Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (42632)	10/20/2013 12:29:26 PM
From: GPS Info	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

And unless you make "choices" in the complete absence of all thought, it would seem obvious that you are admitting to making a (value) judgement. Yes, I am making a value judgement and I make them all the time. However, I don't judge Bob or Bill as being inherently good or evil or inherently better able to protect the kids in the youth camp. I don't create a permanent judgement of Bob or Bill. I really don't want to make a facile judgment of Bob which then creates the cognitive bias of a "halo effect" for him. en.wikipedia.org In order to choose* Bill over Bob, you clearly had to evaluate both of them as to their respective worthiness to hold a position of trust in the care of vulnerable minors.* No. I could not evaluate their respective worthiness in any real sense, and I would convey that to my boss. I would also tell her that she could flip a coin and might do as well as accepting my choice. Since this is a voluntary job for both Bob and Bill, I would tell my boss that we should use both men and continue to evaluate both. Initially, I wanted to explain a context for the common phrase "judge not, least ye be judged." I really don't want to make some simple-minded judgment about a person using very limited information, but for the sake of this discussion, I will make a moral judgment about Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and his sons. They were evil. How's that? No gun to my head. I distinguish these types of judgment from the value judgments that a hammer is a poor choice to drive a screw, and a screwdriver is a poor choice to hammer a nail. So, there is no morality here, but there is definitely a value judgment. Hammers and screwdrivers do not (normally) adapt their characteristics for new job types. People can and do adapt. Bob and Bill are not static entities, and either one may grow into a good role model and the other may become frustrated with the responsibilities. How would I properly judge this without sufficient time? "Who do we trust to do what?" Solon: When you need to answer that question for yourself (as in the scenario you have responded to), what strategy do you employ? I would ask the kids for an evaluation of both Bob and Bill. I would want to see how open-minded Bob and Bill are. I would want to know if they have any racial biases or short tempers. I would judge the behaviors of their kids, assuming they were in the camp as well. I would check to see if these kids were hostile or disrespectful to others. I would like to know the motivations of Bob and Bill for volunteering. How much do you "trust" your judgements? As much as I can afford to. I don't view any of my judgments as guarantees. I would NOT take anyone else's judgement as a guarantee. This would be a fatal error in reasoning. How much to you trust your poker hand? And what is it that strengthens or weakens the trust you place in your judgements? Consistent behavior strengthens my judgments and erratic behavior will likely weaken them.