MOTIVATIONS IN THE SOCIAL MEDIA WORLD

 

Andrew Marantz gives his readers an insight into the world of social media, especially that segment that proclaims to be journalistic.  In his introductory comments about that landscape, he describes it as an “antipathy to the establishment wings of the Democratic and Republican parties, but their guiding principles seemed more temperamental than political.”[1]

          The upper echelon of this group – the VIPs – have solidified a position among the political class and Marantz looks at what motivates them to do what they do.  It seems to be a mixed bag of incentives.  He writes:

 

They [the VIPs] made their names, and in most cases made a good living, by generating what they called content – podcasts, publicity stunts, viral memes – which they peddled across a variety of platforms:  a Twitter [today called X] feed driving traffic to Patreon, a Gab feed soliciting donations through Coinbase, a personal site racking up revenue.  This insured that, if they got banned from one platform or another, they wouldn’t starve, and their message wouldn’t be starved of attention.  Some of them knew a lot about politics; some knew next to nothing about politics.  In every case, their main skill was the same:  a knack for identifying resonant images and talking points, and for propelling them from the fringes of the internet into the mainstream.[2]

 

In summary, Marantz calls them “metamedia insurgents.”  And given this knowledge base among these VIPs, they hit upon politics because it draws the highest ratings, and one can suppose the highest revenues. 

          Of course, all of this does not point to the federated aim of a more perfect union or the common good, but to cause and accelerate emotive reaction at a cultural level.  And if the consequence is to undermine existing institutions, so much the better.  Marantz claims that they are motivated to eradicate old institutions and that social media can serve as matches to burn those institutions down.

          One target institution is the mainstream news media.  Citing Mike Cernovich, a lawyer and social media blogger, the end of mainstream news media is foreseeable – “their days are numbered.”[3]  Mainstream news’ ability to control the national, political discourse, the nation’s narrative, has already been highly compromised if not ended.  Cernovich boasts that everyone has a voice in current day America.  And given the necessary salacious talents, those so “blessed” have a louder voice than those that don’t.

          To the extent that this is true, it presents federated theory quite the challenge.  While federalism is all in with people becoming involved in the politics of their lives, especially at the local level, this over the top, over emotional form of discussion – and more dangerously, form of journalism – is not what federated discourse looks like. 

As the last posting of this blog stated, a federated discourse is noted for being level-headed, reasoned – not jumping to conclusions – and sensitive to the needs of fellow discussants.  That discourse is not vindictive, virulent, or valued for its shock value as the social media world too often exemplifies.

          In sum, this situation begs for a better socialization into politics and, as long as the natural rights view holds dominance in the nation’s civics instruction – as it does – this pandering to immature impulses – which is what this blogger believes is going on – the future seems dim in promoting a federated citizenry; that is, a citizenry that pictures a general sense of partnership among the populous.

---

[1] Andrew Marantz, Anti-social:  Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the American Conversation (New York, NY:  Penguin Random House, 2019), 14.  Factual information in this posting based on this site.

[2] Ibid., 18.

[3] Ibid., 19.

A LACK OF REASON

 

A writer who has addressed the effects of social media on current day politics is Andrew Marantz.  Early in his book, Anti-Social, he describes an encounter with three journalists who have utilized social media to spread their form of journalism.  Marantz writes:

 

[Cassandra] Fairbanks, [Luke] Rudkowski, and [Tim] Pool didn’t agree on well-developed policy agenda.  What they shared was closer to an attitude – an instinctive aversion to anything mainstream.  They often expressed this in terms of their antipathy to the establishment wings of the Democratic and Republican parties, but their guiding principles seemed more temperamental than political.  Things they liked:  energy, scrappiness, rebellion.  Things they disliked:  institutionalism, incrementalism, the status quo.  If something could be described as an emanation of the Man, then they were against it.[1]

 

This blogger can’t verify this characterization; he is not aware of these journalists beyond Marantz’s description.  But he feels these overall biases do reflect how a lot of current politics is being conducted.  And as such, it goes a long way to explain why one finds the polarized nature one observes at the national and even local levels of politics.

          As this blog repeatedly describes, a federated politics is one in which citizens share a sense of partnership.  When one calls out, “Hey, partner,” certain assumptions come into play.  One would be an ability to engage in discussion reasonably and reflectively, to problem-solve and negotiate.  In turn, such approaches to political intercourse count on institutional modes of discussion that are calm, disciplined – not jumping to conclusions – and empathetic.

          To the extent these journalists represent what one is apt to find on social media and, given its popularity, it is not difficult to see how a reliance on social media for one’s information leads to the anti-federated landscape that one finds in contemporary America.  And to boot, Marantz goes on to describe how well organized this element of the political class is.  They even have a VIP element.

          He gives this group more substantive description by writing:

 

            The VIPs shared a common set of enemies – the Clintons, the Bushes, the globalists, the mainstream media – but they didn’t agree on everything.  Some were more anti-Semitic than others.  Some were more openly racist than others.  Some emphasized misogyny, whereas others were more passionate about Islamophobia.  Still others, rather than committing to any consistent ideology, rotated through evocative tropes about Davos or the Deep State.  Each of them espoused opinions that were so politically retrograde, so morally repugnant, or so self-evidently deceitful that no reputable news organization would ever hire them.  And yet, in the twenty-first century, they didn’t need traditional jobs.  Instead, they could mobilize and monetize a following on social media.[2]

 

All this results on messaging undermining the acceptance of basic factual information which until recently the bulk of Americans secured from those reputable news sources.

Of course, as many have pointed out, this inability to agree on facts undermines any chance at productive discourse.  And when, as a result of this disruption, a faction within a nation has become large enough to affect political outcomes, that polity is in trouble.

          The next posting will share how Marantz describes what possibly motivates this type of mischief.  The last quote above hints at what that might be.  Possible answers might include ideological commitment or monetary rewards.  Readers are invited to guess what Marantz judges this motivation to be.  One might also ask:  is one type – beliefs or dollars – more ominous than the other?  Of course, whatever motivates most, there is no guarantee that all involved are similarly disposed.

---

[1] Andrew Marantz, Anti-social:  Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the American Conversation (New York, NY:  Penguin Random House, 2019), 14.

[2] Ibid., 18.

MORE THAN QUAINT

 

Should one distribute a good or service through a market or queue, i.e., pay the price and go on with life or stand on a “first come, first served” line, usually for a good amount of time?  The former “prices” out people who cannot afford it and at times that might include securing essential goods or services. 

The latter is open to “abuses,” such as “hiring line standers, buying tickets from scalpers, or purchasing line-cutting privileges directly from, say, an airline or an amusement park.”[1]  They are abuses because they supplant the ethic of instituting a queue in the first place.  And by doing so, one drifts over to ethical issues.

          What ethic?  Well, queues are usually put in place to offer a good or service at a below market price.  A market price is that price that results in the highest profit rate for the seller, given the product’s supply and demand.  When the item is important, essential, or of moral worth, then for whatever reason, the providers of the item might wish to bypass the higher market price and offer it at a lower price.

Since that will offer the item at a higher demand level, queuing is a way to distribute the item.  In turn, queuing imposes a cost – buyers are called upon to stand and wait.  Michael J. Sandel summarizes the ethical issue:

 

Markets and queues – paying and waiting – are two different ways of allocating things, and each is appropriate to different ways of allocating things, and each is appropriate to different activities.  The ethic of the queue, “First come, first served,” has an egalitarian appeal.  It bids us to ignore privilege, power, and deep pockets – at least for certain purposes.  “Wait your turn,” we were admonished as children.  “Don’t cut in line.”[2]

 

When’s the last time one waited in a queue?  At a ballpark – to enter a stadium or to use a restroom at the park might come to mind – or anytime readers go to the bank and wait their turn to do their business.  These are so common that one gives them no mind.  But since standing in line is uncomfortable or can even be costly in other ways, various practices such as scalping have emerged and make the item more expensive.

This blogger recently noticed, while using a Florida expressway, that he could use an express lane for a price that would be charged to his Sunpass account to pay for the privilege.  In another situation, one might ask of oneself:  what would happen if in standing in a line, someone from behind offers the reader twenty dollars to exchange spots on that line?  Would the reader make a deal or be tempted? 

Or if selling a house is the issue, is one obliged to accept the first offer made?  Of course, not; one is freely unrestrained to negotiate the highest price the homeowner can get, even higher than the price the owner listed for the property.  From mostly custom, some items lend themselves to such flexibility; some do not.

          Then there are the questionable occasions such as when one calls a business and is told by a recording that the call will be answered in the order in which the call was made as compared to other callers.  Is this simply a salutary message to offset the knowledge that the call is really answered in an order of importance – its urgency or its source such as from a more frequent customer to the business being called?  Apparently, there is technology that allows businesses to employ such preferences for favored or more affluent callers.

          So, in terms of ethics, how does one judge such practices?  One can readily understand that not all products are of equal moral standing.  No need to explain that a call concerning some consumer issue – the bought product does not work as advertised – and a call crying out for help from someone having a heart attack have different standings in terms of morality or ethics.  The product, the timing, and other circumstances make possible options an issue one should consider when passing judgment or putting in place such practices.

          And in such considerations, one should keep in mind that there are other options.  Included in such options, Sandel offers a list:  merit, lottery or chance, need, urgency.  But the market option holds prominence, and that favored standing has become more in place as the natural rights view of governance and politics has become more entrenched in American political culture.  The various schemes, such as scalping, have become prominent since the mid-twentieth century, whereas before World War II they were not even considered.

          Or as Sandel puts it:  “The demise of the queue in these domains [such as in national parks or amusement parks] may seem a quaint concern.  But these are not the only places that markets have invaded.”[3]  This and the last posting reviewed such places.  And beyond, for example, there are other non-market practices such as bribing. 

Perhaps considering bribes can be a topic for a future posting.  In any event, this visit to Sandel’s concerns offers yet another realm of social implications resulting from what this blog has offered as the consequences of the natural rights view becoming prominent.  It also points out what federalist thinking might include: encouraged queuing – perhaps assisted by modern technology – to distribute those products judged to be essential or as representing who Americans are.

---

[1] Michael J. Sandel, What Money Can’t Buy:  The Moral Limits of Markets (New York, NY:  Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2012), 39.  The factual claims of this posting are based on what this source reports. 

[2] Ibid., 39.

[3] Ibid., 41.

WAIT OR PAY

 

A previous posting, “Lining Up or Paying,”[1] cites a dilemma in capitalist economies.   That is, in distributing goods and services, should the provider institute a queue system – first come, first served – or a competitive pricing system in which a price is set at a level for which the seller draws the highest profit possible. 

The first option does usually allow people from varied income groups to be able to attain the goods or services but leads to various practices – like scalping – undermining such an outcome.  The second, from the outset, excludes those who cannot afford the price, usually lower income people.

          Now, for most goods and services, competitive pricing leads to more efficient production and distribution strategies.  Yet, especially when one is speaking of essential goods and services, the inability of the poor or the not so rich to afford necessary goods and services is a problem.  Enough of that and one creates a disruptive social landscape – one might ask:  how much of that is responsible for the nation’s current turbulent politics?

          The end of the earlier posting referred to above left readers with the following paragraph:

 

This posting is not an argument for dismissing markets and pricing options in general.  Many advantages are derived from applying that approach to most products.  … And one can readily identify how many (most) aspects of life are better with markets than without.  But as with most things, there are limits and one should be able to acknowledge where and when markets fall short.

 

Here, the work of Michael J. Sandel is seen to be helpful.  He asks which products should be provided by a queue (or other) system and which ones should be provided by a market system.  He claims that to answer which products should be sold one way or the other, one should consider what sort of product it is.  How should it be valued?

          To address this concern, he writes:

 

Figuring this out is not always easy.  Consider three examples of “underpriced” goods that have recently given rise to ticket scalping:  campsites at Yosemite National Park, open-air masses conducted by Pope Benedict XVI [the reigning pope of this citation], and live concerts by Bruce Springsteen.[2]

 

Each of these cases demonstrates a different aspect of this basic question – which form of availability should be employed?  And by reviewing them, Sandel sheds light on an aspect of American (of capitalist) life which affects how meaningfully a nation can promote a partnership sense – i.e., a federated sense – among that nation’s citizenry.

          Yosemite Park is a popular place.  As a national park, its policies, such as setting an admission price, are a government operation.  Since the park belongs to the nation’s public and the nation claims equality as a central value, the admission fee is set low and that includes fees for campsites. 

As of the publishing date of Sandel’s cited book, the fee was $20 a night.  Yet for the common family, the chances of gaining a site at that price are near zero.  Why?  Well, as soon as the sites are made available, they are booked in a matter of minutes.  Is this “first family come; first family served”?

          Here is another bit of information:  by visiting an online site, one can secure that campsite for $100 or $150 a night.  Why?  The sights were purchased by scalpers in large numbers (at the $20 figure) and then offered online at the inflated figure.  These entrepreneurs, due to their access to cash, have undermined the rationale for the initial pricing policy of the government.  Sandel writes:

 

Underlying the hostility to scalping campsites at Yosemite are actually two objections – one about fairness, the other about the proper way of valuing a national park.  The first objection worries that scalping is unfair to people of modest means, who can’t afford to pay $150 a night for a campsite.  The second objection, implied by the [referred to] editorial’s rhetorical question (“Is nothing sacred?”) draws on the idea that some things should not be up for sale. … [N]ational parks are not merely objects of use or sources of social utility.  They are places of natural wonder and beauty, worthy of appreciation, even awe.  For scalpers to auction access to such places seems a kind of sacrilege.[3]

 

And this sort of “sacrilege” is not limited to national parks.

          Another example was seen when Pope Benedict visited the US in 2008.  Then, it was arranged that the Pope would hold mass gatherings, in the form of masses at two stadiums, one in New York City (Yankee Stadium) and the other in Washington, D.C.  There, the tickets were distributed for free by the respective Catholic dioceses.  But after the scalpers got their hands on the tickets, and they did in large numbers, they drove the price up to $200.  Again, given the religious nature of this example, the term sacrilege is an apt one to describe what happened.

          Are purely commercial events immune from such practices?  Springsteen concerts prove that they are not.  In 2009, as a sort of payback to his home state, New Jersy, Springsteen put on two concerts and charged a modest fee (modest in terms of the demand) of $95.  One can guess what happened; the scalpers moved in and getting a ticket for the concerts could cost a great deal more than the initial price.  How much more?  Well, a Rolling Stone concert was able to charge $450 a ticket.

          Why not charge the market price, Mr. Springsteen?  Sandel supposes that in that case the singer and his group wanted to pay respect to the challenges of the group’s working-class fan base.  Yes, it was a commercial event; surely the group made a profit, but a more modest profit than the market allowed.  Instead, the scalpers made the difference between the market price and the initial selling price.  Does the word sacrilege describe this case?  Perhaps not, but its qualities overlap with what is sacrilegious.

          Let this blog leave readers with these three examples to give the issue – queuing or marketing – some thought and invite them to the next posting.  It will share Sandel’s thoughts on the ethic of the queue.  Or stated differently, is queuing good or bad, right or wrong, as the practice calls on people to wait or should they pay – as in a regular pricing arrangement?

This question is more important than just having to pay hundreds of dollars more for an experience or item.  Some of those occasions are considered reflective of what sort of a people Americans are.  Therefore, before ending this posting, consider this claim:  federated nations – where the citizenry shares a sense of partnership – should be concerned over the true value of some assets or products.  They should be held as more than marketable items – they should be considered sacred.

---

[1] Robert Gutierrez, “Lining Up or Paying,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics, accessed December 9, 2023, URL:  https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2019_09_08_archive.html.

[2] Michael J. Sandel, What Money Can’t Buy:  The Moral Limits of Markets (New York, NY:  Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2012), 35.  The factual claims of this posting are based on what this source reports.

[3] Ibid., 36-37.

WHAT SOCIAL SCIENTISTS CAN OFFER

 

In the last posting, this blog reviewed the general shortcomings of the social sciences, as an information source.  But it also pointed out that they are better at providing needed information and analysis than most other sources.[1]  To make that report, the blog focused on economics and the work of the Nobel prize winners, Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo.[2]  This posting wants to focus on how the social sciences, as exemplified by economics, can be more amenable to federalist governance and politics – as promoted in this blog.

          To do that, this posting will share with readers two quotes from these economists’ book, Good Economics for Hard Times.  The first quote is:

 

It is important that this project [to establish a dialogue with the general public that] we be guided by an expansive notion of what human beings want and what constitutes the good life.  Economists have a tendency to adopt a notion of well-being that is often too narrow, some version of income or material consumption.  And yet, all of us need much more than that to have a fulfilling life:  the respect of the community, the comforts of family and friends, dignity, lightness, pleasure.  The focus on income alone is not just a convenient shortcut.  It is distorting lens that often has led the smartest economists down the wrong path, policy makers to the wrong decisions, and all too many of us to wrong obsessions.[3]

 

Here, this blogger thinks, is a call for a more communal, as opposed to individualistic, mindset when considering what economists and social scientists in general should focus upon.  Of course, the more individual view – the one that prevails today – simply reflects the dominance of the natural rights view. 

This blog has dedicated a great deal of space to describe and explain this view, but in a few words, it promotes the claim that individuals have the right to do as they please as long as they do not prohibit others from the same rights.  One can readily see that with this basic belief, resulting study in economics will emphasize income, wealth, and securing material assets.  That is, what most economists highlight in their approach to the study of economics – as the quote indicates – and counters what Banerjee and Duflo are suggesting.

          This blog has also promoted a federalist view – the liberated federalism construct – and has argued that it should replace the natural rights view in guiding the development of civics curriculum in American schools.  In a few words, that would be a curriculum that establishes the fact that the nation’s governance is based on a compact – a sacred agreement that brings together its citizenry under the relationship of a partnership.  A meaningful step in that direction would be to adopt what these economists suggest for their discipline and, by implication, for all of the social sciences.

          And the other quote gives readers more substance to what Banerjee and Duflo suggest:

 

A better conversation must start by acknowledging the deep human desire for dignity and human contact, and to treat it not as a distraction, but as a better way to understand each other, and set ourselves free from what appear to be intractable oppositions.  Restoring human dignity to its central place … set off a profound rethinking of economic priorities and the ways in which societies care for their members, particularly when they are in need.[4]

 

Equally, if all the social sciences took this recommendation to heart, they would be a great deal more useful in reestablishing a federalist nation in thought, feeling, and action.

---

[1] Robert Gutierrez, “Should One Listen to Social Scientists?”, Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics, December 5, 2023, accessed December 8, 2023, URL:  https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/.  Use the archives link.

[2] Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo, Good Economics for Hard Times (New York, NY:  Public Affairs, 2019).

[3] Ibid., 8.

[4] Ibid., 8.

SHOULD ONE LISTEN TO SOCIAL SCIENTISTS?

 

From this blog’s February 19, 2021, posting, the following is offered:

 

The very first sentence of a book by the Nobel Prize winners Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo about economic challenges is “We live in an age of growing polarization.”[1]  Early in their book they cite the following: 

·       81% of Americans who identify with one of the major parties has a negative opinion of the other party;

·       61% of Democrats classify Republicans as being racists, sexists, or bigots; 55% of Republicans dismiss Democrats as spiteful; and

·       Roughly one of every three Americans expresses disappointment if a close family member were to marry someone of the opposing political party.[2]

Other works cited in this blog support this overall descriptive conclusion by providing further relevant statistics.[3]

 

With that backdrop, the citizenry, according to press reports, has been feeding on misinformation from social media.  The claim here is that if one strives for a future that incorporates a federalist general view of governance and politics – one in which citizens view fellow citizens as partners in the nation’s federated union – this general state of the citizenry is not helpful.

More specifically, this blog promotes this federalist view and for that view to be viable, people need to agree, to a significant degree, on what is objective truth.  And for that to take hold, there must be sources of information generally accepted as reliable.  Since the years of the Enlightenment, Western civilization has looked to science as an important source of such truth. 

Here, this posting visits the science of economics and “asks” a pair of honored economists, the above cited Banerjee and Duflo, as to the standing economists enjoy – or suffer through – as being truth sources among the American people.  In doing so, this posting provides an interview format in which this blogger will offer questions he believes the Nobel Prize winners answer in their book, Good Economics for Hard Times. 

Of course, this is an imagined interview in which this blogger selects passages from the book to answer the questions he is posing.

 

Question:  Much has been said about the current political environment and most of it has not been positive.  How would you describe the times?

Answer:  “We seem to be back in the Dickensian world of Hard Times, with the haves facing off against the increasingly alienated have-nots, with no resolution in sight.”[4]

Question:  And in terms of governments – particularly the US government – what has been the response of such a “world”?

Answer:  “[N]ations are doing very little to solve the most pressing challenges of our time; they continue to feed the anger and the distrust that polarize us, which makes us even more incapable of talking, thinking together, doing something about them.  It often feels like a vicious cycle.”[5]

Question:  What has been the response of economists to these conditions?

Answer:  “Economists have a lot to say about these big issues.  … What the most recent research has to say, it turns out, is often surprising, especially to those used to the pat answers coming out of TV ‘economists’ and high school textbooks.  It [the research] can shed new light on those debates.”[6]

Question:  You two have been quoted as to the degree in which Americans do not trust what economists have to say.  Can you elaborate?

Answer:  “[Regarding how respondents answered our questions they] tended to be more pessimistic than the economists … Our respondents were also more likely to think the rise of robots and AI would lead to widespread unemployment, and much less likely to think they would create extra wealth to compensate those who lost out. … [But] the key finding is that, overall, the average academic economist thinks very differently from the average American.  Across all twenty questions [we used], there is a gaping chasm of 35 percentage points between how many economists agree with a particular statement and how many average Americans do.”[7]

Question:  Generally, how has this chasm between economists and the American public affected your view of the well-being of the American nation?

Answer:  “From this, it seems a large part of the general public has entirely stopped listening to economists about economics. …

The … goal [of our effort] is to share some of [economists’] expertise and reopen a dialogue about the most urgent and divisive topics of our times.

            For that, we need to understand what undermines trust in economists.”[8]

Question:  How, generally, do economists share your concerns?

Answer:  “The Economist magazine once computed just how far the IMF’s [International Monetary Fund’s] forecasts were off on average over the period 2000-2014.  For two years from the time of prediction (say, the growth rate in 2014 predicted in 2012), the average forecast error was 2.8 percentage points.  That’s somewhat better than if they had chosen a random number between … 2 percent and 10 percent every year, but about as bad as just assuming a constant growth rate of 4 percent.  We suspect these kinds of things contribute substantially to the general skepticism of economics.

            Another big factor that contributes to the trust gap is that academic economists hardly ever take time to explain the often complex reasoning behind their more nuanced conclusions. …  Today’s media culture does not naturally allow a space for subtle or long-winded explanations.”[9]

 

Let this blogger retake the helm.  What seems to be at the heart of this state is the nature of the social sciences, not just economics. 

For one thing, as J. Robert Rossman and Mathew D. Duerden point out, each person is unique, and if a science sets out to explain why humans behave the way they do, the number of factors are basically overwhelming.[10]  Even at the group level of analysis, too many things – mostly unpredicted – come into play.

          Comparing economists to physicists and engineers, Banerjee and Duflo state, “Economists are more like plumbers; we solve problems with a combination of intuition grounded in science, some guesswork aided by experience, and a bunch of pure trial and error.”[11]  And they add, they, economists, get things wrong regularly.

          So, where does all this lack of certitude leave civics teachers or those counting on the social sciences to provide truth?  It leaves them, according to these economists, with a reality similar to how medicine leaves people; that is with good guesses based on factual claims that solicit enough faith to justify courses of action.

And that surely outperforms mere ungrounded intuition, random guesswork, or other forms of prognostication.  The next posting will add to this review of economic “truth” and how it can be better directed toward the needs of a federated citizenry.  With that, one would benefit by relying on social science findings, at least as one compares them to other sources of information.

---

[1] Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo, Good Economics for Hard Times (New York, NY:  Public Affairs, 2019), 1.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Robert Gutierrez, “Who to Trust,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics, accessed December 2, 2023, URL:  https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2021_02_14_archive.html.

[4] Banerjee and Duflo, Good Economics for Hard Times, 2.

[5] Ibid., 2-3.

[6] Ibid., 3.

[7] Ibid., 4.

[8] Ibid., 4-5.

[9] Ibid., 6.

[10] J. Robert Rossman and Mathew D. Duerden, Designing Experiences (New York, NY:  Columbia University Press, 2019).

[11] Banerjee and Duflo, Good Economics for Hard Times, 7.