If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Geographic)   New discovery reveals Noah's first steps off of the Ark over 6,000 years ago   (news.nationalgeographic.com) divider line 268
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

9244 clicks; posted to Geek » on 27 Feb 2009 at 5:09 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



268 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-02-27 09:24:13 PM
ninjakirby: Do you really mean that? All sins are of equal value? Really?

in the sense of when one dies and stands before the judgement seat and it is determined that one has sin. they go to hell, if they do not they go to heaven.

now let us consider your concern of BIG sins and little sins. if one person X is guilty of the little tiny sin of stealing (just that one tiny teeny little time) and they stand before judgement and go to hell, then another person Y who has committed a brazillion rapes-murders-lies, and they stand before the judgement seat and go to hell, then it would seem that the actions of X and Y result in the same consequence and therefore can be considered "equal"

perhaps you are concerned that Y's hell is far hotter than X's (which I believe is a Catholic concept) but I would ask, does it really matter at this point? would you feel more comfort in the "nice" part of hell? I don't know about such things nor have given them much thought.

ninjakirby: if you're going to use terms like bias, use them correctly

if I am able to detect such evidence I will surely change my language. if it helps I can certainly provide you with some counter-examples. Gilruiz1 and abb3w are superb examples of persons that speak with microscopic levels of bias.

and I'm even using an electron microscope...
 
2009-02-27 09:33:01 PM
ninjakirby: Is it morally permissible for Oscar to throw the switch?

it is not moral to choose one sin because it "seems" less than the other, the moral choice he has is to do anything within his ability to prevent the train from reaching either destination, perhaps he could halfway switch the tracks preventing the train from reaching either side, etc... otherwise if he failed and the train still makes it to one or other side (which he was not responsible for in the first place) but he felt guilty that he could not prevent it, he could still ask forgiveness (whether or not it was actually needed)

ninjakirby: Flip the switch to the right [ ]
Flip the switch to the left [ ]
Do nothing [ ]


yay this one is easy, he could (a) yell to the one person to get off the track, wait until it was clear and then flip right or (b) repeat same steps to group of 5 then do nothing.

/i have a feeling you are going to change the parameters
// :P
 
2009-02-27 09:41:27 PM
I drunk what: ninjakirby: Do you really mean that? All sins are of equal value? Really?

in the sense of when one dies and stands before the judgement seat and it is determined that one has sin. they go to hell, if they do not they go to heaven.

now let us consider your concern of BIG sins and little sins. if one person X is guilty of the little tiny sin of stealing (just that one tiny teeny little time) and they stand before judgement and go to hell, then another person Y who has committed a brazillion rapes-murders-lies, and they stand before the judgement seat and go to hell, then it would seem that the actions of X and Y result in the same consequence and therefore can be considered "equal"

perhaps you are concerned that Y's hell is far hotter than X's (which I believe is a Catholic concept) but I would ask, does it really matter at this point? would you feel more comfort in the "nice" part of hell? I don't know about such things nor have given them much thought.


It's mystifying why you think this kind of clearly unjust scapegoat system is actually 'true', and yet simultaneously claim to believe in absolute morality. The mental convolutions and rationalizations necessary to simultaneously hold both positions are extreme.

ninjakirby: if you're going to use terms like bias, use them correctly

if I am able to detect such evidence I will surely change my language. if it helps I can certainly provide you with some counter-examples. Gilruiz1 and abb3w are superb examples of persons that speak with microscopic levels of bias.

and I'm even using an electron microscope...


And you are entirely wrong. abb3w and GilRuiz1 both have biases. In abb3w's case, he knows fairly well what those biases are, and doesn't dispute their existence. He knows he's biased towards logic and reason and math, as opposed to intuition or mysticism.

GilRuiz1 also has biases which he acknowledges, but they are much closer to your own, and also require a great deal of rationalization to reconcile with reason. For instance, he also likes to play the 'miracles were ok then, but not now' game, which is a form of rationalization and requires selective ignoring of certain precepts of logic and reason.

I also have biases. I am biased in favor of reason, and against irrationality. I'm also very much for honesty, and humility before the universe, but also against dishonest argument and trickery used to present false conclusions as true. I'm for acceptance of doubt, and uncertainty. I'm against believing confortable untruths. There are more, of course, as there are for everyone.

Your biggest bias is that you already think you know the answer, and so have stopped questioning, except for seeking for ideas that confirm what you already believe.

Let me show you something. Look at this image:

upload.wikimedia.org

If I tell you that the rule is all cards with an even number on them have to have red backs, which two cards do you flip over to check if this is true?

(Yes, there is a point to this.)
 
2009-02-27 09:47:50 PM
I drunk what: ninjakirby: Is it morally permissible for Oscar to throw the switch?

it is not moral to choose one sin because it "seems" less than the other, the moral choice he has is to do anything within his ability to prevent the train from reaching either destination, perhaps he could halfway switch the tracks preventing the train from reaching either side, etc... otherwise if he failed and the train still makes it to one or other side (which he was not responsible for in the first place) but he felt guilty that he could not prevent it, he could still ask forgiveness (whether or not it was actually needed)

ninjakirby: Flip the switch to the right [ ]
Flip the switch to the left [ ]
Do nothing [ ]

yay this one is easy, he could (a) yell to the one person to get off the track, wait until it was clear and then flip right or (b) repeat same steps to group of 5 then do nothing.

/i have a feeling you are going to change the parameters
// :P


Bzzt, I call foul, two counts of ducking the question.

Your only options are as presented, for whatever combination of reasons you care to mention or invent, no other options are possible. We are not children playing make-believe, ninjakirby is posing you a serious moral dilemma. Answer the question as posed, you don't get to change it because you don't like it. You do not get to describe what other things he may or may not do, or what you may or may not do. You only get to decide which if any choice of action of those posed is moral or not.
 
2009-02-27 09:49:01 PM
KiltedBastich: which two cards do you flip over to check if this is true?

is the fourth card orange?
 
2009-02-27 09:54:36 PM
KiltedBastich: You do not get to describe what other things he may or may not do, or what you may or may not do.

and this relates to real life how?

KiltedBastich: You only get to decide which if any choice of action of those posed is moral or not.

I believe I have answered his question.

I drunk what: it is not moral to choose one sin because it "seems" less than the other

but for those who perhaps are asking another question:

"which of these is a lesser evil?" I would guess that one death is less than 5, though I'd need to have the knowledge of God in order to make an informed decision, it could be shiatlers vs. 1 mother teresa (who nj loves)
 
2009-02-27 09:56:21 PM
I drunk what: is the fourth card orange?

F5

F5

F5
 
2009-02-27 10:00:45 PM
KiltedBastich: which two cards do you flip over to check if this is true?

i got tired of waiting so now I have to ASSUME the 4th card is red (though it appears orange on my computer)

my answer is : the first two cards "3" "8"
 
2009-02-27 10:03:33 PM
I drunk what: t could be shiatlers vs. 1 mother teresa (who nj loves)

LOLERSAURUS , stupid fark filters....

that would be "5" F I V E .... "leader of the nazi party" first name A d 0 L ..f.. [plural]
 
2009-02-27 10:13:26 PM
I drunk what: KiltedBastich: which two cards do you flip over to check if this is true?

i got tired of waiting so now I have to ASSUME the 4th card is red (though it appears orange on my computer)

my answer is : the first two cards "3" "8"


Err, no, the third card is red, the fourth brown. Are you perchance red green deficient? I'll give you time to think about it again.
 
2009-02-27 10:21:10 PM
then I'm stuck because I need to flip 3 8 and brown
 
2009-02-27 10:21:58 PM
lol whoops no i don't nix the brown
 
2009-02-27 10:22:55 PM
3 8
 
2009-02-27 10:23:28 PM
Additionally, I drunk what, you did not answer the questions within the parameters established by the question. At that point, you stepped away from serious discussion and into childish cowboys and indians make believe land, except that instead of "Bang, you're dead! No I'm not! Yes you are", you went with "I'll save them all because I don't choosing!"

That's ducking the question. You did not take the question seriously, and instead gave a childish wishful-thinking answer, where nothing bad is allowed to happen because you don't want it to happen.

"Make it not be that way" is not a valid response.

Now, if you want either ninjakirby or I to take you at all seriously, answer the questions as posed, one at a time.

For that matter, you could pose some serious questions to FloydA about all this stuff you are pooh-poohing as flawed and fallible instead of ignoring it again, like always.

/not holding my breath
 
2009-02-27 10:25:32 PM
KiltedBastich: (Yes, there is a point to this.)

which is?
 
2009-02-27 10:27:02 PM
I drunk what: 3 8

Well, then the situation is worse than I thought. I'll restate the question, in writing.

You have four cards on a table. One shows a '3', another an '8', another is red, the last is brown.

You are told that the rule is that all cards with an even number on one side must be red on the other side.

Which two cards do you flip to determine if the rule has been violated?
 
2009-02-27 10:29:25 PM
KiltedBastich: If I tell you that the rule is all cards with an even number on them have to have red backs, which two cards do you flip over to check if this is true?

I drunk what: 3 8

Why would you flip the 3? It's not an even numbered card.

Flip the 8 and the brown to establish that 8 has a red back and that brown doesn't have an even number on it.

Who cares about what colour the others are. Doesn't mean the odd coloured cards can't have red backs too...
 
2009-02-27 10:29:45 PM
KiltedBastich: I drunk what: 3 8

ok let me try to restate in writing.

I would choose-flip the first card (which shows a '3') and the second card (which shows an '8').

was this the way you wanted me to answer [in writing]
 
2009-02-27 10:31:03 PM
Flip brown and 8..that seems best.
 
2009-02-27 10:32:13 PM
jekxrb: Who cares about what colour the others are. Doesn't mean the odd coloured cards can't have red backs too...

perhaps you have x-ray goggles, but i do not

so pleez use ur x-ray eyes to see if the '3' card has an even number on the back

/my goggles
//they do nothing!
 
2009-02-27 10:38:51 PM
ThatFoolMatt: Flip brown and 8..that seems best.

yeah i was thinkin that
I drunk what: then I'm stuck because I need to flip 3 8 and brown

but then he said only 2 so, I think it's a trap!

let me ask my pal
www.fivedigits.net

yep he concurs
 
2009-02-27 10:41:08 PM
jekxrb: KiltedBastich: If I tell you that the rule is all cards with an even number on them have to have red backs, which two cards do you flip over to check if this is true?

I drunk what: 3 8

Why would you flip the 3? It's not an even numbered card.

Flip the 8 and the brown to establish that 8 has a red back and that brown doesn't have an even number on it.

Who cares about what colour the others are. Doesn't mean the odd coloured cards can't have red backs too...


This right here is the correct response.

I drunk what: KiltedBastich: I drunk what: 3 8

ok let me try to restate in writing.

I would choose-flip the first card (which shows a '3') and the second card (which shows an '8').

was this the way you wanted me to answer [in writing]


This is some severely muddled thinking.

This is also known as the 'P or not-Q' logic problem. It's a test used in psychology to check for the prevalence of something called the confirmation bias.

You see, the most common incorrect response is that people check the '8' card and the red card. Why? Because they want to check that the rule is confirmed. This is a correct response for the 8, but not for the red card, because the rule says nothing about what might be on the back of a card with an odd number. They might have red backs too. All you know is that an even card must have a red back - which means that you should check the brown card, because if it has an even number, then the rule is violated. I.e. you don't check for confirmation, you check for disconfirmation.

By the way, this kind of logic is a major facet of the scientific method, though not the only one by a long shot.

The sad part is, I drunk what, you did considerably worse than average. You picked an answer that indicates a failure to understand the logical construction of the rules entirely, because picking the '3' card tells you nothing at all. It's not even the confirmation bias problem. Your response shows you have a hard time with understanding logical rules at all in the first place.

Which is, unfortunately, unsurprising.
 
2009-02-27 10:57:11 PM
KiltedBastich: The sad part is, I drunk what, you did considerably worse than average. You picked an answer that indicates a failure to understand the logical construction of the rules entirely, because picking the '3' card tells you nothing at all. It's not even the confirmation bias problem. Your response shows you have a hard time with understanding logical rules at all in the first place.

lets just say for example that you turn over the 8 and it has a red back then you turn over the brown it has an odd number the red card is moot at this point, I agree, and you've already used up your two choices, so you logically have concluded KiltedBastich: that the rule is all cards with an even number on them have to have red backs

but then I turn over the '3' card which has a '6' on the back, which therefore shows you have failed

so the point was ????
 
2009-02-27 11:00:22 PM
the suspense is keeeling me
 
2009-02-27 11:18:21 PM
lolerskates morals ha.

It is world war two Germany and you're keeping Jews inside a secret room on the second story of your house, the Geheime Staatspolizei come knocking at your door.

You answer.

They ask "Are you hiding Jews within your premises?"
 
2009-02-27 11:28:03 PM
I drunk what: KiltedBastich: The sad part is, I drunk what, you did considerably worse than average. You picked an answer that indicates a failure to understand the logical construction of the rules entirely, because picking the '3' card tells you nothing at all. It's not even the confirmation bias problem. Your response shows you have a hard time with understanding logical rules at all in the first place.

lets just say for example that you turn over the 8 and it has a red back then you turn over the brown it has an odd number the red card is moot at this point, I agree, and you've already used up your two choices, so you logically have concluded KiltedBastich: that the rule is all cards with an even number on them have to have red backs

but then I turn over the '3' card which has a '6' on the back, which therefore shows you have failed

so the point was ????


And when was the last time you saw a card with numbers on both sides? Do you routinely see cards with an 8 on one side, and a 3 on the other? Or do you, like every other western human, routinely see cards that have numbers on one side and something, a colour or pattern or some such, on the other? Say, as used to play games of chance and skill? This is what I meant by failing to grasp the logic.

And before you go off into irrelevant details again, I will point out that two random passersby, with no coaching from me or any idea at all about the test, understood exactly what was entailed, and got the answer right. In this case, the failure was entirely your own. You invented a complication, and didn't bother to think carefully about your statement or the logic of it, and so failed.
 
2009-02-27 11:39:57 PM
I drunk what: so the point was ????

Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, the answer is that you apparently suck at basic logic even worse than I anticipated.

In fact, I'll be even more explicit. Let's examine the whole problem closely.

KiltedBastich: You have four cards on a table. One shows a '3', another an '8', another is red, the last is brown.

You are told that the rule is that all cards with an even number on one side must be red on the other side.

Which two cards do you flip to determine if the rule has been violated?


You see, I am actually giving you more information than just the rule. I am also telling you that you only need to flip two cards to check for violations successfully.

Now, I will agree that if the cards on the table have no resemblance at all to standard cards, and might have anything at all on the backs, numbers, colours, what have you, you would certainly have to flip all of them to except the red card to check the rule.

But you've already been told, as one of your initial premises, that you don't need to flip all of them, only two of them, to solve the problem. You've also been given an example of a rule which implies that there is a number on one side of the card, and a colour on the other, much like playing cards all over the western world have been for hundreds of years, and which does away with the problem of needing to flip all the cards.

And you didn't catch any of this, which is an implication of the original phrasing so elementary that most people will understand it automatcially without being told just by the way the problem is constructed, indeed, without even realizing there was a rule implied at all, because that's the logic of how cards work as understood in a western culture.

As a result, your thinking was a hopeless muddle right from the start. You failed before you had even begun. It's actually rather sad.
 
2009-02-27 11:42:33 PM
KiltedBastich: I drunk what: KiltedBastich: ...
And before you go off into irrelevant details again, I will point out that two random passersby, with no coaching from me or any idea at all about the test, understood exactly what was entailed, and got the answer right. In this case, the failure was entirely your own. You invented a complication, and didn't bother to think carefully about your statement or the logic of it, and so failed.


Make that 3, I also got it correct just didn't post about it. Till now.
 
2009-02-28 12:06:40 AM
KiltedBastich: And when was the last time you saw a card with numbers on both sides?

KiltedBastich: This is some severely muddled thinking.

indeed.

The sad part is, KiltedBastiche, you did considerably worse than average.

it's ok. tis human to err. even when someone gives you the answer I drunk what: so pleez use ur x-ray eyes to see if the '3' card has an even number on the back

this failure was only outdone by your epic failure of belittling my correct answer with your whargbl
KiltedBastich: You see, the most common incorrect response is that people check the '8' card and the red card. Why? Because they want to check that the rule is confirmed. This is a correct response for the 8, but not for the red card, because the rule says nothing about what might be on the back of a card with an odd number. They might have red backs too. All you know is that an even card must have a red back - which means that you should check the brown card, because if it has an even number, then the rule is violated. I.e. you don't check for confirmation, you check for disconfirmation.

By the way, this kind of logic is a major facet of the scientific method, though not the only one by a long shot.

The sad part is, I drunk what, you did considerably worse than average. You picked an answer that indicates a failure to understand the logical construction of the rules entirely, because picking the '3' card tells you nothing at all. It's not even the confirmation bias problem. Your response shows you have a hard time with understanding logical rules at all in the first place.

Which is, unfortunately, unsurprising.


which has enlightened me to the limits of your understanding, so I was quite correct the first time when I said, I have nothing further to discuss with you.

as if that weren't enough you still insist on speaking for others (which was just ONE of the reasons I lost interest in your discussions) so just to be sure perhaps you'd like to give the original speakers a chance to voice their opinions...

KiltedBastich: I will point out that two random passersby, with no coaching from me or any idea at all about the test, understood exactly what was entailed, and got the answer right.

img89.imageshack.us

so ThatFoolMatt: .that seems best

and

jekxrb: Why would you flip the 3?

do you agree that his solution is correct?

and for some parting thoughts...
KiltedBastich: In this case, the failure was entirely your own.

indeed. again my kind nature has failed me, by tricking me into conversing with you. so to better myself, I hope you find whatever you seek

and bid you adieu
 
2009-02-28 12:14:17 AM
I am curious however about ninjakirby's and abb3w's response to this?

penny for your thoughts?

(or any others that actively participate in these fun little discussions)

/will check back later
 
2009-02-28 12:51:56 AM
I drunk what: KiltedBastich: And when was the last time you saw a card with numbers on both sides?

KiltedBastich: This is some severely muddled thinking.

indeed.


So you agree? How surprising. I expected childishness.

Glad to see you can acknowledge your limits when confronted with them so blatantly.

The sad part is, KiltedBastiche, you did considerably worse than average.

it's ok. tis human to err. even when someone gives you the answer I drunk what: so pleez use ur x-ray eyes to see if the '3' card has an even number on the back


Oh wait, there you go, living down to my expectations.

No x-rays needed. Just some basic reading comprehension and a little logic along with awareness of cultural conventions and implied rules.

Which are all apparently things you suck at.

this failure was only outdone by your epic failure of belittling my correct answer with your whargbl

Wait, what? I give you the literally classic right answer, the one decided upon by the people who invented the task, and which is in fact an exercise in formal logic, and you still assert you're right?

Wow. That's some extra-strong stupid right there.

KiltedBastich: You see, the most common incorrect response is that people check the '8' card and the red card. Why? Because they want to check that the rule is confirmed. This is a correct response for the 8, but not for the red card, because the rule says nothing about what might be on the back of a card with an odd number. They might have red backs too. All you know is that an even card must have a red back - which means that you should check the brown card, because if it has an even number, then the rule is violated. I.e. you don't check for confirmation, you check for disconfirmation.

By the way, this kind of logic is a major facet of the scientific method, though not the only one by a long shot.

The sad part is, I drunk what, you did considerably worse than average. You picked an answer that indicates a failure to understand the logical construction of the rules entirely, because picking the '3' card tells you nothing at all. It's not even the confirmation bias problem. Your response shows you have a hard time with understanding logical rules at all in the first place.

Which is, unfortunately, unsurprising.

which has enlightened me to the limits of your understanding, so I was quite correct the first time when I said, I have nothing further to discuss with you.


Genius knows it's own limits, while mediocrity recognizes no superiors. It is now clear to me you don't recognize your own stupidity.

as if that weren't enough you still insist on speaking for others (which was just ONE of the reasons I lost interest in your discussions) so just to be sure perhaps you'd like to give the original speakers a chance to voice their opinions...

KiltedBastich: I will point out that two random passersby, with no coaching from me or any idea at all about the test, understood exactly what was entailed, and got the answer right.

[argumentum ad populum image]


Er, see, this doesn't apply. I was saying that your logical reasoning skills are worse than those of two random passers by. That's not an argument from popularity, as there is actually a correct response.

But again, this requires understanding logic, which you apparently suck at, so I am not really surprised you don't get why this is not applicable.

so ThatFoolMatt: .that seems best

and

jekxrb: Why would you flip the 3?

do you agree that his solution is correct?


You did notice he said flip the 8 and the brown, right? That is indeed the correct response. He was asking why you would bother with the three when according to the implicit logic of cards in a western context along with the phrasing of the question it was clear to him that it was irrelevent. In fact, I am quite sure that this realization was automatic, and probably operated below deliberate cognition.

In short, he was smarter than you.

and for some parting thoughts...
KiltedBastich: In this case, the failure was entirely your own.

indeed. again my kind nature has failed me, by tricking me into conversing with you. so to better myself, I hope you find whatever you seek

and bid you adieu


Uh huh. Didn't even read the second post where I decided to humour you and explain how grossly you failed, did you?

Don't feel bad. All of this, and especially your "I know you are but what am I" defensiveness here, has led me to postulate that I was in error to think you were a hypocrite, and that you aren't as willfully ignorant as I thought.

You're just really that stupid.

See, I had expected you to engage in the confirmation bias, in much the fashion that you do in every one of these threads.

But I decided to give you a chance to prove me wrong. So I gave you a standard psychology test used in the west called the Wason Selection Task. It's a real test, with a real correct answer. It was not in any way a trap. You had the chance to prove me wrong.

Instead, you failed abjectly, and so proved that once again I should beware attributing malice to you when stupidity will suffice to explain your whargarrbl.

By the way, you are something of a novelty, because if you read the page describing the task, you will see the following quote:

A psychologist, not very well disposed toward logic, once confessed to me that despite all problems in short-term inferences like the Wason Card Task, there was also the undeniable fact that he had never met an experimental subject who did not understand the logical solution when it was explained to him, and then agreed that it was correct.

You're apparently unusual in your obstinacy. So congratulations! You can take pride in the magnitude of your stupid, even if nothing else.
 
2009-02-28 02:52:32 AM
KiltedBastich: And before you go off into irrelevant details again, I will point out that two random passersby, with no coaching from me or any idea at all about the test, understood exactly what was entailed, and got the answer right. In this case, the failure was entirely your own. You invented a complication, and didn't bother to think carefully about your statement or the logic of it, and so failed.

I've been at my sisters this evening, and while there did a cursory glance back at the thread - she thought of flipping the 8 and the Red in order to confirm the rule, and disconfirm the assumed opposing rule, while I corrected her by musing we should flip 3 and Brown, to which she immediately responded "Oh yeah, duh". Bear in mind my sister is a brilliant accountant, but has no knowledge of logic beyond what I talk about while we watch Americas Next Top Model and drink every Friday night.

I drunk what: penny for your thoughts?

You're an idiot. I've said this numerous times.

For the record however, I will state that I don't use the term lightly. One can be misinformed, or ignorant, or a myriad of other things that allow them to come off as 'dumb', but to be stupid (in my book) required a conscious effort of willful ignorance and the avoidance of learning, coupled with a severe learning deficiency. The beauty about being stupid is it's entirely correctable, as it's a personal choice - all you have to do is pick up a book.

Now, as for the matter at about morality:

I drunk what: perhaps you are concerned that Y's hell is far hotter than X's (which I believe is a Catholic concept) but I would ask, does it really matter at this point? would you feel more comfort in the "nice" part of hell? I don't know about such things nor have given them much thought.

Simple question: Would you model a government on this form of punishment? If so, what type of government would it be? Additionally, please note that yet again, I have to explain to you (as has Kilted, as has FloydA, that I do not think in terms of religion. I am not 'concerned' with going to Hell any more than you are 'concerned' with ending up in Mictlan. I don't fear hell, I fear people who make their decisions based upon a fear of hell - which we'll get to in a moment.

I drunk what: it is not moral to choose one sin because it "seems" less than the other, the moral choice he has is to do anything within his ability to prevent the train from reaching either destination, perhaps he could halfway switch the tracks preventing the train from reaching either side, etc... otherwise if he failed and the train still makes it to one or other side (which he was not responsible for in the first place) but he felt guilty that he could not prevent it, he could still ask forgiveness (whether or not it was actually needed)

This ties in precisely with what Kilted noted about your inability to grasp a logical construct very deeply.

KiltedBastich: You invented a complication, and didn't bother to think carefully about your statement or the logic of it, and so failed.


It's quite clear that rather than force yourself into a decision that conflicted with your personal image of your morality, you rationalized a new answer without thinking about the consequences.
Rather than make a choice between the sure death of 5, or the sure death of 1, you decide to derail the train.

redriverpak.files.wordpress.com
This is your mind on logic and morality.


Now, there is a note in your language that harkens back to our previous discussion that started this entire thing:

otherwise if he failed and the train still makes it to one or other side (which he was not responsible for in the first place) but he felt guilty that he could not prevent it, he could still ask forgiveness


I have highlighted the relevant bit. Here you are, yet again absolving yourself of responsibility for the deaths of 5 preventable deaths by disassociating yourself from the problem. It wasn't his job, so it isn't of his concern.

You did this previously with the track rods dilemma. "7. Unless it is Tyler's job to verify all work logs, which were falsified by those workers, which Tyler wouldn't be accountable for."

According to you, the safety of others is not your responsibility unless you're getting paid for it. This has been demonstrated repeatedly by your own language.

Here comes the interesting part: Early on in this conversation, you claimed "animals "machines" are incapable of moral choices (though they probably can be conditioned to appear so)". According to you, animals have instincts, but they can be trained to react in ways we would deem 'moral' by a reward/response mechanism known as 'conditioning'.

I refuted this by pointing out - correctly - that humans are animals, and you went ahead and insinuated (without support of course) that humans were somehow 'above' animals, that we were special, or as you put it "so much more".

However by your own words, when you were first confronted with these Moral Train Car Scenarios, you "made the silly mistake of implying that 5 deaths is a greater sin than 1 death" due to "an emotional mistake one makes when feeling the duty of 'to see good and to do nothing is evil'

Now your answers during this "emotional mistake" were:

Yes, it was Morally Permissible for Denise to throw the switch, killing the 1 and saving the 5.

No, it was Morally Impermissible for Frank to shove the fat man, killing the 1 and saving the 5

Yes, it was Morally Permissible for Ned to throw the switch, killing the 1 and saving the 5.


Only upon review did you determine that "for these type of scenarios the answer is no. since there is no moral choice."

Why did you change your mind? Because of your religious beliefs. Your religious beliefs about morality overrode your instinctual, emotional response to the questions. What is truly telling about your response is the manner in which they overrode them.

According to the study:

Scenario 1: 85% said Yes, permissible.
Scenario 2: 12% said Yes, permissible.
Scenario 3: 56% said Yes, permissible.


This means that BEFORE YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS CAME INTO PLAY upon re-examination, you were in complete agreement with the majority of individuals who took this test. Only after your religious views came into play did you become the statistical "deviant".

Now, before you start rationalizing this with further confirmation bias by thinking "Well, that's because my religion offers true morality and prevents mankinds evil sinful nature from expressing itself" I want to you to take a careful look at the Religion column.

i2.photobucket.com


Note that it's damn near in agreement the entire way across within 6 or 7 percentage points, no matter what. Now rather than spend time on why this equality of answer might be found so evenly distributed across the board (and I'll happily post the examination of Scen3 and Scen4 if you wish), I'd rather attend to another matter regarding the 'specialness' of Homo sapiens sapiens.

See, when you condition an animal, you're altering its instinctual behavior through a process of risk/reward. As your link to conditioning states "many animals are able to build an association with a reward between seemingly irrelevant actions and stimuli, if the stimulus is given at the time the reward is received"

If we review your actions in this discussion of morality, you originally had an innate, emotional response to moral dilemmas, which was then counter-acted by a religious belief which promises an eternal reward as payment for elicited action.

You sir, are an animal. You have been conditioned to respond in a manner that defies your basic biology, and further, you have chosen to under go this conditioning, having accepted it as your job, and signed a contract to that effect (baptism).
 
2009-02-28 03:00:22 AM
Oh, and I'd also like to point out that Muslims are the only religious group who thought Scenario 2 - pushing the fat man off the bridge in front of the train in order to stop it - was morally permissible - with a 90%

So that's nice.
 
2009-02-28 04:13:55 AM
ninjakirby: KiltedBastich: And before you go off into irrelevant details again, I will point out that two random passersby, with no coaching from me or any idea at all about the test, understood exactly what was entailed, and got the answer right. In this case, the failure was entirely your own. You invented a complication, and didn't bother to think carefully about your statement or the logic of it, and so failed.

I've been at my sisters this evening, and while there did a cursory glance back at the thread - she thought of flipping the 8 and the Red in order to confirm the rule, and disconfirm the assumed opposing rule, while I corrected her by musing we should flip 3 and Brown, to which she immediately responded "Oh yeah, duh". Bear in mind my sister is a brilliant accountant, but has no knowledge of logic beyond what I talk about while we watch Americas Next Top Model and drink every Friday night.


Classic confirmation bias in action. It's very subtle, but it's incredibly easy for humans to make that mistake. There does appear to be a psychological predisposition that is innate, although this can be overriden in extremely well-practiced areas. It's also notable that most vertebrates exhibit similar behavioural biases, and so this is probably very old.
 
2009-02-28 04:42:25 AM
ninjakirby: You're an idiot. I've said this numerous times.

For the record however, I will state that I don't use the term lightly. One can be misinformed, or ignorant, or a myriad of other things that allow them to come off as 'dumb', but to be stupid (in my book) required a conscious effort of willful ignorance and the avoidance of learning, coupled with a severe learning deficiency. The beauty about being stupid is it's entirely correctable, as it's a personal choice - all you have to do is pick up a book.


I've actually changed my mind some about this. I now think he's stupid in the classical sense of someone congenitally slow of wit. His reasoning abilities are poor, and he lacks the native intelligence to either realize this or improve, and is as a result also too stupid to realize he's stupid.

One of the more interesting findings of social psychology is that if you give people an IQ test, and then give those same participants a test where they are asked to rate how well they did individually and in relation to the performance of others, a curious pattern appears.

Those who did the best on the test, those at the top end of the bell curve, generally know they did well, but they tend to underestimate how well they did slightly, and they tend to overestimate how well others do and underestimate how far thejr performance is from the mean.

People who are well above average but who are not at the extreme also tend to underestimate how well they do, and they overestimate how well others do and how close they are to the mean even more than the top group. In effect, they generally believe others perform much like they do, even if they recognize that they have done well.

People who are close to the mean have the most realistic perspective, in that they think they did average to above average, and they assume others do about the same, which isn't far off the mark. But here they are likely to overestimate their performance, at least slightly.

Strangely enough, people who scored below average generally think they scored average or above average, and this effect is more pronounced the lower the score. They also assume everyone else did about as well as they did.

In effect, barring outside points of reference, people almost always assume they are average or above average, and they tend to use their own performance as the benchmark they assume everyone performs at. Highly intelligent people have the capacity to find those external referents that modify this initial assumption, but stupid people can't do likewise.

Stupid people literally do not realize they are stupid. They lack the capacity to recognize and appreciate their own lack of capacity. It is a hallmark of high general intelligence to be able to recognize one's own intellectual flaws and weaknesses.

Please note that this is also using a very narrow definition of intelligence and thus stupidity, the one most commonly measured in tests of logical reasoning and IQ. I am not generalizing beyond that scope for this; other forms of intelligence like emotional intelligence, artistic ability and the like are at best only very poorly correlated with IQ.

This is what I now think is going on with I drunk what. I don't think he's willfully ignorant as such. I think he actually lacks the cognitive faculties to understand and appreciate the information we are giving him. He probably finds it alarming and confusing, and so even when he reads it he understands it poorly if at all, and is likely to simply reject it out of hand and stick to the simplistic religious explanations he can understand.

Granted, this is based on a scant sample of one short test and a number of conversations, but the hypothesis is consistent with the data.

If I am correct, he's not someone to be scorned, but someone to be pitied. He probably couldn't do any better than he is if he tried, and in fact he may well be trying and failing all the time, and simply not recognizing his intellectual failures.
 
2009-02-28 08:01:53 AM
I drunk what: again the key here being RECORDABLE history in which we can assert that we confidently know the constants/variables...

This focus is silly. Hell I am willing to bet that there are many events even in recordable history that we can date more reliably using inferetic methods then relying on a particular civilizations written records. That's why I went through several different types of dating methods and how they have been calibrated with one another and tested time and time again.

In order for our dating methods to be completely invalid you would need to postulate that prior to human recorded history a time on earth existed when the laws of physics where so different that the planet couldn't even exist nor could the sun shine.

Its completely ludicrous and I think that the people pushing it are doing so because they simply can't except that their religious book of choice might just be wrong when it comes to dates and human history.

And reading through the thread, in regards to the car test:

My initial instinctual reaction was one of confirmation bias, flip 8 and red. Then I said, hey wait a minute think about this. Logically I was able to determine that flipping red told me nothing, the rules don't say that odd numbered cards can't have red backs. Flipping three gives me nothing because it could have any coloured back. Obviously I need to flip the 8 and the orange/brown backed card to check the rule.

And for the record, your response to KiltedBastich when he explained the logic to you was childish. In the western world we are commonly confronted with cards that have a number on one side and a colour or design on the reverse. The construction of the rules and internal logic of the question imply that all cards have a number on one side and a coloured back on the other. Not cards with numbers on both sides.
 
2009-02-28 09:29:52 AM
FloydA: There is not an objective measure of morality in any case

Not sure on that one. However, there's certainly significant disagreement about the definition of morality.

KiltedBastich: Subbing for abb3w here, morality is not completely relative, inasmuch as all available evidence suggests it evolved sa a means to facilitate social life

Pretty close, although "social" refers to a particular framework of ethical behavior.

KiltedBastich: But you've already been told, as one of your initial premises, that you don't need to flip all of them, only two of them, to solve the problem.

Not explicitly stated, I'm afraid. Without a prior rule establishing that all cards have a number on one side and a color on the other, you really do need to flip three cards.

entropic_existence: My initial instinctual reaction was one of confirmation bias, flip 8 and red. Then I said, hey wait a minute think about this. Logically I was able to determine that flipping red told me nothing, the rules don't say that odd numbered cards can't have red backs. Flipping three gives me nothing because it could have any coloured back. Obviously I need to flip the 8 and the orange/brown backed card to check the rule.

Ditto... aside from "hey wait a minute think about this" being condensed to "IT'S A TRAP!" Thinking about double-numbered cards didn't come up until idw raised it.

ninjakirby: You sir, are an animal. You have been conditioned to respond in a manner that defies your basic biology

img410.imageshack.us

entropic_existence: In the western world we are commonly confronted with cards that have a number on one side and a colour or design on the reverse.

Which makes for an implicit premise that, yes, really ought to be questioned. On the other hand, checking the "3" seems less important than checking the "8" and "brownish-orange" cards, since those definitely could invalidate the even-red rule even with the implict premise. That validity of that implicit changes, however, if you find a color on the other side of the "brownish-orange", however. (If you find a number on back of the "8", it's moot since the primary question is already resolved.)

As a final afterthought... we're also implicitly presuming the cards don't change in the process of being flipped; so, I suppose you might also need to turn the brownish-orange one over to make sure it didn't change in the process... though that would be unusual for a card.
 
2009-02-28 10:24:34 AM
Hey Ninjakirby, this is off subject, but I am reading through Grave's Greek Myths right now, and well it's a pretty old book (1955)(from an archaeological standpoint) as well as it makes some pretty big claims about surrounding cultures mythos to back his own theories.

Anyways I was wondering if you had any suggestions for books covering Greek myths, and books covering the history of the Pentateuch and or Sumerian myth, or Hebrew midrashim.
 
2009-02-28 11:09:56 AM
Penny for your thoughts

ninjakirby:
You're an idiot.

childish remark

ninjakirby: For the record however, I will state that I don't use the term lightly. One can be misinformed, or ignorant, or a myriad of other things that allow them to come off as 'dumb', but to be stupid (in my book) required a conscious effort of willful ignorance and the avoidance of learning, coupled with a severe learning deficiency. The beauty about being stupid is it's entirely correctable, as it's a personal choice - all you have to do is pick up a book.

continued-wordy empty criticisms, in an attempt to avoid the obvious question presented (aka the "standard" amount of bias)

Noted.

/even if I feel that it isn't deserved
//I keep my word
www1.istockphoto.com

entropic_existence: And for the record, your response to KiltedBastich when he explained the logic to you was childish.

Noted. and interesting, how would you describe his attitude when I explained the logically correct answer to him?

you seem polite for the most part, so i'll even give you a hint
KiltedBastich: In this case, the failure was entirely your own.

and just so we are crystal clear
KiltedBastich: I will agree that if the cards on the table have no resemblance at all to standard cards

upload.wikimedia.org

www.kem.com
entropic_existence: In the western world we are commonly confronted with cards that have a number on one side and a colour or design on the reverse.

perhaps you can remind which suit the 8 or 3 has, was it clubs or diamonds? also you may notice the distinctive pattern on the back, in my entire life have I yet encountered playing cards with a solid color background, maybe GIS can help you find an example.

entropic_existence: your response to KiltedBastich when he explained the logic to you was childish.

Noted.

images.chron.com
 
2009-02-28 11:36:47 AM
Penny for your thoughts

abb3w:

*reads response*

*pauses for a moment of reflection*

I drunk what: and abb3w are superb examples of persons that speak with microscopic levels of bias.

and I'm even using an electron microscope..


it would seem that I need to up the voltage

www.nicherevolution.com

/for exceeding my expectations

side note to ninjakirby since you seem to be Diametrically Opposed to religious persons such as myself I would therefor recommend you look to abb3w for counsel
 
2009-02-28 12:03:40 PM
I am VERY sorry, FloydA, from time to time I overlook a post (not on purpose) and respond way after a normal-polite time frame. I do sincerely apologize.

FloydA: Which models, formulae and equations in particular?

The one used to determine the radio-active decay of X or Y.

FloydA: And which questions?

I drunk what: so using the distance from sea level to the moon = the timeline we have thus far big bang until now, what measurement would you suggest would be recordable history-science?

since it was pointed out to me that my illustration failed I was looking for what an effective one would be. so that I could further illustrate how small the set of "scientific" [recorded] data we had to create X or Y equation.

but then you guys went off, on an interesting concept that you are actually better able to determine the age of things previous to recorded history than with current-modern data, which kinda confused me

not so much about the idea of people trying to skew times and events, rather the idea that you have radio-decay AND photographic evidence, charts, records, personal verification, etc...etc...

so I am quite confused how your pre-history dates are more reliable??? I hope this isn't the data that was used to complile an equation ;P
 
2009-02-28 12:38:59 PM
ninjakirby: Simple question: Would you model a government on this form of punishment?

the way I would fashion a government and the way we will all be finally judged are apples and oranges

I'd probably stick with a similar system we currently utilize, 5 murders > 1 murder.

(though you will note they BOTH go to jail)
ninjakirby: you decide to derail the train.

yeah but in MY version the train is only the locomotive (sans passenger cars) and your scenarion implied that no one was at the wheel, hence its "out of control"ness --- otherwise you should state more details if you feel them to be pertinent.
ninjakirby: According to you, the safety of others is not your responsibility unless you're getting paid for it it can reasonably be done WHILE accomplishing the job you agreed to do.

Please don't speak for me... it is the most certain path to get me to ignore you. (btw the 2nd most effective route is to hurl childish insults into every conversation)

so according to your logic then the safety of the world rests on your shoulders? you better get busy.

ninjakirby: This means that BEFORE YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS CAME INTO PLAY upon re-examination

while I see your point I would be inclined to disagree, and "proving" such a statement would be uber-difficult

ninjakirby: Only after your religious views came into play did you become the statistical "deviant".

noted.

ninjakirby: You sir, are an animal.

so I've heard

ninjakirby: You have been conditioned to respond in a manner that defies your basic biology

so if I were able to provide an example of a person choosing an outcome that over-rides their conditioning, would this support the theory that humans are more than "regular" animals?
 
2009-02-28 12:44:27 PM
I drunk what: side note to ninjakirby since you seem to be Diametrically Opposed to religious persons such as myself I would therefor recommend you look to abb3w for counsel

Actually, I think he's less irritated by religious positions than I am; Zamboro's the only regular I recall expressing more irritation at the generic theist than myself. It's just you personally ninjakirby has lost patience with. (Well, and Mormons... but again, it's personal.)

Mind you, I still don't see why you excluded the brown. The preference for checking the 3 before checking the orangish-brown one does suggest there's something markedly warped with your thinking process.
 
2009-02-28 12:45:45 PM
I drunk what: so if I were able to provide an example of a person choosing an outcome that over-rides their conditioning, would this support the theory that humans are more than "regular" animals?

How does one distinguish an override of conditioning from merely incomplete/imperfect conditioning?
 
2009-02-28 01:20:29 PM
I drunk what: Noted. and interesting, how would you describe his attitude when I explained the logically correct answer to him?

Your answer wasn't logically correct, at least within the established rules and implicit assumptions (based on reality and shared culture) stipulated within the question itself.

I drunk what: perhaps you can remind which suit the 8 or 3 has, was it clubs or diamonds? also you may notice the distinctive pattern on the back, in my entire life have I yet encountered playing cards with a solid color background, maybe GIS can help you find an example.

You've never encountered this type of card before? With just numbers on them? Yes they don't look like the typical suited playing card and are obvious simplifications for purposes of a thought experiment/logic game but I've encountered cards for a wide variety of games and simple numbered cards aren't exactly rare. At this point I have to wonder if you are being deliberately obtuse and wrangling to get around this. We are used to seeing playing cards with a number on one side and some sort of "back" of the card that has a colour or pattern on it. Suits are extra information that was obviously irrelevant to the question at hand. Have you seen playing cards with numbers on both sides in common use? ie no back?

I drunk what: not so much about the idea of people trying to skew times and events, rather the idea that you have radio-decay AND photographic evidence, charts, records, personal verification, etc...etc...

so I am quite confused how your pre-history dates are more reliable??? I hope this isn't the data that was used to complile an equation ;P


You seem to be under the impression that recorded history by people is the most reliable source of information we can possibly have in regards to the past, that's simply not true. But I have a feeling that no matter how many examples you are shown or how patiently someone tries to explain the method behind various historical dating methods you won't be convinced.
 
2009-02-28 02:44:55 PM
I drunk what: I am VERY sorry, FloydA, from time to time I overlook a post (not on purpose) and respond way after a normal-polite time frame. I do sincerely apologize.

FloydA: Which models, formulae and equations in particular?

The one used to determine the radio-active decay of X or Y.




Very well. How familiar are you with the strong nuclear force? How about the conservation of energy? Conservation of momentum? Of Charge? Of nucleon number?

(I'm asking only because I need to know how much knowledge I can assume you already have. If you're not well-versed in the physics of atomic nuclei, I'll have to explain that before the use of the radioisotopes in dating methods will be truly clear. If you don't follow what I am saying, ask me. I will try to explain anything that you want to know.)

The nucleus of an atom can be modeled as being composed of a collection of neutrons (with no electrostatic charge) and protons (with a positive charge). (The nucleus is surrounded by electrons that have a negative charge.)

The positive charges of the protons will tend to repel each other, sort of like putting the positive ends of two magnets together. And since the size of protons is so small, gravity is not powerful enough to hold the nucleus together.

Instead, the "strong nuclear force" holds them together by allowing the exchange of mesons between the protons.

The opposing forces (strong nuclear force attraction and electrostatic repulsion) are in a sort of "tug of war" with each other. Atoms with a low atomic number (number of protons) tend to have about the same number of protons as neutrons. (That is to say, the atomic mass is roughly double the atomic number, give or take a few.)

Butnooclei with larger atomic numbers (i.e. greater numbers of protons) have to have more neutrons than protons in order to be stable. All nuclei that have more than 83 protons (Bismuth) are unstable. They simply don't - and can't- have enough neutrons to keep the protons from repelling each other. (I am simplifying this a lot, please be aware of that.)

In fact, in any nucleus in which there are more protons than the neutrons and strong force can "squeeze together," the atom will "attempt" to reach a lower-energy state, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. This is known as "radioactive decay," and can happen in any of three ways.
Alpha decay is (basically) the ejection of two protons and two neutrons from a nucleus (which is a helium nucleus, which is stable).

For example, the unstable isotope Uranium 238 decays into Thorium-234 and Helium.
238U -> 234Th + 4He.

Beta decay is the emission of either an electron (negative charge) or a positron (positive charge).

Gamma decay is the most powerful of the three. In gamma decay, the entire nucleus transmutes form a higher energy state to a lower energy state.

Remember, from your high school physics class, that when an electron moves from one level to another, a photon is emitted (in the form of UV light). Something similar happens when a nucleus shifts to a lower energy state, but instead of a difference of just a few eV, the difference between adjacent energy levels in the nucleus is often hundreds of thousands of eV, so in the case of gamma decay, the photon that gets emitted is a gamma ray.

So far so good? Are you still with me?


I don't want you to lose the train of thought, so let me know if you've got that much clear in your mind, and then I'll go on.

FloydA: And which questions?

I drunk what: so using the distance from sea level to the moon = the timeline we have thus far big bang until now, what measurement would you suggest would be recordable history-science?

since it was pointed out to me that my illustration failed I was looking for what an effective one would be. so that I could further illustrate how small the set of "scientific" [recorded] data we had to create X or Y equation.



Let me see if I understand you.

What you are trying to do is to depict all of time, from the "Big Bang" to the present, as a straight line, and then highlight how much (or rather, how little) of that line consists of the period of time in which humans have been writing things down.

Is that correct?



but then you guys went off, on an interesting concept that you are actually better able to determine the age of things previous to recorded history than with current-modern data, which kinda confused me



Some things, yes. For example, the ages of the Great Pyramids at Giza are more accurately recorded by dating the straw that was used in the mortar between the stones than they are by the written records of their construction.

The reason for that is that later Pharaohs often re-used materials that had been associated with earlier Pharaohs. The (3rd Dynasty) Pharaoh Djoser, for example, amassed hundreds of vessels that bore inscriptions of 1st and 2nd Dynasty Pharaohs at the site of his pyramid. If we relied on the recorded dates on the vessels found inside the pyramid, we would have concluded that the pyramid is older than it actually is.

The thing is, people make mistakes. I don't know about you, but every year, when I write checks in January, I almost always put the wrong year- this year, I kept writing 2008 until late into January, for instance. If someone relied on a check I wrote in January as the source of a date for a specific event, the would be wrong.

In other cases, people exaggerate, either one way or another. Some people will claim to be younger than they actually are, for reasons of vanity. Others may claim to be older than they actually are, out of a desire to appear wise and/or experienced.

Tree rings, fragments of charcoal, bits of broken pottery, volcanic ash layers and so forth do not feel pride or vanity, so they can't "pretend" to be older than they actually are. That's one of the reasons why we can often be more sure of the results of our dating methods than of written history-

This is not true in all cases, of course, but in some.




not so much about the idea of people trying to skew times and events, rather the idea that you have radio-decay AND photographic evidence, charts, records, personal verification, etc...etc...



Yes. The decay of radioisotopes works through an entirely different set of principles than the growth of tree rings, which in turn also works on an entirely different set of principles from the rate of electron capture in buried silicate crystals, which in turn works on an entirely different set of principles from the causes of writing.

When all of these different sources of information (and the many others that we also use) tell us the same date, we can be very confident that the methods are reliable.

If any of the sources of information gave us a result that diverged wildly from all of the others, we would not want to rely on it.

But that rule has to apply equally to writing as to all of the other sources. If the tree rings, the radiocarbon and the thermoluminescence all say an object is 18,000 years old, for example, but someone wrote "1975" on it, we would have to assume that the other methods were correct and the writing is a later addition. (Perhaps reflecting when the object was found by an archaeologist, rather than when it was made, for example.)



so I am quite confused how your pre-history dates are more reliable???



In some cases, they certainly are. In other cases, written records can be very useful, especially when there are multiple, independent descriptions of the same thing. In those cases, every single one that we have tested corresponds with the dates supplied by the other methods.



I hope this isn't the data that was used to complile an equation ;P


I'm not sure what you mean by that. Please clarify.
 
2009-02-28 02:48:01 PM
abb3w: KiltedBastich: Subbing for abb3w here, morality is not completely relative, inasmuch as all available evidence suggests it evolved sa a means to facilitate social life

Pretty close, although "social" refers to a particular framework of ethical behavior.


True. The point is that social activity seems to be the selection pressure that drove our evolving moral behaviour in the first place. Wolves, who are pack animals, show more moral behaviour than do cats, who are usually solitary except when rearing young, who in turn show more moral behaviours than animals that are never social, like most reptiles.

KiltedBastich: But you've already been told, as one of your initial premises, that you don't need to flip all of them, only two of them, to solve the problem.

Not explicitly stated, I'm afraid. Without a prior rule establishing that all cards have a number on one side and a color on the other, you really do need to flip three cards.


You missed the fact that the construction of the question tells you that you only need to flip two cards to check for violations. That necessarily implies that any implicit rule that would require flipping all three cards to solve the problem cannot be valid, because it would mean the question could not be solved as posed.

Had idw come back with the question, "Is the problem solvable as posed?" I would have answered, "Yes, it is" which is enough to work through the inferences to reach the understanding that there must be limits on what is on the backs of the cards. Along with the implicit rule of number on one side colour on other side that is inferrable from the explicit rule all even cards must have red backs, that is enough to be able to work out the implicit rules necessary to understand how to solve the problem, even if you totally ignore the cultural context. It's just a lateral thinking exercise. The information is there, you just have to be able to work through it.

Of course, because most people taking this test operate within the western cultural context, most of the time it doesn't come up. People usually automatically infer the correct implicit rules, because they are idntical to the culturally specified rules. It remains that it is possible, if more difficult, to infer those rules without the cultural context.

entropic_existence: My initial instinctual reaction was one of confirmation bias, flip 8 and red. Then I said, hey wait a minute think about this. Logically I was able to determine that flipping red told me nothing, the rules don't say that odd numbered cards can't have red backs. Flipping three gives me nothing because it could have any coloured back. Obviously I need to flip the 8 and the orange/brown backed card to check the rule.

Ditto... aside from "hey wait a minute think about this" being condensed to "IT'S A TRAP!" Thinking about double-numbered cards didn't come up until idw raised it.


Because we are operating in a shared western cultural context that doesn't commonly contain cards with numbers on both sides. The numbers on both sides stuff is in my opinion just a result of idw not getting it and scrounging around for any possible argument.

I drunk what: and just so we are crystal clear
KiltedBastich: I will agree that if the cards on the table have no resemblance at all to standard cards


Hey look, two different sets of cards with numbers on one side and colour on the other. They aren't exactly the same, but there is a resemblance, how about that. It's almost as if they both reference shared cultural values about what a 'card' is, imagine that.

I drunk what: yeah but in MY version

This bullshiat right here is the root of the current problem you are having with ninjakirby.

You do not get to have a "version". You MUST answer the question as posed or else you are no more than a child playng make believe. You cannot change the parameters because you don't like them. Doing so invalidates the whole exercise. It's comparable to flipping the table and storming off if you are losing at a boardgame, for example.

ninjakirby's questions are very specific. They come from a published study and were used in a very specific way. All your wild imaginings about how you'd make it all better and not have to choose are simply meaningless.

Again, your choice is to either answer the question as posed, or refuse to answer. You do not get to substitute an answer you like better just because you don't like the ones presented.
 
2009-02-28 03:16:59 PM
abb3w: Mind you, I still don't see why you excluded the brown.

I drunk what: then I'm stuck because I need to flip 3 8 and brown

I drunk what: ThatFoolMatt: Flip brown and 8..that seems best.

yeah i was thinkin that


also bear in mind this was the end of a long week (aren't they all?) i've provided plenty of warning that I shutdown the higher brain functions on fridays, so I was getting tired & tired of thinking... and couldn't decide which was more important the 3 or the brown, but since I had already noticed that 2 is an insufficient answer I was beginning to suspect this was another "trick" question.

which may or may not have been intended as such, regardless our opinions and feelings do not matter in logic puzzles, no matter how many presumptions, assumption, bias, delusion one cares to posit.

what greatly disappointed me was the attitudes shown once the error was shown

but thats just me, attitude goes lightyears beyond intelligence with me, if you're (not you specifically) an uber-smartie then good for you, just don't be a prick about it.

also I noticed you don't accept compliments very well, I apologize, and will try to refrain from such in the future.

abb3w: The preference for checking the 3 before checking the orangish-brown one does suggest there's something markedly warped with your thinking process.

I belive you now have sufficient proof that I am 1. a human being and 2. capable of error

/not to mention does not perform well mentally late on fridays
*also see fatigue

did you have some other substantial evidence to back this claim since I do value your opinion?

or was that a compliment??
 
2009-02-28 03:38:27 PM
for any interested this would be a great thread to bookmark for doing research on the topic of DOUBLE STANDARDS

with bonus examples of:

people.virginia.edu
people.virginia.edu
people.virginia.edu
people.virginia.edu

just to name a few...
 
2009-02-28 03:42:37 PM
I drunk what: for any interested this would be a great thread to bookmark for doing research on the topic of DOUBLE STANDARDS

with bonus examples of:


just to name a few...




Not really.

By the way, have you put me on ignore? If so, why? I have been trying to be polite.
 
Displayed 50 of 268 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report