A better understanding about subjective concepts.

I don't think that you have total power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes about morality but I do think that you have a more in depth knowledge of the subject than anyone else I know and that what you share should be considered as possibly having more experience in it.

I view Farmerman's research on evolution to have a lot a credibility in it as well but I do not think he is the final authority on that subject matter neither.

One claim for the Hartman Value Profile appears to be commercial use in reducing staff turnover (by 7% in one article !). And on such "good effect" (sic) data as this a theory of "logical ethics" is to be based ?

I wish you the best of luck !

It does seem too small of a percent to be able to validate but can you imagine the cost savings to a company the size of walmart if it is true?

The point is that it impossible to control other employment "happiness factors"which might operate in a company involved in psychological testing. And I have little doubt that other "goodness of fit" tests including general lifestyle, choice of TV or musical taste, etc correlated with that of existing "good employees" might give similar results!

If I understand you correctly I think that you are correct in what you are saying but I do think that there are things that can be done and measured with a degree of accuracy.

Example you have a business of 10,000 employees and you have to hire 1,000 new employees each year because 1,000 quit each year. You do a survey within the company and you find that the #1 complaint "that the employees have is that they are underpaid by $2.00 per hour.
If you were to raise their pay by another $2.00 per hour do you think that some of them may stay a little longer?

Precisely.

But anyway the validity or utility of psychometric tests have only limited relevance to specific psychological models. One major pioneer on the development of "morality" in the growing child was Jean Piaget. His work relied neither on statistical tests nor the application of "logic" ("logic" for him itself requiring a developmental "explanation" which transcended it). That is not to say that Piaget's work on morality has not itself been superceded, but the general issues have been those of the failure to overcome moral relativism, or the failure to transcend linguistic factors which like morality significantly seem to be confined to human beings.

Do any of you enjoy watching and listening to RSA Animate?

The Truth About Dishonesty

Could it be true that fostering empathic capacity is just as important to achieving a world of citizens at peace with each other and with themselves?



21st century enlightenment

Do you claim this to be absolutely true in all cases?

I am not saying that you are wrong but I was curious what you thought about the studies that the Federal Reserve funded and the results of these of these studies.

Wow almost 10 million views on this video. I was not aware that there were so many people who have an interest.

When you ask that question about relevance you have come full circle to the issue of "concepts" and "concept validity". Even at the physical level, it is not always easy to come to an operational definition of a concept, and with human behavior is it even more elusive. Concepts as reflected by abstract words are nodes of social agreement within specific communicative contexts. The trend in the philosophy of language is to emphasize their transient contextual nature (hence for example Wittgensteins "language games") The quest for fixed axioms or "the given" in psychology is somewhat like the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes".

The whole "analysis" industry in the USA is looked on with some amusement by non-Americans, so that when references to tests involve the word "counselling" (ref Katz above) a flicker of a smile tends to show on the faces of skeptics like me. In short, claims for universality based on parochial social systems look pretty vacuous. Note also that Katz's good natured comments amount to little more than a combination of self-publicity and adages about "a little knowledge....."". He is not going to discuss the status of his position here.

this here show also the problem, u dont want to understand anything

how a concept is subjective, u r not only pervert crazy in constant growth deliriums but u r real morons too, ur standard of using knowledge is over low

concept is the abstraction of great value justification being superior freedom truth so steady absolute superiority, it cant in any ways or case being subjective merde
u really think that u can create concepts too?? cmon wat concept did u create or ur god created so far tell me

all ur god and u can pretend creating is ways of using others and things rights
**** u

one day for sure u gonna get ur punishments it is a certainty from my sight, no way that u could not pay the fact that u didnt move from the start for the way u knew being right, from the begining u all see the right way and choose to ignore it in the reason to pretend not seeing anyways as the way of taking advantage from freedom for all to u only
u gonna pay for that first so for last it is sure more, but for first it is a certainty already

literally, concept is con cept, so with most free superiority
that is how sceptic is about questionning the existence of that present superiority

while the concept is what confirm its existence as being with n through

it is easy to clarify any if u r honest, u move for what is obvious

how that honests must get to b laughed at by forcing them to look pathetically miserable shitty u

u gonna get ur punishments for sure
**** u forever

I will be honest, "I can not clearly make out what you are saying but I am interested in why you brought to this discussion the word "God"? I am not a believer but some may be and I respect their beliefs even though I may not see things the way they do.

this is too random reply of believers proving how u dont have other reference to mean anything out
u avoid the right question by denyin its existence, in knowin that as a believer fanatic urself u must answer anything especially to a fact, u must say more upon as provin ur god superiority and u as believer have surely a superior point that the objective observer dont

but no u say, ooh im not a believer funny u said god so u must b one of those ohhh yea why not believer
do u want my answer here i guess not so lets stay polite and reply randomly my ways, i said u n ur god bc im not believer either

Well that cleared that one up didn't it !

I think you made the same mistake as me but I was able to catch it, can you?
I find what you have to share to be intellectual but I see no need in repeating this anymore. The only reason I have said this repeatedly is because I personally think that it is true and I hope that you will at least consider what I share with you, as being information that has been thought out to the best of my ability.
I will offer a clue, The usernames should give this away even though they could be the same person.

Please go into detail about this thought.



What would be the right question?



Please rest assure that everything that I share has come from others such as yourself and very little of it is of my own material and most of what I share are only approximations of reality.



I have no God that I believe in so I am not sure what you mean. What is objective that you see?



Yes this is what I am seeking., "other point of views other than my own so that I can have a somewhat understanding coming from a different point of view.



Do find a problem with me trying to be respectful toward you or others?

avoidin the right question when said by me, meaning literally u r avoidin the right question there not a question u will make that is how what u make is what u want to kill it therefore u avoid it to turn around as a snake and poison it somewhere u r the most sure it would fall down

what is right is what exist, so not u nor what could b existing

the right question of the post i did was there clearly expressing itself through sanity of logics which aim to the best of the best while statin objective bad which the question mean to ask how is it there n why dont superior logics remove it now

People will always try to kill off what they do not like, want in their life and make it die, (it) being the word.

I'm not referring to RL here as he would not do that.



How do you prove what exists, instead of what could exist or what man projects is in existance without total truth, or back up.

Does God exists for instance? Some say yes, some say no, some say maybe.. There is no proof but belief.

And he's got enough on his plate damaging the reputation of both Reason and Logic.

u prove what exist by being else, as simply as that, what is objective is surely never u no need to prove that fact to urself, just act differently but clearly and existence as else is true

i answerd in terms of philosophical proof, so in terms of absolute knowledge being to truth recognitions

noone is true, while anyone is relatively free

try to b constant being in smthg, it is impossible u cant
while truth is about objective constancy forever

even in being ur body u cant stay still for a minute, god allegories about himself gives the cosntant picture of him being what want to stay still to pretend being true, as crazy as where is average normality

one cant b constant but through freedom which is by realizin its constant being in truth objective absolute existence
so get a link with objective superiority which is true constancy to rely on in logics abstractions as the justification of a free existin stand

what exist cannot b god, bc wat exist is absolute consatnt objective always fact
what exist cant b there an not there what exist cant b killed nor denied by else existing wat exist cant b there an not being real itself as it is there

now the question if kind of superior freedom could b powerful on our dimensions of objective existence, of course this is the issue we here also know, how freedom lean to use else inferiority to get to pretend being the truth upon it it is the most advantage it might get from truth knowledge abuse