More actions
Predicates
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 how predicates are generated and how they fit into the ratings system.
Thoughts on Predicates
I'd like to return to a conversation I had with Lem and we continued in a subsequent group meeting about how predicates would be created. Let's define 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 following Lem's question, "If you support Trump, why?" A possible answer might be "I support Trump because he supports working people like me."
We both agreed that 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](Argument Scoring).
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 Trump 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 Trump 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 Trump'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.
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.
Thoughts on Economic Predicates
Our ratings system is presumed to start with questions that can be answered through a numerical rating. "Is X a real person" might be answered with a 0.7, indicating their belief that there is a 70% probability that the person in question is real. We have constructed a Bayesian math framework to encapsulate this numerically.
Let's suppose we are trying to ascertain X's need for a claimed item (in the SRBE/CRBE economy). For the question "Does X need the claimed item?" we could also answer it probabilistically. But there is another interpretation which is clear when we reframe the question as "How much does X need the claimed item?". The two questions ask for different things.
The first asks us, in essence, to answer Yes or No and then assign a level of confidence to the answer. Answering 50% is to say I don't know (0% confidence). Answering 70% is to say Yes with a confidence of 40%. Answering 20% is to say No with a confidence of 60%.
For the second question, let's assume the scale is 0-1. This would mean 0.5 (50%) would represent someone who has an "average" need for the item. Clearly, we would need to define what the scale really means but let's say it corresponds to a standard distribution with a mean at 0.5. A 0 would represent someone with no need for the item. A 1 would represent someone who has a maximum need for the item.
Although the first question is a predicate, the second question seems to be more useful in a ratings context. The first question provides a confidence which is really just an error estimation. Error will occur, of course, but it seems we should be placing the error around the second question. That is, people could answer the "how much" question with an interval representing where they think the error lies (eg 0.7 +- 0.1, so an interval of 0.6-0.8).
The need rating should probably start with the claimant. A statement of need and corresponding numerical score could then set the stage for further ratings by community members. These, in turn, should probably start by providing a brief statement of how they are qualified to know someone else's need (eg He's my neighbor and I've known him for 20 years). A member rating of someone's need without such a statement should probably be rejected unless it is clear from prior ratings that they have an ongoing relationship.
We presume here that items are "needed". But need is a sliding scale as well. We absolutely need food, clothing, and shelter. But do we really need a car? Well, probably in the US most people can make a reasonable argument for a car due to how we've designed our urban environment. But our need for cars is certainly less than that for food. The same is true for all manner of goods/services we think we need. Even goods classified as needs, such as food, often have a large hedonic component built into them (eg chocolate cake) and create a claim which is essentially outside the bounds of basic needs. In the US, "necessary" foods are sometimes labeled for compliance with government food aid programs (eg WIC).
It will be important for our system to rate the necessity of items in relation to basic needs (eg food). Then, when claims are made, equitable distribution can be prioritized for those items classified closer to the basic need level. The concept, loosely stated, is that everyone gets to eat before anyone gets more.
Community
A community is a group of people. Here is a link to the main page. Here is a link to the a nice magazine. So you don't need a pipe for the outside links, just a space. You can also link to other wikis by doing wikipedia:Bitcoin.
Here is a list of registered wiki's.
This is bold.
This is italic.
Here is an equation but it doesn't obey the dark template mode.
