*** chuckles @ michael's fantasy :-)...then remembers how juries are selected ***
On Aug 30, 10:55 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
