CDF - this is an old sales technique - it has a name, but I don’t remember what it is - I want to say it’s the Thomas Jefferson Close. I saw a similar device on The Honeymooners, a sitcom from the Fifities that starred Jackie Gleason. Funny show. It didn’t actually work for Ralph (Gleason’s character) but it was a comedy.
The problem is that you are free to choose the pros and cons.
What were these people professors of?
The academic discipline is known as decision theory. It deals with how people make decisions, and how to make good decisions. Here are some examples:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GameTheory.html
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/whatis.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/
The last URL gives a nice intro to the history of this type of thinking.
The point in all these sites isn’t the specifics of decision theory (those are really complicated math), the point is people have thought about things like you did before, and have developed very intricate systems like yours before.
Here’s something I believe to be similar to your CDF:
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_06.htm
It’s used for business managers to help them figure out how to make decisions.
Here’s another similar one: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_08.htm
In fact, your CDF smacks of Cost-Benefit Analysis heavily. Or check out PMI analysis:
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_05.htm
I got those from googling “decision making”. I went to the first site, and got the best examples. There are dozens more sites like this, try it yourself.
In fact, there are even entire firms dedicated to doing cost-benefit analysis for companies:
http://www.abtassociates.com/Page.cfm?PageID=7500
Governments use it heavily:
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/costbenefitanalysis/
http://irm.cit.nih.gov/itmra/cbaguide.html
The basic premise here is that the individual corporation first asses what they want to make a decision on. They then think of the pro’s and the con’s of the situation, and assign weights to the pro’s and con’s (better pro’s get higher weights, lower con’s get negative weights). They then compare the total weight for all the pro’s versus the total weight for all the cons. This analysis then gives them the information they need to decide in their best interest. It’s seems to be pretty much the same as your CDF.
Go to a library and look at books about “decision making” “game theory” “decision theory” and probably either some cognitive psychology or even cognitive neuroscience and you’ll get much more info.
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/1997/Oct/hour2_101097.html
Here’s a very short article on research into how exactly people make decisions. Some of the evidence supports your “findings”. I can find many more articles (and books too) if you want discussing these matters if you want. But I’ve given you plenty so far.
You are not! Please utilize the CDF before making such statements. You have no idea what you just said.
I can only agree that this should be true but not that it is.
As far as your other comments, that stuff your smoking must be good.
ASU professors of philosophy and psychology.
Your first link is Game Theory.
Your second link is same.
Can’t use the third.
The fourth one is game theory.
Obivious, people have thought before.
Did you check the copyright? 2006! So they copied me, what does that prove? Except that the CDF works. In fact their copyright reads almost identical to mine. I guess they can get away with it because theirs is for business.
The CDF does seem to be used in slightly different manners. What does that prove? They have simply expanded its use.
My work began around 10 years ago and at that time, what you can find today, was non-existent then.
You have given nothing with these. I would be interested in anything that would predate me. There will probably be much more in the future like the CDF now that it is out.
[/quote]
TheCDF…
I would like for you to come close to me for a moment…
Is the room silant right now?
I just wanted to say this to you:
Hopefully you can feel what I’m saying to you.
You just said that the professors you talked to weren’t interested. You come here to talk about your CDF because no where else you could. Now you say someone was so interested that they copied you? That’s a nice contradiction right there.
Well yeah… it’s game theory, but is still an academic discipline that’s been around for the greater part of half a century at least. It deals with things your CDF discusses, but in much greater complexity and detail.
http://www.abtassociates.com/Page.cfm?PageID=400
This firm has been doing Cost-Benefit Analysis for the government since 1965. They’ve been at your game, in business, for 40 years at least.
And really, go to your library and look at books about decision making, decision theory, game theory, cognitive psychology and maybe even business management. You’ll find a lot that’s similar and a lot that predates you.
I don’t see a contradiction myself. The professors were interested in the CDF but just not talking to me in any great length about it. They were unaware that the CDF is the proof that they wanted to see first.
This is certainly not the only format to talk about the CDF.
Do you see a copy of my CDF, then whats so hard to understand. They saw my CDF, liked what they saw, saw no need to talk to me for my permission, copied it. Seems simple enough to me.
I fail to see how this makes it that they did not copy the CDF.
Where did I lead you astry as to make you think that I don’t believe people have never thought about decision making before?
The CDF has and did have before the combined elements of making lists and then rating them. I am unaware of anyone doing this before.
Now is see that you have taken on a task to somehow, someway prove that something I have said is wrong. Maybe you will find it and maybe you won’t ( my money is on the won’t), but that does not deter from the reality of the CDF, whether I did it first or not. The CDF is still the CDF.
Damn straight. But is it novel? Is it the product of ten years of intelligent thought? What were you doing during those ten years, anyway?
Anyway, the reason I said that it is self-evident truth is that this is what everyone does anyway when they decide. They may not weigh the pros and cons, but whenever you decide to do something, you are basically deciding that the benefit of doing it outweighs the detriment. All decisions are decided as:
If B > D return 1;
If the benefit of doing is greater than the detriment of doing, do the action.
Else return 0
Otherwise, don’t do the action.
Seems clear cut. All sensory organs are attempts to evaluate the two variables, detriment and benefit. Memory is an attempt to evaluate the two variables based on past experiences.
Wisdom is the accurate forseeance of consequences.
Mainly I was in deep thought about free will. Deep thought about free will leads you in all kinds of directions and you go on many journeys. You think about things like God and what’s his role in the universe. You think about fate and if there really is such a thing. You think about every aspect of life and their involvement in it. I can not tell you about 10 years worth of thought and experiences. When you start deep thinking about such things, its really some kind of journey. You start applying every new thing that you learn, or even think of, right or wrong as it may be. You start seeing it in people, in life, and everywhere you turn. As you learn you develop new understandings and see people and life in a whole new light. I don’t work and sort of wander the earth searching and seeking new wisdom. At fisrt it’s just a thought and then it consumes you. You can not run or hide from it as it starts looking for you. I wrote and wrote all the time. I would wake in the middle of the night and start writing. It would hit me at anytime day or night, asleep or not. I accumulated hundreds of pages of notes from all this writing. I studied it, I examined it, I looked at it from every angle possible. I lived it. Well I can not tell you 10 years worth of free thinking and living it. So, hope this can help give you a small glimpse into the world created for me. Absolutlly the biggest event in my life. Some day maybe we can sit down and I can tell you more.
Working alone, you wouldn’t know if you have looked at it from every possible angle. As it happens you have not. There are volumes written on decision making and the gross total years of note taking and thinking exceed ten - ten-fold. You should now do less writing and more reading.
This was my point ENTIRELY.
From what I said, you should have gotten that I was “working alone”. So then from that understanding you should have gotten that " I looked at it from every possible angle as a person working alone". But not that it is as limiting as it sounds. One who works alone does not means he is alone while working, I wasn’t in a closet. By going out into the world I believe I achived more, way more, angles than any of you who sit I a classroom only learning what others think. Were the first philosophers so stupid that they needed to know what others thought before they could draw a conclusion. That they needed to go to “school”.
Maybe I have done it backwards to you educated types, but to me it is the right way. I do all the preliminary work by myself. That way I am untainted by what others think. I draw my conclusion, then see what others think, but not to get approval but to show what I myself, that’s me working alone, has discovered. I know this is different to you but that does not mean it’s wrong. Getting educated the way you do is probably a way of controling your minds, by putting you all in the same box they know what you all think. Can you tell me that your education has no effect on how you think.
Although I can’t compare myself to Enstien, but didn’t he work alone.
“Now” is the correct term to use and not “first”. I have medical problems that prevent me from reading to much so I really hate reading, but I love talking. That is what I try and do alot of. I go out into the world and talk to people. Being around people, talking to them, and studing them, is what I believe what really teaches you about life and not some book in some classroom or being stuck behind a computer.
What do I need these for? What does this have anything to do with my CDF? It’s like you are saying that because there are all these volumes that I havn’t read, that somehow it makes me wrong. I say I do not have to read these to be right in what I say.
This may be where my lack of education shows, I don’t know what this means. Are you saying that I can learn faster reading than I can taking notes? If you are, I would ask “learning what”? Something someone else believes to be true.
Your turn.
Try this site to see the CDF being put to good use.
centerfornaturalism.org/workshops.htm
The CDF is in #4.
You know what CDF? Do whatever makes you happy. Just because these people say to read a bunch of books doesn’t mean you should. It just means they think you should (enough to say it), which usually counts for something.
A lot can be accomplished by thinking alone. One great part of thinking is that it tends to remain grounded. When you think, you’re always thinking about stuff you’ve observed and how that fits in, etc. When you think, you rarely get constructs based on constructs based on constructs. I sometimes long for the days when I thought instead of sat here and typed.
Anyway… I’m not sure.
thezeus18:
Use what you know, and it sounds like you know what that is.
You seem to. What is it?
Think! Do some deep thinking, free thinking.
LOL at this.
First off your conclusion about not having free will I mainly agree with. But you don’t do a good job of proving it.
Here is your problem, or well one of many. You assume that the choices people make are based on weighing the pro’s and con’s of an issue and deciding rationally. This is not the case.
For example…in an experiment French or German music was played on alternate days from a supermarket display featuring two french and German wines of a similar price and sweetness. As predicted, on days that the French music was being played, the French wine outsold the German wine; whereas German wine outsold French wine on days that German music played.(both by margins of about 3 to 1). Clearly the music influenced their purchases. When queried about the reasons for their choices only 1 out of 44 people mentioned the music. When later told about the music only 6 out of 44 said that the music might have influenced their choice.
People don’t always know why they make decisions, even if they right out a pro’s and con’s chart beforehand.
Other common factors that influence our decisions that we are often unaware of are social proof, halo effect, foot in the door techniques etc.
Your assumptions about my assumptions don’t seem to be the same as what I assume. Where did I say they always decided rationally?
Where did I say people always know what all the pros and cons are. Have you not listened to anything that I have said or wrote?
Please, at least read my stuff before commenting, or at least ask. For a thinker your not thinking very much, or maybe your thinking to much.
I read your webpage- how to use the CDF. You basically write out a list of pro’s and con’s and tally up the numbers. This is supposed to show you what decision you would have chosen.
But this is not the case, because our decisions are not based upon these things, a lot of the time they are based on stuff we have no idea about. Such as the music playing in the store.
If someone were choosing wines and wrote down a list of pro’s and con’s , there would be no place on the list for “If German music is playing in the store” …Get it?