Transformations of the state?

--

Causal Inference on Discrete Data using Additive Noise Models

Inferring the causal structure of a set of random variables from a finite sample of the joint distribution is an important problem in science. Recently, methods using additive noise models have been suggested to approach the case of continuous variables. In many situations, however, the variables of interest are discrete or even have only finitely many states. In this work we extend the notion of additive noise models to these cases. We prove that whenever the joint distribution \prob^{(X,Y)} admits such a model in one direction, e.g. Y=f(X)+N, N \independent X, it does not admit the reversed model X=g(Y)+\tilde N, \tilde N \independent Y as long as the model is chosen in a generic way. Based on these deliberations we propose an efficient new algorithm that is able to distinguish between cause and effect for a finite sample of discrete variables. In an extensive experimental study we show that this algorithm works both on synthetic and real data sets

Understanding multiculturalism

Among the permanent features of modern Western culture are worries about its fate, diagnoses of its deficiencies or crises. One important strand of cultural criticism (which has many variants) refers to problematic, shallow forms of homogenization, to a lack of internal coherence, to a one-sided "rationalization", to a loss of meanings or moral resources, to a lack of depth and vitality. Since cultural resources are seen as essential for both personal identity and social cohesion, this "deficiency thesis" is related to concerns about crises of personal identity and about a demise of "community", or about threats to the vitality of the "life-world". In recent years, diagnoses of contemporary culture have often taken a slightly different perspective. Now we find an emphasis on multiplicity, difference, pluralism. Sometimes a "deep" pluralism of complex or "thick" group cultures is suggested. This pluralism is often both evaluated positively and seen as threatened by homogenizing tendencies. This version keeps some links with the aforementioned "deficiency thesis". Group cultures are seen as still existing or resurrected repositories of meaning and sources of identity. But they are in danger of being marginalized and undermined by the forces of modernity (or capitalism, or statism, or other culprits), and therefore in need of special legal and political protection. But cultural differences, or at least certain forms of difference and pluralism, are also seen as a problem - as a threat to social unity or political order, or at least as posing special problems of conflict resolution and integration. So it now seems that the problem is not primarily a loss or lack of culture and community, but a proliferation of cultures and communities, possibly of the wrong sort, or with some problematic features. Not lack of all conviction, but passionate intensity seems to be the trouble. This essay will try to answer some of these questions, especially at the conceptual level. I will also cast a sceptical eye on some empirical assumptions, which seem to stand behind some of the more dramatic diagnoses. However, I will mainly point to relevant empirical questions, rather than examine the empirical evidence in any detail. The discussion should also be relevant for current normative discussions about multiculturalism and group rights, even if I am not primarily concerned with normative arguments. Many contributions to the normative debate start with the question how multicultural policies or group rights could be justified, and then refer back to empirical assumptions about groups, group interests and conflicts. Here, I propose to examine more closely the possible interests of certain types of groups and the character of the conflicts in which they are involved. In some respects at least, this should help to clarify the normative questions

Identity Questions

Many criticisms of the term "collective identity" refer to its connotations of wholeness, unity, homogeneity, and continuity or permanence. In section II I try to show that we can avoid this criticism if we use a more inclusive empirical conception of collective and national identity. Many understandings of collective identity draw too close a parallel with certain conceptions of individual identity, and fill the term collective identity with problematic normative or evaluative content. Identity is then used as a "success" term. For the sake of analytical clarity, however, it seems useful to understand the term in a more open and analytical way and to keep normative evaluations separately. (Some possible criteria for normative evaluation are mentioned in Section II.) Also some particular features of national identity, as distinct from other collective identities, are discussed. Section II deals with some controversies and misunderstandings. In current discourses about multiculturalism and cultural differences, it is often implied that collective identity is somehow based on cultural difference. It is useful, however, to see collective identities as a special part of group cultures, and to distinguish analytically between the strength of collective identity and the extent of general cultural dissimilarity between a group and its social environment. Collective identity is not necessarily based on a large degree of cultural particularity. This proposition, however, is not to be confused with another, which has recently gained some popularity: that cultural differences are merely fungible markers for the maintenance of group boundaries. Collective identities have various contents, and these are not necessarily centered in the drawing of boundaries or distinctions with the outside world. If we use an inclusive empirical notion of collective identity and drop the unitary associations of this term, it becomes obvious that we have to ask the same questions about collective identity which have been asked about the role and character of group culture or especially national culture in general: How coherent are belief systems or other symbolic systems internally? And how homogeneous is the group membership with respect to cultural features - how many versions of culture are there, adopted by various sub-groups? In the same way, collective identities may show various degrees of incoherence and cultural heterogeneity (Section III.3). Furthermore, there is the popular opposition between two "theories" of collective (especially national or ethnic) identity, which concerns its "primordial" or "constructed" characteristics. There looms a false alternative. Much of the controversy is based on a confusion of two questions: the question of the character or content of collective identities, and the question of their causal origins. Collective identities can both have "primordial" elements and be "socially constructed" (as are virtually all social phenomena, in some sense). Sections IV and V then deal specifically with national identity. There is a notorious typology of "conceptions of nationhood", which opposes "ethnocultural" (or "ethnic" or "cultural") conceptions to political or "civic" conceptions of nationhood. This typology carries a heavy normative load, favoring civic identities over the others. It is also used for explanatory purposes. Analytically, however, the typology is unsatisfactory, as are the normative and explanatory applications. A more multidimensional analysis of elements of national identity is proposed, which clarifies some possible meanings of "ethnic", "cultural" and "political" in this context. This should not only free empirical comparative research from some doubtful preconceptions. It should also help to clear up some confusions about the term "constitutional patriotism", which is especially controversial in Germany. Subsequently, there is a further discussion of the features of German national identity, with an eye to its differences from other Western (especially French and American) national identities and focused on the popular notion, that current German national identity has a strong "ethnic" component. At least if "ethnic" is understood in a narrow sense ("völkisch"), this is quite doubtful, however