(Core Concepts) (attn: SG Simmons ) |Grammars| Deflationary <– Ordinary –> Conflationary -> Inflationary INFLATIONARY: To Inflate = “To Add To” Narrative: ‘filling in’ with assumptions so that snippets of what was actually observed can be told as a story. Loading, Framing, Overloading: Loading and Framing: To add emotional weight (opinion or value) that is subject or false, as a means of appealing to intuition rather than truth. To selectively include or organize information to create a suggestion. To selectively exclude information to remove it from consideration. To overload with information in order to produce confusion or undecidability. Fiction: creating a narrative arc that answers change in state (some combination of rise and fall), typically to convey a lesson, or accountability. Fictionalism: creating a fictional account using ideal, imaginary references. CONFLATIONARY: Conflate = “To Confuse” To equate or cast as similar that which shares no, few, or insufficient equality of properties. ORDINARY Common speech in all its forms. DEFLATIONARY: To selectively remove semantic dimensions (ranges of information) such that only information related to the decidability in question remains. Math, logic, software algorithms, recipes-formulae-protocols, operational language, and legal testimony are examples of deflationary grammars. DIMENSIONS For example Temporal Logic tests the constant relation of time between two statements. However, any relationship between constant relations can be tested by tests of constant relations. As such deflationary grammars have been developed to assist us in producing well formed sentences (transactions) with which we can test one, more or many dimensions (sets of relations).
Theme: Measurement
-
UNDERSTANDING DEFLATIONARY GRAMMAR (AND DIMENSIONS) (Core Concepts) (attn: SG Si
UNDERSTANDING DEFLATIONARY GRAMMAR (AND DIMENSIONS)
(Core Concepts) (attn: SG Simmons )
|Grammars| Deflationary <– Ordinary –> Conflationary -> Inflationary
INFLATIONARY:
To Inflate = “To Add To”
Narrative: ‘filling in’ with assumptions so that snippets of what was actually observed can be told as a story.
Loading, Framing, Overloading: Loading and Framing: To add emotional weight (opinion or value) that is subject or false, as a means of appealing to intuition rather than truth. To selectively include or organize information to create a suggestion. To selectively exclude information to remove it from consideration. To overload with information in order to produce confusion or undecidability.
Fiction: creating a narrative arc that answers change in state (some combination of rise and fall), typically to convey a lesson, or accountability.
Fictionalism: creating a fictional account using ideal, imaginary references.
CONFLATIONARY:
Conflate = “To Confuse”
To equate or cast as similar that which shares no, few, or insufficient equality of properties.
ORDINARY
Common speech in all its forms.
DEFLATIONARY:
To selectively remove semantic dimensions (ranges of information) such that only information related to the decidability in question remains.
Math, logic, software algorithms, recipes-formulae-protocols, operational language, and legal testimony are examples of deflationary grammars.
DIMENSIONS
For example Temporal Logic tests the constant relation of time between two statements. However, any relationship between constant relations can be tested by tests of constant relations. As such deflationary grammars have been developed to assist us in producing well formed sentences (transactions) with which we can test one, more or many dimensions (sets of relations).
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-20 13:23:00 UTC
-
Define Operationalism
OPERATIONALISM? —“Define operation(alism)”— Let Me Google That For You: Scientific Method -> …. Operational Definition -> …. …. Operationalism (Physical Sciences) / …. …. Operationism (Psychology) / …. …. Intuitionism (Mathematics) / …. …. Praxeology (Economics) ie: “Actions”. See Wiki for simple versions, and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for advanced versions. HOWEVER, since all science must be falsificationary, all arguments to justificationism (positivism) are false. As such the value of operational language (grammar and semantics) is to force empirical (existential) description as a means of avoiding hand waving, obscurantism, suggestion, and deceit. OTHER CONCEPTS Critical Rationalism Critical Preference Justificationism Falsificationism Propertarianism (Vitruvianism, Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, Testimonialism, Natural Law) is all Falsificationary. In other words, like evolution, that which survives falsification is potentially true. And justification either is neutral or reduces the empirical (measurable) content of an argument. VIA NEGATIVA (FALSIFICATION) VS VIA POSITIVA (JUSTIFICATION) So imagine a pair of sculptors, one working in stone, subtracting (falsificationism), and the other working in clay, adding, (justificationism). The two must match, or one, the other, or both is false. In other words, just as the only test of production is a voluntary exchange, the only test of truth is survival in the market for competition. -
Define Operationalism
OPERATIONALISM? —“Define operation(alism)”— Let Me Google That For You: Scientific Method -> …. Operational Definition -> …. …. Operationalism (Physical Sciences) / …. …. Operationism (Psychology) / …. …. Intuitionism (Mathematics) / …. …. Praxeology (Economics) ie: “Actions”. See Wiki for simple versions, and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for advanced versions. HOWEVER, since all science must be falsificationary, all arguments to justificationism (positivism) are false. As such the value of operational language (grammar and semantics) is to force empirical (existential) description as a means of avoiding hand waving, obscurantism, suggestion, and deceit. OTHER CONCEPTS Critical Rationalism Critical Preference Justificationism Falsificationism Propertarianism (Vitruvianism, Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, Testimonialism, Natural Law) is all Falsificationary. In other words, like evolution, that which survives falsification is potentially true. And justification either is neutral or reduces the empirical (measurable) content of an argument. VIA NEGATIVA (FALSIFICATION) VS VIA POSITIVA (JUSTIFICATION) So imagine a pair of sculptors, one working in stone, subtracting (falsificationism), and the other working in clay, adding, (justificationism). The two must match, or one, the other, or both is false. In other words, just as the only test of production is a voluntary exchange, the only test of truth is survival in the market for competition. -
Limits of The Big 5 Model?
—“Would you say the limits of Big 5 Measurement are a model resolution issue or a fundamental issue?”—George Hobbs a) there appears to be a correlation between the five/six factors and reward systems. So there may be a biological basis for them. (b) there is pretty wide consistency with these measures EXCEPT with east asians for whom some of the model does not fit.(As far as I know it’s not just linguistic). (c) It looks like there are a series of problems with the terms we are using which are a little freudian rather than stated in terms of evolutionary necessity. (d) we can measure relative intensity (high, medium, low) somewhat reliably at least within culture. So I think it’s a maturity problem where we are waiting for the Top Down Survey model of psychology to develop commensurability with brain structure, and brain structure to be expressed commensurably with evolutionary history.
-
Limits of The Big 5 Model?
—“Would you say the limits of Big 5 Measurement are a model resolution issue or a fundamental issue?”—George Hobbs a) there appears to be a correlation between the five/six factors and reward systems. So there may be a biological basis for them. (b) there is pretty wide consistency with these measures EXCEPT with east asians for whom some of the model does not fit.(As far as I know it’s not just linguistic). (c) It looks like there are a series of problems with the terms we are using which are a little freudian rather than stated in terms of evolutionary necessity. (d) we can measure relative intensity (high, medium, low) somewhat reliably at least within culture. So I think it’s a maturity problem where we are waiting for the Top Down Survey model of psychology to develop commensurability with brain structure, and brain structure to be expressed commensurably with evolutionary history.
-
LIMITS OF THE BIG 5 MODEL? —“Would you say the limits of Big 5 Measurement are
LIMITS OF THE BIG 5 MODEL?
—“Would you say the limits of Big 5 Measurement are a model resolution issue or a fundamental issue?”—George Hobbs
a) there appears to be a correlation between the five/six factors and reward systems. So there may be a biological basis for them.
(b) there is pretty wide consistency with these measures EXCEPT with east asians for whom some of the model does not fit.(As far as I know it’s not just linguistic).
(c) It looks like there are a series of problems with the terms we are using which are a little freudian rather than stated in terms of evolutionary necessity.
(d) we can measure relative intensity (high, medium, low) somewhat reliably at least within culture.
So I think it’s a maturity problem where we are waiting for the Top Down Survey model of psychology to develop commensurability with brain structure, and brain structure to be expressed commensurably with evolutionary history.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-19 11:34:00 UTC
-
NO, EQ IS NOT A THING, BUT…. WHEREAS Intelligence is a Thing Personality Trait
NO, EQ IS NOT A THING, BUT….
WHEREAS
Intelligence is a Thing
Personality Traits are a Thing. (Conscientiousness and Agreeableness and Neuroticism in particular)
The Solipsism vs Empathy vs Autism spectrum is a Thing.
Class Behaviors are a Thing.
As such it’s (EQ) a questionable proxy for personality traits rather than intelligence. And (I am in the camp) that we should treat intelligence as a personality trait.
AND WHEREAS
Higher IQ people are demonstrably more moral than Low IQ people – yes. Although (a) they can afford to be, and (b) they are also less likely to have other defective personality traits and cultural/class behaviors.
THEREFORE
So the problem is that people who argue scientifically know EQ is not a thing but pseudoscience that attributes an equality to intelligence to behavioral properties, when in general even intelligence should be classified as a personality trait, and it is personality traits in toto that determine behavior.
AND THEREFORE
So what is going on when we criticize use of EQ, is fighting a common problem we deal with in leftism, whether or not one is actually arguing a leftist position, but using the pseudoscientific language of leftists.
IN OTHER WORDS
Either learn to use the relevant personality traits or at least recognize you are talking in pseudoscientific nonsense terms.
Curt.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-19 10:37:00 UTC
-
PERCENT OF CRIMES SOLVED? About 55% in Germany About 35% in the USA About 28% in
PERCENT OF CRIMES SOLVED?
About 55% in Germany
About 35% in the USA
About 28% in the UK
AI can’t find reliable stats on Australia, but burglary is generally a good proxy for overall crime closure and that means Aussies = USA in criminal closure.
I can’t find data on France but Muslims account for 70% of prisoners.
Germany can’t give accurate figures because nine Muslim families control so much organized crime and so little is reported, that it’s worse than the Italian mafia during prohibition. (remember prohibition was enacted by protestants to control the behavior of catholics – the underclasses.)
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-19 08:04:00 UTC
-
The Problem with The Gold Standard (luddism)
The problem with gold is (a) there is too little of it, (b) and as such it is too volitile for long term pricing. (c) and it is too open to manipulation. The problem with the fiat money system is only (a) we don’t have enough types of money, (b) we pay interest on borrowing from ourselves to create long term capital (housing, cars, appliances), which makes no damned sense at all, (c) we distribute liquidity through the financial sector and credit rather than just directly to consumers (citizens), and therefore cause the entire economy to reorganize and suffer the shocks, rather than simply having consumers correct the shock by shifting of consumption and debt. Libertarians are pretty much always wrong, because they’re always only half right, and they’re half right not because they’re moral, but because they want to enable private sector rents rather than public sector rents, instead of eliminating rents altogether. No man has any right to appreciation of a currency at the expense of others’ reduction of consumption or production. There is just no way to claim that. But it’s exactly the purpose of (((libertarian))) dogma: restoration of “the rents of the pale.”