Can we save the world via Just Proof?

[Strange]

 

So when a biologist sees three birds flying he measures in a quantifiable way three such objects and for the biologist constituting thus an objective scientific fact.

 

Yes, this is an objective measurement. (Whether it is recorded or not). Well done.

 

However, if he recorded the fact that they were "pretty" or "open minded" then that would be a subjective opinion. (Whether it is recorded or not).

[kristalris]

Pure nonsense: the flat screen is a display device. The measuring devices are gyroscopes and the like. And the 'content' of the display is much more granular than the simple digital offering you suggest.

Dear Ophiolite if you quote quote correctly: "Would you call the flat-screen in a plane depicting an instrument showing whether the plane is in level flight, going up or down a measuring device? Does it make one iota of difference that the same flat-screen shows a video shot of the plane relative to the horizon or that the information contained in that is transformed into an artificial horizon with a picture of a plane on it? Of course not. To all intent and purposes the video when turned on and brought into communication with the pilot can be seen as a measuring device to measure going up 1, staying level 1/2 going down 0. That in a real plane it is in reality done differently is beside the point. The question is CAN a video be used as such? YES it can. And it IS used in that way in biology:"

In misquoting me you make it appear as if I don't know that this is done differently. Even when I explicitly state that I know this you portray otherwise. Why is that? Could it be you simply can't register a thought experiment that I used? A thought experiment like Einstein made with a fantasy world thinking about how it would be when you travel at the speed of light and observe. There are people who can do this and people who have great difficulty in picturing anything else than what they perceive as reality. It is just like an inability to spot evident irony. Which as I've shown you can measure in a quantifiable way as shown with the kind help of Physica. Now you provide me the same kind courtesy. It is the inability to spot evident lateral openness.

Why is it that you didn't spot this evident thought experiment and took it as being an incorrect portrayal of an actual aircraft? You wanted like Physica to help me prove my point that you can in a quantifiable way and thus objectively measure openness this way? Or you wanted to in-justly portray my ignorance? For in this act you otherwise give me a LR > 1 of not having spotted a lateral way of thinking. Not that we can draw any conclusion on that towards you yet, if we would like to do that. The only thing I have to prove is that this form of openness can this way be objectively quantifiable and when videoed even high-tend inter-subjectivity and thus objectivity past an inter-subjective norm prove an objective scientific fact.

But I already went into that in my last post to Swansont, that I don't think you read before posting this one. Anyway many thanks..

 

Yes, this is an objective measurement. (Whether it is recorded or not). Well done.

 

However, if he recorded the fact that they were "pretty" or "open minded" then that would be a subjective opinion. (Whether it is recorded or not).

Well we're finally getting places then. So you accept that a subjective observation can count as an objective fact.

 

Well in the previous posts to Swansont and Ophiliote you see that you can measure and how you can measure openness in a quantifiable way and via registering even high-tend objective way.

 

Even "pretty" can be objectified in a quantifiable way. You survey and see what types of faces are for instance deemed pretty in what measure by what groups. These surveys are done all the time in behavioral sciences.

 

 

 

At the heart of intersubjectivity (no need for the hyphen BTW) is common-sense or a shared cultural influence, given that you have been talking psychology throughout this thread, which in terms of the OP would automatically mean it couldn’t work universally; unless of course you mean one of the, several, other definitions but no doubt you have one of your own.

 

Very good. The Big Five personality-traits have been found to be in multiple tests culturally independent. It probably thus is DNA based as I strongly feel it is, as I've stated earlier as well.) So no, your conclusion is wrong. It works all over the place for us humans.

Edited July 19, 2014 by kristalris

[dimreepr]

If the five factor model (FFM) is the basis for your premise, then your premise would be as flawed as this non-theory is.

 

A frequent criticism is that the Big Five is not based on any underlying theory; it is merely an empirical finding that certain descriptors cluster together under factor analysis. Although this does not mean that these five factors do not exist, the underlying causes behind them are unknown.

 

One common criticism is that the Big Five does not explain all of human personality. Some psychologists have dissented from the model precisely because they feel it neglects other domains of personality, such as religiosity, manipulativeness/machiavellianism, honesty, sexiness/seductiveness, thriftiness, conservativeness,masculinity/femininity, snobbishness/egotism, sense of humour, and risk-taking/thrill-seeking. Dan P. McAdams has called the Big Five a "psychology of the stranger," because they refer to traits that are relatively easy to observe in a stranger; other aspects of personality that are more privately held or more context-dependent are excluded from the Big Five.

In many studies, the five factors are not fully orthogonal to one another; that is, the five factors are not independent. Orthogonality is viewed as desirable by some researchers because it minimizes redundancy between the dimensions. This is particularly important when the goal of a study is to provide a comprehensive description of personality with as few variables as possible.

 

[Strange]

Well we're finally getting places then. So you accept that a subjective observation can count as an objective fact.

 

No. I said (again) the exact opposite of that. I know English is not your first language, but really...

 

 

Well in the previous posts to Swansont and Ophiliote you see that you can measure and how you can measure openness in a quantifiable way and via registering even high-tend objective way.

 

What units are you measuring "openness" in?

Edited July 19, 2014 by Strange

[Ophiolite]

Dear Ophiolite if you quote quote correctly:

Another example of your sloppy writing that is causing, it seems, participating members great difficulty in figuring out what you are trying to say. I puzzled for some time over what "quote quote" meant. Try punctuation in future, in this way: "Dear Ophiolite, if you quote, quote correctly:".

 

You claim my quote, of your words, is incorrect. Here is what I quoted - a copy and paste of the relevant element of your post.

 

"Would you call the flat-screen in a plane depicting an instrument showing whether the plane is in level flight, going up or down a measuring device? Does it make one iota of difference that the same flat-screen shows a video shot of the plane relative to the horizon or that the information contained in that is transformed into an artificial horizon with a picture of a plane on it? Of course not. To all intent and purposes the video when turned on and brought into communication with the pilot can be seen as a measuring device to measure going up 1, staying level 1/2 going down 0."

 

This is what you maintain is the correct version.

"Would you call the flat-screen in a plane depicting an instrument showing whether the plane is in level flight, going up or down a measuring device? Does it make one iota of difference that the same flat-screen shows a video shot of the plane relative to the horizon or that the information contained in that is transformed into an artificial horizon with a picture of a plane on it? Of course not. To all intent and purposes the video when turned on and brought into communication with the pilot can be seen as a measuring device to measure going up 1, staying level 1/2 going down 0. That in a real plane it is in reality done differently is beside the point. The question is CAN a video be used as such? YES it can. And it IS used in that way in biology:"

 

So your objection is, apparently, to my omission of an irrelevant part. I am objecting to your statement "Would you call the flat-screen in a plane depicting an instrument showing whether the plane is in level flight, going up or down a measuring device?"

 

The answer is a resounding no. There is no frigging way that you can call a display device a measuring device. I have been involved in instrumentation and display to a greater or lesser extent for over four decades, including specifying, selecting and operating such equipment, and I can assure you that display devices, such as the cockpit indicators, are not measuring devices.

 

When the output on such a display shows suspect data we do not declare "there is something wrong with the measuring device", we note "the display, the measuring device, the interconnectivty between the two, or the environment are producing an unusual reading".

 

Since you routinely misinterpret what others are saying, here is my point again. You are completely and utterly wrong to call a flat screen display in an aircraft a measuring device. It is not. Your position in this point is indefensible. It runs counter to accepted usage in a multitude of industries. You are wrong.

 

 

In misquoting me you make it appear as if I don't know that this is done differently. Even when I explicitly state that I know this you portray otherwise. Why is that? Could it be you simply can't register a thought experiment that I used?

I have not misquoted you. Understand clearly that a misquote would involve changing words, or omitting words within the body of the text. The only important sentence is your first one, which claims a display is a measuring device. That sentence is wrong.

 

Your thought experiment is invalidated by that. I routinely use thought experiments in my work. I sometimes indulge in them for amusement. I have no difficulty thinking in this way. Once again you are using snide little digs to imply that the reason so many of us are disagreeing with you is that we lack one or more aspects of intellect that you possess in abundance. And thereby you demonstrate that you have no bloody idea how to make a case, or persuade an audience. Astounding.

[kristalris]

Another example of your sloppy writing that is causing, it seems, participating members great difficulty in figuring out what you are trying to say. I puzzled for some time over what "quote quote" meant. Try punctuation in future, in this way: "Dear Ophiolite, if you quote, quote correctly:".

 

You claim my quote, of your words, is incorrect. Here is what I quoted - a copy and paste of the relevant element of your post.

 

"Would you call the flat-screen in a plane depicting an instrument showing whether the plane is in level flight, going up or down a measuring device? Does it make one iota of difference that the same flat-screen shows a video shot of the plane relative to the horizon or that the information contained in that is transformed into an artificial horizon with a picture of a plane on it? Of course not. To all intent and purposes the video when turned on and brought into communication with the pilot can be seen as a measuring device to measure going up 1, staying level 1/2 going down 0."

 

This is what you maintain is the correct version.

 

So your objection is, apparently, to my omission of an irrelevant part. I am objecting to your statement "Would you call the flat-screen in a plane depicting an instrument showing whether the plane is in level flight, going up or down a measuring device?"

 

The answer is a resounding no. There is no frigging way that you can call a display device a measuring device. I have been involved in instrumentation and display to a greater or lesser extent for over four decades, including specifying, selecting and operating such equipment, and I can assure you that display devices, such as the cockpit indicators, are not measuring devices.

 

When the output on such a display shows suspect data we do not declare "there is something wrong with the measuring device", we note "the display, the measuring device, the interconnectivty between the two, or the environment are producing an unusual reading".

 

Since you routinely misinterpret what others are saying, here is my point again. You are completely and utterly wrong to call a flat screen display in an aircraft a measuring device. It is not. Your position in this point is indefensible. It runs counter to accepted usage in a multitude of industries. You are wrong.

 

I have not misquoted you. Understand clearly that a misquote would involve changing words, or omitting words within the body of the text. The only important sentence is your first one, which claims a display is a measuring device. That sentence is wrong.

 

Your thought experiment is invalidated by that. I routinely use thought experiments in my work. I sometimes indulge in them for amusement. I have no difficulty thinking in this way. Once again you are using snide little digs to imply that the reason so many of us are disagreeing with you is that we lack one or more aspects of intellect that you possess in abundance. And thereby you demonstrate that you have no bloody idea how to make a case, or persuade an audience. Astounding.

Great you nitpick about punctuation, then use a correct way of defining how to misquote someone i.e. leave an important part out that has indeed happened, for I show here that I used a thought experiment, that you show not to portray reality, which is a given. I'm not saying that you can or can't do proper thought experiments. I'm saying you evidently missed one here, and I don't see any other explanation for that than that you indeed didn't see it. The simple consequence then logically is that this provides an LR on the point that we are discussing without any further conclusion to be drawn as to your ability when properly assessed on said personality trait.

 

It is not about you.

 

The ability to persuade others or an audience I actually do know quite a bit about, both in theory and practice yet how to sway an audience against current paradigm when the authority isn't as yet swayed is a by me as yet not discovered problem. But I guess you with your experience in that field do know? Let me guess, know your audience use their way of preferred reasoning in casu direct, keep their focus by following their paradigm and then in line with that make a slight alteration. As a main course of action. Something along those lines?

 

As for measurement equipment seeing you indulge in them: I have a pilot flying a plane with only three knobs: higher, same height, lower. The computer does the rest providing the pilot uses his mark 1 mod 1 eyeballs. Then the measurement equipment on proper definition are the eye balls that pass the information on to the brain and then to the three knobs? Now if I put the pilot in a cockpit with only a video screen portraying a little cross depicting the plane a line depicting the horizon coupled to a video-camera and a computer transforming the information into set information, then you would say what the pilot is using is not measurement equipment? And would your definition vary if the flat-screen simply shows what the camera shows? And if the latter is not a measurement device for height, well why not switch it off then? I'll tell you why you can't then switch the instrumentation off the reason is it measures your height in a quantifiable way: nose below horizon you are going down.

 

All the rest you said is immaterial how it actually works and how experienced you are..

osted Today, 09:38 AM

Quote

 

So when a biologist sees three birds flying he measures in a quantifiable way three such objects and for the biologist constituting thus an objective scientific fact.

 

Yes, this is an objective measurement. (Whether it is recorded or not). Well done.

 

End quote;

 

Now I'd call this pretty strange Strange that you here state that in English you are saying quite the opposite of what I say you said here: You state that a subject: a biologist does an objective measurement in observing three birds. It is a logic dictate that it is then at the same time both objective i.e. to be taken as fact and subjective i.e. done by a subject. Not so much command of the English language but logic is the problem then I guess.

 

 

No. I said (again) the exact opposite of that. I know English is not your first language, but really...

 

 

What units are you measuring "openness" in?

If the five factor model (FFM) is the basis for your premise, then your premise would be as flawed as this non-theory is.

 

Indeed, as I sated earlier I too find that the behavioral sciences overstate their position. I accept it as important rules of thumb that can because they are consistent with the rules of thumb in history and law can be taken as a fact as a basis for taking decisions on how to change a model given a need to change. Oh and BTW the model is stronger than you think and as in all soft sciences has its opponents. yet they have nothing better either, although they might claim that. This is the most widely held to be correct model available. (That BTW can elegantly explain the traits are claimed can not be. I'm working on that. Yet it don't need it for Just Proof.)

 

What do you propose ditch all of soft science? In favor of what? Don't you think you are over-asking if you demand an exact science before taking any decision?

[Strange]

What do you propose ditch all of soft science? In favor of what? Don't you think you are over-asking if you demand an exact science before taking any decision?

 

You are the one over-claiming by saying that these subjective judgements are objective.

 

As you didn't answer my question, I assume you don;t have an answer and you realise that it is not an objective measurement.

[kristalris]

 

You are the one over-claiming by saying that these subjective judgements are objective.

 

As you didn't answer my question, I assume you don;t have an answer and you realise that it is not an objective measurement.

Well so does then the Wikipedia page then overclaim. You simply have problems to comprehend that you can have more than one definition. Or stipulative definition. So most people agree with the way of defining it as Wikipedia does. Apart from that fact the more complex way as I also adhere to always works, yours only when you have a negligible fault rate. If that is the case there is no problem.

 

It is apart from that not a democratic principle. The way most people see it is simply the logically only correct way to see it. You et al strangely enough can't be made to understand that. Actually it is not so strange but still.

 

You say any measurable quantifiable registration-able something is objective. Anything that is not quantifiable in your opinion such as openness is not objective.

 

That is okay as long as you stay within the field where it applies. Yet you want to dictate its use all over the place even when it is illogical to do so.

 

Further more you et al make claims of the incorrectness of what I state yet don't bother to disprove my or prove yours. If you state position you must - even in science - prove position. I've done so on the appropriate norm. You haven't. And can't for your position is inherently illogical.

 

Again science is by humans for humans and humans are subjects and thus subjective per inescapable definition. To get an object of observation more objective can thus only be done inter-subjectively. Anything can be put into measurable numbers. This line of text is also put to numbers by the computer.

 

Whether or not there is added value to put certain observations such as opinions such as whether or not something is pretty, and to what degree it is thought to be pretty is a different question. But you can, and it is done all the time. Whether you agree with that or not. You can measure in a quantifiable way whether you are pretty Strange or not. Yet we need then a photo of you. You do that via a survey.

Edited July 19, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

 

Well in the previous posts to Swansont and Ophiliote you see that you can measure and how you can measure openness in a quantifiable way and via registering even high-tend objective way.

 

 

I missed where you did this. Lost in all of the gibberish I guess. Can you point to specifically where you explain how to quantify openness?

[kristalris]

 

I missed where you did this. Lost in all of the gibberish I guess. Can you point to specifically where you explain how to quantify openness?

#118 is a proof of measured lack of openness on relationship via the times of missing evident irony are quantified. It is a GPIP quantification.

 

The other is in mentioned previous posts in the quote you gave (reading the quote helps).

 

Mind, you lot want to quantify something that I don't find necessary at all. The actual underlying point is can one determine the correct judges for the team. Of course you can even without quantifying it. The only thing the simple fact that it is possible shows that you indeed can get the required team in order.

[kristalris]

Now just to recapitulate as to the OP and the event that took place where 298 of which 193 Dutch died and what that means in the sense that a great many Dutch actually know someone that knows one of more people on that plane. My wife works at university and saw and spoke to professor of law and senator Willem Witteveen the day before he died with wife and daughter leaving a son.

 

How does Just Proof deal with this as in part also an international law problem? Because the facts need yet to be established I'll assume as a thought experiment that they are indeed ultimately established the way that it looks that the facts are going to be found out. When was it known by whom that the separatists had missiles that could shoot down aircraft at the height of commercial aircraft? Any organisation / authority that had knowledge of this and didn't strive to close down the airspace should be held legally accountable. This for the future. You don't want this sort of price competition. You need to be able to trust the authorities to act on information and acquire such information. Of course the blithering baboon with a missile that ordered the button to be pressed, and didn't prevent checks that this could happen and had the possibility to do so yet didn't should also have swift justice administered in the form of a long jail sentence. Problem is alas in wars you always have these sort of apes pressing buttons.

 

Preventing wars is better than fighting them. The justice system is - per definition - the last stand before a fighting conflict. To be able to judge someone you must be able to understand all of humanity and not just only half or a part of humanity. Humanity is divided in people with and nearly without the survival trait humour. Humanity is also divided in half between people with and nearly without the survival trait irony. Humanity is also dived in half on the survival trait independent Ego (self) and the survival group (social) trait.

 

In order a legal system to judge, irony has it that the ones who don't like to judge, namely the ones with lateral humour and irony, yet have enough ego to dare take a decision in the full knowledge that it has a great chance of being wrong, yet needs to be taken, are the one's that are essential in the decision loop. Because they are the only ones who accept everybody as being normal as they are, with very little exceptions deemed indeed abnormal.

 

People without humour simply can't understand the ones with humour. People without irony simply can't understand the ones that do. You don't need a quasi opjective checklist with tests that makes it possible for a psychologist without humour to test in order to assess if the object of observation has humour. You let a psychologist of whom is known that he or she has a fast brain and lateral humour and irony assess that. Simple. Ultimately - even in science - it is about trust, more so than objectivity. The latter can be a lie if given by the untrustworthy.

 

The world needs in the long run if we want to survive on a goal of all having long and fulfilling lives the least infringing on that of others and during a crises creative lateral solutions (= need humour) in place that will be acceptable for all (=> irony). In this thread I've proven you can detect both easily if you poses both. At this moment the legal system together with the behavioral sciences are deeming this essential group for survival deficient and disorderly in the brain department. Proof DSMV => half the population become more and more the losers = choosers => democratic instability we observe more and more and that will predictably get far worse. This has got seriously out of hand. Remedy => Just Proof.

 

.

Edited July 20, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

#118 is a proof of measured lack of openness on relationship via the times of missing evident irony are quantified. It is a GPIP quantification.

It's nothing like a proof. At best it's a poor example, and it's about irony, not open-mindedness.

 

Further, it incorporates a problem similar to Poe's Law. Irony becomes less distinguishable when the author's communication is unclear and shows a pattern of disjointed reasoning; irony would then be seen as more of the same. There's another problem of trying to detect humor response in others — what if one's own sense of humor sucks, or the joke has a cultural context? Not laughing at a bad joke is not a sign of a deficient sense of humor.

 

 

GPIP?

 

 

The other is in mentioned previous posts in the quote you gave (reading the quote helps).

 

It helps less than you seem to expect.

 

Mind, you lot want to quantify something that I don't find necessary at all. The actual underlying point is can one determine the correct judges for the team. Of course you can even without quantifying it. The only thing the simple fact that it is possible shows that you indeed can get the required team in order.

If you can't present support for the assertion that the process is objective, perhaps you should not have claimed that the it is.

[dimreepr]

GPIP?

 

 

 

Genuinely perplexed in presentation?

Edited July 20, 2014 by dimreepr

[kristalris]

THE JUST PROOF CHESS MODEL OF THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS

 

In the photo I’ve attached you see a chessboard with small and large pieces. To my amazement I think I can actually model the Big Five personality traits on a chessboard this way.

The basis idea it is all Yin and Yang tension in the system. Like the biceps and the triceps of an arm.

 

You get thus either large/small King and large/small Queen: biceps-biceps ; triceps-triceps; triceps-biceps; biceps-triceps per chess piece. The white marker shows which choice nature at first in the choice of king and queen at birth has been taken, and this also has thus a slight preference as to the rest of the pieces. In the years up to the age usually of 24 years the personality is formed by interaction with other brains and the environment. Yet here you should see your self in an unsafe king environment as opposed to the safe environment. You can be a large rook in the unsafe yet a small one in a safe environment.

 

The pawns show the will power to turn the board and play the black pieces: i.e. the ability to act as someone else.

The model does not depict the memory yet does depict speed of brain represented by the clock. Also four possibilities 10% slow-slow; 40% slow- fast; 40% fast-slow; 10% fast-fast.

I assume the same sort of division can be made for the size of the memory.

It works as follows: large pieces is ego or self trait opposite and small is group or social trait side.

EGO right-wing politics 80% male <--> Social left wing politics 80% female

 

Openness BISHOP (lateral thought) <---------------> Narrow-minded bishop UNSAFE King-side

Narrow-minded BISHOP <--------------> Open-minded bishop (irony) SAFE Queen-side

Unfriendly KNIGHT <-----------------> Friendly knight

Introvert ROOK <----------------> Extrovert rook

Internal will PAWN <-----------------> External will pawn

 

For starters we now have thousands of combinations. Yet but a few major starters: if you are all ego then you are what pre DSMV would (incorrectly BTW) call a psychopath: in this model you are a fearless person. Who thinks himself God because there is no feeling available in order to guess what will happen when coming across a never observed animal say a bear. There is no imagination available that it could possibly be dangerous. God versus bear leaves the poor beast chance-less. When the bear is only a bit peckish and only rips the arm off the poor bugger then he will have only rationally learnt that bears might be dangerous. Had he not tripped it would have been alright. So second time round still fearless he gets his other arm ripped off. These people are great aids when trying as cavemen to get a bear out of his jacket. Yet not a good idea as we are doing now having them the CEO because they sink the ship for you and shortly after having well lined their pockets will leave the sinking ship. They are alas MN executioners. So beware. Shock and awe tactics don’t work for these 1% of the populace.

If you are born a Large KING you are 80% shore a male. Usually the rest of the settings will thus go to the ego side. However you are at the same-time also preset either small or big queen. If you are small queen in the nurture that ensues you are also prone to the small social side.

 

You thus have four (including the psychopath gorilla five) basic types in DSM6 everyone mad except < 1%: The four communication styles accompany the preferred styles.

 

The right-wing lateral humor chimpanzee the joker and fighter 9% logic / fear on stated goal

The left-wing irony humor bonobo the Napoleon leader actor / salesperson flirt-er 10% logic/fear on relation

The religious conscientious (= will power PAWN) Bokitio (gorilla) authoritative leader 10% logic/ fear loss of authority

The religious conscientious (= low on ego) humble baboon authority minded 70% of the populace.

 

Now you can thus be a chimpanzee in an unsafe situation yet having a well fitting bonobo suit in the safe side. Only under great stress can you see what you yourself are in fact deed down. Yet this can be tested or better said also assessed.

 

The will power makes it possible to play the other side. If you are pawn- pawn you need social pressure to do this. If you are PAWN –PAWN you have a great personal will power and do not need social pressure to do things that you don’t like. Will power is like that the board is on a turning table with either a strong spring small pawn or large spring large PAWN. Willpower is like a muscle it gets tired. You can’t play something you are not for very long. Actors of course are better at that than non actors.

 

Einstein was probably a fast –fast brain and non ironic yet lateral humour albeit he also had the social trait of friendliness. So immediately when you detect ironic humor you know even given a fast-fast brain it is not an Einstein because the other program takes up to much memory space.

 

And alertness then of the Big Five? Fighter traits come into play at a higher stress level (the fearless the highest of course) than flirter trait and that comes at a higher stress-optimum than freezers. The more ego the less scared because they simply don’t have the imagination to compute what could go wrong. So to stand guard you best have a freezer. Mind if the stress level rises to quickly you go over the optimum and become panicked. Even further you freeze up completely and can’t even flee in panic let alone withdraw.

 

Churchill was in this model a baboon chimpanzee so a sociable in the end fighter. When these are at wits end and start crying as Churchill did hearing that El Alamein was lost then the end is neigh. These are the good creative broadband guessers giving even under great stress a probable creative solution, yet only when balanced by a conscientious Alan Brook Bokito type who doesn't understand him and of course a friendly wife. With Churchill you measure lateral humor combined with ironic humor.

The chessboard BTW has a strong DNA touch to it, that religious people don’t like. BTW religious belief in authority doesn't necessarily also mean belief in God. Or the same authority.

 

Please comment, still work in progress.

 

Alas the image of the chessboard was to large to upload. It depicts as stated two sets of pieces large and small at the usual places. A white maker under either the large or the small one to indicate the choice.

It's nothing like a proof. At best it's a poor example, and it's about irony, not open-mindedness.

Further, it incorporates a problem similar to Poe's Law. Irony becomes less distinguishable when the author's communication is unclear and shows a pattern of disjointed reasoning; irony would then be seen as more of the same. There's another problem of trying to detect humor response in others — what if one's own sense of humor sucks, or the joke has a cultural context? Not laughing at a bad joke is not a sign of a deficient sense of humor.


GPIP?

 

 

There are four forms of culturally independent humour forms: lateral humour - ironic humour the combibation of the two and humourless on both. See my other post.

And no because GPIP is Guinea Pig in Pitfall: you want to maintain that the test was not evident irony?

I only need prove a possible LR > 1 on any trait and have very convincingly might I add done so.

The forms of humour have nothing to do with culture: out of the paradigm on goal orientated logic is in all cultures perceived as funny. What specifically is out of the box or paradigm is of course culturally dependent.

It could be the Guinea Pig didn't know about Shakespeare or so. Indeed. So you need to do the test within a cultural environment. Do you want to poise the position that the Gunea Pig in casu had cultural difficulties with Shakespeare? Anyway it shows it is possible to do so.

Why the link irony social? I'd say try and guess.

Openness is thus possible on lateral thought (=/= per se funny for survival trait Dolphins and predators are playful fighters that easily like humans for that very reason.

openness is also possible on being able to communicate and relate to all types of human, that requires the trait to act or lie = ironic saying one yet meaning the other. Survival trait lure in the prey come in here to mate and pounce. Nothing to do with culture.

And yes you can detect these traits......if you have them of course otherwise not.

Edited July 20, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

It could be the target just assumed you had made a nonsensical statement, and any irony was accidental. It's not like this is without precedent.

[kristalris]

It could be the target just assumed you had made a nonsensical statement, and any irony was accidental. It's not like this is without precedent.

Indeed, quite right. That is why I stated earlier that this target is irrelevant. Relevant to the OP is the fact that you can assess because you can look at the prior odds and do re-tests.

 

The only thing you can conclude is that this target is probably more of an Einstein than the maker of the test.

[Phi for All]

THE JUST PROOF CHESS MODEL OF THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS

 

In the photo I’ve attached you see a chessboard with small and large pieces. To my amazement I think I can actually model the Big Five personality traits on a chessboard this way.

The basis idea it is all Yin and Yang tension in the system. Like the biceps and the triceps of an arm.

 

You get thus either large/small King and large/small Queen: biceps-biceps ; triceps-triceps; triceps-biceps; biceps-triceps per chess piece. The white marker shows which choice nature at first in the choice of king and queen at birth has been taken, and this also has thus a slight preference as to the rest of the pieces. In the years up to the age usually of 24 years the personality is formed by interaction with other brains and the environment. Yet here you should see your self in an unsafe king environment as opposed to the safe environment. You can be a large rook in the unsafe yet a small one in a safe environment.

 

The pawns show the will power to turn the board and play the black pieces: i.e. the ability to act as someone else.

The model does not depict the memory yet does depict speed of brain represented by the clock. Also four possibilities 10% slow-slow; 40% slow- fast; 40% fast-slow; 10% fast-fast.

I assume the same sort of division can be made for the size of the memory.

It works as follows: large pieces is ego or self trait opposite and small is group or social trait side.

EGO right-wing politics 80% male <--> Social left wing politics 80% female

 

Openness BISHOP (lateral thought) <---------------> Narrow-minded bishop UNSAFE King-side

Narrow-minded BISHOP <--------------> Open-minded bishop (irony) SAFE Queen-side

Unfriendly KNIGHT <-----------------> Friendly knight

Introvert ROOK <----------------> Extrovert rook

Internal will PAWN <-----------------> External will pawn

 

For starters we now have thousands of combinations. Yet but a few major starters: if you are all ego then you are what pre DSMV would (incorrectly BTW) call a psychopath: in this model you are a fearless person. Who thinks himself God because there is no feeling available in order to guess what will happen when coming across a never observed animal say a bear. There is no imagination available that it could possibly be dangerous. God versus bear leaves the poor beast chance-less. When the bear is only a bit peckish and only rips the arm off the poor bugger then he will have only rationally learnt that bears might be dangerous. Had he not tripped it would have been alright. So second time round still fearless he gets his other arm ripped off. These people are great aids when trying as cavemen to get a bear out of his jacket. Yet not a good idea as we are doing now having them the CEO because they sink the ship for you and shortly after having well lined their pockets will leave the sinking ship. They are alas MN executioners. So beware. Shock and awe tactics don’t work for these 1% of the populace.

If you are born a Large KING you are 80% shore a male. Usually the rest of the settings will thus go to the ego side. However you are at the same-time also preset either small or big queen. If you are small queen in the nurture that ensues you are also prone to the small social side.

 

You thus have four (including the psychopath gorilla five) basic types in DSM6 everyone mad except < 1%: The four communication styles accompany the preferred styles.

 

The right-wing lateral humor chimpanzee the joker and fighter 9% logic / fear on stated goal

The left-wing irony humor bonobo the Napoleon leader actor / salesperson flirt-er 10% logic/fear on relation

The religious conscientious (= will power PAWN) Bokitio (gorilla) authoritative leader 10% logic/ fear loss of authority

The religious conscientious (= low on ego) humble baboon authority minded 70% of the populace.

 

Now you can thus be a chimpanzee in an unsafe situation yet having a well fitting bonobo suit in the safe side. Only under great stress can you see what you yourself are in fact deed down. Yet this can be tested or better said also assessed.

 

The will power makes it possible to play the other side. If you are pawn- pawn you need social pressure to do this. If you are PAWN –PAWN you have a great personal will power and do not need social pressure to do things that you don’t like. Will power is like that the board is on a turning table with either a strong spring small pawn or large spring large PAWN. Willpower is like a muscle it gets tired. You can’t play something you are not for very long. Actors of course are better at that than non actors.

 

Einstein was probably a fast –fast brain and non ironic yet lateral humour albeit he also had the social trait of friendliness. So immediately when you detect ironic humor you know even given a fast-fast brain it is not an Einstein because the other program takes up to much memory space.

 

And alertness then of the Big Five? Fighter traits come into play at a higher stress level (the fearless the highest of course) than flirter trait and that comes at a higher stress-optimum than freezers. The more ego the less scared because they simply don’t have the imagination to compute what could go wrong. So to stand guard you best have a freezer. Mind if the stress level rises to quickly you go over the optimum and become panicked. Even further you freeze up completely and can’t even flee in panic let alone withdraw.

 

Churchill was in this model a baboon chimpanzee so a sociable in the end fighter. When these are at wits end and start crying as Churchill did hearing that El Alamein was lost then the end is neigh. These are the good creative broadband guessers giving even under great stress a probable creative solution, yet only when balanced by a conscientious Alan Brook Bokito type who doesn't understand him and of course a friendly wife. With Churchill you measure lateral humor combined with ironic humor.

The chessboard BTW has a strong DNA touch to it, that religious people don’t like. BTW religious belief in authority doesn't necessarily also mean belief in God. Or the same authority.

 

Please comment, still work in progress.

 

Alas the image of the chessboard was to large to upload. It depicts as stated two sets of pieces large and small at the usual places. A white maker under either the large or the small one to indicate the choice.

There are four forms of culturally independent humour forms: lateral humour - ironic humour the combibation of the two and humourless on both. See my other post.

 

And no because GPIP is Guinea Pig in Pitfall: you want to maintain that the test was not evident irony?

 

I only need prove a possible LR > 1 on any trait and have very convincingly might I add done so.

 

The forms of humour have nothing to do with culture: out of the paradigm on goal orientated logic is in all cultures perceived as funny. What specifically is out of the box or paradigm is of course culturally dependent.

 

It could be the Guinea Pig didn't know about Shakespeare or so. Indeed. So you need to do the test within a cultural environment. Do you want to poise the position that the Gunea Pig in casu had cultural difficulties with Shakespeare? Anyway it shows it is possible to do so.

 

Why the link irony social? I'd say try and guess.

 

Openness is thus possible on lateral thought (=/= per se funny for survival trait Dolphins and predators are playful fighters that easily like humans for that very reason.

 

openness is also possible on being able to communicate and relate to all types of human, that requires the trait to act or lie = ironic saying one yet meaning the other. Survival trait lure in the prey come in here to mate and pounce. Nothing to do with culture.

 

And yes you can detect these traits......if you have them of course otherwise not.

 

!

Moderator Note

When you don't give anyone enough evidence to form a judgement, and also continue to insist what you're saying will work, you're just preaching your opinion with no intent to listen to anyone's input. You were asked to support your stance with more than just hand-waviness and soapboxing so we don't end up with a discussion that goes nowhere meaningful. That hasn't happened so we're going to move on now.

 

Thread closed.