MathHelp

That's fine, but can I ask that you simply don't answer and let others make a decision on whether they want to answer my question or not? Not trying to be rude, but your responses are not clearing up the point of confusion for me and I don't want my topic derailed. I am asking a question about two competing pieces of information that I am receiving and your answers are not helping me to make sense of those competing bits of information. I would add, that the information that you have provided is information I am already familiar with - but it is not assisting me with my question.

I think your not understanding the nature of my question. I am trying to understand whether there is a recognised psychological difference between men and women and if there isn't, then how does psychologically explain that there are people who specifically feel like they are members of the opposite sex. I understand that there is a gender spectrum but it is not quite the answer I am looking for and I am concerned that this will result in answers to questions that I am not asking about.

I can't because they were real life people that told me that there is no difference psychologically between males/females. One is a friend from the past (no longer in contact with them) who is a counsellor, and the other was a university professor who taught feminism. I also remember from my old Psychology textbook (I no longer own) that gave a graph with two bell curves close together that said that research into the differences between men and woman usually result in a graph that looks similar (two bell curves very close together) and that differences that are observed between the two bell curves often disappear when controls are put in place for education, age groups, etc etc The two bell curves were generic and looked like this but were slightly closer together: Obviously, no one I have met has suggested that males and females are not physically different. I hear people say "there is no difference between men and women psychologically speaking" frequently enough that I was actually expecting not to actual need to cite any source. I was actually expecting responses to be something along the lines of "it is true that psychological studies have not found a difference but that does not mean there is not difference, it just means we have not done the right studies yet".

The psychology textbook I studied said sex (I understand sex is different to gender) has four dimensions - hormonal, gonadal, genetic, and genitals. That might be relevant to what you are saying (that there are not just two - you can have all kinds of variations among the four dimensions). However, the main point of confusion for me is the psychological aspect of things - where there seems to be conflicting information. Because some people are telling me there is no difference between male and females psychologically while others feel and difference within themselves - and want to identify consistent with that difference.

When I studied Psychology, I learned that there is very little difference between men and women psychologically. The differences that psychologists do see often disappear when controls are put in place. However, at the same time there are people who identify as the opposite gender (or no gender at all). Doesn't that imply that there are psychological differences between the male and females? What am I missing here? Perhaps I am misremembering what I learned - could it be that there are no differences intellectually between males and females but that there are other differences? The other thing that confused me is that my understanding is that hormones effect our mental states - but males and females have different levels of hormones so shouldn't that mean there is a difference? Apologies if anything I have said implies something offensive. I am not trying to be offensive and psychology/humanities/gender is not my area of expertise. So I don't know if I am making assumptions I shouldn't or if I have fundamentally misunderstood what I am hearing/learning etc etc

The trouble I am having is I already know what "meeting engagement" and "line of contact" means. What I want to do is learn things that I don't know that I don't know. There is no way to google the term/concepts unless I know it exists and the only way to find out these terms/concepts exist would be to figure out what the subject is that teaches this stuff. Not looking to understand conflicts, i'm looking to understand whay I previously would have referred to as "Military Strategy". However, since getting several books on military strategy I notice that they don't have the information that I am after in them. I can only assume that it is some other subject. Well, I am more looking for textbooks/subjects that explain concepts. Terminology does change with the times, but you can still have books/subjects that explain what current terminology means. The information taught to officers where they learn what a "meeting engagement" is must come from somewhere.

Chao theory is beyond my comprehension and the suggestion by OldChemE does not actually cover what I am wanting to achieve. Any chance you could explain in words (or very basic maths) how chaos theory can be used to illustrate the what I am trying to say? Remember: 1. This needs to be something simple for people without a maths background to understand. 2. It doesn't need to be 100% accurate. It just needs to be a way of giving a general understanding of the idea, even if the maths would breakdown under mild scrutiny.

Hi there, I often see on the news military analysts using phrases like "...a meeting engagement" or "...along the line of contact". I would like to know more about these and similar terms. What subject or type of textbook should I be reading to learn more about this? People will often refer to books like Sun Tsu Art of War etc etc but it isn't really what I am looking for. I think of the Art of War as being strategic principles. They don't actually describe or explain terminology used in battles. As an aside, I also don't understand why the Art of War is often recommended reading. It seems like the principles could be reworded to be clearer and put in a more modern day textbook with examples and practice problems. If the ideas in the Art of War are so important, they really should be presented to students in a way that helps them think about the concepts and ideas. So, anyone here every go to a military officer training school? What was the subject called where they taught you about meeting engagements, line of contact etc etc? Are there any textbooks on the subject?

What I was hoping to show is a bit different. I am not looking to show the benefits of de-escalation - in fact de-escalation would be counter to the point that I am trying to make. The point I am trying to make through mathematics (while lacking the mathematical skills to actual make it) is that any time you add to an argument (whether you add something positive or negative) it becomes more complicated for a third party to resolve because they get information overload and there are too many things to dispute. I call it "The Maths of Muddying the Waters". As an example: Scenario 1: Bob steals Gregs apple. Greg goes straight to the police and shows them footage of Bob stealing the apple. The police tell Bob to give Gregs apple back and give him a warning. Issue resolved. Scenario 2: Bob steals Gregs apple. Greg demands Bob return it. Bob refuses. Greg tries to make a concession and says that Bob can have the apple so long as he does not steal any more. Bob refuses. Because Bob refuses not to steal again Greg demands the apple be returned. Bob says no because Greg already said that Bob can have the apple. Greg disagrees and says he only said that conditional on Bob agreeing not to steal again. Bod says he only heard Greg say he could have the apple and Greg only demanded that Bob not steal any more apples after he had given him the apple. Greg tries to physically take the apple from Bob. Bob pulls away and pushes Greg back causing Greg to fall over. Greg now accuses Bob of assault. Bob claims Greg assaulted him and he was defending himself. The issue ends up in court where the judge now has to decide: 1. Did Bob steal the apple? 2. Did Greg give Bob the apple? 3. Did Greg assault Bob? 4. Did Bob assault Greg? 5. Did Bob act in Self defence? 6. Was Greg defending property? As you can see, engaging in argument turned a very simple problem into an unnecessarily complex situation which is going to cost Greg a lot of money, waste the courts time, and possibly result in Greg going to prison for assault. Even if he does not go to prison for assault, the proceedings can still be very stressful. Note: I have given a really bad example, there are plenty of good examples in the Family Court system but it would take far too long to articulate the entire chain of events (which literally proves my point about the unnecessary complexity people create for themselves).

Hi there, I have studied logic and found it offers significant practical benefit to me in everyday life. I wondered if other philosophical topics might offer me practical benefits as well. So I started learning about Metaethics. After studying various theories and with no apparent end in sight (and no obvious practical benefit), I thought I might try a different subject so I started reading about epistemology. However, once again it seemed that it was just various theories with no practical benefit to it. At this point it seems to me that the main benefit of studying both metaethics and epistomology would be to 1. Contribute towards our growing knowledge so that we may one day figure out something practical for society and 2. Be able to regurgitate theories in an exam and 3. engage in debates. I don't see anything wrong with this, but it is not what I personally want to use philosophy for. So, if I were to keep studying metaethics or epistomology would I eventually learn things that have practical value? Is there another subject within philosophy that is highly practical like logic? Another question I had was, is there an order in which philosophy should be studied? I noticed a lot of introductory textbooks (other than logic books which are really good) use all kinds of specialised terms without defining them which makes me think both epistomology and metaethics are for courses that take place after a student has already completed a pre-requisite course.

Hi there, When it comes to disputes, the more you engage in arguing/conflict the more complicated the argument becomes for a third party to try and resolve. The sooner you take your conflict to your manager or a judge (litigation), the easier it is going to be for them to figure out what has happened and resolve things quickly. Is there away to present this idea mathematically? Preferably in simple maths... I was thinking something similar to: Conflict with two facts to resolve: C = 1/2 x 1/2. (i.e. if there is two facts then each fact is one half of a whole). Conflict with three facts to resolve: C = 1/3 x 1/3 x 1/3. (i.e. if there are three facts then each fact is one third of the whole conflict) I am not very skilled in maths so any advice or suggestions would be really useful. The equation does not need to be technically correct. I am looking for something that helps give people a general idea of how unnecessarily engaging in verbal conflict can turn a simple issue into a much more complex issue.

So I am trying to learn how to write a proper risk statement. My textbook does not explain it - it only refers to making a risk statement as being important. I used google and it gave me the following template: If [event] due to [root cause] then [consequence]. Root cause is determined by asking "Why" five times. So I tried it out: Event: Student spills acid on themselves. Root cause: Lack of concentration - Why1? They were tired. Why2? They did not get much sleep last night. Why3? They were out drinking. Why4? They wanted to make friends. Why5? They are an extroverted person. Consequence: they suffer chemical burns. So the statement becomes: "If a student spills acid on themselves due to being an extroverted person then they will suffer chemical burns". I'm a little confused because this statement by itself does not achieve the purpose of a risk statement - being able to communicate risk information to third parties. It is not at all clear to someone reading the statement why being extroverted would result in spilling acid. Does anyone know what is wrong with the risk statement? The process for creating risk statements seems to lead to lots of vague statements that don't seem to have any utility. Another example: "If I am near a volcano when it erupts due to needing food then I will die". Doesn't make a lot of sense without the initial part of the "why" analysis does it? - why do you need to be near a volcano for food... well, originally it would have been that you were near the volcano as part of your job and your job earns you money which you use to buy food...

So it's gone from offensive to "very" offensive???? It's a psychology forum... I'm asking about psychology related questions to specific law enforcement training. I am not from the United States, I am not sure how any of what you are saying relates to my questions. Is there some rule that prevents me from asking questions unless they relate to improving overall US Law Enforcement or the entire population of the world? There are plenty of questions on this psychology forum that are not related to improving US Law enforcement or creating a more ethical population. In fact, my assumption is that the types of discussions you are wanting might be found in the politics forum because creating policy is more of a specialisted subject. Your a moderator, please stop posting responses that are obviously unrelated to the questions asked.

I don't think this is a healthy way to look at things. 1. Peoples interests are exactly that - their interests. I am assuming you have interest/s hobbies as well (swimming/hunting/reading/talking/walking etc etc). Life wouldn't function well if it is offensive to take an interest in anything outside the ultimate good. I think this comes down to practical reasoning versus theoretical reasoning. 2. No doubt you would offend someone else by your focus on wanting to develop a more ethical population versus wanting to cure diseases. Discussions about the correct focus could last for a long time and in the meantime nothing would get done as no-one would want to choose to focus on the offensive option. Once again, it comes down to practical reasoning versus theoretical reasoning. 3. If I am in charge of developing a new training curriculum for officers (I am not), I would argue that the most ethical thing I could do would be to spend the time creating the best ethical curriculum possible. In this case the time would be allocated for law enforcement purposes, and I am not free to use the time to create a training curriculum for the entire world. I would also lack the resources. 4. If I am writing a book about a futuristic planet where the main character is a member of a law enforcement agency, I need content that can be used to remind the reader that "things are different". There is no value in an improved ethical population if the plotline is supposed to go in the opposite direction. I was hoping to avoid this as it goes more towards identifying issues early/before recruitment. While this is certainly something that is important and I am sure would create a more ethical people, I was specifically interested in a situation where the psychologist does not have control over who is in the training course. Presumably someone else (perhaps even other psychologists) has done their absolute best to get the best candidates. From there, I was interested in whether further training was possible regarding mindsets. Thanks, that is really good feedback. In my hypothetical situation, is there any evidence to believe indoctrination could be just as effective if you have plenty of time/money to create more intensive programs? As an example, if you had a class of 30 trainees and 10 of them were actually there to reinforce ethical/moral behaviour at all times. The 10 people might be required to always back each other up on the ethical/moral behaviour so if any of the 20 actual trainees did something wrong it would draw the disgust of at least 10 people automatically. Obviously, this is an extreme example, but I am just wanting to know if the limitation is that "psychologists don't know enough about it" or if it is "psychologists don't know enough to make meaningful changes at an affordable price". In this scenario, it would be the law and department guidelines/policy or you could even answer the question assuming experts in ethics and psychology are involved in making the policy law. For me, I am curious about getting the officers to follow the policy once it is created. As an example, there are many situations where an officer might be fearful and it will be hard to follow training regarding the use of force if the officer "feels" they are taking a risk by using a low level of force but cannot justify greater force on a feeling. They may act irrationally and use excessive force because they were afraid. When the optimal response might be to overcome the fear and continue using the required low level of force.

Hi team, I have seen quite a few videos on Youtube where people are swimming in waterways that have crocodiles in them. For example: Diver Has Lucky Escape From Crocodile | Super Giant Animals | BBC Earth - YouTube How is this possible? Are the divers just incredibly lucky? My best guess is that perhaps crocodiles are not as dangerous as I thought and perhaps they only eat at certain times of the year/day. I assume it would have to be more than a mere tendency for them to only eat/hunt at certain times. I wouldn't be willing to enter the water with them on the basis of some rule that "in general they only hunt/eat in spring" or "in general they only hunt/eat in the mornings". Even if the divers are using behavioural knowledge of the crocodiles to swim when it is "safe", how safe it it? Do scientists who study crocodiles routinely jump in the water with them? Like I said earlier, this is not the first video I have seen and I have seen some where the crocodiles are huge.

EDIT: MODERATORS, PLEASE MOVE TO PSYCHOLOGY FORUM Hi team, I am just wondering if psychologists have investigated methods for developing a person's ability to be "good". In this case I mean to have a particular mindset of wanting to do the right/ethical thing. I am specifically thinking in the context of policing. If you were trying to create police officers who were model officers for the rest of the world law enforcement (i.e. less inclined towards corruption, abuse etc etc than police) is there some sort of training that could be or has already developed? Just to clarify, I am not asking about the recruitment process where steps could be taken to weed out bad apples. I am interested to know if it is possible to develop someone's mindset after they get to the training academy.

I am still working through my current textbook that actually explains deductive very well. There has been only one part of the book where I think they could have written things better - which was the explanation of the addition rule of implication. However, the book does not provide as much information on inductive logic as I would like. Do you know any good books that cover inductive logic well? Specifically wanting to know more about arguments based on signs and hypothetical reasoning. As far as I can tell the book simply mentions that there is a type of induction based on signs. With hypothetical reasoning it makes the distinction between empirical hypothesises and theoretical hypothesises and gives criteria for tentative acceptance of a hypothesis as adequacy, internal consistency, external consistency, and fruitfulness. Does really help to improve these two methods of reasoning much.

Hi team, Really struggling with this - even though it seems like it should be obvious. Constructive Dilemma: I can't tell if the "p or q" should be exclusive (so either p or q) or if it is actually inclusive. I suspect it is an inclusive disjunction: The main point of uncertainty is while I have just shown an example with constructive dilemma where I used inclusive disjunctions, I am not sure if whether the conclusion might create problems in the larger scheme of things. Logical arguments can obviously be a string of different rules of inference and as I learn more I am wondering I will learn a rule of inference that connects to the constructive dilemma rule but does not work with my example

That's true, it is literally a "argument from mathematics" but I think the point that they were trying to make is that in the field of mathematics people have used the word "induction" to mean something quite specific that is not the same as what a logician means. You could say something similar about the "deductive" criminal profilers. Deductive profiling is actually an inductive process. The difference is that I assume that mathematicians have a good reason for creating their concept of induction (which is actually deduction) while "deductive" criminal profilers appear to have created their definitions out of ignorance. As far as I can tell they believe that a logician would completely agree with how they define deduction. The definition of "deductive criminal profiling" does not appear to have any purpose or benefit. It does not involve learning any skills that would help the profiler reason better. Criminal Profiling textbooks tend to offer a definition and then go on to argue how much better deduction is than induction. But they don't teach people how to actually make deductions according to their definition of what a deduction is. Not only that, a normal logic textbook is not helpful because a logic textbook would not classify what deductive profilers do as being deductive.

Oh, I understand all that. I thought you were meaning that there is an area in philosophy outside the subject of logic that deals with a fascinating situation where a sound deduction leads to in incorrect conclusion (which is obviously impossible - but you never know with philosophy). But certainly, I understand that a sound deduction means that the premises are true and the argument is also valid. It appears that you are making the same point as me. That is that there is plenty of theory (methods/techniques) that are involved in both deduction and induction. This is the very reason why I think the definitions being used by some criminologists/profilers (not talking about lawyers here actually, as I have only been reading the criminology stuff) are not useful. The FBI seems to be using a made up definition of inductive profiling that is consistent with inductive logic (two very specific types of induction). So I don't have a problem with what I have been told about their definition. It seems practical. If you are an FBI Profiler and you want to become better at making inductions, you can pick up a logic/statistics textbook and learn about things like Mills Methods, likelihood versus probability, and arguments from analogy. But if you do "deductive" (not deductive as defined by logicians) profiling and you want to improve your "deductions" you have no starting point. You can't pick up a textbook on deduction and study it - because the logic they are using is actually induction. At the same time, they don't know that what they are doing is induction so they don't know where to find better information. The definitions they are using are therefore a hinderence.

I would normally agree but I don't think a conscious decision has been made for a new definition of induction/deduction to be created that better suites their needs. The reason I think this is for several reasons: The textbooks/academics/professionals I have come across treat deduction of having the feature of certain conclusions if the premises are true. But they do not define it that way. In one case a textbook gives the following example of the modus ponens rule of implication: This is clearly an inductive argument. The author actually used statements rather than letters but as they relate to crime it would not be appropriate to write what was said here. However, it was similar to this: This is clearly an inductive argument and is certainly not a modus ponens deduction. However, even if we are generous and say that other disciplines are allowed to create their own definitions, I would hope you can agree that the conclusion given is not at all certain based on the premises and so the textbook is definitely wrong when it says deductive conclusions under their definition are certain if the premises are certain. I would agree with you that the FBI definition (based on what a non-FBI profiler told me) that "inductive profiling is profiling based on generalisations and probability" is a definition that seems useful and does not exclude the possibility that FBI profilers work to improve their logical skill by studying induction. The other problem is that the "deductive" (actually inductive) profilers criticise the FBI "inductive" profilers by saying "they can't know that, what if x, y, z?" which is a criticism that quite literally applies to their own methods. There does not appear to be any value in learning these definitions of logic as none of the textbooks proceed to teach anything about how to do these uniquely defined methods of logic. In fact, they encourage you to take a logic course... Where can I read more about this? Is this difficult for a none-mathematician to understand? I would like to know more about it. In any case, I assume that there is some benefit to to the definition?

Hi everyone. So I understand deduction to be any argument where the conclusion is certain to follow from the premises assuming those premises are true. With induction, the conclusion is only likely if the premises are true. But I have noticed that in some academic circles, specifically related to criminology/criminal profiling that people seem to think things like: 1. "Induction is reasoning from the specific to the general" 2. "Induction is when a conclusion is made using generalisations and probability" (those are types of induction, but not the only kind). 3. "Deduction is drawing conclusions from the physical evidence" (What?!?!?!?!?) 4. "Deduction is reasoning from the general to the specific". In each of these examples, I am referring to situations where a criminology textbook/expert has specifically made the distinction between induction and deduction. So it is not an example where a detective might have been giving an interview and then used the word "deduced" as a synonym for "I reasoned...". I was wondering if anyone knew what is leading to all the confusion in a subject that is very clear about the definitions. I would also add that the definitions found in criminology/profiling literature don't seem useful. For example, if you accept their definitions there is nothing more to learn. They don't begin to explain how to improve thinking when you are reasoning from the specific to the general or vis versa. It is as if they just give a definition for the limited purpose of being able to classify their thinking.

Oh, that is incredibly obvious. I'm shocked I did not realise that myself.

Thanks for the explanation. I think it might just be a variation in focus. There are many instances where we have all the data for a population so the null hypothesis can still be population versus sample. For example, you may be doing an analysis of the population of workers in your company that do a task one way versus a sample of workers that have learned to do the task using a different process. In which case it is population versus sample. I learned statistics for Analytical Chemistry so the emphasis was on calibration of instruments. Effectively it was comparisons of known value (so what in other contexts would be "population" characteristic) versus observed value of the sample. With that said, I appreciate you pointing this out to me because for most of the time I was learning statistics the textbook kept giving population versus sample null hypothesises but the in-class examples were all sample versus sample (the stats course was not specific to analytical chemistry) so I did find it confusing, and I would have loved for someone to identify this possible source of confusion.

So does that mean that the addition rule of implication is only for inclusive disjunctions? So I must first recognise that an argument is using a inclusive disjunction and only then can I apply the addition rule of implication? That would also mean that the disjunctive syllogism is by default only a rule of implication for inclusive disjunctions: Either p or q. Not p. Therefore q. Uh, so really the way the textbook explained it was in a confusing way. It explained it like there was some brilliant logical explanation for why "either... or..." could also mean "... and ...". If it had started off by saying "there are two types of disjunction i logic: Inclusive and exclusive. Inclusive disjunctions are ones where the the relationship between the two simple statements can be "or" and "both". The rules of implication that apply to disjunctions are for inclusive disjunctives only. Overall it is a very good book. That seems to be the only thing that was explained poorly. Thank you to you all. This has been a great help!