Re: a comment on There by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	3-Mar-06/4:44 PM
Did you know that the savior you pray to is really a Greek/Roman god called Mithra or Mithras. In case I forget next Dec.25, Merry Mithras' Birthday Dovina.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	zodiac 209.193.14.140	3-Mar-06/4:35 PM
You're right, it IS a little harsh to ask people to imagine killing or saving people. And psychology should be stopped at this early stage, before it goes too far.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	3-Mar-06/4:32 PM
Zodiac, this is almost Sophie's Choice question and it's unhealthy for Americans to think like this(as if we only have two choices). It stifles creativity and leaves us a system where people have to have there answers offered to them. Next thing you know we'll be stuck only voting between two different parties. Oh shit, too late. My forced choice would say little about my psychology and more about the mood I happen to be in. Psychology is still in it's early to mid stages and should not be taken too seriously at it's present point. Personally, I say we nuke Asia before the flu gets here.
Re: a comment on Harp Song of the Prawne Men by -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.	zodiac 209.193.14.140	3-Mar-06/4:30 PM
If it's not about Asian virus cures, we're not having it today.
Re: a comment on Harp Song of the Prawne Men by -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 86.135.203.170	3-Mar-06/4:24 PM
No, but I can opine at length about the dangers of Islamofascism, and about how the dogs who printed those cartoons should be hunted down and punished for their crimes.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	Dovina 69.175.32.104	3-Mar-06/3:17 PM
Thank you for noticing.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	zodiac 209.193.14.140	3-Mar-06/3:14 PM
I repeat: This is the most highly-regarded study of its kind ever. It has been analyzed thoroughly by everyone who's ever studied psychology, philosophy, or language, ever. The only person to EVER present the objection that the question's language is inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise lacking, is YOU, Dovina. And, in my opinion, you have not shown yourself to be especially skilled at language. For example, "worsely" is simply an absurd way of talking. So pardon me for not buying it.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	ecargo 167.219.88.140	3-Mar-06/3:08 PM
Pardon me for jumping in, but it's a PHILOSOPHY experiment (according to the text of the original question), isn't it? Not psychology. Ummm, also, I do feel compelled to point out that Programs A, B, C, and D do not refer to the statements made in the bullet points under scenarios 1 and 2. They are the actual (if theoretical) programs/solutions to the problem (Asian flu)--the goop in the vials--NOT the data provided about the effects of said goop. All the necessary information was provided in the logic problem. Do carry on. And have nice weekends. ;)
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	Dovina 69.175.32.104	3-Mar-06/3:07 PM
No, I think the introduction is inaccurately worded, leaving too many ambiguities. And the four programs are worsely worded. We are talking solely about accuracy of language here, and this example is a travesty!
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	zodiac 209.193.14.140	3-Mar-06/3:04 PM
I re-state: If you ignored the introductory part about how the Asian virus is expected to kill 600 people, what exactly did you think you were talking about? It seems you must have seen two programs listed, without any context (or with a context you ignored), and JUST DECIDED TO PICK ONE FOR NO SENSIBLE REASON??? That's ludicrous. I don't believe it even of you.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	Dovina 69.175.32.104	3-Mar-06/3:00 PM
I have answered all of them!
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	zodiac 209.193.14.140	3-Mar-06/2:58 PM
It's exactly the estimate. It's not like the estimate was 399 dead, and the person making up the question decided to say 400 because - well, just because. The PSYCHOLOGY experiment was made to test people's uses of LOGIC. Ergo, a psychology experiment that uses logic questions. Um, it happens all the time, because people understand things a lot better than you. Otherwise psychology experiments would be limited to asking people "so, what's your psychology?" Needless to say, this has nothing to do with any of your previous objections. Can I assume that you've given all those up? Can I assume that you're eventually going to answer some question or point I've made?
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	Dovina 69.175.32.104	3-Mar-06/2:54 PM
First, "exact scientific estimates" is either exact or it is an estimate, but not both. Second, a "psychology experiment" is not a logic experiment, which was the subject to begin with.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	zodiac 209.193.14.140	3-Mar-06/2:48 PM
And this, which came AFTER the part you supposedly "answered". "2. In the same Asian-disease scenario as the previous question's, two different programs are proposed:" What exactly did you think you WERE talking about, then?
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	zodiac 209.193.14.140	3-Mar-06/2:47 PM
Oh, right. That's the sensible thing to have done. So what did you think this whole part was about? "For example, here's a psychology experiment you can try yourself. 1. Imagine that the US is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the programs are as follows:"
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	Dovina 69.175.32.104	3-Mar-06/2:44 PM
For my original answer, I chose to ignore the opening statement “Imagine that the US is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people.” In doing so, I thought you might recognize the fault in the wording of Program 1A. My answer: “1A because with only me and 199 of my friends left in the US, admit it, the country would be a lot better off.” I thought just maybe my flippant answer would stir some doubt concerning this whole silly scenario. For my second answer, I decided to rely on that outside information and to add other outside information, forming another silly answer: “That depends only upon who gave the most to my campaign fund or who would make me look better. I am an elected leader, else I would not be making the choice.” The whole thing is about wording, and you have bungled it.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	zodiac 209.193.14.140	3-Mar-06/2:35 PM
Are you insane? For one, "Imagine that the US is blah blah blah" is part of the frigging question. It is a condition of all of the following options, or, one, I wouldn't have bothered typing it, and two, the options wouldn't make any fucking sense. You couldn't have even sensibly bothered to pick "1A" if you didn't actually think so, unless you're a clod and just like typing "1A" in response to things. You clearly understood that Asian flu being expected to kill 600 people was a condition of the question then, and now you're just refusing to admit your mistake (which is what you constantly accuse me of doing, except I don't.) For another, the original wording was and is "If Program D is adopted there is 1/3 probability that nobody will die, and 2/3 probability that 600 people will die." So, yes, Program D stands to kill everybody. That is, there's the possibility that everyone will die if Program D is enacted. That's what "stands" means everywhere except Dovina Nonsense Land. For another, I didn't even word the question. I typed it directly from a textbook on the study. At the very least, it worked for the study, and worked well enough for the study to become the most famous and highly-regarded example of its kind. I should point out that while you, Dovina, have objections, you are not the most famous or highly-regarded of anything.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	Dovina 69.175.32.104	3-Mar-06/2:21 PM
Original condition: “Imagine that the US is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people.” This condition is not stated in any of the “programs.” It is therefore outside information. Revised condition: “Program D stands to kill everybody.” This condition is contrary to the wording of Program D. I matters not how much gogeldygoop you give as introduction. It matters how the statements, A,B,C, and D are worded. Otherwise the questionee can google up any sort of bunk, or dream it up as I did, and call it appropriate.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	zodiac 209.193.14.140	3-Mar-06/2:11 PM
There ARE no outside conditions, not even that there are however-many people in the US. What the hell does that even have to do with anything? The conditions are and have always been: Program A: out of the 600 affected, 200 will be saved. Program B: out of the 600 affected, there is 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved, and 2/3 probability that no people will be saved. Program C: out of the 600 affected, 400 will die. Program D: out of the 600 affected, there is a 1/3 possibility that nobody will die, and a 2/3 possibility that everyone will. How do I know this? Because I can read and you can't. Extraordinary outside conditions didn't occur to anyone else in the study, because the information necessary for the decision is GLARINGLY OBVIOUS to even the simpleminded (even if the "trick" isn't.) So once again: if you'd had any real clue what was going on, you would have chosen either C or D when first asked. That you didn't, and that you continue to "accuse" me of subject-changing and high-minded self-righteousness, is - well, is simply sad.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	Dovina 69.175.32.104	3-Mar-06/1:50 PM
You have changed the problem (changed the subject again) when you say that everyone could be killed. Originally you said that only 600 people will get the disease, out of 250,000,000 +/- in the US. This whole scenario is bunk, because your four programs do not state the conditions, forcing the questionee to rely on outside information. If this is an exercize in the accurate use of language, as you say it is, then you fail.