Can we save the world via Just Proof?

[kristalris]

 

 

 

Common sense: really?

 

This, for me, shows that you’re approaching this from the wrong direction; your expertise is possibly the reason for your intransigence on the subject.

 

As has been pointed out already, in this thread, you can’t force compliance; and control is just illusory.

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?

There is nothing wrong with Ophiolite's English. He, almost invariably, writes carefully and with great precision (and using as few words as necessary). You would do well to learn from that.

 

 

But I'm glad you have mastered irony.

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?

[Strange]

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?

 

They are not illusory. But they are not 100% successful either. You have not yet explained what you would do to create your perfect world.

 

 

Ah, so you do oppose a reflective style of writing on a R&D topic. On what basis is that then?

 

You keep making all sorts of suppositions about my opinions. (I don't think any of them have been correct. But then they are all baseless, so that isn't surprising.) My opinions are not the subject of this thread: it is about your (so-far undefined) proposal for a better judicial system. Or, at least, your definition appears to go no further than "make it work better by using psychology".

Edited July 13, 2014 by Strange

[swansont]

 

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.

 

Stated without support of any sort.

 

Your whole argument is thus, and looks to be a morass of circular reasoning. Tautologies have a tendency to be true.

[kristalris]

 

On the contrary, it is vague and utterly lacking in details or supporting evidence.

 

 

Changed in what way?

How should the legal system be changed to cope with it?

What specifically needs to be done to ensure that in future the legal system keeps pace with society?

 

 

What is this mysterious "something"?

And why did it disappear?

 

 

I am not aware of any such taboo. In fact, I have been making exactly this point. What evidence do you have that this frequently-discussed subject is taboo anywhere?

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?

 

They are not illusory. But they are not 100% successful either. You have not yet explained what you would do to create your perfect world.

 

 

You keep making all sorts of suppositions about my opinions. (I don't think any of them have been correct. But then they are all baseless, so that isn't surprising.) My opinions are not the subject of this thread: it is about your (so-far undefined) proposal for a better judicial system. Or, at least, your definition appears to go no further than "make it work better by using psychology".

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.

[Strange]

It doesn't lack details or evidence for it is based on what can be seen in part as evident common knowledge.

 

"Common knowledge" is almost the exact opposite of objective evidence.

 

 

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.

 

So your detailed suggestion to improve things is to employ wise judges who can dispense perfect justice?

 

And that is your idea of "detail"? How do define and measure the wiseness of judges? Who defines what is "perfection" in their decisions? (I assume "perfect" is defined as a judgement that you agree with?)

 

But if the wise judges have disappeared, then why is the selling of perfection increasing? That seems to contradict your thesis.

 

 

This then is evidently new to you. And you don't see this amongst a lot of other things as a problem.

 

You should really stop making erroneous assumptions about me. It makes you look a little foolish.

[swansont]

The problem here is that you can't truly optimize a system that has multiple variables. You can't do maximum good and simultaneously do no harm to anyone. You have to decide, independently, what compromises you are going to make.

[kristalris]

 

Stated without support of any sort.

 

Your whole argument is thus, and looks to be a morass of circular reasoning. Tautologies have a tendency to be true.

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.

 

"Common knowledge" is almost the exact opposite of objective evidence.

 

 

So your detailed suggestion to improve things is to employ wise judges who can dispense perfect justice?

 

And that is your idea of "detail"? How do define and measure the wiseness of judges? Who defines what is "perfection" in their decisions? (I assume "perfect" is defined as a judgement that you agree with?)

 

But if the wise judges have disappeared, then why is the selling of perfection increasing? That seems to contradict your thesis.

 

 

You should really stop making erroneous assumptions about me. It makes you look a little foolish.

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.

The problem here is that you can't truly optimize a system that has multiple variables. You can't do maximum good and simultaneously do no harm to anyone. You have to decide, independently, what compromises you are going to make.

Correct, agree. It is what I already stated BTW.

Edited July 13, 2014 by kristalris

[Ophiolite]

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.

You have clearly implied that the two are equivalent.

Really! You stated in an earlier post that you were using directive communication to talk to me. Do I need to go to find the post where you said that? We are having an internet discussion. So on the one hand you tell me you are using directive communication to talk to me on a forum, on the other you say that you never stated such communication was applicable to such discussions. Which is it? Contradictions all the way. Or will you use the cheap escape route of saying you said directive thinking, not directive communication. Really! You are behaving illogically and with a strong stench of intellectual dishonesty.

 

 

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?

You provide a link from some course that uses one of dozens of ways of categorising communications and personalities and management styles. I provide a link from the creator of directive communication. Readers can form their own conclusion. Oh, wait - they already have.

 

 

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?

I'll let others judge my English. My employer, who rewards me with a substantial income, seems to think it is sound. I've received a number of nice compliments on it over the years. I strive to improve it and welcome genuine efforts to help me do so. I often find silly spelling and grammatical errors if I revisit a piece, but I think I manage a nice turn of phrase from time to time. Please send me a pm with specific errors, or start a discrete thread. I'd like to move to the next level.

 

(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.)

 

 

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.

The responsibility for communicating clearly lies primarily with the writer, not the reader. When multiple, educated, literate readers say that the writing is not clear then it is very likely that the writer is at fault.

 

 

Now I'm an expert in this field of law. You clearly aren't.

I haven't been arguing law, I have been arguing about communication in general and writing in particular. I am expert in these areas.

 

 

 

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?

 

Demonstrate clearly what in my post showed I was out of my depth in psychology and point to the improper use of English language.

Hmm. Perhaps this is your effort to answer the first point.

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.

Well, since you did not understand me, I must take responsibility for that. Here is an expanded version that may help you.

1. It is important to use current science.

2. Current science refers to those understandings, theories and methodologies that are generally agreed to be effective and most up to date in their field.

3. You have dredged up a rather dated description of communication styles that I'm sure I recall from the early 70s, when I first became interested in these things.

4. Like many such instruments in psychology it is only one example of and one perspective on, the complex ways in which we may view communication.

5. In particular, it is one developed for communication within businesses.

6. There are other, equally valid (and certainly newer) ways of classifying communication styles.

7. You have zeroed in on this one method to the exclusion of all others.

8. You have presented it as if it were the only way to view communication.

7. In summary, you have used an old - not current - concept and suggested it is the way to view things.

8. That's just dumb.

 

It took more words. It is less elegant. I doubt any of the other thread participants had trouble with the original, but if you prefer this version I can do that for you in future.

Edited July 13, 2014 by Ophiolite

[kristalris]

You have clearly implied that the two are equivalent.

Really! You stated in an earlier post that you were using directive communication to talk to me. Do I need to go to find the post where you said that? We are having an internet discussion. So on the one hand you tell me you are using directive communication to talk to me on a forum, on the other you say that you never stated such communication was applicable to such discussions. Which is it? Contradictions all the way. Or will you use the cheap escape route of saying you said directive thinking, not directive communication. Really! You are behaving illogically and with a strong stench of intellectual dishonesty.

 

 

You provide a link from some course that uses one of dozens of ways of categorising communications and personalities and management styles. I provide a link from the creator of directive communication. Readers can form their own conclusion. Oh, wait - they already have.

 

 

I'll let others judge my English. My employer, who rewards me with a substantial income, seems to think it is sound. I've received a number of nice compliments on it over the years. I strive to improve it and welcome genuine efforts to help me do so. I often find silly spelling and grammatical errors if I revisit a piece, but I think I manage a nice turn of phrase from time to time. Please send me a pm with specific errors, or start a discrete thread. I'd like to move to the next level.

 

(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.)

 

The responsibility for communicating clearly lies primarily with the writer, not the reader. When multiple, educated, literate readers say that the writing is not clear then it is very likely that the writer is at fault.

 

I haven't been arguing law, I have been arguing about communication in general and writing in particular. I am expert in these areas.

 

 

 

Demonstrate clearly what in my post showed I was out of my depth in psychology and point to the improper use of English language.

Hmm. Perhaps this is your effort to answer the first point.

Well, since you did not understand me, I must take responsibility for that. Here is an expanded version that may help you.

1. It is important to use current science.

2. Current science refers to those understandings, theories and methodologies that are generally agreed to be effective and most up to date in their field.

3. You have dredged up a rather dated description of communication styles that I'm sure I recall from the early 70s, when I first became interested in these things.

4. Like many such instruments in psychology it is only one example of and one perspective on, the complex ways in which we may view communication.

5. In particular, it is one developed for communication within businesses.

6. There are other, equally valid (and certainly newer) ways of classifying communication styles.

7. You have zeroed in on this one method to the exclusion of all others.

8. You have presented it as if it were the only way to view communication.

7. In summary, you have used an old - not current - concept and suggested it is the way to view things.

8. That's just dumb.

 

It took more words. It is less elegant. I doubt any of the other thread participants had trouble with the original, but if you prefer this version I can do that for you in future.

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.

[Ophiolite]

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.

Do you have reading comprehension difficulties? How many times must I explain that directive communication, as defined by its creator, is about interactions within teams, and does not relate to one-to-one discussion, as is taking place here. This is not nit-picking This is about using terms, on a science forum, as they are defined. This is a requirement. Yet you continue to refuse to do so, despite repeated correction.

 

quit pro quo: I didn't correct you the first time you made the error, but really! Latin is not my native language, but surely a lawyer, such as you, is familiar with the correct term. As you say it has legal connotations. Quid pro quo, not quit pro quo.

 

 

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.

You have repeatedly made the point that we need to use current psychology and that you are using current psychology. I have demonstrated that you are not. That is not nitpicking.

 

Tell me, is that a common courtroom ploy, to defend a lost position by claiming it is nitpicking?

 

 

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.

How convenient. You cannot provide citations on this research to prove your point because the subject is taboo. You are a piece of work. (Translation available on request.)

 

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.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

 

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.

Don't get cute. The post was necessarily long because you failed to understand clear, well written English. Don't implicitly ask for clarification, then complain when you get it.

 

Why do you take my remark on Shakespeare literally and not as evident irony?

It provided an excellent opportunity to describe you as an honourable man. Members familiar with Julius Caesar will at once recognise the reference.

 

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.

You did not show any illogical part in my sentence at all. I am aware that I do not write perfect English. I encourage you to demonstrate the illogical part you assert is there. I am touchy about people, such as yourself, talking unmitigated bollocks. I find it offensive.

 

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.

I shall do it right now. Feel free to sue me.

 

When I know I am not proficient in a language, a sphere of knowledge, a skill, or any aspect of life you care to mention, then I stand ready and keen to take guidance, advice and criticism form someone who is more proficient than I. This is smart.

 

Some people react badly when there weaknesses are pointed out. This is dumb.

 

I leave it as an exercise for the student to work out which category you fall in.

 

And with that I leave this thread. You've wasted enough of my time with your intransigent, arrogant, nonsense.

[kristalris]

Do you have reading comprehension difficulties? How many times must I explain that directive communication, as defined by its creator, is about interactions within teams, and does not relate to one-to-one discussion, as is taking place here. This is not nit-picking This is about using terms, on a science forum, as they are defined. This is a requirement. Yet you continue to refuse to do so, despite repeated correction.

 

quit pro quo: I didn't correct you the first time you made the error, but really! Latin is not my native language, but surely a lawyer, such as you, is familiar with the correct term. As you say it has legal connotations. Quid pro quo, not quit pro quo.

 

 

You have repeatedly made the point that we need to use current psychology and that you are using current psychology. I have demonstrated that you are not. That is not nitpicking.

 

Tell me, is that a common courtroom ploy, to defend a lost position by claiming it is nitpicking?

 

 

How convenient. You cannot provide citations on this research to prove your point because the subject is taboo. You are a piece of work. (Translation available on request.)

 

I have no idea what you mean by this.

 

Don't get cute. The post was necessarily long because you failed to understand clear, well written English. Don't implicitly ask for clarification, then complain when you get it.

 

It provided an excellent opportunity to describe you as an honourable man. Members familiar with Julius Caesar will at once recognise the reference.

 

You did not show any illogical part in my sentence at all. I am aware that I do not write perfect English. I encourage you to demonstrate the illogical part you assert is there. I am touchy about people, such as yourself, talking unmitigated bollocks. I find it offensive.

 

I shall do it right now. Feel free to sue me.

 

When I know I am not proficient in a language, a sphere of knowledge, a skill, or any aspect of life you care to mention, then I stand ready and keen to take guidance, advice and criticism form someone who is more proficient than I. This is smart.

 

Some people react badly when there weaknesses are pointed out. This is dumb.

 

I leave it as an exercise for the student to work out which category you fall in.

 

And with that I leave this thread. You've wasted enough of my time with your intransigent, arrogant, nonsense.

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

Edited July 13, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

Correct, agree. It is what I already stated BTW.

What you stated (emphasis added) was

 

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.

 

So you claim to optimize a system that you agree can't be optimized?

[kristalris]

What you stated (emphasis added) was

 

 

So you claim to optimize a system that you agree can't be optimized?

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.)

[Strange]

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.)

 

Where does your proposal fit in those alternatives? I assume it is 2? If so, why can you not explain IN DETAIL what these "slight adjustments" are? All you have said is "appoint some wise judges". Don't you think that is what people already try to do?

 

Judges are not perfect. The selection process is not perfect. So, how about you explain how you will improve this process? Is the only answer to have you oversee the choosing of all judges? As you are obviously smarter than everyone else...

 

7. Deny that anything is going wrong (contrary to what the vast majority of scientists state.)

 

Please provide a reference to a peer-reviewed paper stating that there is nothing wrong with current legal and/or political systems.

Edited July 14, 2014 by Strange

[kristalris]

 

Where does your proposal fit in those alternatives? I assume it is 2? If so, why can you not explain IN DETAIL what these "slight adjustments" are? All you have said is "appoint some wise judges". Don't you think that is what people already try to do?

 

Judges are not perfect. The selection process is not perfect. So, how about you explain how you will improve this process? Is the only answer to have you oversee the choosing of all judges? As you are obviously smarter than everyone else...

 

7. Deny that anything is going wrong (contrary to what the vast majority of scientists state.)

 

Please provide a reference to a peer-reviewed paper stating that there is nothing wrong with current legal and/or political systems.

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.

Edited July 14, 2014 by kristalris

[dimreepr]

 

 

 

Common sense: really?

 

This, for me, shows that you’re approaching this from the wrong direction; your expertise is possibly the reason for your intransigence on the subject.

 

As has been pointed out already, in this thread, you can’t force compliance; and control is just illusory.

 

 

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?

 

 

 

That’s clearly not what I said, you can’t force compliance to any system, the only thing you can do is request cooperation. You can lock people up and force them to do you’re bidding but you can’t make them think your way; hence control is illusory.

 

Like I said you’re approach is wrong, by the time a citizen reaches the courts the damage has already been done, so however good/efficient the legal system is irrelevant.

 

So in terms of the thread title, no, we can’t save the world via just proof; I’ll further add, you can’t save the world via the judiciary.

[Strange]

 

What you ask ad point 7 baffles me. I state that the system fails at the moment.

 

No you said that "the vast majority of scientists state" that the system fails. So where is the reference to this scientific work?

 

 

I've stated to split the current team in the 10% most open-minded judges.

 

And who decides who is "open minded"? Is it the ones who agree with you?

[kristalris]

 

 

That’s clearly not what I said, you can’t force compliance to any system, the only thing you can do is request cooperation. You can lock people up and force them to do you’re bidding but you can’t make them think your way; hence control is illusory.

 

Like I said you’re approach is wrong, by the time a citizen reaches the courts the damage has already been done, so however good/efficient the legal system is irrelevant.

 

So in terms of the thread title, no, we can’t save the world via just proof; I’ll further add, you can’t save the world via the judiciary.

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.)

Edited July 14, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

 

And who decides who is "open minded"? Is it the ones who agree with you?

 

I'm interested in an on-topic answer as well. (i.e. not an explanation of oligarchy)

[kristalris]

 

I'm interested in an on-topic answer as well. (i.e. not an explanation of oligarchy)

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.

 

No you said that "the vast majority of scientists state" that the system fails. So where is the reference to this scientific work?

 

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.

Edited July 14, 2014 by kristalris

[Strange]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm

 

That has nothing to do with the judicial system. Why post a complete non sequitur?

 

 

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 are problems with growing population but, as far as I am aware, nothing that can't be managed. There are good (scientific) estimates that enough food can be grown to feed the largest predicted population.

 

Of course, one thing we might (?) agree on is that poverty, hunger and famine are not caused by a lack of resources but by bad governance and lack of access to education.

[swansont]

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.

 

What is this "prescribed method" by which open-mindedness is determined?

[kristalris]

 

That has nothing to do with the judicial system. Why post a complete non sequitur?

 

 

There are problems with growing population but, as far as I am aware, nothing that can't be managed. There are good (scientific) estimates that enough food can be grown to feed the largest predicted population.

 

Of course, one thing we might (?) agree on is that poverty, hunger and famine are not caused by a lack of resources but by bad governance and lack of access to education.

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.

 

What is this "prescribed method" by which open-mindedness is determined?

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

Edited July 14, 2014 by kristalris

[dimreepr]

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 checks and balances that are provided by the judiciary can’t and should never control the direction of the system, it’s simply there to control corruption; it can’t dictate what are good or bad decisions, only time can decide that.

 

 

Edit/ It would be like a company that’s run by accountants, it may work but at the expense of the workers.

Edited July 14, 2014 by dimreepr

[kristalris]

 

 

The checks and balances that are provided by the judiciary can’t and should never control the direction of the system, it’s simply there to control corruption; it can’t dictate what are good or bad decisions, only time can decide that.

 

 

Edit/ It would be like a company that’s run by accountants, it may work but at the expense of the workers.

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.)

Edited July 14, 2014 by kristalris