Teallaura's Baby Blog

Chris and I are debating. His blog has his treatise - I'm shoving this here so I can find it!

His blog: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/en...against-murder



################################################################################
MGC Chatbox EVO DUMP - General channel archives
TheologyWeb Campus;http://www.theologyweb.com/campus
July 28th 2012 02:54 PM
################################################################################

==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:52 - Chrs : (Actually, I think that's a potentially valid point. About duels. Duels are basically methods of airing greviences in such a way that you don't get random killings. It formalises the procedure in such a way to protect stability.)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:52 - Spartacus : Honor killings
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:51 - Chrs : yeah, but that's consensual murder! :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:51 - Spartacus : Duels used to be commonplace :teet.h:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:50 - Chrs : So, Sparty. what do you think? Does moral relativism imply a culture must exist in which murder is acceptable? :P
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:50 - Chrs : hey Spart.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:47 - Chrs : http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/en...against-murder
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:47 - Spartacus : Burn Notice
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:47 - Teallaura : ;arg.h: What was the name of his shox? I can't call it
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:46 - Spartacus : heh
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:46 - Teallaura : I love Bruce Campbell.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:46 - Teallaura : you wanna help Chris? he's writing a treatise on why morality is relative
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:46 - Spartacus : A Bruce Campbell movie was available on-demand, so naturally, I watched it
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:45 - Spartacus : hi teal
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:45 - Teallaura : Hi Spart
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:42 - Spartacus : :lo.l: bubba ho-tep
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:40 - Teallaura : I'm gonna run add a footnote to my blog - be back
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:39 - Teallaura : they are made up of divergent people. ;teeth:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:38 - Teallaura : Dan Ariely "The (honest) Truth about Dishonestly
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:38 - Teallaura : Oh
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:38 - Chrs : ive only written 500 words!
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:38 - Chrs : I need more ideas. What do societies have in common? :P
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:37 - Chrs : :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:37 - Chrs : oh right, the thing didn't render
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:37 - Teallaura : A girl has to keep busy
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:36 - Chrs : nails?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:36 - Teallaura : :nail.s:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:30 - Teallaura : Michael Brooks
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:29 - Teallaura : it's a book title - Stossel is interveiwing the author
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:29 - Chrs : haha
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:28 - Teallaura : Free Radicals, The Secret Anarchy of Science
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:26 - Teallaura : <insert yoyoing smilie here>
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:25 - Teallaura : :gir.l:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:25 - Teallaura : :girl
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:21 - Chrs : Alright. I'll upload it somewhere.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:21 - Teallaura : ya might wanna link instead.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:20 - Chrs : Give me a second, I'm four paragraphs in :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:20 - Teallaura : Collective malice - shouldn't be present if collectives are what makes malicious killing unacceptable
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:19 - Teallaura : yup, witch hunts, lynching and nazism all disprove it
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:16 - Chrs : (I'm just writing a thing out in a document. I'll paste it in a big wall of text in a minute :P)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:16 - Chrs : Oh?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:12 - Teallaura : :smil.e: Nope, it's false.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:12 - Teallaura : Er, okay on the tea - the previous statement is questionable (I think false but not ready to prove it)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:11 - Teallaura : Okay.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:10 - Chrs : Let me go and get some tea and think how I can word this defense :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:10 - Chrs : Sure, collections of people behave differently to an individual. In fact, that's a contributing factor to why you'd find social unacceptablity of malicious killing in all societies.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:09 - Teallaura : Truth is, you defeated yourself early on - defending relativism by trying to use objective methodolgy is ... well, self defeating.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:08 - Teallaura : Collections of people are not going to behave the same as the individual even if you allow rationality. too many forces/needs/wants/ et al conflict. The idea that such groups using varying methodologies and with varying degrees of rationality would all conclude the exact same thing is irrational and bordering on ludicris
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:07 - Chrs : okay, here's how im going to do it.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:06 - Chrs : Don't try and win me over to your crazy side with political humour, you :rasberr.y:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:06 - Teallaura : The extrapolation doesn't work - look at your own parliment. Accepting your premise, all MPs are to some degree rational - so they should not come up with laws that are bad either for the nation or for themselves politically. When was the last time that happened?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:04 - Chrs : It depends on the thing.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:04 - Teallaura : If morality has no objective basis - as you assert - then it's irrational that numerous and divergent cultures would all conclude the same thing
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:03 - Chrs : (Also, people are rational to different degrees.)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:03 - Chrs : Sure, sure. So let's look at R-->Y. How do I word this...
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:02 - Teallaura : Biology doesn't govern malice
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:02 - Teallaura : No, biology forces them to eat.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:01 - Chrs : All cultures have concluded that people have to eat :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:01 - Teallaura : We just established that with South America
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:01 - Teallaura : It can only be true if cultures are all rational - and they aren't
==========================================================
28/07/2012 14:00 - Teallaura : Because humans do not all agree on anything - to assume that numerous and wildly divergent cultures would conclude the exact same thing is irrational
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:59 - Chrs : (You're just asserting (R-->Y))
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:59 - Chrs : Why?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:59 - Teallaura : If morality is defined by culture then you should necessarily see a culture in which murder is morally acceptable sans caveat.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:59 - Chrs : I'd agree with 1, I disagree with 2.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:58 - Chrs : As I said, to show that culturally relative morality is inconsistent with reality you'd have to show that: 1. There doesn't exist a society, Y, in which X is morally right and 2. That if morality is culturally relative, one would expect (or there must be) a society, Y, in which X is morally right.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:58 - Chrs : ..fail
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:57 - Chrs : As in, (¬Y/\(R-->Y)) --> ¬R
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:57 - Chrs : ociety, Y, in which X is morally right and 2. That if morality is culturally relative, one would expect (or there must be) a society, Y, in which X is morally righAs I said, to show that culturally relative morality is inconsistent with reality you'd have to show that: 1. There doesn't exist a st.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:57 - Teallaura : Nazis did know killing Jews was morally wrong - in order to be able to do it they had to willingly self deceive - to force the irrational 'subhuman' belief (again, exception for sociopaths and other psychopathologies)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:55 - Teallaura : According to you, humans aren't moral actors because morality is defined by humans - hence behavior would not change. But humans are moral actors - that's why they need caveat/justification in order to go around murdering people (excepting the sociopaths, of course)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:54 - Teallaura : No, they don't - so it proves my point, not yours. ;tongue:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:53 - Teallaura : Caveat really doesn't matter when you turn it around - caveat is mere justification. If you could totally remove justification it would depend on whether or not humans are moral actors as to whether or not behavior would change
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:53 - Chrs : Sure, south america is unstable, but people don't kill people without caveat and believe it's an amoral act :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:52 - Teallaura : Such cultures recognise that what goes on inside them is morally wrong - but they strangely learn to survive within it.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:52 - Chrs : Do you think a society in which maliciously killing people without caveat was allowed would last? people would also be well aware of that fact.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:51 - Teallaura : Actually, they do - but allowable and morally acceptable aren't the same thing. The former exists - the latter does not
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:50 - Teallaura : yep - may I introduce South America where terror of life and limb is the norm. Unstable in places, surprisingly stable in others - still not without caveat
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:50 - Chrs : do you think a society in which maliciously killing people was allowed would last?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:50 - Chrs : Unstable societies wouldn't last very long, and I'm sure people are aware of that.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:49 - Teallaura : 't need to be 'stable' - it needs to exist
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:49 - Teallaura : So? It doesn
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:48 - Teallaura : But no, maliciously killing Mom 'cause she couldn't cook wasn't acceptable even to the spartans
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:48 - Chrs : It's massively unstable. People would be perpetually in fear of their lives, or losing them.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:48 - Teallaura : Spartans are pretty close - mostly because 'weaker than me' was their idea of a good caveat and they succeeded for a long period
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:47 - Teallaura : On what basis?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:47 - Chrs : Drug cultures? there's a couple of things you could be referring to.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:46 - Chrs : There's two different factors at work. I'd agree that all cultures don't always behave in their best self interests all of the time, but I'd also say that a culture which allows murder would fall apart very very very quickly.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:46 - Teallaura : Clearly suboptimal
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:46 - Teallaura : Drug cultures seem pretty resilient
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:45 - Teallaura : :lo.l: I knew that's where you were going. sorry, but just because it's not in a groups best interest won't save the argument - you would have to show all cultures behaving in their best self interests all the time
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:45 - Chrs : No?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:45 - Chrs : Cultures which have very suboptimal methods of managing themselves (for instance, allowing people to murder other people) are going to be amazingly short lived.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:44 - Teallaura : You're gonna run into a big problem with your logic - cultures aren't allways rational all the time (some hardly at all) - so a logical construction isn't gonna solve it
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:43 - Chrs : :tongue.:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:43 - Chrs : I posit the premise "People quite like living"
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:43 - Chrs : Great.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:43 - Teallaura : Sufficient reason without appeal to morality, yes
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:42 - Chrs : Would you agree?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:42 - Chrs : So, the question is is there sufficient reason to expect to see prohibitions against maliciously killing human beings you haven't defined in such a way as to change the issue in every single culture?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:42 - Teallaura : Did the Nazi's murder? unquestionably - but most would have claimed otherwise since they redefined jews and others as subhuman.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:41 - Chrs : Alright.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:41 - Teallaura : Maliciously killing human beings you haven't 'defined' in such a way as to change the issue
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:40 - Teallaura : they are using the 'enemy' caveat
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:40 - Chrs : Or are we talking about malicious killing of people in the same group explicitly?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:40 - Chrs : Let's think about murder for a while (:tongue.:) - Would, say, vikings going on raids and killing be considered murder?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:40 - Teallaura : Murder, sans caveat, should be present as morally acceptable in at least a few (or even one)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:38 - Teallaura : You said culture defines morality and gave it the central role in so doing. Cultures vary wildly and are too numerous to all come to the exact same conclusion
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:38 - Chrs : or, related.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:38 - Chrs : I disagree. Hold on, I have a book on this :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:38 - Teallaura : No, the issue is whether or not culture is adefining factor (the pre-eminitent one in your construction) in all precepts of morality. If so, you should see outliers that don't exist in reality
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:37 - Chrs : You'd have to show (Culturally defined morality --> Culture or cultures in which malicious killing is morally acceptable.)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:36 - Teallaura : IF culture is the defining factor - but if something else governs (like objective morality ) then that's exactly what you should expect to see
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:36 - Chrs : but, they do differ.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:36 - Chrs : As humans, we have roughly the same set of conditions to live in.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:35 - Chrs : Is it?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:35 - Chrs : The issue is whether morality is defined on a per-culture basis, not whether cultures have differing morality.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:35 - Teallaura : No, but given the hugh number it is absurd to argue that they would all conclude the exact same way on a single point
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:35 - Teallaura : If not, culture cannot be the defining factor
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:34 - Chrs : As I said, non-sequitur. The fact that all cultures define their morality independently doesn't mean that their definitions must differ on every issue.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:33 - Teallaura : So you have a culture in which malicious killing of a human being is morally accceptable?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:33 - Chrs : I got your meaning.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:33 - Teallaura : my bad - it is not merely unlawful
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:32 - Chrs : ..unlawful.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:32 - Teallaura : Murder is malicious - it cannot be accidental or justified
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:32 - Chrs : premeditated lawful killing, then :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:32 - Teallaura : No, murder is not unlawful killing - manslaughter is often unlawful but isn't murder
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:31 - Teallaura : But if morality is relative then so to is murder.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:31 - Chrs : (In which murder=unlawful, wrong killing.)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:31 - Chrs : Quite. So "Murder is wrong" is a tautology in any culture.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:31 - Teallaura : Murder is defined as wrong - it doesn't merely imply it
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:30 - Teallaura : Actually, he stepped on my shoe would be okay.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:30 - Chrs : (Although murder implies wrong, as it happens.)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:29 - Chrs : Ooooh, wait. I see what you're doing.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:29 - Teallaura : Because if culture is the defining factor then such should exist absent caveat (they aren't human; those people are enemies; he stepped on my shoe)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:29 - Chrs : Non-sequitur.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:28 - Teallaura : Really? There's a culture in which murder is morally right?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:28 - Chrs : Or more accurately, by my culture, time period, etc etc.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:28 - Teallaura : Morality can be defined - usually in terms of right and wrong/ good and evil. When in use it's defined by case (murder v manslaughter, for example).
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:27 - Chrs : Moral precept is defined in terms of my culture, time period, etc etc.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:26 - Teallaura : So is moral precept... and murder as immoral is understood - you're objection is still invalid
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:25 - Chrs : Doesn't mean they don't exist.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:25 - Chrs : The definitions are implied.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:25 - Teallaura : So if you understood it the objection that it isn't true because it isn't stringently defined is invalid
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:24 - Chrs : So, can you define moral precepts for me, Teal?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:24 - Chrs : It's generally implied in normal language.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:24 - Chrs : Quite.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:24 - Teallaura : is the sun hot? yes - do I need to define it more stringently? Not usually - and never for the purpose of comprehension with an intelligent human being who speaks the same language
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:24 - Chrs : Undefined without some clarification of "hot". Defining hot as "Hotter than 14 million degrees C", then true. :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:23 - Chrs : "Moral precepts"? :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:23 - Teallaura : An act/concept which agrees with moral preecepts
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:22 - Teallaura : What is the truth value for the statement 'the sun is hot'?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:22 - Chrs : Okay, "moral"?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:22 - Teallaura : Immoral - An act/concept which violates moral precepts
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:21 - Chrs : What is the truth value of the statement "murdering a child is SEIHIBV fbfhq237er2t7esadiafuifuhu"?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:21 - Teallaura : If 'being morally right or wrong' is meaningless then necessarily things understood to be immoral are also moral
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:20 - Chrs : Okay, can you define what it means for an action to be moral or immoral, for me?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:20 - Teallaura : The act is immoral therefore it should not be done. It is not immoral because it shouldn't be done - that's a tautology, I believe
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:19 - Chrs : No, I didn't. Sheesh, this is the problem with objectivists :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:19 - Teallaura : No, shouldn't follows from wrong, not wrong from shouldn't
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:19 - Teallaura : Chris, you just defined murder as a morally correct actions. Changing from verb to adverb solves the objection - be gains no clarity since it was understood the first time
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:18 - Chrs : What would be "X is wrong" in common language is a statement of the form "One shouldn't do X, if..."
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:17 - Teallaura : All statements require either definition or context or more commonly, both. Tells us nothing about the truth of the statement
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:17 - Chrs : I'm not saying it's sometime's false, I'm saying it's never true or false because an action or concept can never have the property of "being morally right" or "being morally wrong" on its own.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:16 - Teallaura : Bob is programming - is Bob a computer programmer or a TV exec?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:15 - Teallaura : If your premise is true then necessarily all moral statements must sometimes be false. Otherwise, it's not much of an objection
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:14 - Teallaura : So the statement is sometimes false? It is clearly comprehensible so
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:13 - Chrs : Okay, bad example, read the explanation rather than the other bit
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:13 - Teallaura : *context
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:13 - Chrs : because "being wrong" isn't a state of being that a concept or action can be
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:13 - Teallaura : You really need contest to define murder or innocent or child?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:12 - Chrs : Neither are adaquetly defined without context.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:12 - Chrs : So the statement "Blurghfarging a slishalhoof is wrong" is sometimes false?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:10 - Teallaura : So the statement 'murdering an innocent child is wrong" is sometimes false?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:08 - Chrs : (The context there being "To enjoy yourself, you should try playing this game.")
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:08 - Chrs : It may not be said, but it's there.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:08 - Chrs : When I say... "You should try playing this game." There is an implied "...because I believe you might enjoy it."
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:07 - Chrs : is what im saying.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:07 - Chrs : A "should" statement is meaningless without context.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:06 - LostSheep : To see that it needs an objective Chris? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like utilitarianism
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:05 - Chrs : Which is implied in normal speech
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:05 - Chrs : For a statement to have a truth value it has to be defined. A claim of "X is moral" isn't defined. Similarly with "Y should be done" - it's not sufficient to just say that, it needs an objective. "[If you want to achieve X], Y should be done
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:03 - Teallaura : So morality is never true?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:02 - Chrs : (btw)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:02 - Chrs : (Relativist in morality, not in truth.)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:02 - Chrs : im still about, I can read at my desk :P
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:02 - Teallaura : later
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:02 - Chrs : whut?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 13:02 - Teallaura : :n.o:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:58 - Chrs : Alright, going to hit this book on the Chinese Room
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:55 - Chrs : :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:55 - Chrs : Well yes.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:55 - Teallaura : :ahe.m: Not at all. You aren't a postmodernist or relativist, are you?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:55 - Chrs : (Ok, not quite)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:54 - Chrs : same thing :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:54 - Teallaura : Moral pressures but yes
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:54 - Chrs : Yeah.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:54 - Chrs : Oh right, the thing where you can make people be honest by reminding them that social pressures do, infact, exist and they probably shouldn't lie.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:53 - Teallaura : A pychitrist wrote a book examining dishonesty - found a lot of what you are talking about
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:53 - Teallaura : :lo.l: Oddly enough, I blogged about that interview
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:53 - Chrs : oh?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:52 - Teallaura : You would probably enjoy the interview Stossel did on his show yesterday.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:52 - Chrs : anyway, this book is fascinating. I also have a load of other ones. I blogged about the ones I picked up :p
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:51 - Chrs : Quite.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:50 - Teallaura : That too - we call those 'bad surveys'
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:50 - Teallaura : But is it that people are sheep or that we can manipulate their isocial instincts
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:50 - Chrs : or deliberately invoking them :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:49 - Chrs : (and in a lot of cases they test it with incentives, too.)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:49 - Teallaura : yup - survey research spends a lot of time weeding out those factors
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:46 - Chrs : showing them someone failing/doing well at a task, even if they're well aware that it's staged
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:46 - Chrs : and giving people "anchor" values to try and work it out from
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:45 - Chrs : I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing, but there are huuuuuuuuuuuuge things you can do to manipulate performance very very simply. Or views, infact. Think of the ways surveys manipulate people using other questions, etc.
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:44 - Teallaura : Um, Chris, if you can't manipulate performance why bother having managers?
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:43 - Chrs : what was it..
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:43 - Chrs : That's also a thing you can do to manipulate performance :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:43 - Teallaura : Unless you're talking about admins, of course
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:42 - Teallaura : Actually, I'm not sure it's a good measure. If you give an incentive for accurate estimates would they improve? If so it's not the reasoning that's the problem
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:42 - Chrs : shiny
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:41 - Teallaura : Conversely, a lot of similar sized houses have come on the market so by the time I can try again I'll have a wider selection. heck, it might even still be on the market (not that I'm gonna count on that)
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:41 - Chrs : but the extent you can manipulate performance with various things is riduclous
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:41 - Chrs : I knew it before
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:41 - Chrs : So! People suck at reasoning. I say again, as I read more of this :tongu.e:
==========================================================
28/07/2012 12:40 - Chrs : :smil.e: