Predicate

The word '''predicate''', according to the dictionary, means something that is affirmed or denied of the subject in a proposition in logic. Predicates are central to the ratings system since they are the basic elements upon which truth or falsity can be judged. Here we will discuss predicates in general, how they are generated and how they fit into the ratings system.

Thoughts on Predicates

For our purposes, let's view a predicate as a simple question which forms the basis of a rating but that can also lead to further discussion since we propose to have explanation and discussion forums alongside the ratings.

Let's do an example of a predicate: "If you support politician X, why?" A possible answer might be "I support X because he supports working people like me."

Predicates needed to be worded carefully, so as to elicit the most considered responses (and discourage flip or emotive responses). The following are a bunch of predicates, each of which can spawn both ratings and further discussion. Our first set of predicates will be used to rate the answer on essentially the basis of the VRCF equation.

1. V: Is the answer sincere and made in good faith? Does the responder truly believe their answer?
2. R: Is the answer relevant to the question being asked?
3. C: Is the answer clear?
4. F: Is the answer free of logical fallacies?

For question 1, which will be used to rate Veracity, we are asking whether the answer is subjectively true, that is does the responder truly believe the answer? It is really a question of the sincerity of the responder. A separate issue is whether the objective statement made in the answer is actually true. If the question were objective in nature, ie "Does X support working people" then we could judge the answer objectively. But because we phrased the question subjectively, we cannot rate it objectively.

However, the question leads to several other predicates that might be considered, starting with the issue of the objective truth contained within the responder's claim.

5. The answer assumes that X supports working people. Is that actually true?
6. Is the "working people" issue a good reason to support, or withhold support from, a candidate?
7. Is voting on a single issue a reasonable position to hold?
8. Given X's other characteristics, is it reasonable to only focus on his "working people" stance?

We can probably think of many more questions here or phrase the ones above differently. But the point is that we can create a number of predicates, and solicit ratings, for each of them. Let's assume the responder is sincere. We can further see, given how straightforward and simple the answer is, that he is relevant, clear, and logical. Therefore we could say that his response scores perfectly using the VRFC criteria but might not fare so well on the other criteria.

This distinction seems important in the art of persuasion and conflict reduction. By separating the ratings, we make the issue less contentious. The responder isn't being called a liar or illogical. Far from it, he is given high marks for his sincerity, clarity, and logic. The issue of whether his view is reasonable given X's actual support for the working class is a separate one. Once we start discussing the underlying merit of the answer we do so in a generic way that doesn't directly disparage the responder.

The responder still gets rated on the basis of these follow-up predicates. If you believe a lie your rating will suffer (Predicate 4) but it will be because of an honest mistake, not a moral failing. This new Predicate will thus generate a rating and, no doubt, plenty of discussion about whether X is truly a supporter of working folks.

The fact that the predicate can generate a separate discussion further insulates the responder from the sense that he's being targeted. The discussion would presumably be a serious one where both sides get to air their views. It would generate its own aggregated rating which could then be used to modify the rating on the responder for the question at hand (ie whether X supports working people). It is possible that the responder himself will change his views after seeing the result of such a follow-up. But even if he doesn't, he will see that his rating is the result of a considered view that takes into account various people and multiple arguments. He will see that such a view is not personal and that others with similar views will be rated the same way. He could even take part in and try to influence such a discussion, although we might have to find ways to avoid self-dealing in these cases.

This separate discussion might conclude that X is only a rhetorical supporter of the working class but not a substantive supporter. Or that his substantive policies are not really supportive of the working class although they may appear to be (eg tariffs). So the responder, seeing that X is a rhetorical supporter of the working class, changes his reason for supporting X to "because he talks like me and shows respect for working folks in his discourse". It seems like our responder is not only more accurately portraying his views but showing that he is open-minded and amenable to change. These are qualities we value highly and would have specific ratings for.

Our X-supporting responder is still not off the hook, however. We could have further questions, for example:

9. Is rhetorical, but not substantive support, for a constituency really good enough in a candidate?
10. Doesn't the other side also show support and respect for the working class?
11. If all politicians rhetorically support a constituency, how can we tell who is really serious?

And so it goes. We could obviously rate our responder on these points as well, but by now we would expect the resulting conversation to have a more muted impact on any type of aggregated rating we would give the responder, even if by this we only mean that it appears lower in a long list of ratings. He has, after all, already changed his view once and we believe him to be a sincere person. If he then modifies his response in light of these new predicates he might say "all politicians say they support the working class but only X's rhetoric feels sincere to me". We could imagine ways to continue but we're quickly reaching the subjective nub of the issue, one where no further analysis is going to matter. It's like arguing with someone who thinks a piece of modern art is beautiful when you think it's silly. The ratings that result from this should be more muted still in their effect on the responder.

A simple model of this situation might be:

Although it might not be necessary, we might want to formulate some notion of an aggregate rating, say an average, $A$, where:

$A={{W_{1}\sum R_{1}}+{W_{2}\sum R_{2}}+{W_{3}\sum R_{3}}+... \over {W_{1}\sum N_{1}}+{W_{2}\sum N_{2}}+{W_{3}\sum N_{3}}+...}$

Predicate Generation

Let’s discuss some of the basic qualities we’d like to know about people or institutions before we deal with them.

Character/General Questions

Is X fundamentally honest? By fundamentally we mean does X believe he is honest when he communicates with you? It is the same as asking whether X is willfully trying to deceive you.

Is X accurate in his communications with you? How accurate?

Is X biased in some important way? That is, independently of the above, does X tend to gravitate toward certain subjects, avoid others, omit important information (unconsciously), have a worldview that is colored by his bias, etc.?

Does X honor explicit and implicit contracts? If you have an agreement with X, does X hold up his end? If you have an implied agreement with X, does X try to hold up his end (even if he can’t)?

Is X a fundamentally reasonable and decent person? Is X courteous in his dealings with you and others? How does X treat the cashier at the supermarket? If X sees someone bleeding out on the street, does he stop and try to help or does he pretend he never saw it?

Is X disabled in some way that impairs his ability to fully participate in society and score well on any of the above questions?

What is X’s personality and temperament? Talkative? Fun? Serious? Irreverent?

Work/Economics Questions

Is X competent in the areas that I work with him in?

Is X responsive? Does X try to help you when you ask?

Is X productive? How productive? Does X follow the productivity norms of our society? Does X reasonably contribute what he can to society, within the scope of his abilities? This is not a question of what X’s job is. The “job” can be anything productive X does.

Does X use his assets in productive and society-enhancing ways? If X has a lot of money, does he invest or contribute that money to worthwhile activities? If investors have put a lot of money in X, does X try hard to produce a good return? If X is the inheritor of a lot of money, what did he do with it?

If X has significantly more money than the norm, did X earn that money through productive activity? Were the activities worth the amount of money X now possesses? This is partly a market judgement but more importantly a value judgement.

Notice what we are not asking. We are explicitly not asking about how much wealth X possesses. This should not be a rating criterion. The only valid question is whether, having obtained wealth, what it is being used for. This is important because today, wealth, whether people admit it or not, is an important criterion for how people are rated. But it’s an example of a bad, and socially corrosive, ratings category.