Cross-cultural dimensions of meaning in the evaluation of events in world history? Perceptions of historical calamities and progress in cross-cultural data from 30 societies

The universality versus culture specificity of quantitative evaluations (negative-positive) of 40 events in world history was addressed using World History Survey data collected from 5,800 university students in 30 countries/societies. Multidimensional scaling using generalized procrustean analysis indicated poor fit of data from the 30 countries to an overall mean configuration, indicating lack of universal agreement as to the associational meaning of events in world history. Hierarchical cluster analysis identified one Western and two non-Western country clusters for which adequate multidimensional fit was obtained after item deletions. A two-dimensional solution for the three country clusters was identified, where the primary dimension was historical calamities versus progress and a weak second dimension was modernity versus resistance to modernity. Factor analysis further reduced the item inventory to identify a single concept with structural equivalence across cultures, Historical Calamities, which included man-made and natural, intentional and unintentional, predominantly violent but also nonviolent calamities. Less robust factors were tentatively named as Historical Progress and Historical Resistance to Oppression. Historical Calamities and Historical Progress were at the individual level both significant and independent predictors of willingness to fight for one’s country in a hierarchical linear model that also identified significant country-level variation in these relationships. Consensus around calamity but disagreement as to what constitutes historical progress is discussed in relation to the political culture of nations and lay perceptions of history as catastrophe.

Interpretation of serologic markers of intestinal diseases

info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

Finite groups and geometries: a view on the present state and on the future

The model: groups of Lie-Chevalley type and buildingsThis paper is not the presentation of a completed theory but rather a report on a search progressing as in the natural sciences in order to better understand the relationship between groups and incidence geometry, in some future sought-after theory Τ. The search is based on assumptions and on wishes some of which are time-dependent, variations being forced, in particular, by the search itself.A major historical reference for this subject is, needless to say, Klein's Erlangen Programme. Klein's views were raised to a powerful theory thanks to the geometric interpretation of the simple Lie groups due to Tits (see for instance), particularly his theory of buildings and of groups with a BN-pair (or Tits systems). Let us briefly recall some striking features of this.Let G be a group of Lie-Chevalley type of rank r, denned over GF(q), q = pn, p prime. Let Xr denote the Dynkin diagram of G. To these data corresponds a unique thick building B(G) of rank r over the Coxeter diagram Xr (assuming we forget arrows provided by the Dynkin diagram). It turns out that B(G) can be constructed in a uniform way for all G, from a fixed p-Sylow subgroup U of G, its normalizer NG(U) and the r maximal subgroups of G containing NG(U).