| Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments |
|
=, <>, & . . . (Free verse) by Dovina . <> . . .
. = end
. . . = etcetera
; <> ./,
; = interrupt
./, = 2.
? <> â
? = open
â = answered
& <> %
& = more to come
% = part
; â & â¦
Up the ladder:
a new notch
Down the ladder:
where i end and crysta begins
Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
Arithmetic Mean: 4.6
Posted: March 1, 2006 10:43 PM PST; Last modified: March 1, 2006 10:43 PM PSTWeighted score: 4.9523187 Overall Rank: 8948 Comments:
[n/a]
Ranger @ 62.252.32.15
|
2-Mar-06/4:28 AM
|
Reply
I thought this was going to be a poem about <~> at first...
hmmmm....you say you don't get my poem...(I feel guilty scoring this...did you really want us to?
Actually, yes. Admittedly it's weird, but for me it has meaning.
What about the rest of us, or are you just talking to yourself.
Titties.
Give yourself some more harsh criticism. But thanks for the 10, I need a lotta help here.
I do but then afterwards I feel sad. So can you guess what I think of to make me happy again? If you guess right I'll 10 your next poem too.
I can, but I won't say. We have impressionable children here who could be led into sin. My next poem is entitled "The Private Life of an Alchemist."
But what about the children? Are you really planning on tainting their pure little eyes with such scandelous pornography or are you just going to talk about him eating a bologna sandwich and watching Tom and Jerry cartoons?
Oh well, it was a stab in the dark, so to speak.
3===>---<splat!
Very profound. We could carry on a long conversation like this.
At least one of average length.
You laughed, admit it.
No match for Bobjim's ascii submissions, I'm afraid.
A new movement in philosophy, called Experimental Philosophy or x-phi, seeks to test so-called fundamental intuitions (ie, "common sense") against real people's intuitions. That is, to remove philosophy from its remove from the real world.
For example, it's commonly held that moral responsibility requires free will. If you're forced to kill someone against your will, it's not your fault, right? X-phi researchers decided to test that against real data. They presented the following scenario to two groups: Bill and his wife are flying home from vacation with their friend Frank, who is having an affair with Bill's wife. Bill knows about this. Kidnappers inject Bill with a drug that forces him to obey orders, then tell him to shoot Frank in the head. He does. The first group is told that Bill has long wanted Frank dead, on account of the affair, and grieves very little. The second group is told that Bill hates what he's done. According to traditional philosophy, Bill is not responsible for Frank's death; but in the x-phi study, the first group said that Bill DID deserve the blame for the killing; the second group said he didn't. In another example, UNC-CH students were asked the following questions: If a businessman interested only in profits knowingly harms the environment, should we say he did so intentionally? What if he knowingly HELPS the environment? The students said yes to the first question, no to the second. In another example having to do with intentionality, a man tries to shoot his aunt, misfires, but somehow gets lucky and hits her anyway. Most people say he killed her intentionally, even though he didn't really have the skill to. It's enough that he wanted to. The argument against x-phi is that respondents may be deciding based on the language of the questions, rather than the philosophical principles involved. 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: - If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. - If Program B is adopted, there is 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved, and 2/3 probability that no people will be saved. Which of the two programs would you favor? 2. In the same Asian-disease scenario as the previous question's, two different programs are proposed: - If Program C is adopted 400 people will die. - If Program D is adopted there is 1/3 probability that nobody will die, and 2/3 probability that 600 people will die. Which of THESE two programs would you favor?
1A because with only me and 199 of my friends left in the US, admit it, the country would be a lot better off.
And for the second part? C or D?
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.
Don't be silly.
Interesting, you say, "Don't be silly" rather than, "Don't act silly." It's like saying "Don't be woman." Surgery is available for curing womanhood, but nothing cures sillyness.
I believe if you had anything relevant to say about the question, you'd have said it already, so I'll just state the obvious. The two questions are the same, Program A IS Program C, Program B is Program D. The test was meant to - and did - show that presentation affects people's answers to hypothetical (or real) questions, even questions which, by their mathematical, logical nature, would not seem to be affected. Most subjects answered "A" to question 1 but "D" to question 2. However cannily you think you've answered, you did the same thing.
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.
I don't either.
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.
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.
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.
Original condition: âImagine that the US is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people.â This condition is not stated in any of the âprograms.â It is therefore outside information.
Revised condition: âProgram D stands to kill everybody.â 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.
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.
For my original answer, I chose to ignore the opening statement âImagine that the US is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people.â In doing so, I thought you might recognize the fault in the wording of Program 1A. My answer: â1A because with only me and 199 of my friends left in the US, admit it, the country would be a lot better off.â 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: âThat 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.â The whole thing is about wording, and you have bungled it.
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:"
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?
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.
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?
I have answered all of them!
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.
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!
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.
Thank you for noticing.
Skimming through this thread gave me a headache.
By A do you mean "200 people will be saved, and 400 will die"? Perhaps I'm nitpicking, but suppose I save 600 people with program X. It's still the case that program X saved 200 people (it's just that it saved some more that aren't mentioned). Do you see my point? The same thing holds for C. Presumably it's meant to say "If C is adopted 400 people will die, and 200 will be saved" Given that natural interpretation, I'd choose A (equivalently C) because A and B have the same expected lives saved, but B has higher volatility. A has 0 volatility. A Gentleman does not play dice with the universe.
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. ;)
It is psychology because it measures behaviour.
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.
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.
Too late. Have you seen Breaking Bonaduce?
Check out the "Hey Doc..." clip. http://www.vh1.com/search/search.jhtml?s
"Sophie's Choice" was different. She had congenital twins joined at the head. She had to mark one of them to die or they would both perish. That's more than a question about words, it's about real issues. I enjoy solving puzzles and dancing around them when I think they are silly, but Sophie's choice was different.
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.
'I enjoy solving puzzles and dancing around them when I think they are silly,'
In der Dummheit ist eine Zuversicht.
In stupidity is confidence, and in silly puzzles is stupidity.
Funny, I don't remember the 2 girls being conjoined let alone twins.
-and Sophie's Choice has become a widely used term for any no win, tragic decision that must be made.
I found several "Sophie's Choice"'s listed. This one struck me as bleak contrast to the puzzle above.
http://www.parkridgecenter.org/Page473.h
So you haven't actually read the book or seen the film "Sophie's Choice"?
To AlChemy: I heard awhile ago they're remaking the movie version.
So have I but in the book she's described as quite beautiful so I'd guess Angelina Jolie will be playing her. Someone suggested Meryl Streep once but she's way too haggish.
To quibble with your whimsy:
A full stop (period) isn't always a real end. As often, something related follows. Ellipses indicate a different type of omission than does etcetera (the latter is "more of the same"; the former just indicates something was taken away). A semicolon is more often used in place of a conjunction than as an interruption; it's a link between two close elements. Dashes don't always indicate answers--sometimes they're interruptions.
It can certainly be quibbled with on several fronts.
Dovina, you'd better translate this stuff or might be tempted to vote a -0- or a -1-. By the way how's life treating you. I can see you've gone bonkers from what you've written. Looks good though, if only I could decipher it. you should have made it more like morse code. would have been more interesting .
Bonkers perhaps. But would you vote 0 or 1 because is appears mumbo jumbo or because you don't like it?
It amuses me...... but I can't understand it, that's why.
i would vote this a ~`&* but that option isnt available so a 7 will have to suffice.
302 view(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
