Prescription: Jail time

[Popcorn Sutton]

This is a prescription that doctors hand out regardless of civil standing, however, sending them to different facilities where they are deliberately separated from those who are similar depending on the quantitative method of measuring vice. If the significance level of vice is high, then separate them in correlation with the significance. Significance is determined by priority. Things that are low priority get further separated until they integrate or achieve equilibrium (in significance).

This method will maximize our knowledge.

Especially if it was integrated globally (best simultaneously).

But you can test it individually and amongst peers prematurely.

I might write the program.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[CharonY]

I do not understand what you are trying to propose. Could you provide context and explain what you mean a bit more?

[Phi for All]

I do not understand what you are trying to propose. Could you provide context and explain what you mean a bit more?

 

There was something about doctors. And jail. And vice.

 

It's about separating things until they integrate. Prematurely and significantly.

 

And if we do it all at the same time we learn more, and I think we should since I haven't learned anything so far.

[Popcorn Sutton]

It would allow for a much greater degree of independence and a significantly higher rate of integration and dealing with priorities.

 

Say that someone is a felon because of some crime that they have committed. Leading up to that point, it was obvious that they were going to do what they did to become a felon. Who did they tell? Their peers, their doctors, and in their writings.

 

If they have a doctor, or a counselor, they should have the capability to write a prescription for "jail time", which I am using in reference to a separation of the person of vicious intent from those who serve no other purpose than to magnify the vice.

It would be like an honorable discharge.

Prescription: restraining order.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[iNow]

Are you basically suggesting that mental health practitioners should have the authority to send people involuntarily to a mental hospital or jail? If so, I believe they already have that power. If not, then I apologize for misunderstanding your point and hope you can clarity it.

[Popcorn Sutton]

It wood be like a giant list where the least significant (and less occurring) entries get scored for higher vicious intent than significant.

This would be good for fostering intelligence as well.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[hypervalent_iodine]

It wood be like a giant list where the least significant (and less occurring) entries get scored for higher vicious intent than significant.

This would be good for fostering intelligence as well.

 

 

I think you need to elaborate on this as it doesn't make very much sense as written. What are you defining as vicious intent and how would you quantify it? What do you mean by, 'least significant?'

[Popcorn Sutton]

I'm saying that, in a system like our own but a little more advanced, people write often about how they are coping with their surroundings. A program analyzes the writing and scores what they say with a statistical algorithm. The things they say get put on a priority list where the most common expressions are at the top and least common at the bottom. I'd assume that a phrase like "John Doe needs to suffer, and we should kill him with our forks" would score very low in significance (statistically), and at that point, we can call it a vice. After that, we can notify the proper authority and prescribe them a voluntary (or involuntary, depending on the score) discharge. If the system is global, we can separate them to more extreme conditions (such as placing them in a completely foreign environment).

 

This is one possible, and probably effective, method of reducing risk which results from the use of statistical algorithms to score priority so the people who are in positions of power can make informed decisions.

 

I previously referred to this system as a scientocracy.

All low priority statements could be treated the same. So if it's risky economically, scientifically, lawfully, psychologically, or basically vicious in any way, we would have the authority to prescribe an honorable or dishonorable discharge.

[Phi for All]

You want to give "people in power" a way to deter crime before it happens, based on the writings of people in jail, is that right? But then you want to discharge them if they write something about stabbing someone? Why are they being discharged into foreign environments if the system is global?

 

I can't tell if you're ideas are so hard to understand because you make up a lot of your own terminology as you go, or you're just very bad at starting from the beginning of an idea and progressing through it. Are you starting off where some other thread of yours ended? Does "discharge" mean something besides "release"?

[Popcorn Sutton]

I'm kind of picking up where another thread of mine left off. On Replacing the Voting System.

 

I'm not talking about people who are already in jail doing the writings. I'm talking about everyone who cares to say something to a machine or to their doctor or to any concerned citizen. Whatever they say, if it's written, it can be analyzed by an algorithm that scores the expressions that they use and compares it with the consensus (or the expressions that are used by a majority of other users). At the top are expressions like "The poor need to be fed," or "I need more money," or "legalize [x]," while at the bottom are expressions like "Kill John Doe's society with a nuclear bomb," or "Make people in the hospital more sick." The list is basically a consensus on priorities. The stuff at the top of the list get recognized and worked on by people who have the power to do something about them. In this case, the number one priority is "The poor need to be fed," where the person who is in a position to do something about it (who has almost sovereign authority) spends their time reducing the significance of the expressions of top priority ("the poor need to be fed"). At the same time, the police, the FBI, the NSA, and any other law enforcing or tragedy prevention agency can look at the expressions at the bottom of the list, the ones that do not appeal to the consensus, and do the same with those expressions (reduce their significance). Well, the expressions at the bottom of the list are not very significant to begin with, but the problem is that they can become viral. So what do we do with a virus? We try to eliminate it or use it for beneficial purposes. So, what I'm saying is that these expressions at the bottom of the list (the list of priorities, the list of statistical significance), however insignificant they are, should still be dealt with regardless of the person who used them's civil standing. I think that it's safe to say that the expressions that occur the least can be labeled as vicious. So what do we do with people who succumb to vice? Right now, unfortunately, we don't do much. If they're lucky, the get treated by a counselor or a doctor in hopes that they will integrate and rehabilitate themselves. Well, I regret to say this, but there are A LOT of cases where these people do not get the attention that they need, and unfortunately, they remain in their environment, which is often an environment that magnifies the vice, and in the case of magnification, the vicious person decides to act upon their vice to the extent of their ability. So what do they do when they act on the vice? They break laws, they cause distress, they hurt people, they poison people, they do these unimaginable things that are detrimental to our well-being as a society and detrimental to their self as well.

 

In the system that I am proposing, we can target these people of vicious intent simply by looking at the expressions that score low significance, and we can separate them from the factors that magnify their vice in the hopes of preventing a tragedy (whether it's economical, lawful, moral, psychological, political, or any other imaginable detriment to our well-being as a whole). We can call the separation an honorable/dishonorable (voluntary/involuntary) discharge. In this case, instead of taking the person of vicious intent and making them mingle with others who are similar (such as being in jail or prison), we can put them in an environment where their vice is even less significant (like taking a potential murderer and putting them in a place where they will be useful, but separated from others, such as waste management).

 

However, in order for this system to work properly, we need to make sure that all the other people who have similar expressions are even further separated so we do not magnify the vice. So say that there are 3 people who want to wage nuclear war on country [x], we do not throw all 3 people in the same environment, we separate them so we can reduce the effectiveness of the mafia principle (power in numbers).

 

I'm saying that the degree of separation can be judged by the severity of the vice (which is also quantified by statistical significance). If we want, we can also determine the degree of separation based on established law. So if person [x] (from the united states) has a vicious intent of [y] which scores only 1 in statistical significance out of 7 billion people who also participate in the process of prioritizing political issues, we can prescribe an involuntary discharge to a country like Cambodia where they can do something useful (such as teach the Cambodians English and learn their native language). They will continue to be required to participate in prioritizing political issues, and if they score higher in significance, then we can prescribe an honorable (voluntary) discharge to a place where they can integrate and make progress. At that point, we can consider them rehabilitated.

 

I am using "discharge" in a different sense than "release" in this case because the person has not already committed the crime and therefor has not been convicted and sent to jail. They are in their own environment, and by being in that position, they are in risk of magnifying the vice. So, under these circumstances, preventative measures have to be taken, such as prescribing them a dishonorable (involuntary) discharge, which would be to a location where their vice will be reduced. An honorable (voluntary) discharge would be like an award for a person who has the opportunity to further integrate themselves and achieve a greater degree of independence.

 

The people who score the highest significance get appointed to an honorable position, while the people who score lowest significance get a discharge.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Heres a revision.

 

The most significant people get an honorable involuntary discharge/relocation because theyre too valuable.

 

People of high significance get an honorable but voluntary discharge because they have the potential to become even more significant where they would then be given an involuntary discharge.

 

People of low significance get a dishonorable but voluntary discharge.

 

People of extremely low significance get a dishonorable involuntary discharge.

 

Where they go depends on the circumstances. The hope is for rehabilitation.

 

All people who require a discharge are considered vicious, but they are separated by being either honorable or dishonorable.

 

John "I'm vicious."

Mary "Honorable or dishonorable?l

John "honorable"

Mary "voluntary or involuntary?"

[CharonY]

Eh, we should just introduce newspeak and arrest everyone engaged in crime- and doublethink according to some random speech recognition system. Then only release them once they engage fully in goodthink. I cannot see how that could possibly go wrong.

[imatfaal]

Eh, we should just introduce newspeak and arrest everyone engaged in crime- and doublethink according to some random speech recognition system. Then only release them once they engage fully in goodthink. I cannot see how that could possibly go wrong.

Agree - Double plus ungood idea

[Popcorn Sutton]

I'm sure you could use it in that way, and now that the government is taking away our freedom of speech (which I support because I know that freedom is a false premise), you can classify the data as crime speak, new speak, and good think, which is useful for the governments purposes. But for my purposes, since I'm proposing a quantitative knowledge index, I try to avoid arbitrariness as much as possible so we can just look at the statistics and determine peoples significance.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[iNow]

...now that the government is taking away our freedom of speech (which I support...)

 

^{[Citation Needed]}

[Tridimity]

Hm, I think your proposed system has some workable attributes - criminals (especially the more careless ones) are probably statistically more likely to communicate verbally and in writing in an aggressive/threatening manner when compared with non-offenders. In this sense, there is possibly opportunity to develop sophisticated technologies to predict the users most likely to offend in the future. I'm not sure how the logistics of the programming would work: you could design for the identification of key trigger words, or even trawl through the dictionary and designate words either a benign or a malign status. However, I struggle to see how a programme would be able to interpret the status of a word or phrase in light of the context in which it was used. 'Massive axe' is benign in the context of chopping a particularly tough fruit when a suitable knife is lacking; 'rabbit teddy' is malign if one is planning to smother somebody with it. And the same with verbs - 'killing' a deadly spider before it harms someone is (relatively) benign; 'soothing' a person in order to gain their confidence as a pretext to exploitation is malign. How would the programme manage to interpret context?

 

It seems like an awfully authoritarian and unnecessary step to recommend imprisonment before the individual has committed any crime! It would also lead to a number of type I and II errors: imprisonment of those people who use aggressive/threatening language but who would never act upon it; and, failure to imprison those who do not use aggressive/threatening language but who do go on to commit a serious violent crime. How would you account for this?

 

Also, the system would be 'workable' precisely because it has set rules for identification of potential criminals. Criminals would evade detection, or if you like, develop resistance to the system, by simply refraining from communicating their secret plots in an aggressive/threatening manner. Instead, they might adapt their language such that seemingly benign terms come to represent malign terms. Or, they might just remain silent.

 

Ed: I do not think these powers would be good for Doctors, many of whom already are in the throes of the God complex - and you want to give them another power? Corrupt Doctors might use the power against their patients: pay me off or else I'll send you down boyo.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Tridimity

[Popcorn Sutton]

It would be unarbitrated. Meaning that you can look at the people with the most votes (voting would be a parallel feature, not necessarily a conscious one) which is also the most statistically significant people and the least significant people depending on the maximal knowledge that they have been recorded to have. The longest sequence pretty much. How long is it and how much significance does it have in comparison with everyone else, literally, everyone else (documented).

It's a big search procedure where the most important things are at the top (like the alphabet), and it degrades in significance, but the more that someone utters or writes, the more significance they get.

If youre talking about finding these things in context, then, unfortunately, the most immediate answer is that the user would have to know the context. It would be an intelligent system, but I assume that you can access the problems by looking at significance.

[Popcorn Sutton]

^{[Citation Needed]}

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/obama-signs-end-to-free-speech/

There are some judges on facebook saying that they are taking away our free speech as well. Also, here is a fox news video about it.

 

youtu.be/7SGWH3kirzg

 

I'd also like to point out that the government does have the ability to use the secret service as they see fit. So if there is a significant citizen, they could choose to protect them with the secret service. This hasn't happened to my knowledge, but it's easy to postulate. I don't doubt that the military and police are ALREADY protecting certain significant citizens.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[iNow]

Oh. Fox news. It MUST be true. My sincerest apologies for ever doubting the veracity of the claim. I think it's probably time to buy more ammo, but then again, when isn't? Am I right?

[Tridimity]

I think it's probably time to buy more ammo, but then again, when isn't? Am I right?

 

 

[DevilSolution]

I dont think you can interpret viscious intent from somebody's writting, some people talk big but act small.

 

I could say for example i want to join the army to kill people, it doesnt imply that im capable of passing the barb, fitness, or actually able to take another mans life. To threaten is to instil fear it doesnt necessarilly correlate with actual violence. You should probably concerntrate your efforts on finding a method of venting the anger of such "viscious intent".

 

As for the program, it would be mission impossible. 1-2 guess who, 3-4 check the door. You can always implant meaning where there is none.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Listen to this, it's going to be funny and it suggests the opposite (see post above).

 

I knew some people. One of those people was a known thief. A piece of shit, lowlife, good for nothing, thief. We called him sticky fingers. I learned because not even a week after hanging out, my hat disappeared and he had conveniently acquired one with the same sweat stains. His friends supported him by saying that his brother actually did buy him that hat. He had no intention of returning it. That's not even close to the worst that's happened to me either, but for the sale of making a point I'll continue.

 

The other day, I hear that the two best friends weren't friends anymore. Why? Mr Dumb stole weed from Dumber. Nooooooooo? He really did that? I WOULD HAVE NEVER THOUGHT!

 

These people openly talk about these things. I think they were conspiring to murder me at some point RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME.

 

Needless to say, I can tell they're going to do something bad because 1, they're psychotic, 2, they're kleptos, 3, they're addicts, 4, they've done stuff in the past, and 5, they enjoy sadism and punch a wall when they get angry. They're "alpha". There's no one I hate being around more than the person who feels like they're entitled to everything everyone has and are going to hurt you if they don't get their fix.

[iNow]

My comment is not really on-topic, but I encourage you to start hanging out with people who can make you a better human being, not with those who only make you look better by comparison. Good luck.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Thank you for the special advice.

 

You know what they say though, you're only separated by a factor of six at most. In this case, the separation is 2.

[Popcorn Sutton]

And the only reason I was near them was because I enjoyed disc golfing and they went to high school with me and wanted to disc together.