document_title: Maniac Magee (film)

question_text: what was the girl's name in maniac magee

question_tokens: what was the girl 's name in maniac magee

text: Maniac Magee (film)

text: Plot[edit]

text: This article's plot summary may be too long or excessively detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise. (May 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: In the present, an adult female character (played by Jada Pinkett Smith) arrives at a public park in Two Mills, Pennsylvania where she goes to watch some kids jumping rope together at a park. She is also the narrator of the movie and goes to tell the story of Maniac Magee who changed the town of Two Mills forever.

text: Two decades earlier, the parents of twelve-year-old Jeffrey Lionel Magee (Michael Angarano) are killed by a drunk driver just after his father told him that he would show him his infamous "stopball." After his parents' funeral, a police officer and a woman named Dottie Freeze (Melissa Bickerton) who runs an orphanage approaches Jeffrey and tells him to "come with them." They both appear to be lunatics, scaring Jeffrey who decides to make a run for it out of the town and across the country. All of the running seems to develop into supernatural-like qualities allowing him to run at a very fast speed. After nearly a year of running, he arrives in the town of Two Mills, where racial tensions are extremely strong. Hector Street, the main street located in the middle of the town, divides Two Mills by race: blacks on East End, whites on West End. Jeffrey is confused by racial biases; to him, the people are simply people - heterogeneous, but with much in common, such as both kindness and cruelty.

text: Jeffrey first crosses over on the East End where the black people there stare at him. He is amazed by a giant ball of rope of twine located outside of a pizza place called "Cobble's Corner" owned by an elderly black man, Mr. Cobble, (Garret Morris). Anyone who can untie it wins a year supply of free pizza from his place. Mr. Cobble comes out and tells Jeffrey to go back to his own side. Jeffrey does so and comes across a kid's baseball game where he comes across a white teenager, Big John McNab (Adam Hendershott), who is a pitcher and is known for striking out many kids with his fast throw. His younger brothers, Russell and Piper McNab (Brandon de Paul and Isaiah Griffin), cheer him on from behind the gate. His good pitching still isn't enough to please his father, George McNab (Rip Torn), who urges him to do better. Jeffrey skips a line of kids waiting to bat to take on Big John. He manages to strike the ball so fast it disintegrates in the air. Big John takes Piper's pet frog to use as a ball to throw at Jeffrey next, who hits it lightly. Big John has a hard time catching it as it's hopping around, allowing Jeffery to score an in-park home run. When he does, he tells his friends to go after Jeffrey proclaiming him as a "maniac". Jeffrey makes a run for it back across the East End of Hector Street. The white boys are trapped on their end, but urges Jeffrey not to come back over.

text: On the East End, Jeffrey runs by a school and meets with a black girl his age named Amanda Beale (Kyla Pratt). Jeffrey first assumes she's running away since she's carrying a large suitcase, but Amanda tells him that it's her luggage of various books. Amanda asks Jeffrey if he knows where he is given his skin color and Jeffrey tells her no. Afterwards, he urges her to let him borrow a book to read and promises to bring it back to her. Jeffrey goes to read the book under a tree and catches the eye of a bully Mars Bar Thompson (Orlando Brown) and his friend Bump Gilliam (Shan Elliot). Mars goes to pick a fight with Jeffrey, ripping the page out of Amanda's book in the process. Amanda comes over and scolds Mars for doing that and sends him away. Amanda takes Jeffrey over to her house so he can fix her book. He tapes it up perfectly Amanda could barely see where it was torn at. Jeffrey meets Amanda's mother Martha (Rolonda Watts) who assumes Jeffrey isn't from the area. When Amanda asks if he can stay for dinner, her mother doesn't allow it until her younger children, boy and girl twins Lester and Ester, urges that they want him to stay around. After dinner, Mr. Beale (Richard Lawson) goes to drive Jeffrey home only to discover along the way he doesn't have a home to go to. He goes to take Jeffrey back to the house and has a talk with Martha showing concerns about him being there. Martha persuades him to let Jeffrey stay and wins him over. Jeffrey is allowed to stay for a while.

text: Jeffrey is treated with the absolute kindness by the Beales. Martha buys him new clothes. Lester and Ester promote Jeffrey's ability to untie knots to the other children in the neighborhood who come by to see him over by Amanda's tent. Jeffrey has another encounter with Mars Bar during a football game and accidentally knocks him down. Mars runs up to him asking if he wants a bite of his chocolate. Jeffrey says yes and Mars bites it, asking him again if he wants a bite. To Mars' surprise, Jeffrey still bites it. Back on Hector Street, a man collapses in front of Cobble's Corner. As Jeffrey tries to him up, the man scolds him to go back over to his own side. Mr. Cobble comes up to him and tells him to do the same. When he and Amanda return home, they find Martha scrubbing of profanity that was written on the house that says "FISH BELLY GO HOME". Jeffrey is horrified by this and doesn't understand why skin color should matter to anyone. He doesn't even want to be white since he finds it to be such a boring color. Amanda feels Jeffrey is considering leaving and doesn't want him to and suggest he goes with her to Mr. Cobble's store to untie his huge knot that no one has been able to do even the greatest of people. The next day, Mr. Cobble lets Jeffrey perform the task of untying the knot ball. Jeffrey amazes him and all the people around him when he successfully unties the ball. Mr. Cobble and many of the black bystanders cheer him on. The story is printed in the Two Mills Gazette. This angers Mars Bar who has his friends help him trash Amanda's tent and destroy her favorite book in the process. Jeffrey is heart broken by this and feels his presence there on the East End is making things worse. He leaves a note for the family and decides to run away and crosses over to the West End.

text: Jeffrey goes to sleep out in the woods near a trail and hears some one approaching. He jumps onto the trail where he finds Piper and Russell McNab, who are running away to Mexico. Jeffrey feels the food they have wouldn't last them ten miles and tells them how a running trip there left him scarred and tired. He suggests taking them back home and telling them more about it and then letting them decide for themselves if they still want to move forward with it. At the McNab house, they come across Big John who scolds the boys for attempting to run away for what is now the fifth time and how ballistic their dad will be when he hears about it. Big John promises but then feels he has business to settle with Jeffrey. The boys convince Big John not to mess with him due to how he handled him at the baseball game. Jeffrey makes up a story about John pitching a ball to him the next day and missing the hit. John convinces him to come home with them so he could tell his father that. Jeffrey went there feeling as though he could get the same kind of treatment there as he did at the Beale house. They go home to see Mr. McNab preparing for a war if the East End residents were to try to conquer onto their side. Mr. McNab keeps a stash of many cans of beans and prunes in his house and feels the Westies will try to come over and take them. Jeffrey tells him that he never hears of any beans and prunes or anyone battling for them. Feeling uncomfortable, he thinks about leaving. After taking Russell and Piper to the zoo and coming home and seeing them and their dad performing a drill to attack the Easties, he decides to head over to the East End.

text: Jeffrey meets with Amanda again who is able to see him. She tried to cross over to the West End but was afraid of standing out. Jeffrey tells her that the McNabs are nice deep down but needs her to help him keep Russell and Piper from turning out as crazy as their father. Amanda agrees and they go over to go to Mars Bar's house to help him. Mars Bar tries to intimidate Jeffrey telling him he better be scared of him. The two get into a beef match until Jeffrey declares he's too scared to cross over Hector street. He tells Mars Bar to come with him to Piper's party and Mars Bar declares he'll be there. That night, Jeffrey, Amanda, Mars Bar and his friends all show up surprising all the white guests. John and his friends goes to face off against Mars Bar and his friends and Mars Bar tells them not to cross over Hector street. Mr. McNab rages war on them and brings out a cannon. Mars Bar and his friends turn to leave and John calls them chicken. Afterwards an explosion sound is heard outside. They all go outside and see that Mars Bar and his friend blown apart the head of a statue outside of the house. Mr. McNab is stunned and tells John and his friend to go after them. Jeffrey and Amanda stay behind to watch.

text: Meanwhile, Piper and Russell go upstairs and try to fire bean cans at them from a window ledge. Piper slips from the window and falls. Mars Bar runs back and catches him. Russell runs off, knocking over the barrier of stone he and Piper was standing behind which falls towards the boys. Piper makes a run for it and Big John runs up and rescues Mars Bar pushing him out of the way. Big John thanks him for saving Piper as well as Mr. McNab who gives him a salute. With everyone now getting along, Jeffrey declares that they blow up the statue of the town's founder. Mr. McNab does this in honor of Mars Bar Thompson for saving his son. Afterwards, a spark then magically appears on the line of Hector Street separating the West and East Ends and erases it entirely, officially ending the segregation between the two sides. Whites and blacks on both sides come together and celebrate. Mr. McNab then declares that it's not the black people trying to steal their beans but the aliens from space. Jeffrey attempts to leave the town but Amanda declares he's coming back to her house and staying there for good.

text: The movie closes back to the present with the narrator telling the story to the group of kids she drove up to at the start of the movie. She states how the town became integrated, even a school being built to house both black and white kids. The narrator turns out to be an older Amanda who has married Jeffrey and had two kids. One of the kids she tells the story to turns out to be her daughter. Her friends are surprised that Amanda had married Jeffrey. The final scene shows older Magee throwing the ball to Junior, and he swings the ball with it smoking in the air, similar to what happened when Big John pitched the ball to Jeffrey several years before.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Michael Angarano as Jeffrey Lionel "Maniac Magee" Magee
Kyla Pratt as Amanda Beale
Orlando Brown as Mars Bar Thompson
Rip Torn as George McNab
Adam Hendershott as Big John McNab
Jada Pinkett Smith as the Narrator and adult Amanda Beale
Shan Elliot as Bump Gilliam
Melissa Bickerton as Dottie Freeze
Brandon de Paul as Russell McNab
Isaiah Griffin as Piper McNab
Rolonda Watts as Martha Beale
Richard Lawson as Mr. Beale

text: Differences from the book[edit]

text:
Some of the book is cut including when Mars Bar has a conversation with Maniac
In the book, it ends with Amanda retrieving Jeffrey and telling him to be a permanent resident of the Beale family. There's no time skip to two decades later, as the novel took place in the present.
In the book, Earl Grayson is a big part and character. In the movie, there is no part or appearance of Grayson.
In the book, Jeffrey's aunt and uncle fought so much that Jeffrey decided to run away.
In the book, Jeffrey's early life before running away to Two Mills is explained, including an outburst during a school play.


document_title: Rajyasamacharam

question_text: rajyasamacharam' the malayalam newspaper was published by

question_tokens: rajyasamacharam ' the malayalam newspaper was published by

root

text: Rajyasamacharam

text:
Rajyasamacharam

Editor
Dr. Herman Gundert

First issue
June 1847

Final issue
December 1850

Company
Basal Evangelical Mission society (BMS)

Country
India

Based in
Illikkunnu

tag: table

text: Rajyasamacharam or Rajya Samacharam is the first Malayalam journal published in Kerala,[1] started in June 1847.[2] Herman Gundert was the editor of the journal and was a religious propagator from German Basal Evangelical Mission society(BMS). Rajyasamacharam started publishing from Illikkunnu, in Thalassery, in Kannur District of Kerala. It was published as eight cyclostyled sheets in demy octavo size produced from a litho press. The pages were without columns or cross heads and was in simple language.[3] It was distributed free of cost.[2]

tag: p

text: It was a religious journal mainly meant for the propagation of Christian faith. It main features were the spreading of Christianity throughout the world, spiritual and material benefits to people who practice the Christian faith. It ceased publication in December 1850[2] and a total of 42 issues were published.

text: In October 1847, Gundart stated another publication called Paschimodayam. It was also cyclostyled. It carried articles on history, natural science, geography and astrology. The other works of Gundart were Malayalabhaasha Vyakaranam, a Malayalam grammar book, the first Malayalam English dictionary and he also translated the Bible into Malayalam.[4]


document_title: Degree of a polynomial

question_text: a polynomial with a degree of 2 is called

text: Degree of a polynomial

text: Names of polynomials by degree[edit]

text: Look up Appendix:English polynomial degrees in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

text: The following names are assigned to polynomials according to their degree:[1][2][3]

text:
Special case – zero (see § Degree of the zero polynomial below)
Degree 0 – non-zero constant[4]
Degree 1 – linear
Degree 2 – quadratic
Degree 3 – cubic
Degree 4 – quartic (or, if all terms have even degree, biquadratic)
Degree 5 – quintic
Degree 6 – sextic (or, less commonly, hexic)
Degree 7 – septic (or, less commonly, heptic)

tag: ul

text: For higher degrees, names have sometimes been proposed,[5] but they are rarely used:

text:
Degree 8 – octic
Degree 9 – nonic
Degree 10 – decic

text:
Names for degree above three are based on Latin ordinal numbers, and end in -ic. This should be distinguished from the names used for the number of variables, the arity, which are based on Latin distributive numbers, and end in -ary. For example, a degree two polynomial in two variables, such as

x

2

+
x
y
+

y

2

{\displaystyle x^{2}+xy+y^{2}}

, is called a "binary quadratic": binary due to two variables, quadratic due to degree two.[a] There are also names for the number of terms, which are also based on Latin distributive numbers, ending in -nomial; the common ones are monomial, binomial, and (less commonly) trinomial; thus

x

2

+

y

2

{\displaystyle x^{2}+y^{2}}

 is a "binary quadratic binomial".

text: Other examples[edit]

text:
The polynomial

3
−
5
x
+
2

x

5

−
7

x

9

{\displaystyle 3-5x+2x^{5}-7x^{9}}

 is a nonic polynomial
The polynomial

(
y
−
3
)
(
2
y
+
6
)
(
−
4
y
−
21
)

{\displaystyle (y-3)(2y+6)(-4y-21)}

 is a cubic polynomial
The polynomial

(
3

z

8

+

z

5

−
4

z

2

+
6
)
+
(
−
3

z

8

+
8

z

4

+
2

z

3

+
14
z
)

{\displaystyle (3z^{8}+z^{5}-4z^{2}+6)+(-3z^{8}+8z^{4}+2z^{3}+14z)}

 is a quintic polynomial (as the

z

8

{\displaystyle z^{8}}

 are cancelled out)

text: The canonical forms of the three examples above are:

text:
for

3
−
5
x
+
2

x

5

−
7

x

9

{\displaystyle 3-5x+2x^{5}-7x^{9}}

, after reordering,

−
7

x

9

+
2

x

5

−
5
x
+
3

{\displaystyle -7x^{9}+2x^{5}-5x+3}

;
for

(
y
−
3
)
(
2
y
+
6
)
(
−
4
y
−
21
)

{\displaystyle (y-3)(2y+6)(-4y-21)}

, after multiplying out and collecting terms of the same degree,

−
8

y

3

−
42

y

2

+
72
y
+
378

{\displaystyle -8y^{3}-42y^{2}+72y+378}

;
for

(
3

z

8

+

z

5

−
4

z

2

+
6
)
+
(
−
3

z

8

+
8

z

4

+
2

z

3

+
14
z
)

{\displaystyle (3z^{8}+z^{5}-4z^{2}+6)+(-3z^{8}+8z^{4}+2z^{3}+14z)}

, in which the two terms of degree 8 cancel,

z

5

+
8

z

4

+
2

z

3

−
4

z

2

+
14
z
+
6

{\displaystyle z^{5}+8z^{4}+2z^{3}-4z^{2}+14z+6}

.

text: Behavior under polynomial operations[edit]

text: The degree of the sum, the product or the composition of two polynomials is strongly related to the degree of the input polynomials.[6]

text: Addition[edit]

text: The degree of the sum (or difference) of two polynomials is less than or equal to the greater of their degrees; the equality always holds when the degrees of the polynomials are different i.e.

text: E.g.

text:
The degree of

(

x

3

+
x
)
+
(

x

2

+
1
)
=

x

3

+

x

2

+
x
+
1

{\displaystyle (x^{3}+x)+(x^{2}+1)=x^{3}+x^{2}+x+1}

 is 3. Note that 3 ≤ max(3, 2)
The degree of

(

x

3

+
x
)
−
(

x

3

+

x

2

)
=
−

x

2

+
x

{\displaystyle (x^{3}+x)-(x^{3}+x^{2})=-x^{2}+x}

 is 2. Note that 2 ≤ max(3, 3)

text: Scalar multiplication[edit]

text: The degree of the product of a polynomial by a non-zero scalar is equal to the degree of the polynomial, i.e.

text: E.g.

text:
The degree of

2
(

x

2

+
3
x
−
2
)
=
2

x

2

+
6
x
−
4

{\displaystyle 2(x^{2}+3x-2)=2x^{2}+6x-4}

 is 2, just as the degree of

x

2

+
3
x
−
2

{\displaystyle x^{2}+3x-2}

.

text:
Note that for polynomials over a ring containing divisors of zero, this is not necessarily true. For example, in

Z

/

4

Z

{\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} /4\mathbf {Z} }

,

deg

(
1
+
2
x
)
=
1

{\displaystyle \deg(1+2x)=1}

, but

deg

(
2
(
1
+
2
x
)
)
=
deg

(
2
+
4
x
)
=
deg

(
2
)
=
0

{\displaystyle \deg(2(1+2x))=\deg(2+4x)=\deg(2)=0}

.

text: The set of polynomials with coefficients from a given field F and degree smaller than or equal to a given number n thus forms a vector space. (Note, however, that this set is not a ring, as it is not closed under multiplication, as is seen below.)

text: Multiplication[edit]

text: The degree of the product of two polynomials over a field or an integral domain is the sum of their degrees

text: E.g.

text:
The degree of

(

x

3

+
x
)
(

x

2

+
1
)
=

x

5

+
2

x

3

+
x

{\displaystyle (x^{3}+x)(x^{2}+1)=x^{5}+2x^{3}+x}

 is 3 + 2 = 5.

text:
Note that for polynomials over an arbitrary ring, this is not necessarily true. For example, in

Z

/

4

Z

{\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} /4\mathbf {Z} }

,

deg

(
2
x
)
+
deg

(
1
+
2
x
)
=
1
+
1
=
2

{\displaystyle \deg(2x)+\deg(1+2x)=1+1=2}

, but

deg

(
2
x
(
1
+
2
x
)
)
=
deg

(
2
x
)
=
1

{\displaystyle \deg(2x(1+2x))=\deg(2x)=1}

.

text: Composition[edit]

text:
The degree of the composition of two non-constant polynomials

P

{\displaystyle P}

 and

Q

{\displaystyle Q}

 over a field or integral domain is the product of their degrees:

text: E.g.

text:
If

P
=
(

x

3

+
x
)

{\displaystyle P=(x^{3}+x)}

,

Q
=
(

x

2

+
1
)

{\displaystyle Q=(x^{2}+1)}

, then

P
∘
Q
=
P
∘
(

x

2

+
1
)
=
(

x

2

+
1

)

3

+
(

x

2

+
1
)
=

x

6

+
3

x

4

+
4

x

2

+
2

{\displaystyle P\circ Q=P\circ (x^{2}+1)=(x^{2}+1)^{3}+(x^{2}+1)=x^{6}+3x^{4}+4x^{2}+2}

, which has degree 6.

text:
Note that for polynomials over an arbitrary ring, this is not necessarily true. For example, in

Z

/

4

Z

{\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} /4\mathbf {Z} }

,

deg

(
2
x
)
deg

(
1
+
2
x
)
=
1
⋅
1
=
1

{\displaystyle \deg(2x)\deg(1+2x)=1\cdot 1=1}

, but

deg

(
2
x
∘
(
1
+
2
x
)
)
=
deg

(
2
+
4
x
)
=
deg

(
2
)
=
0

{\displaystyle \deg(2x\circ (1+2x))=\deg(2+4x)=\deg(2)=0}

.

text: Degree of the zero polynomial[edit]

text:
The degree of the zero polynomial is either left undefined, or is defined to be negative (usually −1 or

−
∞

{\displaystyle -\infty }

).[7]

text: Like any constant value, the value 0 can be considered as a (constant) polynomial, called the zero polynomial. It has no nonzero terms, and so, strictly speaking, it has no degree either. As such, its degree is undefined. The propositions for the degree of sums and products of polynomials in the above section do not apply if any of the polynomials involved is the zero polynomial.[8]

text:
It is convenient, however, to define the degree of the zero polynomial to be negative infinity,

−
∞
,

{\displaystyle -\infty ,}

 and introduce the arithmetic rules[9]

text: and

text: These examples illustrate how this extension satisfies the behavior rules above:

text:
The degree of the sum

(

x

3

+
x
)
+
(
0
)
=

x

3

+
x

{\displaystyle (x^{3}+x)+(0)=x^{3}+x}

 is 3. This satisfies the expected behavior, which is that

3
≤
max
(
3
,
−
∞
)

{\displaystyle 3\leq \max(3,-\infty )}

.
The degree of the difference

(
x
)
−
(
x
)
=
0

{\displaystyle (x)-(x)=0}

 is

−
∞

{\displaystyle -\infty }

. This satisfies the expected behavior, which is that

−
∞
≤
max
(
1
,
1
)

{\displaystyle -\infty \leq \max(1,1)}

.
The degree of the product

(
0
)
(

x

2

+
1
)
=
0

{\displaystyle (0)(x^{2}+1)=0}

 is

−
∞

{\displaystyle -\infty }

. This satisfies the expected behavior, which is that

−
∞
=
−
∞
+
2

{\displaystyle -\infty =-\infty +2}

.

text: Computed from the function values[edit]

text: A number of formulae exist which will evaluate the degree of a polynomial function f. One based on asymptotic analysis is

text: this is the exact counterpart of the method of estimating the slope in a log–log plot.

text: This formula generalizes the concept of degree to some functions that are not polynomials. For example:

text:
The degree of the multiplicative inverse,

1

/

x

{\displaystyle \ 1/x}

, is −1.
The degree of the square root,

x

{\displaystyle {\sqrt {x}}}

, is 1/2.
The degree of the logarithm,

log

x

{\displaystyle \ \log x}

, is 0.
The degree of the exponential function,

exp

x

{\displaystyle \exp x}

, is

∞
.

{\displaystyle \infty .}

text:
Note that the formula also gives sensible results for many combinations of such functions, e.g., the degree of

1
+

x

x

{\displaystyle {\frac {1+{\sqrt {x}}}{x}}}

 is

−
1

/

2

{\displaystyle -1/2}

.

text: Another formula to compute the degree of f from its values is

text:
this second formula follows from applying L'Hôpital's rule to the first formula. Intuitively though, it is more about exhibiting the degree d as the extra constant factor in the derivative

d

x

d
−
1

{\displaystyle dx^{d-1}}

 of

x

d

{\displaystyle x^{d}}

.

text:
A more fine grained (than a simple numeric degree) description of the asymptotics of a function can be had by using big O notation. In the analysis of algorithms, it is for example often relevant to distinguish between the growth rates of

x

{\displaystyle x}

 and

x
log

x

{\displaystyle x\log x}

, which would both come out as having the same degree according to the above formulae.

text: Extension to polynomials with two or more variables[edit]

text: For polynomials in two or more variables, the degree of a term is the sum of the exponents of the variables in the term; the degree (sometimes called the total degree) of the polynomial is again the maximum of the degrees of all terms in the polynomial. For example, the polynomial x2y2 + 3x3 + 4y has degree 4, the same degree as the term x2y2.

text: However, a polynomial in variables x and y, is a polynomial in x with coefficients which are polynomials in y, and also a polynomial in y with coefficients which are polynomials in x. The polynomial

text: has degree 3 in x and degree 2 in y.

text: Degree function in abstract algebra[edit]

text: Given a ring R, the polynomial ring R[x] is the set of all polynomials in x that have coefficients chosen from R. In the special case that R is also a field, then the polynomial ring R[x] is a principal ideal domain and, more importantly to our discussion here, a Euclidean domain.

text: It can be shown that the degree of a polynomial over a field satisfies all of the requirements of the norm function in the euclidean domain. That is, given two polynomials f(x) and g(x), the degree of the product f(x)g(x) must be larger than both the degrees of f and g individually. In fact, something stronger holds:

text:
For an example of why the degree function may fail over a ring that is not a field, take the following example. Let R =

Z

/

4

Z

{\displaystyle \mathbb {Z} /4\mathbb {Z} }

, the ring of integers modulo 4. This ring is not a field (and is not even an integral domain) because 2 × 2 = 4 ≡ 0 (mod 4). Therefore, let f(x) = g(x) = 2x + 1. Then, f(x)g(x) = 4x2 + 4x + 1 = 1. Thus deg(f⋅g) = 0 which is not greater than the degrees of f and g (which each had degree 1).

text: Since the norm function is not defined for the zero element of the ring, we consider the degree of the polynomial f(x) = 0 to also be undefined so that it follows the rules of a norm in a euclidean domain.

text: Notes[edit]

text: Jump up ^ For simplicity, this is a homogeneous polynomial, with equal degree in both variables separately.

tag: ol

text:
Jump up ^ "Names of Polynomials". November 25, 1997. Retrieved 5 February 2012.
Jump up ^ Mac Lane and Birkhoff (1999) define "linear", "quadratic", "cubic", "quartic", and "quintic". (p. 107)
Jump up ^ King (2009) defines "quadratic", "cubic", "quartic", "quintic", "sextic", "septic", and "octic".
Jump up ^ Shafarevich (2003) says of a polynomial of degree zero,

f
(
x
)
=

a

0

{\displaystyle f(x)=a_{0}}

: "Such a polynomial is called a constant because if we substitute different values of x in it, we always obtain the same value

a

0

{\displaystyle a_{0}}

." (p. 23)
Jump up ^ James Cockle proposed the names "sexic", "septic", "octic", "nonic", and "decic" in 1851. (Mechanics Magazine, Vol. LV, p. 171)
Jump up ^ Lang, Sergei (2005). Algebra (3rd ed.). Springer. p. 100. ISBN 978-0-387-95385-4.
Jump up ^ Shafarevich (2003) says of the zero polynomial: "In this case, we consider that the degree of the polynomial is undefined." (p. 27)
Childs (1995) uses −1. (p. 233)
Childs (2009) uses −∞ (p. 287), however he excludes zero polynomials in his Proposition 1 (p. 288) and then explains that the proposition holds for zero polynomials "with the reasonable assumption that

−
∞

{\displaystyle -\infty }

 + m =

−
∞

{\displaystyle -\infty }

 for m any integer or m =

−
∞

{\displaystyle -\infty }

".
Axler (1997) uses −∞. (p. 64)
Grillet (2007) says: "The degree of the zero polynomial 0 is sometimes left undefined or is variously defined as −1 ∈ ℤ or as

−
∞

{\displaystyle -\infty }

, as long as deg 0 < deg A for all A ≠ 0." (A is a polynomial.) However, he excludes zero polynomials in his Proposition 5.3. (p. 121)
Jump up ^ Barile, Margherita. "Zero Polynomial". MathWorld.
Jump up ^ Axler (1997) gives these rules and says: "The 0 polynomial is declared to have degree

−
∞

{\displaystyle -\infty }

 so that exceptions are not needed for various reasonable results." (p. 64)


document_title: Marianne Dashwood

question_text: who does marianne end up with in sense and sensibility

text: Marianne Dashwood

text:
[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (July 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

(Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text:
Marianne Dashwood

Full name
Marianne Dashwood

Gender
Female

Age
16 at beginning of novel

Income
£500/year
This £500 yearly income was actually her mother's marriage settlement which must support Mrs. Dashwood and three unwed daughters. According to "Jane Austen's World"[1] the spending power would have been roughly equivalent to just under £17,000 per year in 2008.

Education
Home schooled

Primary residence
Barton Cottage, after leaving Norland Park, the Dashwood family estate

London residence
stays with Mrs Jennings

Family

Romantic interest(s)
John Willoughby and Colonel Brandon

Parents
Henry and Mrs. Dashwood

Children
None

Sibling(s)
Elinor Dashwood
Margaret Dashwood
John Dashwood (half-brother)

text: Marianne Dashwood is a fictional character in the Jane Austen novel Sense and Sensibility. The 16-year-old second daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Henry Dashwood, she embodies the "sensibility" of the title, as opposed to her elder sister Elinor's "sense".[2]

text:
She embraces spontaneity, excessive sensibility, love of nature, and romantic idealism: Marianne weeps dramatically when their family must depart from "dear, dear Norland", and later in the book, exclaims, "Oh! with what transporting sensations have I formerly seen them fall! How have I delighted, as I walked, to see them driven in showers about me by the wind! What feelings have they, the season, the air altogether inspired! Now there is no one to regard them. They are seen only as a nuisance, swept hastily off, and driven as much as possible from the sight." At which the cooler Elinor replies quietly, "It is not everyone who has your passion for dead leaves." And later when she hears Sir John Middleton's account of Willoughby, her eyes sparkle, and she says, "That is what I like; that is what a young man ought to be. Whatever be his pursuits, his eagerness in them should know no moderation, and leave him no sense of fatigue."
When Marianne is helped by the dashing John Willoughby, she falls deeply and sincerely in love with him, abhorring all society's demands, and ignoring her sister's rational warnings that her impulsive behavior leaves her open to gossip and innuendo. His painful spurning of her, and the shocking discovery of his dissipated character, finally causes her to recognize her misjudgment of him. She acts exactly as she feels, thus making herself and everyone around her miserable when Willoughby leaves her, as opposed to her sister, who keeps the secret of Edward's prior engagement to another in quiet, thoughtful composure.

text:
Marianne treats her acquaintances in general with inattention and sometimes, contempt, recoiling from vulgarity, even when it is accompanied by good nature (like Mrs. Jennings), treating her selfish half-brother and his snobbish wife with disgust, totally ignoring the grave Colonel Brandon because of his age and a former love, and making no attempt at civility to insipid Lady Middleton. The people she does love, however, she loves with warmth that leaps over all barriers—even barriers of propriety. Her sorrows, her joys, her antipathy and her love will have no moderation—no concealing.
Marianne's form is "not so correct as her sister's", but "more striking", and her features are all good, her face is "lovely": her skin is very brown, but from its transparency, "her complexion was uncommonly brilliant", and in her eyes there is "a life, a spirit, an eagerness which could hardly be seen without delight".

text: Still grieving over having lost Willoughby, she ignores her health she falls dangerously ill with a putrid fever, and nearly dies as a result. But she does recover, and comes to see the error of her ways, hoping now to instead model her character on her elder sister. She eventually falls in love with Colonel Brandon and marries him.

text: Notable portrayals[edit]

text:
Cloris Leachman in 1950
Ciaran Madden in the 1971 British television serial.
Tracey Childs in the 1981 British television serial.
Kate Winslet in the 1995 popular film, with an Academy Award winning screenplay written by Emma Thompson, and directed by Ang Lee.
Aishwarya Rai in the 2000 Tamil adaptation Kandukondain Kandukondain
Charity Wakefield in the 2008 BBC television serial aired by PBS, directed by John Alexander.
Alexa Vega as "Mary Dominguez" in the 2011 modern adaption From Prada to Nada.

text:
Jane Austen portal
Fictional characters portal


document_title: Anything but Mine

question_text: where was kenny chesney anything but mine filmed

text: Anything but Mine

text: Content[edit]

text: The song is a mid-tempo ballad in which the narrator recalls a teen-aged encounter with a female, during a late summer vacation in a beach town. In the chorus, he explains that although he has to leave the next day to his home in Cleveland (not the city in Ohio, but rather the one in Tennessee), he still tells her, "I don't see how you could ever be anything but mine". The radio edit features an abridged intro and outro, while the album version features a false ending, followed by another repetition of the chorus run through a vocal filter.

text: Scooter Carusoe, the writer of this song, also co-wrote Chesney's 2008 Number One hit "Better as a Memory" with Lady Goodman.

text: Music video[edit]

text: The video, directed by Shaun Silva, was shot in Malibu, California and Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Chesney and the band were filmed in Myrtle Beach at Family Kingdom Amusement Park, in front of a ride called, "The Hurricane," and the Myrtle Beach Pavilion, The scenes featuring surfer Amy Cobb as "Mary" were shot on the California coast & also in Myrtle Beach. Sonny Miller, who also shot the film "Blue Crush," was employed for the underwater and surfing scenes in California.[2]

text: Chart performance[edit]

text: "Anything but Mine" debuted at number 52 on the U.S. Billboard Hot Country Songs chart for the week of January 1, 2005.

text:
Chart (2005)
Peak
position

US Hot Country Songs (Billboard)[3]
1

US Billboard Hot 100[4]
48

text: Year-end charts[edit]

text:
Chart (2005)
Position

US Country Songs (Billboard)[5]
13


document_title: Hinge joint

question_text: where is the hinge joint located in the human body

text: Hinge joint

text:
Hinge joint

1: Ball and socket joint; 2: Condyloid joint (Ellipsoid); 3: Saddle joint; 4 Hinge joint; 5: Pivot joint;

Metacarpophalangeal articulation and articulations of digit. Ulnar aspect.

Details

Identifiers

Latin
articulatio ginglymus

TA
A03.0.00.046

FMA
75296

Anatomical terminology
[edit on Wikidata]

text: A hinge joint (ginglymus) is a bone joint in which the articular surfaces are molded to each other in such a manner as to permit motion only in one plane. According to one classification system they are said to be uniaxial (having one degree of freedom).[1] The direction which the distal bone takes in this motion is seldom in the same plane as that of the axis of the proximal bone; there is usually a certain amount of deviation from the straight line during flexion.

text: The articular surfaces of the bones are connected by strong collateral ligaments.

text: The best examples of ginglymoid joints are the Interphalangeal joints of the hand and those of the foot and the joint between the humerus and ulna. The knee joints and ankle joints are less typical, as they allow a slight degree of rotation or of side-to-side movement in certain positions of the limb. The knee is the largest hinge joint in the human body.

text: Hinge and pivot joints are both types of synovial joint. A hinge joint can be considered a modified sellar/saddle joint, with reduced movement.[2]

text: Other objects that work like hinged joints are door hinges, closet doors, and dog flaps.


document_title: Social exchange theory

question_text: who developed one of the earliest versions of social exchange theory

text: Social exchange theory

text: History[edit]

text: Social exchange theory goes back to Thibaut and Kelley (1959), Kelley and Thibaut (1978), Homans (1961) and Rusbult (1983). Sociologist George Homans published a work "Social Behavior as Exchange".[1] He defined social exchange as the exchange of activity, tangible or intangible, and more or less rewarding or costly, between at least two persons.[2] After Homans founded the theory, other theorists continued to write about it, particularly Peter M. Blau and Richard M. Emerson, who in addition to Homans are generally thought of as the major developers of the exchange perspective within sociology.[1] Homans' work emphasized the individual behavior of actors in interaction with one another. Although there are various modes of exchange, Homans centered his studies on dyadic exchange.[3] John Thibaut and Harold Kelley are recognized for focusing their studies within the theory on the psychological concepts, the dyad and small group.[4] Lévi-Strauss is recognized for contributing to the emergence of this theoretical perspective from his work on anthropology focused on systems of generalized exchange, such as kinship systems and gift exchange.[3]

text: Homans summarizes the system in three propositions: success, stimulus, and deprivation–satiation proposition.[4]

text:
Success proposition: When one finds they are rewarded for their actions, they tend to repeat the action.
Stimulus proposition: The more often a particular stimulus has resulted in a reward in the past, the more likely it is that a person will respond to it.
Deprivation–satiation proposition: The more often in the recent past a person has received a particular reward, the less valuable any further unit of that reward becomes.

text: Peter Blau focused his early writings on social exchange theory more towards the economic and utilitarian perspective, whereas Homans focused on reinforcement principles which presuppose individuals base their next social move on past experiences. Blau's utilitarian focus encouraged the theorist to look forward, as in what they anticipated the reward would be in regards to their next social interaction.[3] Blau felt that if individuals focused too much on the psychological concepts within the theory, they would refrain from learning the developing aspects of social exchange.[4] Blau emphasized technical economic analysis whereas Homans concentrated more on the psychology of instrumental behavior.[4]

text: Richard Emerson's early work on the theory intertwined with both Homans and Blau's ideas. Homans believed that social exchange theory was based on reinforcement principles. According to Emerson, Exchange is not a theory, but a framework from which other theories can converge and be compared to structural functionalism.[4] Emerson's perspective was similar to Blau's since they both focused on the relationship power had with the exchange process.[3] Emerson says that social exchange theory is an approach in sociology that is described for simplicity as an economic analysis of noneconomic social situations.[4] Exchange theory brings a quasi-economic form of analysis into those situations.[4]

text: Self-interest and interdependence[edit]

text: Self-interest and interdependence are central properties of social exchange.[5] These are the basic forms of interaction when two or more actors have something of value to each other, and they have to decide whether to exchange and in what amounts.[6] Homans uses the concepts of individualism to explain exchange processes. To him, the meaning of individual self-interest is a combination of economic and psychological needs.[7] Fulfilling self-interest is often common within the economic realm of the social exchange theory where competition and greed can be common.[8] In social exchange, self-interest is not a negative thing; rather, when self-interest is recognized, it will act as the guiding force of interpersonal relationships for the advancement of both parties' self-interest"—Michael Roloff (1981)[9] Thibaut and Kelley see the mutual interdependence of persons as the central problem for the study of social behavior. They developed a theoretical framework based on the interdependence of actors. They also highlighted social implications of different forms of interdependence such as reciprocal control.[10] According to their interdependence definition, outcomes are based on a combination of parties' efforts and mutual and complementary arrangements.[3]

text: Basic concepts[edit]

text: Social exchange theory views exchange as a social behavior that may result in both economic and social outcomes.[11] Social exchange theory has been generally analyzed by comparing human interactions with the marketplace. The study of the theory from the microeconomics perspective is attributed to Blau.[3] Under his perspective every individual is trying to maximize his wins. Blau stated that once this concept is understood, it is possible to observe social exchanges everywhere, not only in market relations, but also in other social relations like friendship.[12] Social exchange process brings satisfaction when people receive fair returns for their expenditures. The major difference between social and economic exchange is the nature of the exchange between parties. Neoclassic economic theory views the actor as dealing not with another actor but with a market and environmental parameters, such as market price.[13] Unlike economic exchange, the elements of social exchange are quite varied and cannot be reduced to a single quantitative exchange rate.[14] According to Stafford, social exchanges involve a connection with another person; involve trust and not legal obligations; are more flexible; and rarely involve explicit bargaining.[15]

text: Cost and rewards[edit]

text: Simple social exchange models assume that rewards and costs drive relationship decisions.[14] Both parties in a social exchange take responsibility for one another and depend on each other. The elements of relational life include:

text: Costs are the elements of relational life that have negative value to a person, such as the effort put into a relationship and the negatives of a partner.[16] (Costs can be time, money, effort etc.)

text: Rewards are the elements of a relationship that have positive value. (Rewards can be sense of acceptance, support, and companionship etc.)

text: As with everything dealing with the social exchange theory, it has as its outcome satisfaction and dependence of relationships. The social-exchange perspective argues that people calculate the overall worth of a particular relationship by subtracting its costs from the rewards it provides.[17]

text: If worth is a positive number, it is a positive relationship. On the contrary, a negative number indicates a negative relationship. The worth of a relationship influences its outcome, or whether people will continue with a relationship or terminate it. Positive relationships are expected to endure, whereas negative relationships will probably terminate. In a mutually beneficial exchange, each party supplies the wants of the other party at lower cost to self than the value of the resources the other party provides. In such a model, mutual relationship satisfaction ensures relationship stability.[14]

text: Homans based his theory on behaviorism to conclude that people pursue rewards to minimize costs. The "satisfactory-ness" of the rewards that a party gains from an exchange relationship is judged relative to some standard, which may vary from party to party.[11]

text: Aging[edit]

text: The basis of social exchange theory is to explain social change and stability as a process of negotiate exchanges between parties. These changes can occur over a person's life course through the various relationships, opportunities and means of support. An example of this is the convoy model of support, this model uses concentric circles to describe relationships around an individual with the strongest relationships in the closet circle. As a person ages these relationships form a convoy that moves along with the person and exchanges in support and assistance through different circumstances that occur.[18] It also changes through the directionality of support given to and by the individual with the people within their support network. Within this model there are different types of support (Social support) a person can receive, those being intangible, tangible, instrumental, and informational. Intangible support can either be social or emotional and can be love, friendship and appreciation that comes with valuable relationships. Tangible support are physical gifts given to someone such as land, gifts, money, transportation, food, and completing chores. Instrumental support are services given to someone in a relationship. Finally, informational support is the delivering of information that is helpful to an individual. [19]

text: Theoretical propositions[edit]

text: Ivan Nye came up with twelve theoretical propositions that aid in understanding the exchange theory.[8]

text:
Individuals choose those alternatives from which they expect the most profit.
Cost being equal, they choose alternatives from which they anticipate the greatest rewards.
Rewards being equal, they choose alternatives from which they anticipate the fewest costs.
Immediate outcomes being equal, they choose those alternatives that promise better long- term outcomes.
Long-term outcomes being perceived as equal, they choose alternatives providing better immediate outcomes.
Costs and other rewards being equal, individuals choose the alternatives that supply or can be expected to supply the most social approval (or those that promise the least social disapproval).
Costs and other rewards being equal, individuals choose statuses and relationships that provide the most autonomy.
Other rewards and costs equal, individuals choose alternatives characterized by the least ambiguity in terms of expected future events and outcomes.
Other costs and rewards equal, they choose alternatives that offer the most security for them.
Other rewards and costs equal, they choose to associate with, marry, and form other relationships with those whose values and opinions generally are in agreement with their own and reject or avoid those with whom they chronically disagree.
Other rewards and costs equal, they are more likely to associate with, marry, and form other relationships with their equals, than those above or below them. (Equality here is viewed as the sum of abilities, performances, characteristics, and statuses that determine one's desirability in the social marketplace.)
In industrial societies, other costs and rewards equal, individuals choose alternatives that promise the greatest financial gains for the least financial expenditures.

text: Homans's theoretical propositions[edit]

text: Even though Homans took an individualistic approach, a major goal of his work was to explicate the micro-foundations of social structures and social exchange. By studying such forms of behavior he hoped to illuminate the informal sub-institutional bases of more complex social behavior, typically more formal and often institutionalized.[3] According to Homans, social structures emerge from elementary forms of behavior. His vision of the underpinnings of social structure and institutional forms is linked to the actions of individuals, for example to their responses to rewarding and punishment circumstances.[20]

text: Homans developed five key propositions that assist in structuring individuals' behaviors based on rewards and costs. This set of theoretical ideas represents the core of Homans's version of social exchange theory.[3]

text:
The first proposition: the Success Proposition states that behavior that creates positive outcomes is likely to be repeated.[3]
The second proposition: the Stimulus Proposition believes that if an individual's behavior is rewarded in the past, the individual will continue the previous behavior.[3]
The third proposition: the Value proposition believes that if the result of a behavioral action is considered valuable to the individual, it is more likely for that behavior to occur.[3]
The fourth proposition: the Deprivation-satiation proposition believes that if an individual has received the same reward several times, the value of that reward will diminish.[3]
The fifth proposition discusses when emotions occur due to different reward situations.[3] Those who receive more than they expect or do not receive anticipated punishment will be happy and will behave approvingly.[3]

text: Assumptions[edit]

text: Social exchange theory is not one theory but a frame of reference within which many theories can speak to another, whether in argument or mutual support.[4] All these theories are built upon several assumptions about human nature and the nature of relationships. Thibaut and Kelley have based their theory on two conceptualizations: one that focuses on the nature of individuals and one that describes the relationships between two people. Thus, the assumptions they make also fall into these categories. The assumptions that social exchange theory makes about human nature include the following:[21]

text:
Humans seek rewards and avoid punishments.
Humans are rational beings.
The standards that humans use to evaluate costs and rewards vary over time and from person to person.

text: The assumptions social exchange theory makes about the nature of relationships include the following:[21]

text:
Relationships are interdependent.
Relational life is a process.

text: The prisoner's dilemma is a widely used example in game theory that attempts to illustrate why or how two individuals may not cooperate with each other, even if it is in their best interest to do so. It demonstrates that while cooperation would give the best outcome, people might nevertheless act selfishly.[22] All relationships involve exchanges although the balance of this exchange is not always equal. We cannot achieve our goals alone so as humans sometimes we have to become actors. In the world today we see actors as unemotional people but that is not the case once we reach our goals in the end.

text: Comparison levels[edit]

text: Social exchange includes "both a notion of a relationship, and some notion of a shared obligation in which both parties perceive responsibilities to each other".[23] John Thibaut and Harold Kelley proposed two comparison standards to differentiate between relationship satisfaction and relationship stability. This evaluation rests on two types of comparisons: Comparison Level and Comparison Level for Alternative. According to Thibaut and Kelley, the Comparison Level (CL) is a standard representing what people feel they should receive in the way of rewards and costs from a particular relationship. An individual's comparison level can be considered the standard by which an outcome seems to satisfy the individual.[24] The Comparison Level for Alternative (CLalt) refers to "the lowest level of relational rewards a person is willing to accept given available rewards from alternative relationships or being alone".[25] In other words, when using this evaluation tool, an individual will consider other alternative payoffs or rewards outside of the current relationship or exchange.[24] CLalt provides a measure of stability rather than satisfaction. If people see no alternative and fear being alone more than being in the relationship, social exchange theory predicts they will stay.[26]

text: Modes of exchange[edit]

text: According to Kelley and Thibaut, people engage in Behavioral Sequence, or a series of actions designed to achieve their goal. This is congruent with their assumption that human beings are rational.[27] When people engage in these behavioral sequences, they are dependent to some extent on their relational partner. In order for behavioral sequences to lead to social exchange, two conditions must be achieved: "It must be oriented towards ends that can only be achieved through interaction with other persons, and it must seek to adapt means to further the achievement of these ends".[28] The concept of reciprocity also derives from this pattern. The reciprocity principle refers to the mutual reinforcement by two parties of each other's actions.[29] The process begins when at least one participant makes a "move", and if the other reciprocates, new rounds of exchange initiate. Once the process is in motion, each consequence can create a self-reinforcing cycle. Even though the norm of reciprocity may be a universally accepted principle, the degree to which people and cultures apply this concept varies.[30]

text: Power dependence relations[edit]

text: Several definitions of power have been offered by exchange theorists. For instance, some theorists view power as distinct from exchanges, some view it as a kind of exchange and others believe power is a medium of exchange.[31] However, the most useful definition of power is that proposed by Emerson,[32] who developed a theory of power-dependence relations.[33] According to this theory, the dependence a person has on another brings up the concept of power.[21] Power differentiation affects social structures by causing inequalities between members of different groups, such as an individual having superiority over another.[30] Power within the theory is governed by two variables : the structure of power in exchange networks and strategic use.[30] Experimental data show that the position an actor occupies in a social exchange network determines relative dependence and therefore power.[34]

text: According to Thibaut and Kelley, there are two types of power: fate control and behavior control. Fate control is the ability to affect a partner's outcomes.[21] Behavior control is the power to cause another's behavior to change by changing one's own behavior.[21]

text: Matrices[edit]

text: People develop patterns of exchange to cope with power differentials and to deal with the costs associated with exercising power.[21] These patterns describe behavioral rules or norms that indicate how people trade resources in an attempt to maximize rewards and minimize costs. Three different matrices have been described by Thibaut and Kelley to illustrate the patterns people develop. These are given matrix, the effective matrix and the dispositional matrix.[35]

text:
The given matrix represents the behavioral choices and outcomes that are determined by a combination of external factors (environment) and internal factors(the specific skills each interactant possesses).[27]
The effective matrix "which represents an expansion of alternative behaviors and/or outcomes which ultimately determines the behavioral choices in social exchange"[36]
The dispositional matrix represents the way two people believe that rewards ought to be exchanged between them.[37]

text: There are three forms within these matrices: Reciprocity, Generalized Exchange, and Productive Exchange. In a direct exchange, reciprocation is confined to the two actors. One social actor provides value to another one and the other reciprocates. There are three different types of reciprocity:[38]

text:
Reciprocity as a transactional pattern of interdependent exchanges
Reciprocity as a folk belief
Reciprocity as a moral norm

text: A generalized exchange involves indirect reciprocity between three or more individuals.[39] For example, one person gives to another and the recipient responds by giving to another person other than the first person. Productive exchange means that both actors have to contribute for either one of them to benefit. Both people incur benefits and costs simultaneously.

text: Another common form of exchange is negotiated exchange which focuses on the negotiation of rules in order for both parties to reach a beneficial agreement.[38] Reciprocal exchanges and negotiated exchanges are often analyzed and compared to discover their essential differences. One major difference between the two exchanges is the level of risks associated with the exchange and the uncertainty these risks create (ref). Negotiated exchange can consist of binding and non-binding negotiations. When comparing the levels of risk within these exchanges, reciprocal exchange has the highest level of risk which in result produces the most uncertainty.[39] An example of a risk that could occur during the reciprocal exchange is the factor that the second party could end up not returning the favor and completing the reciprocal exchange. Binding negotiated exchanges involve the least amount of risks which will result the individuals feeling low levels of uncertainty. Whereas non-binding negotiated exchanges and their level of risks and uncertainty fall in between the amount of risks associated with reciprocal and binding negotiated exchanges.[39] Since there is not a binding agreement involved, one party involved in the exchange could decide to not cooperate with the agreement.

text: Critiques[edit]

text: Katherine Miller outlines several major objections to or problems with the social exchange theory as developed from early seminal works[40]

text:
The theory reduces human interaction to a purely rational process that arises from economic theory.
The theory favors openness as it was developed in the 1970s when ideas of freedom and openness were preferred, but there may be times when openness isn’t the best option in a relationship.
The theory assumes that the ultimate goal of a relationship is intimacy when this might not always be the case.
The theory places relationships in a linear structure, when some relationships might skip steps or go backwards in terms of intimacy.

text: Russell Cropanzano and Marie S. Mitchell discuss how one of the major issues within the social exchange theory is the lack of information within studies on the various exchange rules.[38] Reciprocity is a major exchange rule discussed but, Cropanzano and Mitchell write that the theory would be better understood if more research programs discussed a variety of exchange rules such as altruism, group gain, status consistency and competition.[38] Meeker points out that within the exchange process, each unit takes into account at least the following elements: reciprocity, rationality, altruism (social responsibility), group gain, status, consistency, and competition (rivalry).[41][42]

text: Applications[edit]

text: This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: The most extensive application of social exchange has been in the area of interpersonal relationships.[14] However, social exchange theory materializes in many different situations with the same idea of the exchange of resources. Self-Interest can encourage individuals to make decisions that will benefit themselves overall. Homans once summarized the theory by stating:

text: Anthropology[edit]

text: Other applications that developed the idea of exchange include field of anthropology as evidenced in an article by Harumi Befu, which discusses cultural ideas and norms. Lévi-Strauss is considered as one of the major contributors to the anthropology of exchange. Within this field, self-interest, human sentiment and motivational process are not considered.[32] Lévi–Strauss uses a collectivist approach to explain exchanges. To Lévi-Strauss, a social exchange is defined as a regulated form of behavior in the context of societal rules and norms. This contrasts with psychological studies of exchange in which behaviors are studied ignoring the culture. Social exchanges from the anthropological perspective have been analyzed using the gift-giving phenomena. The concept of reciprocity under this perspective states that individuals can directly reward his benefactor or another person in the social exchange process.[43] Lévi-Strauss developed the theory of cousin marriage based on the pervasiveness of gift-giving in primitive societies. The basis of this theory is the distinction between restricted exchanges, which is only capable of connecting pairs of social groups, and generalize exchange, which integrates indefinite numbers of groups.[32]

text: Relationships[edit]

text: Throughout the theory, we also end up losing relationships that we had because we feel they are no longer beneficial to us in any way. We feel like there is no longer any point of having any type of communication because there aren’t any rewards anymore. Once this happens, we look for new partners and resources so we can continue our networking. We go through this process on a day-to-day basis. A study titled, Factors Related to Initiating Interpersonal Contacts on Internet Dating Sites: A View From the social exchange theory applied this theory to new media (online dating). The study discovers the different factors involved when an individual decides to establish an online relationship.[44] Overall the study followed the social exchange theory's idea, "people are attracted to those who grant them rewards".[44]

text: Another example is Berg's study about development of friendship between roommates. The research found how social exchange processes changed during the year by measuring self disclosure. According to the study, the amount one person rewards another and the comparison levels for alternatives become the most important factors in determining liking and satisfaction.[45] Auld, C. and Alan C. conducted a study to discover what processes occur and what is experienced during social leisure relationships. They use the concept of reciprocity to understand their findings. The study concluded that meeting new people is often given as a major reason for participation in leisure activities, and meeting new people may be conceptualized as an exercise of reciprocity. In this case, reciprocity is perceived as a starting mechanism for new social relationships because people are willing to be helped by others, expecting that the help will eventually be returned.[45] A study conducted by Paul, G., called Exchange and access in field work tries to understand the relationships between the researchers and subjects. This study concludes that Bargaining helps to satisfy the more specific needs of the parties because greater risks are taken to obtain more information.[46] This study also introduces the concept of trust (social sciences) to determine the duration of relationships.

text: Interracial marriage[edit]

text: Patterns of interracial marriage have been explained using social exchange theory. Kalmijn [47] suggests that ethnic status is offset against educational or financial resources. This process has been used to explain why there are more marriages between black men and white women than between white men and black women. This asymmetry in marriage patterns has been used to support the idea of a racial hierarchy. Lewis,[48] however, explains that the same patterns of marriage can be accounted for in terms of simple facial attractiveness patterns of the different gender by race groupings. Recent changes have seen an increase in black females marrying white men and a decrease in raw prevalence of interracial marriages when it comes to black females. There has also been a shift in the concentration of interracial marriage from mostly being between those with low education levels to those with higher levels of education. [49]

text: Business[edit]

text: Social exchange theory has served as a theoretical foundation to explain different situations in business practices. It has contributed to the study of organization-stakeholder relationships and relationship marketing. The investment model proposed by Caryl Rusbult is a useful version of social exchange theory. According to this model, investments serve to stabilize relationships. The greater the nontransferable investments a person has in a given relationship, the more stable the relationship is likely to be. The same investment concept is applied in relationship marketing. Databases are the major instrument to build differentiated relationships between organizations and customers. Through the information process, companies identify the customer's own individual needs. From this perspective, a client becomes an investment. If a customer decides to choose another competitor, the investment will be lost.[14] When people find they have invested too much to quit a relationship or enterprise, they pour additional resources into the relationship to salvage their initial investment. Exchange has been a central research thrust in business-to-business relational exchange.[11] According to the study conducted by Lambe, C. Jay, C. Michael Wittmann, and Robert E. Spekman firms evaluate economic and social outcomes from each transaction and compare them to what they feel they deserve. Firms also look for additional benefits provided by other potential exchange partners. The initial transaction between companies is crucial to determine if their relationship will expand, remain the same or will dissolve.[11]

text: Work settings[edit]

text: A study conducted by A. Saks serves as an example to explain engagement of employees in organizations. This study uses one of the tenets of social exchange theory to explain that obligations are generated through a series of interactions between parties who are in a state of reciprocal interdependence. The research identified that when individuals receive economic and socioemotional resources from their organization, they feel obliged to respond in kind and repay the organization. This is a description of engagement as a two-way relationship between the employer and employee. One way for individuals to repay their organization is through their level of engagement. The more engaged the employee are to their work, the greater amounts of cognitive, emotional, and physical resources they will devote to perform their job duties. When the organization fails to provide economic or emotional resources, the employees are more likely to withdraw and disengage themselves from their roles.[50]

text: Citizenship behavior[edit]

text: Social exchange theory is a theoretical explanation for organizational citizenship behavior.This study examines a model of clear leadership and relational building between head and teachers as antecedents, and organizational citizenship behavior as a consequence of teacher–school exchange.[51] Citizenship behavior can also be shown with employees and their employers.This is shown through organizational identification which plays an important role in organizational citizenship behavior. An employees identification with their employer plays a significant role in supporting and promoting organized citizenship behavior, serving as a mediating mechanism with citizenship behaviors, perceived organizational justice, and organizational support based on both the social exchange and social identity theory. [52][53]

text: Online social networking and self-disclosure[edit]

text: Understanding interpersonal disclosure in online social networking is an ideal application of social networking theory. Researchers have leveraged SET to explain self-disclosure in a cross-cultural context of French and British working professionals.[54] They discover that reciprocation is the primary benefit of self-disclosure, whereas risk is the foundational cost of self-disclosure. They find that positive social influence to use an online community increases online community self-disclosure; reciprocity increases self-disclosure; online community trust increases self-disclosure; and privacy risk beliefs decrease self-disclosure. Meanwhile, a tendency toward collectivism increases self-disclosure. Similar research also leveraged SET to examine privacy concerns versus desire for interpersonal awareness in driving the use of self-disclosure technologies in the context of instant messaging.[55] This study was also a cross-cultural study, but instead compared US and Chinese participants.

text: Affect theory[edit]

text: The actors in social exchange are normally viewed as unemotional beings who have information, cognitively process it, and make decisions concerning the pattern and nature of exchange with others.[6] Affect theory of social exchange complements social exchange theory by incorporating emotion as part of the exchange process. Formalized by Lawler (2001), the affect theory examines the structural conditions of exchange that produce emotions and feelings and then identifies how individuals attribute these emotions to different social units (exchange partners, groups, or networks).[6] These attributions of emotion, in turn, dictate how strongly individuals feel attached to their partners or groups, which drives collectively oriented behavior and commitment to the relationship.

text: Assumptions[edit]

text: The affect theory of social exchange is based on assumptions that stem from social exchange theory and affect theory:

text:
There are three or more individuals who have the opportunity to make exchanges with one another. These actors are able to make decisions about whether to exchange, with whom to exchange, and under what terms to execute an exchange.
Social exchange produces emotions that are positive to negative
Emotions can be construed as reward or punishment (i.e. feeling good has a positive value and feeling bad has a negative value).
Individuals try to avoid negative emotions and to reproduce positive emotions in social exchange.
Individuals will try to understand the source or cause of feelings produced by social exchange. In this way, emotions become attributed to the object that caused them.
Individuals interpret and exchange their feelings with respect to social relationships (e.g. partners, groups, networks). Positive emotions produced by exchange will increase solidarity in these relationships, while negative emotions will decrease solidarity.

text: Theoretical propositions[edit]

text: Affect theory of social exchange shows how the conditions of exchanges promote interpersonal and group relationships through emotions and affective processes. The theoretical arguments center on the following five claims:

text: Emotions produced by exchange are involuntary, internal responses

text: Individuals experience emotions (general feelings of pleasantness or unpleasantness) depending on whether their exchange is successful. These emotions are construed as a reward (or punishment) and individuals strive to repeat actions that reproduce positive emotions or avoid negative emotions.

text: Individuals attempt to understand what in a social exchange situation produces emotions

text: Individuals will use the exchange task to understand the source (partners, groups, or networks) of their emotions. Individuals are more likely to attribute their emotions to their exchange partners or groups when the task can only be completed with one or more partners, when the task requires interdependent (nonseparable) contributions, and when there is a shared sense of responsibility for the success or failure of the exchange.

text: The mode of exchange determines the features of the exchange task and influences the attribution of the emotion produced

text: The mode of exchange (productive, negotiated, reciprocal, or generalized) provides a description of the exchange task. The task features are defined by the degree of interdependence (separability of tasks) and shared responsibility between partners to complete the task. These features influence the strength of the emotion felt. Productive exchanges are interdependent and this high degree of nonseparability generates the strongest emotions. Reciprocal exchanges are separable which reduces the perceptions of shared responsibility. The exchange produces little emotional response, but individuals instead express emotions in response to the asymmetrical transaction. Generalized exchanges do not occur directly, but interdependence is still high and coordination between partners is difficult. Because there is no direct emotional foundation, emotions produced are low. Negotiated exchanges may produce conflicting emotions due to the mixed-motive nature of negotiations; even when transactions are successful, individuals may feel like they had the ability to do better, creating emotional ambivalence. Overall, productive exchanges produce the strongest attributions of emotions, generalized (indirect) exchange the weakest, with negotiated and reciprocal exchanges in between.

text: The attribution of emotions resulting from different exchange modes impact the solidarity felt with partners or groups

text: The different types of exchange (productive, reciprocal, and generalized) also impact the solidarity or identification that an individual will feel with their exchange partners or group. The different exchange types help dictate the target of felt emotions and influences an individual’s attachment. Affective attachment occurs when a social unit (partner or group) is the target of positive feelings from exchange; affective detachment (alienation) occurs when a social unit is the target of negative feelings from failure to exchange.[6] Affective attachment increases solidarity. Similar to the attribution of emotion, productive exchange produces the strongest affective attachments, generalized exchange the weakest, and negotiated and reciprocal exchange are in between.[citation needed]

text: One condition for how social (partner or group) attributions can increase solidarity is by reducing self-serving attributions of credit or blame for the success or failure of the exchange. When individuals have group attributions for positive emotions stemming from success, this eliminates any self-serving biases and enhances both pride in the self and gratitude to the partner. However, group attributions for negative emotions stemming from failure do not eliminate self-serving biases, resulting in more anger toward the partner or group than shame in the self.[citation needed]

text: Lawler also proposes that the persistence (stability) and ability to control acts by the exchange partner (controllability) provide conditions for affective attachment by attributing credit or blame for the success or failure of the exchange.[6] Following Weiner (1985)[56] affect theory of social exchange extrapolates that the combinations of stability and uncontrollability elicit different emotions. In social exchange, social connections can be sources of stability and controllability. For example, if an exchange partner is perceived as a stable source of positive feelings, and the exchange partner has control in the acts that elicit those positive feelings, this will strengthen affective attachment. Therefore, affect theory of social exchange proposes that stable and controllable sources of positive feelings (i.e. pleasantness, pride, gratitude) will elicit affective attachments while stable and uncontrollable sources of negative feelings (i.e. unpleasantness, shame, anger) will elicit affective detachment.[citation needed]

text: Through these emotional processes, networks can develop group properties

text: Repeated exchanges allow a network to evolve into a group. Affect theory highlights the contributions of emotions in producing group properties. Successful interactions generate positive feelings for the involved individuals, which motivates them to interact with the same partners in the future. As exchanges repeat, the strong relationships become visible to other parties, making salient their role as a group and helping to generate a group identity that continues to bind the partners together in a network. Affect theory predicts that networks of negotiated and reciprocal exchange will tend to promote stronger relational ties within partners; productive or generalized exchange will promote stronger network or group-level ties.[citation needed]


document_title: Blocking (stage)

question_text: where is stage left through viewer's perspective

question_tokens: where is stage left through viewer 's perspective

text: Blocking (stage)

text: Etymology[edit]

text: Both "blocking" and "block" were applied to stage and theater from as early as 1961.[2] The term derives from the practice of 19th-century theatre directors such as Sir W. S. Gilbert who worked out the staging of a scene on a miniature stage using blocks to represent each of the actors.[3] (Gilbert's practice is depicted in Mike Leigh's 1999 film Topsy-Turvy.)[4]

text: Blocking in theater and film[edit]

text: In contemporary theater, the director usually determines blocking during rehearsal, telling actors where they should move for the proper dramatic effect, ensure sight lines for the audience and work with the lighting design of the scene.

text: Each scene in a play is usually "blocked" as a unit, after which the director will move on to the next scene. The positioning of actors on stage in one scene will usually affect the possibilities for subsequent positioning unless the stage is cleared between scenes.

text: During the blocking rehearsal, the assistant director, stage manager or director take notes about where actors are positioned and their movements on stage. It is especially important for the stage manager to note the actors' positions, as a director is not usually present for each performance, and it becomes the stage manager's job to ensure that actors follow the assigned blocking from night to night.[5]

text: In film, the term is sometimes used to speak of the arrangement of actors in the frame. In this context, there is also a need to consider the movement of the camera as part of the blocking process (see Cinematography).

text: Stage directions[edit]

text: Look up stage right, stage left, upstage, or downstage in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

text: The stage itself has been given named areas to facilitate blocking.[6]

text:
The rear of the stage area, farthest from the audience, is upstage. The front, nearest the audience, is downstage. The terms derive from the once common use of raked stages that slope downward toward the audience.
In English-speaking cultures generally, stage left and stage right refer to the actor's left and right when facing the audience. Sometimes the terms prompt and bastard/opposite prompt are used as synonyms. (See also Prompt corner)
House left and house right refer to the audience perspective. In productions for film or video, analogous terms are screen left/right and camera left/right.
To cross is to move. An actor placed up-stage right in blocking may be instructed by a director to cross down-stage left when speaking a line.

text: Non-English-speaking cultures[edit]

text:
In French, stage right is côté cour (court side) and stage left is côté jardin (garden side).
In German, Italian and Arabic, left and right always refer to the audience perspective.