Re: a comment on There by Dovina	6-Mar-06/12:26 PM
Take a coin. It'll improve your chances. If you think you can "do a fake-out" by not taking a coin, you deserve to be punished.
Re: a comment on There by Dovina	5-Mar-06/8:33 AM
If you don't imagine that Bible at least Jesus is telling the truth in the Bible, what can you imagine?
Re: a comment on goddess of the harvest by calliope	4-Mar-06/4:46 PM
Um, mythologically. Her 9-month return to earth from Hades corresponds with the growing season. And Demeter is also a harvest-goddess.
Re: a comment on There by Dovina	4-Mar-06/3:10 PM
AlChemy must mean the rule that Jesus has to let certain people (the poor, the good thief, etc.) into heaven, and the rule to make weepers and mourners laugh - which, as far as we know, -=YAHWEH=- has kept. It's possible he meant the Covenant with Israel too, but I think Jesus had veto power on that.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	4-Mar-06/9:54 AM
To AlChemy: I heard awhile ago they're remaking the movie version.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	4-Mar-06/9:53 AM
So you haven't actually read the book or seen the film "Sophie's Choice"?
Re: a comment on Harp Song of the Prawne Men by -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.	4-Mar-06/9:23 AM
Done. I'd be interested in seeing the math for this, if there is any.
Re: a comment on Harp Song of the Prawne Men by -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.	3-Mar-06/10:56 PM
I had to try this the ten most difficult ways before it occured to me to try my first idea, which of course was the simplest one and correct. I'm happy to say I haven't forgot enough maths that 90 & 10 didn't immediately suggest themselves.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	3-Mar-06/5:39 PM
You don't think making a choice between a small certain reward and a large uncertain reward is "about real issues"? Try telling that to an Iraqi.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	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 Harp Song of the Prawne Men by -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.	3-Mar-06/4:30 PM
If it's not about Asian virus cures, we're not having it today.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	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	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	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	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	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	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	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	3-Mar-06/1:15 PM
For what it's worth, "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" is full of holes. You are given no assurance that your biggest contributors are the ones saved. If you mean you'd pick the program that gave the most to your campaign, well, either choice stands to be criticized a great deal, and Program D stands to kill everybody, so are you really doing them such a favor? Moreover, there are any number of ways you could be faced with this choice without being elected leader. One that comes immediately to mind is that you're an appointed leader, like the head of FEMA or CDC. Or you could be the head of a pharmaceutical corporation that only has time to produce one of two possible medicines in the time remaining. Or you, Dovina, could find yourself in an abandoned laboratory. You see two separate glass containers. A note taped nearby says: "These containers can only be opened by a gunshot. Opening the container to the right will release Drug C, which will certainly allow 400 of the 600 people affected by the Asian virus to die but save the other 200. Opening the container to the left will release Drug D, after which there is a proven 1/3 chance that nobody affected by the virus will die, but a 2/3 chance that everybody affected will die." There is a gun lying nearby with only one bullet. You have no other gun with you. Nor, according to a separate, attached note, is there enough time to get one or find other people. Therefore, you have to decide to either shoot the container to the right or the container to the left. You must assume all of this is true. Certainly, you will agree that this is at least POSSIBLE, and that your comment above is, therefore, bunk.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	3-Mar-06/10:50 AM
And I don't know why I bother posting hypothetical questions (ie, questions which presume that all the information relevant to the answer are included in the question itself), when you're just going to grab all your "hotels" off Mediterranean Avenue and cram them in your mouth, anyway.