kristalris

I won't hold elections. It is something that any political party can have in their program. I hope that the leaders will become convinced via several routes that this is the way to get it organised. Your starting insight that it might well be the way forward stems me hopeful. Your hope that it is otherwise is maybe the taboo thought it touches in you. That is the neigh impossible to breach problem that stems me pessimistic. 80% of people naturally hope that they are all born tabula rasa and that with hard work you can be anything. Just Proof in effect says that that isn't true. What are you scared of? You state a dictatorship of un- Just Proof? You forget that "Just"of Just Proof is vested in democracies vested in international treaties that define what is Just. I was called naive at the start of the thread. Well I've seen all sides of nearly all forms of the law. Murderers, rapists, innocent, childcare divorcees asylum cases The first time the Netherlands was corrected by the European court of Human Rights was won by me BTW only went there then the third time of the thousand cases I had done. Being described by a scientist who observer that I was an exceptional lawyer of all observed lawyers in actually dealing with the authorities though not being a so called "officer of the court" yet a "hired gun". I thought the judges of the penal court didn't like me. I caused problems for them. Yet it was they who chose me to become a judge. As a DA I was part of the lawmaking process and saw local politics in action. In crises also. So what do you want to know about human behavior or the behavior of human controlled systems in practice? You have the naive thought maybe that judges do what the law states? You think that politicians do what the promise? You think that civil servants like the police do what the people want? Well yes and no. There is a great difference between practice and the theory. It is much more a bunch of apes acting like a bunch of apes, I can tell you. And yes, you can and must organize that basically asap or the shit will predictably hit the fan, for shit happens! And again: Just Proof isn't a dictate other than to the legal system. The trick lies in the human ape trait to copy the leader to a high degree. So not everybody is or needs or should even be forced to conform. Just Proof protects diversity as of natural. It secures OPENNESS = inherent freedom. And what would be wrong in that? You copy the social norm to get properly organised science based R&D advice and reach consensus on that. = organised wisdom in my book. Indeed the freedom to live believing and acting as if apples fall upwards from the tree. Yet when a - conflict !- arises they'd best be known to fall down in the subsequent further guess. And more and more the past twenty years the legal apples are falling upwards in court. => rising tension. Our Dutch system of shares and companies and colonizing a great part of the world who later stated you governed us well, but you governed us can be applied again. Yet with deletion of the latter. In effect the reason that Dutch sport coaches are internationally successful (Hiddink in South Korea is a semi God I'm told) is that they in effect use applied psychology. Like Just Proof in effect is. Overpopulation isn't as such a problem, other than a technical logistical problem even with current technology easy to fix quickly. What is stopping us then? The instrument between the ears. And the taboo is. Change that and you quickly solve the problem. Organize wisdom: Just Proof.

No I haven't I asked for a short respite. I had other engagements such as a pop concert. Cheap crack you pulled then eh? Anyway you would like to know about the current way judges are selected in the Netherlands (at least a few years back because the system has gone haywire since then) and how Just Proof differs in that? Well, since you are even getting - explicitly - sarcastic on the issue: there are two systems: one for lawyers with less then six years relevant experience and those with more. I had more and was asked if I wanted to become a judge. So as far as I recollect: you send your application letter with cv and (I 'd have to check but from memory after a pop concert) four references as to your person. When you pass the first selection you go to an assessment center where you do IQ test and personality tests and have a talk with the psychologist and do interactive plays with actors. Anywhere across the line the police and secret service have a look as well. If you pass that you go to the commission of I can't remember two times two or three members who as far as I was concerned see if you are a wise person in there opinion. Pass that and the police and security check if you are on record. Then you have to try and get a job with any of the courts. Like a normal job. When accepted you have a one year period in which you beside your normal job have one court session per week with say six or so cases. You need to do the court case and the verdict to satisfaction of all concerned. This in always the penal but also either the civil or administrative chamber. Having passed that you need to find a court that will have you. For the magistrates of the prosecution office where I ended up you have to lead police teams in investigations etc.. After that usually you get appointed and do furter police teams yet in my case my wife got cancer so I had became a DA in a county with ten mayors. Dealing with the small crime scene in the district. How do you distinguish between the personality types? Well, the selection I just mentioned is on conscientiousness as the CV shows etc.. The openness is a you need a thief to catch a thief affair, Openness is the trait that you show a lateral (= out of the box) way of thinking .And you need to show mastery of irony. Given the diploma and the marks thereof show you may assume to be a fast enough thinker. When you are not open-minded enough that will show and thus that will be remedied.. If you want to know more you'd have to pay for the translation,

okay, cultural differences won't be a problem because it is basic psychology (actually DNA). The Big Five is a broadly held to be culturally independent affair. The system in the Netherlands is one that I will explain more in full yet I have to go now.

Eh, you don't understand the Trias Politica. The lawmaker makes the law i.e. states the goal. Of course if the lawmaker makes an absolute hash of it the system goes down the drain. Just Proof can't prevent that. All it can do is help stabilize the system. The primary problem in practice - take it from the expert - is not so much the injustice of the goal of the law but the incorrect establishment of the facts. Hence Just Proof. The correct establishment of the facts is not an exact science, as lawyers would like you believe but educated honest creatively intelligent guesswork based on dito research into the facts. If you have a rigid system you invariably have loopholes that "smart" people can play on. In Just Proof you have no loopholes. If you probably have misbehaved on the stated goal you very probably will loose. The amount of rules needed to do this is reduced to a logic minimum on the stated goal by the lawmaker. Of course the lawmaker also states the boundaries but that is also a goal to stay within those boundaries. (No torture etc. is a boundary but also a goal. Or privacy.)

Well the first has to do with the last. What I'm on about is also risk management. feeding a growing population by bad governance and lack of education etc is an enormous risk for conflict as history repeatedly shows. Where do you think 9-11 twin Towers stems from: bad governance and lack of education etc.. Having a good legal system helps stabilize government. It is reciprocal. I.e. the Trias politica has proven to work and work well - provided - the checks and balances are upheld. In an inherently quickly changing society it is extremely risky if the change isn't effectively i.e. creatively met. Change is unavoidable. take internet that is change. social media is change a change that IMO has played a conditio sine qua non role in the current conflicts in Northern Africa and the Middle east. The government and thus the legal system need to quickly adapt to change. For if the legal system prevents government from appropriate change it goes wrong. Yet government without a legal shock absorber will fail as history shows. The trick is in getting the checks and balances right. The goal should be to stem poverty as you say via education for all. Make shore that all the apes have their banana. Ultimately only a legal system can ensure that without a fighting conflict. Yet paradoxically only when used as an emergency brake. Just Proof organizes that. I.e. keep it all out of court. In part in Dutch law. But does it matter? Say you are interested in copying it for the USA. Well send over a group of US experts and they will be told as to how that works. Then they can adapt it to fit their system

In the Netherlands as I already answered it is the committee combined with the assessment center with psychologists that via a prescribed method do that. Well, it basically works and has worked for quit some time. Only to go sour for the slight problem I pointed out. Which is thus corrected via Just Proof. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm Well, I can't as yet find a better link than this, yet any scientist that doesn't agree that the mounting overpopulation is a grave risk is out of his or her mind. There might be scientists that wish to believe it will as of itself correct itself yet I can't see any way that that could scientifically be validated. That overpopulation leads to conflict is not only proven via rats, but also in repeated history. Take Rwanda; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC539046/ That it is sometimes ignored doesn't take away the concern. Scientists are humans too. Humans often ignore serious problems.

Edit: apart from that you do as if I state that the legal system can do all of that. What you don't quite understand is that a correct (i.e. Just Proof) legal system is quite anarchistic in nature. You may do as you please as long as you don't unduly interfere with others. And edit 2 what you also don't understand is that avoidance of the legal system is just the key of Just Proof as you correctly point out: the damage is done when you reach the courts. You are of course free not to employ that system, if you deem that better when Just Proof is in place. I only predict that as of free will people will copy that as the new social norm. By natural process. You see this happen in society all the time BTW. You don't know then how much of your daily life is covered by the law. Society copies that all. That having too much rules BTW will with Just Proof lessen considerably I predict as an educated guess. Because open-minded people have the tendency to reduce the amount of rules, contrary to conscientious types who do quite the opposite. This you can for instance measure at the thickness of an average contract between twenty years ago and now to see who is at the moment having more power in the court. And which one of the seven choices I gave is it then you choose? The alternatives are: 1. not do anything and hope for the best. I.e. some present authority will solve the problem. 2. make a slight adjustment to the existing legal system that an expert out of that system advises you to do. In effect a slightly organised anarchy (in effect a liberal solution Just Proof) 3. Propagate a complete anarchistic solution (that in the past has always gone wrong on the stated goal in the OP) 4. Propagate some sort of dictatorship (that in the past has also always proven to go wrong on the stated goal in the OP) 5. Accept that it will go wrong but that this will be for the better (WW III etc. won't be that bad) 6. Something else. What then? 7. Deny that anything is going wrong (contrary to what the vast majority of scientists state.)

Assume it is 2? I state it is 2. I've stated all the detail you need old boy. But you simply miss what I've stated. I haven't just stated appoint a wise judge. I've stated to split the current team in the 10% most open-minded judges. And I told you what they should do and how they should reach consensus with the other judges or jury. I also told you that a formal consensus requirement is a normally held model in law. Splitting 10% off and having them also do "air-crash investigation" on the supreme court for an again advice is completely new to any legal system, yet normal in for instance the aircraft industry. What is it you miss? I've stated how to organize - in effect just the way it is done now - if you want more details of that go study Dutch law. If you want the unwritten details of that ask experts. I'm an expert I tell you it is so. You need know no more. Again you use exactly the same selection system as is used now. Only you select more than you already have done on the personality trait openness. Simple. All the rest of the details are textbook stuff of very basic broadly currently held psychology. Buy such a textbook or go study psychology for more details. If you are interested in how that psychology works I can elaborate but don't have to for I've already proven my point. What you ask ad point 7 baffles me. I state that the system fails at the moment. So do you then obviously. Or do you wish to state that all legal systems since the Roman times have always immediately failed or have been proven by history to be inferior to any other system? Well then the burden of proof is on you to show what system that is then. Few if any in science or law hold such a position BTW. All I do with these alternatives is prove that there is no alternate other than the ones I gave. And that number two is probably best. I need do no more. I don't claim exact science on that because I claim that exact science on this issue is inherently impossible. Yet you don't seem to grasp that. All we have is more or less well in part statistically based educated guesswork and a view of history.

Yes I do. And that is exactly the difference in way of thinking between the open lateral thinking R&D type and the conscientious production type of instrument between the ears. You are thinking and talking I guess of a mathematical or process optimization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_optimization It is a question as to what degree of control you think you can have on the way the process will go. In effect then you get two stipulative definitions of optimization. In the 19th century there was a legalistic approach that proved not to work and counts as a dirty word in the Dutch legal community http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(Western_philosophy) . Even though it is nowadays far more legalistic that could possibly have been envisaged by its proponents. They thought / think you can control and thus optimize the legal process. You can't IMO. It never has worked and always has failed as history shows. I.e. you simply can't control the legal process to a degree that would warrant it being called something that can mathematically verifiable be optimized. (without a lot of dubious tricks that is) You indeed can't measure sufficiently to control the process of law to a degree that a perfect society in which no injustice occurs. That said, you can optimize a process via application of a few broadly and long term accepted rules of thumb. Actually contrary to what most psychologists would find most of psychology is based not so much on hard science but broadly accepted rules of thumb as well. Though they like to produce a lot of statistics to the contrary yet being more often than not being correct by statisticians that they have claimed to much. It is thus more of a collective subjective measurement than hard science. Here as again a fairly hard rule of thumb simple robust models prove to work better in the long run than complicated ones. Simplex veri sigilum. Just Proof is such a robust basic model based on combining two / three such basic models the legal model of old, R&D production and sales of industry that corresponds with the Big five psychology model. Models that have a perfect fit and being models that have proven to work in the past (for what ever reason.) Given the stated problem that the western systems - as I predicted on record more than twenty years ago - would fail it did. The alternatives are: 1. not do anything and hope for the best. I.e. some present authority will solve the problem. 2. make a slight adjustment to the existing legal system that an expert out of that system advises you to do. In effect a slightly organised anarchy (in effect a liberal solution Just Proof) 3. Propagate a complete anarchistic solution (that in the past has always gone wrong on the stated goal in the OP) 4. Propagate some sort of dictatorship (that in the past has also always proven to go wrong on the stated goal in the OP) 5. Accept that it will go wrong but that this will be for the better (WW III etc. won't be that bad) 6. Something else. What then? 7. Deny that anything is going wrong (contrary to what the vast majority of scientists state.)

A directive communication style can be used between individuals as well as in teams. You used it towards me and I to you: quit pro qou. Oops quid. You only show to be a one trick pony and only use and demand of others the direct communication style. This begs the question oh great self declared communicator, can you also perform the other styles? Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Even though you provide ample evidence as to your limitations under pressure to do so in the use of different communication styles. BTW anyone ever explain to you that a group consists of individuals? I attest to my weaknesses. My English is wanting. But he I'm Dutch. You laurel your mastery of it yet in only one style and without showing the very English language mastery of irony. "By the way Shakespearean style English would be inappropriate on a 21st century science forum. But I am sure that, as an honourable man, you know that.)" Wasn't aware that Julius Caesar had an honourable character that thought that the quoted style was inappropriate in the 21st century. Yet you claim to have got the irony? Please elaborate. Alas you left the thread. I showed the illogical reasoning in the sentence you still have to react on it other than by a simple denial. This wiki is clearly wrong then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Renewed_attention

Phew, I stated that I prefer a reflective communication style, yet if someone uses a directive communication style towards me, although inappropriate IMO, I'm not bothered by that and will respond likewise: quit pro quo. The latter is a legal principle. I even explained that in full. The only psychology position I hold is that my common sense expert legal solution is consistent with the current broadly held position in current psychology. You state that there are new insights. Great as if I don't know that, yet it is nitpicking by you because beside the point. Anyway I've intensively talked to scientists actively involved in research on the hot topic of openness and they agree with me, yet state that the problem is a taboo. As does BTW a very experienced assessment psychologist. The only relevant position you could thus have in this respect is to state not something on the form but on the substance. I.e. that openness is unimportant in this context or something in that order. You don't do that. Now the rest of your too long post if it is an attempt by you to try and do a reflective communication style it failed. It is a direct communication style placed explicitly earlier on by you in a directive context. Why do you take my remark on Shakespeare literally and not as evident irony? I showed you that your sentence was illogical. Well that is improper use of the beautiful English language at any standard. shall we leave the nitpicking on the English language aside? It clearly is a touchy point for you. And do you enjoy, nitpicking with a lawyer that isn't as proficient in your language as you think you are? Maybe best leave it at that eh? Your remarks where out of bounds and very rude towards people who bother to address you in your language.Never do that again. Clear? You stand corrected.

Well, for that you will have to indeed take my word for it in the Dutch legal system at least. Yet it is the same in all systems the last twenty or more years. You can observe this. It has been described beforehand as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy http://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=wW6k_9kK2j8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=the+tendency+of+society+becoming+more+bureaucratic&ots=iAtSpnD4eo&sig=iHYORCuEZBjjyW_NuQ1cYdB065A#v=onepage&q&f=false Unless you've been living in a cave the last years you must of noted many also scientists note the problem. You need inside knowledge of the legal system to see what is happening though. And indeed that is kept under the rug of course. So people like you can keep on paying a lot of money to lawyers. For your information the legal system is based on common knowledge on how to keep the order and on the little true science we can muster to that effect. Now what then do you propose to do? Throw out the legal system for it has no scientific bases? It is based on long standing rules of thumb, that have been accepted by many. Like I stated earlier on in the thread you simply apply the same method as is used to assess judges at the moment. Only you single out the trait openness. You measure this via lateral humour and the degree of irony. That is how you do that with people of whom is clear that they have these traits and wise assessment psychologists. These people are already in place in the Netherlands anyway. Correct, agree. It is what I already stated BTW.

It doesn't lack details or evidence for it is based on what can be seen in part as evident common knowledge. And for the other part on the legal side and the psychology side as to be textbook stuff, That maybe assumed known by those who participate in this debate. I guess you lack this knowledge then. Now in part it is indeed based on knowledge of the legal system that you don't have yet many as I know correctly assume. For instance that lawyers create friction in the system and earn a lot of money via that. This then is evidently new to you. And you don't see this amongst a lot of other things as a problem. And you call me naive and oblivious of things? Strange indeed. It changed in the way I stated. The "something" is the selling of perfection by wise judges who more and more have disappeared. The selling of perfection has even got stronger. Ah, you haven't heard of a taboo? What do you think a taboo is? Have you noticed the negative rep points I have? I don't claim or have claimed that it will provide 100% success. I don't claim to reach a perfect world. I claim that you optimize an existing system that is evidently as many scientists agree in state of crisis. You even fail to acknowledge the latter. I claim that it will improve greatly the entire system. Yes. based on the proven way it worked in the past. And based on current psychology that concurs with this.

So must I understand it that you deem all legal systems illusory and not common sense then as a means for reaching an optimum degree of just order? Ah, so you do oppose a reflective style of writing on a R&D topic. On what basis is that then? It indeed is ironic, for have you?

I never stated that directive is equivalent to direct. Strawman on your part towards me and thus in breach of the rules of the forum by you. I never stated that directive thinking is applicable to an internet discussion. Yet it is what you are doing in this post. So on both counts in breach of the forum rules by you then. Well I gave you page 22 of the link I provided you with. You might notice that directive and direct are placed next to each other. Do you seriously want me to explain to you what that means? I guess you do: It means and proves that you are nitpicking. So I've adhered to the forum rules of proving my point. Directive thinking people have a preference of direct communication. As you clearly do. Do you finally get it or do I have to explain this to you in further detail? It is a fact: you are still nitpicking. Even after repeatedly having been pointed out the error in your reasoning. I guess that because you have others that agree with you that you think on democratic scientific grounds that you are correct? Well your not. Now you stated that my English isn't up to scratch. Well your mastery of it isn't exactly Shakespearean level either, or do you claim otherwise? You tried to demonstrate that what I wrote was incorrect use of the English language, yet you failed apart from a type error on my part to show this. What is the case that I used and use a reflective style in writing. It is a well established fact in communication and psychology that people who use other styles have problems with that. As you clearly do. Yet it is the best style of thought and thus communication for those with a talent for R&D topics as this one is. So no, it is clearly not my writing that is the problem. Yet you deem yourself and others to be the norm of things. What style is applicable then? So you failed to show that my English is not up to scratch yet have not stated to object to a reflective style of writing. and, how could you? You can't, can you? Yet you do have evidently serious problems as do others in comprehending what is stated even though it is proper English, factually correct and logical. Now if I was a child as you claim, I'd be cross with you and frustrated. I'm clearly not. So you got that wrong as well. (The psychology of mirroring BTW) Now you on the other hand do seem a bit cross with me. Why would that be? It can't be my English. It can't be the facts. And, it can't be logic. Now I'm an expert in this field of law. You clearly aren't. And on the field of psychology your last remark shows that you clearly are out of your depth as to psychology as well. You stated: "What we should not do, which is what you are doing, is single out one methodology and treat that as if it were gospel and the only way to slice and dice human interaction. That, in any of the systems, falls into the category foolish." First of all again a strawman on your part. And improper use of the English language BTW. Care to differ on the latter? All I state is that it is common sense to apply a system that I've personally - as have others - seen function well and implement that. That is in the field at which I'm an expert. And I also state as an indisputable fact that what I propose to do, concurs with current assessment psychology, being BTW the applicable branch of what the behavioral science has to offer on the topic. Further more I'm at a loss as how to logically understand what it is you have tried to put across in this sentence of yours? Is it that your mastery of the English language is wanting or do you as such have problems with reasoning in a logical way? It is foolish to use the way current science would treat the problem? Is that what you mean? Even that is in breach of the rules of the forum, for as I understand the rules you must use current science per rules of the forum. And I don't even claim that you should do it because current science says so. The latter being thus again a strawman you pulled on me. Pardon my French, but have you learnt something from this? I.e. are you as the expert still capable of learning anything, or do you know it all already?

In exactly the same way as the legal system - in a parliamentary democracy - has successfully done it in the past in the Netherlands. Then you will probably ask I guess: why did it go wrong then in your opinion? Answer: the situation in society changed whereby something that was not an issue in the past has become more and more of an issue. In the past we had a higher degree of open-minded judges that to higher degree did the temporary decisions and where in charge of investigation as well. This is in short how it was and still is formally organised. Because otherwise I'll have to explain the entire workings of the legal system in the Netherlands. I can of course, yet in essence most western legal systems one way or an other have dealt with the problem of investigation and evidence and proof in law. This you can see as the R&D part of the legal system from a viewpoint of this Just Proof model. So indeed it has been there all along. What changed then would I guess be your next question? Answer: Society has changed quicker than the legal system could cope with. Primarily the legal system couldn't do this because the indeed open-minded wise judges had been doing one unwise thing: they had been selling perfection even though they very well knew that they where at best producing above average good educated guesswork. Another problem was that unwise formal judges started to pin down the politicians too much, who before my time in court had also started to produce way to much new social laws. This in a far to complex way yet with a good goal. Alas a long and complex process ensued. In short then: the more conscientious judges have been making more and more a good carrier as opposed to open minded common sense judges. In a very short time frame the amount of laws, quickly changing laws, amount of court cases, amount of lawyers have risen and risen. As if it has been taken into production. In one way or another you see the same effects in the UK the USA and most western countries. The net effect is that the performance of having the people who misbehave lose court cases and the ones that behave win has more and more turned upside down. So I re-introduce something that was there and worked in such a way that it can remain functional with rapid change of society. The taboo is that you need to acknowledge the fact that you have different types of people with different talents. The strange thing is it is taboo even though it is current psychology as well. I hope my way of stating this is sufficiently clear? I'd be more than glad to elaborate on the psychology or the legal system and why a good working legal system lets people behave on a democratically stated goal (or any other goal for that matter.)

Go to page 22 of the link I provided earlier on. Here it is again: https://www.diversityresources.com/media/FourStylesParticipantHndbk.pdf You will note that there are two crosses: in them you find the words "directive" and "direct". This is the way most psychologists and communication experts use it. The actual one I use is in Dutch and not on the net. The link I gave seems in order. It proves you two absolutely wrong. And that brings me to the other point Ophiolite and you mix up: form and substance. You are nitpicking in the importance of the difference between direct and directive. So the sticker you put on what psychology is sometimes saying in different words is not so much important as the substance that it is trying to convey. The same nitpicking as with being clear, concise and comprehensive witch I copy pasted out of Ophiolits post. But yes it should also be comprehensible. Now I've asked you what style of communication you wish I use. I guess then you wish that I use the humble supportive style whilst you lot may use the bossy directive style as you've done and to which I simply reacted in a likewise fashion, to which you lot subsequently object. Quit pro quo. I do to you what you do to me for if you want to uphold the pretense of a scientific debate it should be on equal grounds. The only rule science forces upon you is that we have equality of arms so to speak. So it must be fare enough for you to choose the communication style you want me to use. Yet then I may ask you to do the same? Okay? Not backing anything up? I gave a link on the four styles of communication. In the previous post I did it again. Now I also provide you with the appropriate page 22. Now that childish way is the way current psychology sees it. I didn't make that up. Yet I do accept it as a correct rule of thumb as to distinguish between different personality traits and their respective communication styles. So no what I've said is backed up, and not made up as I go along for it is concerning the law in my field of expertise with many years of experience. The problem is of course how do you discus a taboo? You say childish. Indeed. These four traits (actually five but still) are fundamental. There is great consensus to that in the behavioral sciences. This is simple textbook stuff that you lot choose to ignore. It is indeed very simple. (even though there is much more to it than I've dealt with in this thread.) Current psychological research into creativity or the open-minded personality traits already acknowledged as the R&D trait goes like this. Not yet on the net: You can take a normal distribution (as a rule of thumb) on the two humble and boss production-minded trait (directive & conscientiousness google Big Five personality traits) that psychology measures via IQ tests. In effect IQ 50 is a mental six year old IQ 100. It is of course better not to take it from the mean but from the best. The problem with measuring this is however that below 80 and above 120 the test is unreliable. The principle remains the same. So a score of an adult between 80 and 120 gives a good account that you will function at the appropriate level in our current society. The same goes for EQ or sales. Psychology also takes a normal distribution and compares your EQ low as a six year old and had best take that not off the mean but off the top. I.e. compare it to what proven great communicators could do when they where six years old. What DSMV sees as autistic people who as adults can for instance score extremely high on certain traits have the emotional intelligence of a six year old. Yet are they thus deficient humans as DSMV depicts? Of course not. They have an essential part to play in us humans surviving. Mother Nature / God didn't "organize" it that way for fun. Einstein is deemed deficiently crank by DSMV. Yet that proves DSMV wrong and a mounting amount of exact scientists agree with this. On the other hand also the R&D trait can be seen as a normal distribution. ranging from a six year old Einstein level via the mean to an adult 24 year old Einstein. So, the only thing you have to do is make shore on R&D questions that the inherently required creative guess on strategic issues and in a crises when change is urgently required you get an above the mean guess. An adult guess, for then you improve on the prior odds whereas you otherwise you had best not guessed at all. Simple probabilistic reasoning. Based on current assessment psychology. Now as to my English, well indeed how is your Dutch? Strange stated that I was naive and oblivious to what not. That is a correct and meaningful English sentence. And a correct fact. He did use those derogatory words towards me. Yet I don't complain. Why do you? "So he chose a directive way of communicating to me." That again is a correct meaningful English sentence. And a fact. For use of derogatory words like these in the tone and context is a directive / direct or bossy way of communicating. "Okay, Just Proof: something for something: a authoritative instruction or direction response knocking his position for six. So stop moaning." Indeed this was shorthand and alas a typo error or incorrect auto-correction. Something for something means quit pro quo. An authoritative instruction (= what I gave with the link I provided) or directive (instead of direction typo) response knocking his position for six is also correct English. And also a matter of fact had you lot bothered to read the link i provided. Especially page 22. It totally disproves the position. And it didn't get zero points for I got negative rep points. So what have I proven: well exactly that what psychology already tells us concerning taboos. They are very difficult to communicate. ​Oh and BTW I haven't stated anything about anyone's abilities yet you have done that towards me. I've only stated the general rules that psychology gives.

Oh dear, there are several models that can be made on human communication. In a broad sense most come to a division in four ways: reflective = R&D style = - perceived! as woolly =/= not woolly at all if you are sufficiently intelligent. emotive = sales style supportive = production subordinate style directive = production boss style I can react in all styles you prefer. hence my question to what your preference is. Albeit that the topic dictates a R&D question and thus reflective communication style. yet maybe not befitting your preferred way of communicating. Alas my clairvoyance is not sufficient to ascertain as to what your needs and deficiencies are in communication. Strange stated that I was naive and oblivious to what not. So he chose a directive way of communicating to me. Okay, Just Proof: quit pro quo: a directive response knocking his position for six. So stop moaning. All communication styles are scientifically equally valid as to be clear, concise and comprehensive. The topic is an inherent R&D question: so the norm for best form of thought and thus communication is reflective. Indeed not everybody has the DNA or brain to compute that. So if you want to play state your preferred communication style: yet be aware you immediately thus show where you belong: R&D or Sales or production in the lead or in support. You incorrectly think this excludes the group. Of course not! So, on this open forum of scientific R&D debate on a R&D topic what was it that you didn't understand? It should be all clear if you are capable of reflective = relative logic thought.

Where did you get this from? Who told or taught you this? It is absolutely wrong. A directive communication style is what I'm treating you to now. See: no hand waving. You state to prefer this, so enjoy. and, you also state that you don't like it or woolly. Ergo you've just been proven wrong then.Quite an improvement then isn't it? A directive communication style wasn't conceived. It is descriptive. You don't like woolly or directive. Well then what do you prefer? https://www.diversityresources.com/media/FourStylesParticipantHndbk.pdf

Un-clarity in writing? Where then? If I use DNA in a Nature vs Nurture context as I did I refer to an ongoing discussion. You may thus assume I know about that unless you've seen me write anything that conflicts with that. I haven't, so it should of been clear to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture So again my position in this (BTW non-) debate is: current psychology stresses the nurture side of this debate. That isn't thus the same as what you think I stated that psychology totally envelopes that side of the discussion. Simple logic. I stated earlier on that both nature and nurture on the topic amount to the same thing as to how to organize the legal system. I also stated in effect that I'm convinced that you are not born tabula rasa and that your personality traits are genetic. That doesn't mean however that the education, or drugs can't alter the pre-settings. In this debate it is quite important to understand that whether nature or nurture human behavior is much more mechanical than is politically correct to state at the moment. This means that it is extremely important that you put the correct personalities in the chair of the R&D part of the justice system. If you put a production minded type in charge of that thinking he or she can learn to perform the required task you then are clearly seriously mistaken: it will go horribly wrong. Here part of psychology incorrectly claims to much when they think you can change someones personality via training after that personality is formed. Even that you can change it at a young age isn't true but that is off topic. You can of course seriously even permanently influence i.e. damage it. Me mistaken about Strange being oblivious to the stated problems? Could be, but then his line of reasoning is illogical. Anyway he hasn't even acknowledged the fact that there is a serious and pressing problem. So thus I'm under the impression he is oblivious of a problem. If he isn't then why does he obfuscating that? On my style of writing that you deem obfuscating or woolly I guess because you maybe prefer a more directive form of communication? Current psychology states to that effect that R&D minded people are perceived as woolly by production minded people who are conscientious in nature. The latter demand a directive style of writing. Indeed (extremely) probably always a combination of nature and nurture. I don't blame you either.

What i'm stating old boy is the current assessment psychology of which you are clearly totally oblivious. I.e. you clearly haven't the foggiest of what I'm stating about personality traits. And how in practice this is successfully applied. Yet not sufficiently in courts of law. You are also completely oblivious to the fact that whether it is nature (DNA) or nurture (current psychology) both come to exactly the same conclusion how to organize cooperation and how to flunk that. Further more you are - as history alas also shows - completely oblivious to the great and mounting problems in our western society and in the world as a whole. You only close the barn door after the horse has bolted. But that is DNA/ personality traits for you. That is what predictably in theory and practice happens if it isn't correctly organized. And you are clearly oblivious as to how legal systems work in practice and in theory. Further more you are oblivious to the fact as to the fundamental impact of a legal system on society as a whole. The mounting unnecessary bureaucracy comes out of the legal system. Unless of course you are not bothered by or haven't noticed this and are then oblivious to that as well. Indeed criminals: nearly ONE percent of an entire population in jail as criminals? You are clearly not bothered by that? Oblivious to the problem. If you don't understand basic psychology then you indeed will not see how it changes it. In effect it can indeed only change when the leaders see this. That will only be so when the leaders see people who in their eyes have authority indeed recommend this. That is what current psychology states on the issue. (BTW if you look at how apes behave and know that they are 90% to 97% the same DNA as us, I think you will have to acknowledge the fact that behavior especially personality traits are far more DNA in a DNA surrounding than is politically correct to state. You can breed aggressive or passive apes. As can you do with humans concerning all personality traits. And why not see the influence of the different DNA surroundings as nature as well? current psychology shows that you can easily stabilize a group of woman working together by adding one man to the group and the same goes for a group of men adding one woman.

Oh dear oh dear you might think it strange but you start off with a strawman in effect stating that I adhere to Rousseau. I'm a bit rusty on Rousseau but can you explain Rousseau's position on psychology traits and different types of DNA and R&D, production and sales? Of course you can't => blatant strawman thus. And even that you don't properly deal with even if it was my argument. Because the only thing you state in that effect is that Rousseau is laughably incorrect even though most democratic and legal systems stem from his way of thinking. Must I conclude that you oppose all democratic and legal systems then? Please explain how you can ditch Rousseau and not ditch democracy and all western legal systems? Yes I get to impose on others that discriminating any other for their sexual preference is unjust. And might I add it is not just I who state that. Must I then take it that you state that it is acceptable for others to discriminate homosexuals? Further more you simply still don't get it: the consensus that I'm on about is the formally required consensus between the open minded judge giving advice and the other judge or jury taking the decision. A very often used requirement in courts of law BTW. What you think I said I guess is that it is about consensus of everybody on everything, where I explicitly even have stated the absolute opposite. Certain people qua personality will never understand each other. Now you then think oh then they can't work together. Well no mate. It is very well understood how to organize that in a way that they do in practice work together. In effect that is just what I've done: create a separate organisation and give that a degree of authority. People have been sufficiently working together on all sorts of goals. Tried and tested it works. What clearly doesn't work is going on like we are now. Take the USA: Democrats and tea party nearly paralyzing the central government. A mounting debt. A bank crises. Nearly 0.7 of the population in jail at this very moment. !% of the populace having what is it more than 90% of the wealth, a third of the population below the poverty line. The USA is morally bankrupt. You got to this because your legal system is on the blink. It pays off to cheat and costs to much to be honest. => system goes haywire.

Great you are all reaching the essence of the problem. My definition of "Just" isn't just the rigid system. I.e. Just Proof entails the possibility of an unjust law. So it thus needs a stated single goal: as stated the logic on the goal of having a long fulfilled life with the least possible infringement on others (or any other better defined single goal.) It is a Yin and Yang discussion that if you discuss it to the brink will not reach a resolve hence any legal / democratic system will have an as small as possible taboo. Only to be reached when the system stabilizes itself. The reason of this is the inherent "incompatibilte des humeurs" that follows our DNA of the instruments between the ears. It is like trying to join matter and anti matter. Some personalities simply will never understand other personalities. Yet must work together for an optimum = not ideal result. The 50% + 1 logic of democracy must be balanced by the non democratic logic of science. That is for the courts of law as last stand before actual physical conflict to resolve. Yet that is based on inherent guesswork. In law we are desperately trying to (if done correctly) to keep a Just order. I.e. establish the facts correctly and on bases of that decide what in fact happened. Then the rule of law states what should ensue. This of course in a democracy poses a problem of an unjust law. Say a law prosecuting homosexuality. Let's take a concrete problem and see how Just Proof deals with it: at a point in time some blokes fly a Boeing 777 into the twin Towers. Just Proof: casus beli and time to do some serious work for annalists. When Taliban and Al-Qaeda then go in with an exit strategy like the Romans showed us. Create a Nato foreign legion of all the tribes of Afghanistan and only don't let the specific tribesmen of the created Band of Brothers fight in their own region. This worked 2000 years ago and still works. Provide a pension and health care for the family of loyal soldiers (= peanuts in cost). Only creating the loya jirga (= good idea) is not enough. You need a stable non corrupt police / military force led by a few Nato "Roman Centurions" that can call in air power. => game over for Taliban. Make a deal with Taliban (= also tribe) from a Just Proof strength. Don't go for a quick idea of a gay parade in Kabul. Yet a Just Proof police/military force can exert powerful influence that the hanging of homosexuals is not part of the game. => a homo scene out of the picture will ensue and ultimately lead in maybe fifty or more years to a gay parade in Kabul. What we (Nato) have done now is a replay of Vietnam: like Eisenhower warned: beware of the industrial military complex: send drones and shoot expensive (=> profit for some) missiles all over the place and keep a large Nato ground force in place that draws in Jihad fighters like a magnet and leads to unacceptable degree of filled body-bags. Just Proof: you must keep the order for history without exception shows that in disorder truth and thus justice is the first victim. Just proof: stabilize in a Just way => you / we reach the stated goal. Oh and BTW Bignose you grasp the problem yet not my stated solution. Restudy the thread please. Just proof is about consensus. Ergo no one single group of super judges. Quite the contrary.

Nope I'm not. In a democracy per definition "Just" is what the law states, and can thus be culturally different. I.e. when the law prohibits drugs than proving the use of drugs via Just Proof leads to the punishment as prescribed by law. Even when the prosecutor or judge would find the law unjust because wanting to legalize drugs.

Strange: You need to understand democracy: that is the system that provides the law as being what everybody deems necessary to be Just. That can and is culturally different. Since the second world war I'd say the Dutch democracy and legal system has worked far above par in providing a just and stable society. It worked (up to a degree) yet now is failing. You could see this starting to happen more than twenty years ago. I was then going to do a L.D. yet could't get sufficient funding or find time as a then lawyer. A few years ago I picked it up again with some exact science professors and legal professors. The greatest problem is how to get past the taboo. Systems that are not in balance will become more and more rigid. In effect DNA incorrectly teamed up. To keep a just order like with parents you need to act against misbehavior in a just way. Do that and you get a just order. Do that incorrectly and things go wrong. So you need to act with shockingly little evidence. Say on probative values of 90% or sometimes (=law) even less. Because if you don't you ultimately get lynch-mobs. => always educated guesswork. Of BTW you only have to strive to try and stay within known science in the courts. As you should try in real life as well BTW if you want a long and fulfilling (= better because wider than happy) lives. If you fail in this you can/ must correct the mistake.