contains only those rules relevant to merchant partnerships and limited partnerships, as the general rules for partnerships in the BGB also apply.

The BGB is typical of 19th century legislation and has been criticized from its very beginnings for its lack of social responsibility. Lawmakers and legal practice have improved the system over the years to adapt the BGB in this respect with more or less success. Recently, the influence of EU legislation has been quite strong and the BGB has seen many changes as a result.

Structure
The BGB follows a modified pandectist structure, derived from Roman law: like other Roman-influenced codes, it regulates the law of persons, property, family and inheritance, but unlike e.g. the French Code civil or the Austrian Civil Code, a chapter containing generally applicable regulations is placed first. Consequently, the BGB contains five main parts (or "books"):
 * the general part (allgemeiner Teil), Sections 1 through 240, comprising regulations that have effect on all the other four parts, such as personhood and civil status, emancipation, legal capacity, declarations of will, rescission, formation of contracts, limitation periods, and agency
 * law of obligations (Schuldrecht), Sections 241 through 853, describing contractual obligations and other civil obligations, including torts and unjust enrichment
 * property law (Sachenrecht), Sections 854 through 1296, describing possession, ownership, other property rights (e.g. servitudes, security interests, rentcharge, land charge), and how those rights can be transferred.
 * family law (Familienrecht), Sections 1297 through 1921, describing marriage, marital property schemes, legal guardianship, and other legal relationships among family members
 * inheritance law (Erbrecht), Sections 1922 through 2385, which regulate what happens to a deceased's estate, as well as the law of wills and contracts concerning succession (pacta successoria).

Abstract system of alienation
One of the BGB's fundamental components is the doctrine of abstract alienation of property (German: Abstraktionsprinzip), and its corollary, the separation doctrine (Trennungsprinzip). Derived from the works of the pandectist scholar Friedrich Carl von Savigny, the Code draws a sharp distinction between obligationary agreements (BGB, Book 2), which create enforceable obligations, and "real" or alienation agreements (BGB, Book 3), which transfer property rights. In short, the two doctrines state: the owner having an obligation to transfer ownership does not make you the owner, but merely gives you the right to demand the transfer of ownership. The opposite system, the causal system, is in effect in France and other legal jurisdictions influenced by French law, under which an obligationary agreement is sufficient to transfer ownership; no subsequent conveyance is needed. The German system thus mirrors the English common law differentiation between in rem rights and in personam rights. The Chilean Civil Code, which came into force on 1 January 1857, also makes this differentiation between the titles and the actual acquisition of property, similarly to the Roman Law.

The separation doctrine states that obligationary agreements for alienation and conveyances that effect that alienation must be treated separately and follow their own rules. Also, under the abstract system, alienation does not depend on the validity of the underlying causa of the obligationary contract; in other words, a conveyance is sine causa (without legal consideration). From this differentiation it follows that a mere obligationary agreement, such as for the sale of property, does not transfer ownership if and until a separate legal instrument, the conveyance, has been drawn up and goes into effect; conversely, the alienation of property based on an invalid obligationary agreement may give rise to a restitutionary obligation for the transferee to restore the property (e.g. unjust enrichment), but until the property is re-conveyed, again by way of a conveyance, the transferred property is not affected.

Under the BGB, a sales contract alone, for example, would not lead to the buyer acquiring ownership, but merely impose an obligation on the seller to transfer ownership of the sold property. The seller is then contractually obligated to form another, and separate, agreement to transfer the property. Only once this second agreement is formed, the buyer acquires ownership of the purchased property. Consequently, these two procedures are regulated differently: the contracting parties' obligations are regulated by art. 433, whereas real contracts alienating movable property are provided for under art. 929. The payment of the purchase price (or valuable consideration) is treated likewise.

In day-to-day business, this differentiation is not needed, because both types of contract would be formed simultaneously by exchanging the property for payment of money. Although the abstract system can be seen as overly technical and contradicting the usual common-sense interpretation of commercial transactions, it is undisputed among the German legal community. The main advantage of the abstract system is its ability to provide a secure legal construction to nearly any financial transaction, however complicated this transaction may be.

A good example is retention of title. If someone buys something and pays the purchase price in installments, there are two conflicting interests at play: the buyer wants to have the purchased property immediately, whereas the seller wants to secure full payment of the purchase price. Under the abstract system, the BGB has a simple answer: the sales contract obligates the buyer to pay the full price and requires the seller to transfer property upon receipt of the last installment. As the sale obligations and the actual conveyance of ownership are embodied in two separate agreements, it is quite simple to secure both parties' interests. The seller maintains ownership of the property until the last payment, while the buyer merely possesses the property. If the buyer defaults, the seller may repossess the property just like any other owner.

Another advantage is that should the sales contract be found defective due to some vitiating factor (e.g. fraud, mistake, or undue influence), this would not affect the seller's ownership, thereby making it unnecessary to resell the property for the sake of transferring ownership back to the original seller. Instead, under the rules of unjust enrichment, the buyer is obligated to transfer the property back if possible or otherwise pay compensation.

Template for other jurisdictions

 * In 1896 and 1898, the Japanese government enacted a civil code (民法, Minpō) based on the first draft of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch; with post–World War II modifications, the code remains in effect.
 * In 1923, the Government of Siam (Thailand) passed the Act establishing the Civil Code of B.E. 2466 (1923) which put into force the first two books of the Civil Code of Thailand. The enactment of the Civil Code (ประมวลกฎหมายแพ่ง, Pramuan kodmai phaeng) was a major event in Thai legal history. As one of the few independent Asian countries during the second half of the nineteenth century, the Thai government had desired to adopt the western legal system as a part of the country's modernization efforts. The project started in the late nineteenth century and, initially, the Thai Civil Code was based on the French Civil Code. But the advancement of legal science in Germany in the late nineteenth century - which culminated in the enactment of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch - convinced the government that the German code should be the model for Thailand's civil-law codification.

Trivia

 * Sec. 923 (1) BGB is a perfect hexameter:
 * Steht auf der Grenze ein Baum, so gebühren die Früchte und, wenn der Baum gefällt wird, auch der Baum den Nachbarn zu gleichen Teilen. ("Where there is a tree standing on the boundary, the fruits and, if the tree is felled, the tree itself belong to the neighbours in equal shares.")

 * Sec. 923 (3) BGB rhymes:
 * Diese Vorschriften gelten auch | für einen auf der Grenze stehenden Strauch ("These provisions also apply to a bush standing on the boundary.")

title: Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch