User talk:Mylos

Welcome!

Hello, Mylos, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Reyk _YO! 20:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts

Regarding comments at: DPT and any other comments, please sign your posts using ~~~~ and indent your comments using : thank you. Travb (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reassurances

Welcome to Wikipedia. Let me assure you that we have better editors than Ultramarine, and better articles than DPT. Mind you, don't let me discourage you from working on the matter; every crack in the nut is welcome. Septentrionalis 01:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, creating your user page (even with "Hello, world", will get you more respect from some editors. I know this doesn't make much sense. Septentrionalis 01:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DPT

Hi. Thanks for your valuable input. However, please do not delete studies showing opposing resulats, both sides should be presented. Regards.Ultramarine (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Please do not delete opposing studies. As usual, different studies give different results. If we disagree with a published study, we should publish in a journal, not disagree here in Wikipedia. Please reply here.Ultramarine (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do not understand your comment regarding Oneal and Russett. They listen several opposing studies on p.18-19.Ultramarine (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Oneal and Russett (2004) is not an opposing study. This paper was later published (2005) and I assume you are referring to page 306 of the published version, where they say they tested the interactive effect and found it significant but only substantial among the wealthiest 1% of democratic dyads in the year 2000. This report has three problems. First, it is not conventional knowledge because it was not reported in a table, so replication is restricted. Second, in this test Oneal and Russett include geographically distant dyads, and we know that in these dyads development has a war-inducing impact (as discussed in the DPT Wikipedia article), making democracy appear stronger than it really is among poor countries. And third, the meaning of "development" changes over time ($100 today is not $100 in 1960), so selectively slicing the year 2000 and claiming that in this year only 1% of democratic dyads are not significantly in peace is not genuinely meaningful. This does however generate results that defenders of the democratic peace prefer. It follows that Oneal and Russett (2004) should not be cited as if it has produced new knowledge on this specific issue.Mylos (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that the developed democracies are no more trade interdependent than other states is an objective published fact (as cited in the DPT Wikipedia article). I am aware of no study that challenges this observation. This means that trade interdependency can not explain the developed democratic peace - plain and simple.

Please remember that the state of knowledge is cumulative, and no POV has a special privilege. The current state of knowledge is that the DP is severely constrained by level of development. If you disagree, please explain your reasoning here. I'll check and reply. Best, Mylos (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. A later publishing year in no way invalidates all earlier studies, especially if there is no mention of them in a later paper. In a contested area many studies by different authors are required before something can be accepted as consensus and established. Until then, we should report all the different views.

2. Second, Wikipedia is not the place the criticze published papers. If you want to do that, publish a new paper yourself, otherwise it violates WP:OR. Until them, do not remove studies because your as an anonymous editor dislikes the methodology and claims errors and mistakes.

3. Otherwise, I could start inserting my own personal opinions about Mousseau study, like that it is flawed beyond redemption and should be excluded since it does not control for the severity of conflicts, which is critical since many studies have found that the democracy effect is stronger for more severe conflicts.

4. Or I could note that Mousseau claims that Germany and Japan had and Saudi Arabia today have state-managed economies is simply a personal opinion with no backing sources, and for Saudi Arabia flatly denied by objective measurements like the Ease of Doing Business Index, and therefore should be excluded as unsourced and false.

5. Your write " Nor is it likely that Mousseau's (2005) results can be explained by trade: Because developed states have large economies, they do not have high levels of trade interdependence (2005:70, see also footnote 5). In fact, the correlation of developed democracy with trade interdependence is a scant 0.06 (Pearson's r - considered substantively no correlation by statisticians)(2005:77)." I fail to understand your reasoning here; assuming undeveloped democracy have low trade interdependence, or undeveloped dictatorships have high trade interdependence, then trade could be an alternative explanation. Simply only looking at developed democracy is not valid.

6. Regarding Oneal and Russett (2004 "Ray (2005) suggests that the pacific benefits we have reported for democracy and interdependence are spurious, their apparent effects probably attributable to economic development. He presents no evidence for this claim. Bremer (1992) was the first to control for GDP per capita. He noted that developed economies tend to be more economically interdependent and suggested that this might account for the conflict-reducing benefit of development. Indeed, Oneal, Oneal, Maoz, and Russett (1996) subsequently reported that GDP per capita was not significant when the trade-to-GDP ratio was also entered in the equation.

Mousseau (2000) confirms this result, though he also reports a significant interactive effect between development and democracy. The conflict-reducing effect of democracy is conditional on states’ economic development, a result consistent with the importance of markets as a source of liberal values and institutions. Mousseau, Hegre, and Oneal (2003) report that joint democracy is not a significant force for peace if one democratic state in a dyad has a GDP per capita below $1400 (constant 1990 dollars).

Fortunately, this level of income is low enough that 91% of the democratic dyads in their sample of politically relevant dyads, over the years 1885-1992, were in the zone of peace. We have confirmed in tests to be reported elsewhere (Oneal forthcoming) that the pacific benefits of democracy and interdependence are not a consequence of economic development. Both the lower democracy score and the trade-to-GDP ratio remain very significant (p < .001) when the lower GDP per capita in the dyad is introduced. We do find evidence of an interactive effect between democracy and development, but in 2000 only one percent of democratic dyads were below the threshold level at which the peacefulness of democracy is nullified".Ultramarine (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the editor: You are obviously being a bit emotional here. Before you reply please stop and relax. Why not take a few hours and check my facts and logic? Please think deeply about my arguments – you may learn something.

1. I never claimed that later studies invalidate prior ones. Cumulation means that the large body of evidence has to be considered together. Sometimes a later study supercedes a prior study if there is an identified valid weakness in a prior study that is corrected in the later one. The idea that all POV are entitled to representation in an encyclopedia is not correct: the accumulation of knowledge is not a democratic process. It is curious that you are accusing me of imposing a POV: You are the one that constantly re-edits any report of evidence that goes against the democratic peace!

2. You accuse me of criticizing a published work. But you seem to have a mistaken view as to what this means. To state what a published study does or does not do is not criticism. Let me add that all I did was point out that the UNpublished article that YOU introduced does not offer the evidence you claim it does - a true fact. Moreover, I did so here, only in the discussion – not the main text. Obviously, your reference to a published work as "flawed beyond redemption" violates WP:OR.

3. "Flawed beyond redemption" is highly inappropriate. Please stop. The fact is, very few studies control for the severity of conflict. So why are you picking on Mousseau for this?? Obviously, you just don’t like Mousseau’s results. In fact, all studies are complex and can be criticized from a variety of viewpoints. Good scholarship recognizes this and does not select the criticisms based on results one does not like. Moreover, in the literature there are many good reasons not to control for the severity of conflict. I can also add that you have offered no reason why such control matters.

4. Your claim that my assertions regarding the economies of Saudi Arabia and others needs sources is interesting. You are imposing on me the requirement that I offer sources for my claim that these economies were/are state-managed, when you are the one that initially claimed that these economies are market-oriented! I fail to understand why you do not have to document that these were market-oriented economies but I have to document that they were not – especially when I followed you! Let’s be clear: If you want to claim that they are market-oriented and I claim otherwise, we are under equal obligation on sources. Otherwise you are privileging yourself. Also, the Ease of Doing Business Index is not a measure in any way of Mousseau’s contract norms. Obviously, you need to familiarize yourself better with the democratic peace literature.

5. You do not appear to be familiar with basic statistics. That there is no (or very little) correlation of developed democracy with trade interdependence means also that there is no (or very little) correlation if underdeveloped democracy with trade interdependence. The statistic does not look only at developed democracy and therefore your claim that it is invalid is invalid.

6. Let me enlighten you on two basic issues: one is about interaction effects and the other is about the creation of new knowledge. First, neither the Bremer (1992) nor Oneal, Oneal, Maoz, and Russett (1996) studies tested for an interactive effect (that is, whether the democratic peace was conditioned by development). These studies therefore have virtually nothing to do with later studies that report the economic conditionality. These and other ‘non-interactive’ studies are all discussed in-depth in Mousseau (2000).

Second, neither the Bremer (1992) nor Oneal, Oneal, Maoz, and Russett (1996) studies offer any new knowledge regarding the correlation of development and trade interdependence. New knowledge is produced in replicable studies, and these studies did NOT report the development and trade interdependence correlations. That they might have stated in the text that they think there is a correlation is not new knowledge because it is not backed with evidence. This is not a POV: it is fact. Nor is this a criticism of published work: These authors are well aware that they did not examine their claims, which were peripheral to these studies, and I am certain that all of them would agree that a later test of these claims supercedes their own untested claims. It is you that needs to stop making claims for these studies in violation of the cumulation of knowledge. Moreover, Mousseau, Hegre and Oneal (2003:283) also confirm the low correlation of trade and development in a replicable way. There can be no question that the replicable investigation and research of Mousseau (2005) and Mousseau, Hegre and Oneal (2003:283) is knowledge, and I remain unaware of any replicable study that reports otherwise. This means that it is highly unlikely that the control for trade in Mousseau, Hegre and Oneal (2003:283) can explain why the economic conditionality to the democratic peace is weaker in this study compared to Mousseau (2005). This is called the cumulative progress of knowledge. If you would like to publish your own study showing otherwise you are free to try. In the meantime, please stop giving your opinion the same weight as cumulative knowledge.Mylos (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have not removed any study, which you have repeatedly done that regarding those that oppose your views. Regarding WP:NPOV read it. "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."

2. Statments like "Nor is it likely that Mousseau's (2005) results can be explained by trade" violates NPOV, we do not judge who right. Again, publish in a journal, then we can quote such value judgements. Also read WP:SYN, we cannot ourself string together different studies and reach a synthesis.

3. Have a look at Bennett (2006), for example. Severity of conflict greatly affects the results. If you are going to insert your personal commentaries and judgements on the studies in the text, then this omission by Mousseau should also be mentioned.

4. Germany and Japan were relatively highly economically developed at the time of WWII which seem to contradict the economic development prevents wars theory. I stated that Mousseau offers no evidence or sources for his claims regarding lacking market economy in Germany and Japan at this time. The same regarding Saudi Arabia today. You note that "contract norms" and " market-oriented economies" is not identical to Ease of Doing Business Index which is correct. But what is "contract norms" and "market-oriented economies? If there is not an empirical measure of it in different nations, then there can be little evidence for causation in an empirical study of differences between nations. Note, I find Mousseau’s studies fascinating, but this is another problem.

5-6. I will just cite some very recent and conflicting studies to show the subject is far more complex than your simple presentation here or in the article: [1][2][3]Ultramarine (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have only removed references to an unpublished study as a source for an empirical assertion (that trade and development correlate) because all published studies show that they do not correlate. Readers should be given a reasonable grasp of reality, and unpublished and unsupported assertions that contradict reality should not be presented as if they do.

2. You will notice I put back a sentence as you had it to fit more the spirit of WP:SYN.

3. Again, why does the severity of conflict issue cause only Mousseau’s studies to be invalid? Why not all the Oneal and Russett ones too, and everybody else?

4. I think Mousseau’s "contract norms" are clearly defined. Just because data are not available does not mean a concept does not exist. What about “power”? Just because we can’t see something, does not mean that it looks they way we wish it to look.

5-6. Please don’t fall back on the rhetorical trick of claiming the world is just more complex and my argument too simple. If there is anything you got in published research that contracts the published research that trade and development do not correlate (and therefore trade can not explain the developed democratic peace) feel free to present it. If not, don't pretend that there is.

talkback

Hello, Mylos. You have new messages at Talk:Bolivia–United_States_relations#Improvement.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—rybec 03:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]