The definition of integrity posted above wasn't narrow.
It didn't specify the nature of the morality, just the adherence to perceived truth.
It was the lack of specificity you complained about in terms of whose morals were the truth, but now you say the definition is to narrow.
I don't understand what your saying because to my mind the definition is perfectly broad enough to encompass any moral stance, or perceived truth whilst pinpointing the exact meaning of integrity with respect to any given moral stance,or perceived truth.
May I have a bash at answering your question please, Selenite?
Integrity is about the self whether 'self' refers to an individual, or group.
If we live by that which we believe, or reason, we have personal integrity.
The human rights activist has personal integrity if they live by their own code of conduct, as does the person who stones another to death if that fits with their own moral code
What you are talking about is the difference between one belief system and another. Your integrity is not affected by an execution. Your integrity is only affected if you do not speak out, or take action when it is possible and practical to do so.
The executioner's integrity is not affected by you thinking execution is immoral, if they are acting as they see fit.
The question we should be asking is how we create change so that the executioner feels a personal loss of integrity when acting a certain way if we see that as contingent to our own integrity.
The definition isn't inaccurate; the subjective way you were interpreting the definition was.
It's the dichotomy of passionate feelings which are integral to our moral stance versus the objectivity and cognitive override it takes to negotiate with someone we find morally repugnant.
The trick is forgiveness, but not necessarily in a religious sense. For me forgiveness is something I take for myself, not something I magnanimously bestow on someone else.
For me, forgiveness is about umderstanding that if I were that person in those circumstances my life would have taken me to the exact same place
If we are going to take the moral high ground we have to consider our great fortune that we are able to understand and make the choice not to behave like an utter arsehole.
At least if the virus spread during the whole voting thing, a lockdown now might contain further increases in the number of infections.
Do you know how long it's likely to last?
We have had our two week 'circuit break' where pubs, restaurants and non-essential shops were closed again. I thought it would go on longer to force people to do their Christmas shopping online.
Our infections and deaths are still climbing alarmingly, but I suppose we won't see if the two week break has made a difference for another week, or two.
In Wales, more than one in 50 people have had a confirmed infection. That doesn't include those of us who had it and self-quarantined, or those who have had it asymptomatically.
I've heard of one death in the village where I live, I don't know if there have been other losses, but 1-2 deaths so far would be in line with the statistics for Wales as a whole.
If you know philosophy, you know that stating something doesn't make it true.
Psychology is neither, or both safe and/or unsafe. I simply stated how we process information, or the lack thereof, in a bid too make sense of our worlds and survive.
That survival mechanism needs to be overridden to properly untangle objective fact. We can only prove a conspiracy theory to be true by establishing objective fact.
The first time a post of mine came with a 'profile deleted' thumbnail, I thought I had been banned - that's my first conspiracy theory.
I needed to verify, or refute my conspiracy theory by trying to use the site again. I found I was logged out, but could log in, therefore I had unequivocally refuted my first conspiracy theory. I had not been banned.
I proposed a second hypothesis, or conspiracy theory that I was suspended from posting. I tried posting, found I could and so unequivocably refuted that theory as well.
After it happened a few times the penny dropped it was about being automatically logged out whilst taking too long composing my posts. It was part of an observable pattern of events, or empirical evidence.
What you present in your posts is the hypothesis that you have formulated. Stating your hypothesis does not make it true.
Stating "My post has come up with a 'profile deleted' thumbnail, therefore I have been banned!" does not make it true, believable, nor understandable.
Stating "It's a glitch" does not fully refute my conspiracy theories, nor make it plausible as a possibility.
When I propose the hypothesis of why the 'deleted profile' thumbnail comes up, I go through the argument step by step -
#1 hypothesis (I've been banned) *evidence to refute (I can still log in) #2 hypothesis (I've been suspended from posting) *evidence to refute (I can post) #3 hypothesis (programme glitch) *empirical evidence (I observe I have been automatically logged out) *and a plausible explanation based upon a fact (when I am logged out, the blog, or forum programme can't access my profile information)
The next stage to fully prove #3 hypothesis would be to verify my plausible and logical explanation by asking the site programmer.
When you can present each hypothesis (whether that's who controls the flow of information accessible to us, David Icke is an MI agent, #1 information is disinformation. #2 information is truth, or whatever) in a step by step argument, rather that a statement with no evidence, then people may listen and understand.
I explained above how I think conspiracy theories come about.
It starts with mistrust. That mistrust may be based in reality in some way, or it may not.
That mistrust may continue to be targeted at the perceived source of the mistrust, or may become generalised, or transferred. The example I gave of the 'profile deleted' thumbnail is a good example of that: We may, or may not have good reason to distrust the site owners, or other members; whatever the source of our mistrust it gets transferred when the 'profile deleted' thumbnail appears. There is no evidence that transferring our mistrust is an accurate analysis of events, however.
So, our value framework is mistrust. We interpret everything from our value framework, so we seek out answers which confirm our mistrust. As we confirm our mistrust, so it goes round in a circle, ever building.
Confirming our mistrust by seeking out the 'truth' gives us a sense of power and control. It counteracts the powerlessness and lack of control we feel at the thought of people conspiring against us. Again, this is a cycle which feeds itself, growing in complexity as it goes.
It takes self-awareness and discipline not to do the above. It is in our nature too make sense of our worlds with the the information we have available to us because it's a basic survival mechanism. Unfortunately, technology has developed more quickly than our survival mechanisms, which of course could be cunningly exploited.
If anyone wishes to expose a conspiracy they must counteract their natural survival mechanisms. They must analyse and research each tiny piece of information for it's veracity and reliability without logical fallacy, or bias.
If you tried to prove your ideas Dedo, you would have a whole storeroom full of data that would take you years to research and collate. If you manage that, take it to someone who has the power to effect change.
Personally, I try to keep to observations and analyses which are under my nose. I have a theory that we can only create change by dealing with what is within our reach, but collectively all our changes can add up.
It's the nerdy form of spread the love, or laugh and the world laughs with you.
I have yet to see you present a step by step logical and coherent argument, connecting evidence at each stage.
The chap in the video presented a good lecture. He started with the end product and then shattered the audience's perceptions. It was not only captivating and entertaining, it meant the audience was ready for new information. He had our attention.
He outlined the basic principles of how the technology works and highlighted it's positive uses. He then went into more detail about how the outcome could be progressed, again step by step, to create an understanding of it's more nefarious potential. A balanced perspective was presented, not just an advert for how clever it/he was.
The negative potential lead him to the technology he developed to counteract ethical misuse. We have an understanding of how either, or both might be useful to us.
It was transparent and understandable. With this information he has provided a concept and in doing so the ability to recognise the technology. It also taps into an awareness of manipulation and misleading information sources.
Having spoken fairly extensively with Will in private mail last night, as well as observing his behaviour on the blogs/forums, the penny dropped that he might not be the requisite 18 years old to be a member of this site.
I'd hazard a guess at a budding 14 year old, hormones ahead of his head, who then panicked. Having put his full name on his profile and not knowing if the willy pic had escaped captivity, he was likely worried the whole escapade would get back to his mum.
In retrospect, I think the 'good discipline' comments might have something to do with his own unruly behaviour and possibly a frustrated uncle trying to get him in order for an 'at-her-wits-end' mum.
He's had the scammer talk, the sensitive information on the internet lecture and a flea in his ear about behaving disrespectfully from many of us.
Let's hope he finds some support in a more appropriate setting. I think he might have a few things he needs to work through.
Besides that, it'll be a great story to tell when he's in his forties.
Having a video where the creator of the technology talks the audience through how the images are created alongside visual demonstration is believable.
Acknowledging that the technology may be used with positive, or negative intent is not difficult because examples were represented by the creator.
No conspiracy theories were presented although we can imagine how we may be mislead and how the technology may be used in a conspiratorial manner.
The trouble with conspiracy theories is that they tend to be presented without definitive proof, they rely upon interpretation from the theory's own value framework and they tend to be complex. There are all sorts of other issues such as the psychological and emotional roles conspiracy theories play which clouds objectivity.
Let's take the simple example of a CS member posting a comment only to find their thumbnail is labelled as 'profile deleted'. The owner of the profile might think their comment has been censored in some way, perhaps because it was a bit controversial. Readers may think it's a 'hit and run' profile where a controversial comment is posted and then the author disappears of their own volition. A whole conspiracy may arise out of either not having all the information required to solve the puzzle, or having the information and not working it out.
The reality has nothing to do with trolls, censorship, scammers and other things which go bump in the night. If you automatically get logged out of the site due to a period of inactivity, a comment you have composed will send. However, once logged out the programme can't access your profile details so labels comment with a 'profile deleted' thumbnail. It's a glitch in the system, nothing more.
The conspiracy comes from within: I don't trust the site, therefore they censored my controversial comment; I don't trust other posters, therefore the comment was made by a 'hit and run' troll.
Logic is ignored: if the moderators wanted to censor a comment, they would censor the comment, not the thumbnail; why would someone use such an inefficient and ineffectual trolling technique?
If you want to convince people of a complex conspiracy you have to do more than present a 'he said, she said, here's a picture' argument. You have to break it down into it's constituent pieces and demonstrate each part with definitive evidence before connecting the parts with definitive evidence.
I'm sure there are conspiracies going on in the world. There have been police investigations, court cases and observable behaviour patterns in the media.
It's not that people don't believe that people conspire, it's that they don't believe your interpretations because of the way you present them.
Forgive me if I have little sympathy for someone who thinks children should be 'disciplined' if they make mistakes when this fella hasn't the discipline to keep his junk in his pants long enough to read the terms and conditions.
So, you're saying that it's okay for teachers to scream in a child's face because they have some visual difficulties which are affecting their academic performance?
And it's bad parenting if you have a child with visual difficulties?
Perhaps parents should beat proper eyesight into their children, rather than spoiling them with larger font, eh?
jac_the_gripper Forum Posts (5,363)
RE: What increases status across the board....?
And...The definition of integrity posted above wasn't narrow.
It didn't specify the nature of the morality, just the adherence to perceived truth.
It was the lack of specificity you complained about in terms of whose morals were the truth, but now you say the definition is to narrow.
I don't understand what your saying because to my mind the definition is perfectly broad enough to encompass any moral stance, or perceived truth whilst pinpointing the exact meaning of integrity with respect to any given moral stance,or perceived truth.