This is how you determine who is too fixed to vote: You have each person solve a series of crimes. They get evidence including testimony and that is how they decide. First though you have 10,000 people solve these crimes to make sure that most people can get them right most of the time (an exact number has yet to be determined, but it is close too 100%). You make the evidence better and better until most people get most of them right.
Once these crimes are easily solvable, then the fun begins. In the first version, when the test is being calibrated the suspects were simply Suspect A, Suspect B etc. Also in the first version all evidence is presented in a dry neutral was. Now when you are testing the person’s ability to think for voting purposes, you give the suspects names faces and bios. This would include their religious beliefs, their age, their sex, political affiliation etc. You could even have actors playing the suspects make videos. All of the witnesses now have names, faces and the like too. They present the evidence in any thing but a dry manner. In this way you can group things to together to find out if someone will discount evidence because, for example, it comes from a woman atheist who speaks in a gruff voice, and is damning to a suspect they like because the suspect is like them. This is just one thing you can do to through a monkey wrench into the subject’s ability to think clearly and sort out the facts. I will mention one other thing and then leave it to you to think of others. In some cases you can allow false evidence to cause the person being tested to make the wrong choice. Then after they have chosen, you can have that evidence impeached along with a perfectly good reason to through it out. The notification of the decision to impeach the evidence, will some from different characters. You will see how that will influence whether the subject accepts the impeachment or not. The subject will be allowed to change their decision. Before hand the subject has been told that they will be disqualified if they change to often or not often enough. Also you have some case where the evidence that is being impeached is inconsequential. The subject should make the same choise if they are thinking clearly. As to how to define who is not too fixed or too mercurial? Well that is; those who pass the test are suitable for voting. Ah, but what is the passing score. That remains to be determined. After the first 10,000 people help calibrate the evidence, then another 10,000 take the real test to get some idea how people will actually do on it. Then you some up with some kind of mean, mean, standard deviation type thing to determine a passing mark. At the end, I get to tweak the whole thing manually. ;-) On Aug 30, 6:28 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "... it would be, in my opinion, easy to define "too set" to think > straight..." - Michael > > Michael, how *would* you define it? I find it quite difficult. > > On Aug 30, 12:45 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 30, 2:17 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Agreed. But that changes your criterion; you would remove the voting > > > rights of those with *bad* memes. > > > I wrote in the intial post: > > > This would include nearly all > > religious fundamentalists as well as others who are overly infected > > with any powerful memes. > > > After examining the evidence, I realize that I wasn't clear even to > > myself (if my memory serves me correctly). Under my original > > hypothetical proposal, I would not remove the voting rights of those > > with *bad* memes. Instead I would remove the voting rights of those > > with memes that prevented them from gathering new information > > rethinking their positions even if they wound up usually coming to the > > same conclusion. However a test could be set up to find out if a > > person was too set or to easily influenced. Finding out if a person > > was too set would be relatively easy since it would be, in my opinion, > > easy to define "too set" to think straight. Actually I would allow > > some leeway here, becuase the exact point at which a person is over > > the line is not that clear. But, way too set is obvious, at least to > > me. Such people should not be allowed to vote, in my opinion (half > > kidding mind you).Too open to change would be harder to define, but I > > believe that such a thing exists. > > > On Aug 30, 2:17 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > <<it is possible that some of us operate under the control of memes > > > that > > > seek to find the truth, even when it means proving that some of our > > > most cherished beliefs (memes) are wrong. >> > > > > Agreed. But that changes your criterion; you would remove the voting > > > rights of those with *bad* memes.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
