An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

idiom · 2005-06-26 21:55:58

then the people leaving to live in Mars will be assured that the worst bunch have been picked out

Very KSR, turns out everybody lied on the test. Because, nobody sane wants to go to Mars, you really have to have something broken in you sub-concious.

Stormrage · 2005-06-27 03:44:31

then the people leaving to live in Mars will be assured that the worst bunch have been picked out
Very KSR, turns out everybody lied on the test. Because, nobody sane wants to go to Mars, you really have to have something broken in you sub-concious.

You know shrinks are not easily fooled?

Josh Cryer · 2005-06-27 05:05:16

I know from personal experience that shrinks can't do anything if you play them... they need you to work with them.

In any case, I voted for terrorism, though I would not use bombs, I could see defacing various ethic centers, dropping phamplets, hacking their machines, and so on, as quite terroristic in their eyes. The ethics people would find it quite unethical.

reddragon · 2005-06-27 12:07:34

There should be an exam that governs the people who are elliglbe to come. The tests will be
Can they speak english properly?
Are they Fit?
Are they to old?
Are they disabled?
Are they mentally stable? (Less crazy people and murders/rapers)
Do they have any anger problems?
Do they have any uncurable contagious diease? (This question is about dieases that can spread in anyway and form. Other dieases that are allowed is Alzheimer's or Parkinson's cause they can't spread.)
If all of these are added into the test then the people leaving to live in Mars will be assured that the worst bunch have been picked out and that they won't get infected

Start out with a group of all the "best" people and leave the "undesirables" behind. I have serious problems with this kind of plan, but anyway it's not going to work. These people will reproduce and not all their sons and daughters will be model martian children. Human nature being essentially the same everywhere, the population will soon become like any other. Human nature includes strong elements of anger, violence, greed, etc. as well as of fairness, caring, love, etc. The best chance of success is to have a culture that tends to bring out the best in people and that promotes thinking.

I doubt there will be an exam for Mars citizenship, because I doubt there will be any such thing as Mars citizenship. I certainly hope that no single group controls immigration. You immigrate to a settlement based on its immigration laws. Or you get a group of people together and start your own settlement. If you have a ship that can take you to Mars or a ticket on one, you should have the right to go. And if a settlement there will take you, they should have that right. I hope for a Mars where most things are done at the local (city-state) level. It's more efficient and more in touch with the needs of the people. You simply need some treaties to keep the cities from fighting and to protect basic human rights.

With just one Martian government there's too little chance to start over or try new things.

Stormrage · 2005-06-27 14:37:39

There should be an exam that governs the people who are elliglbe to come. The tests will be
Can they speak english properly?
Are they Fit?
Are they to old?
Are they disabled?
Are they mentally stable? (Less crazy people and murders/rapers)
Do they have any anger problems?
Do they have any uncurable contagious diease? (This question is about dieases that can spread in anyway and form. Other dieases that are allowed is Alzheimer's or Parkinson's cause they can't spread.)
If all of these are added into the test then the people leaving to live in Mars will be assured that the worst bunch have been picked out and that they won't get infected
Start out with a group of all the "best" people and leave the "undesirables" behind. I have serious problems with this kind of plan, but anyway it's not going to work. These people will reproduce and not all their sons and daughters will be model martian children. Human nature being essentially the same everywhere, the population will soon become like any other. Human nature includes strong elements of anger, violence, greed, etc. as well as of fairness, caring, love, etc. The best chance of success is to have a culture that tends to bring out the best in people and that promotes thinking.
I doubt there will be an exam for Mars citizenship, because I doubt there will be any such thing as Mars citizenship. I certainly hope that no single group controls immigration. You immigrate to a settlement based on its immigration laws. Or you get a group of people together and start your own settlement. If you have a ship that can take you to Mars or a ticket on one, you should have the right to go. And if a settlement there will take you, they should have that right. I hope for a Mars where most things are done at the local (city-state) level. It's more efficient and more in touch with the needs of the people. You simply need some treaties to keep the cities from fighting and to protect basic human rights.
With just one Martian government there's too little chance to start over or try new things.

It is easier to controll bad people from coming in. If you stop people with HIV from going to mars then there won't be any HIV in mars. If you stop people coming in with other form of contagius and uncureable dieases then there won't be any there. Yes there might be new dieases and the "bad" people will be born. Does that mean we should still let them come? If we don't let them come then it it will be easier to deal with the ones that are created.
Also Treaties won't stop cities from attacking each other. There has to be a governing body to stop them attacking each other.

I know from personal experience that shrinks can't do anything if you play them... they need you to work with them.

If you don't work with them then you won't come.

Fledi · 2005-07-09 18:39:59

Yeah, only take those who are psychologically and genetically "perfect" (whatever your definition of perfect is), I remember reading about something like this before...

So go on, take these morally or elseway chosen people and found your colony, but don't stop us mere mortals from establishing our own.

I bet that handpicked crew of yours will have much more difficulty to adopt to a completely new way of life noone can predict from Earth than a diverse colony with all kinds of people.

clark · 2005-07-11 20:40:51

Is it ethical to give people an exam that categorically denies opportunity and choice from them, with no chance for repreive?

Rxke · 2005-07-12 04:19:14

You know shrinks are not easily fooled?

No?

I fool/fooled them repeatedly. Just tell them what they like to hear, in a subtle way.
Flattery gets you *everywhere* No-one can resist subtle forms of flattery. No-one.

And they'll *think* you cooperate.

clark · 2005-07-12 05:19:04

Rxke, you're so crafty and smart. Can you resist?

Fooling a shrink seems a bit counter productive. It's a bit akin to telling the doctor that you feel fine, when in reality you hurt all over.

Of course the situation here is a bit different, since in this context, shrinks are seen as an impediment or obstacle to a desired goal.

Besides, all a shrink is capable of doing is helping you if you want to be helped. They don't have the answers, they merely help to guide you along as you discover your own answers.

Too many people lose sight of that. [shrug]

BWhite · 2005-07-12 07:35:24

http://www-ai.ijs.si/eliza/eliza.html]How can I help?

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-12 07:46:43

I fool/fooled them repeatedly. Just tell them what they like to hear, in a subtle way.
Flattery gets you *everywhere* No-one can resist subtle forms of flattery. No-one.
And they'll *think* you cooperate.

Quite right. Just determine what sort of persona you want that day, get it straight in your head and go for it.

I recommend it for all aspiring actors, politicians and criminal types.

A big weakness shared by many if not most shrinks is they believe that A) everything means something and B) they're smarter than you are. Both of those things can be used to plant ideas in their heads when the relationship is adversarial.

Bah, it's all just phrenology without the glass head anyway.

clark · 2005-07-12 07:56:52

Why do you think that Cobra?

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-12 08:13:26

Why do you think that Cobra?

I've been fooling shrinks since I was a kid! They'll never find the bodies! :laugh:

Actually, a number of examples involving myself (either volunteering for educational purposes or for police-related issues, not as a suspect) or close acquaintences, all of which had two things in common. Shrinks making guesses based as much on themselves as on the subject and a tendency to attach too much weight to minor or meaningless details.

In essence all they can do is attempt to filter behavior, what is significant and what isn't, guess at the reasons for it, guess what might help the person (or what might get them to be truthful, depending on the circumstances) and all based on there own assumptions. It may be an art, but to give it the weight of medical science is really a stretch. Hence the phrenology comparison.

They should really were robes and chant, that would be more appropriate.

clark · 2005-07-12 08:38:43

So your experience with psychologists has been in an adversarial role? Would you suggest that a non-confrontational, or non-judgmental relationship with a psychologist is effectively the same thing?

Palomar · 2005-07-12 08:41:40

Shrinks making guesses based as much on themselves as on the subject and a tendency to attach too much weight to minor or meaningless details.
In essence all they can do is attempt to filter behavior, what is significant and what isn't, guess at the reasons for it, guess what might help the person (or what might get them to be truthful, depending on the circumstances) and all based on there own assumptions.

*Somewhat, but I disagree for the most part. I've read psychology, have transcribed many reports in the field (psychology and psychiatry, particularly the latter). Worked nearly 3 years in a psychiatric hospital, etc.

There is some real bone beneath the meat of psychiatry. That, and the fact that human nature (reactions, rationalizations, behaviors pertaining to vices, etc.) tends to be surprisingly similar and often regardless (to a great extent) of age and ethnicity. There are some gender differences, but within males and females the similarities intra-gender persist.

It also seems, based on my work experience, that "shrinks" are often more objective than they're given credit for. But they're often stereotyped as being "nerds" peeking into brains and dismissed on that basis.

There were many patients in that hospital (and in clinics, relative to other work) who thought they were easily putting one over on the doctor; figured they were outsmarting the tests; etc. Of course patients aren't allowed to read their charts except for permission by their attending physician...and let's just say if those patients had been allowed to read what the shrinks figured out, they might have been a bit humbled...but likely would have felt more insulted.

It seemed to me the similarities and predictability of most folks in behavioral patterns makes the shrink's diagnosis-making that much easier. Getting the patient to come round and cooperate for their own self-betterment is another matter.

And MMPIs (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory)? Can't fool it. It's so completely structured with checks and balances, cross-references, etc., that even slight uncooperation on the taker's part is instantly picked up.

Yeah, those shrinks and their methods are a bit more shrewd than they're given credit for.

But I'm glad to be typing mostly medical-surgical stuff again.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-07-12 08:48:42

The MMPI can be fooled.

You have to understand the questions to do it.

But there is no point in taking the test, or going to a shrink, if you don't want the real results, or you don't want help.

It’s why the primary basis of any psychological or psychiatric help is predicated on a willing participant. You have to want it.

Those who play games are either afraid of the judgment of such tests or professional help (often due to being in an adversarial relationship, witness Cobra) or are looking for attention.

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-12 09:07:34

So your experience with psychologists has been in an adversarial role?

In the sense of "obstacle to a goal." Though most of the time I volunteered as "foil" for the purpose of misleading. Educational purposes for those folks that ask pertinent questions while others watch from behind the mirror.

Would you suggest that a non-confrontational, or non-judgmental relationship with a psychologist is effectively the same thing?

Less so if the subject is truly cooperative, however many of the same issues play in. For all the similarity in behavior and motivations between people, analysis of them can't help but be at least partially subjective.

If one really works out what they want to convey in detail and stick to it they can skew the analysis to whatever they want. Perhaps not as much as they intend, but two different shrinks can get different impressions from the same subject if that subject skillfully manipulates the exchange and is willing to give a little. I've seen it done.

There is some real bone beneath the meat of psychiatry.

Certainly, however the inner workings of the mind are subject to more guesswork and interpretation than say, the inner workings of the colon.

There were many patients in that hospital (and in clinics, relative to other work) who thought they were easily putting one over on the doctor; figured they were outsmarting the tests; etc.

If crazy people could truly potray themselves as sane, would they really belong in a mental hospital? Perhaps not the best wording, but a valid inquiry nonetheless.

Point being, someone truly mentally ill thinking they're pulling one over is not the same as someone perfectly sane actually misleading an examiner.

And MMPIs (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory)? Can't fool it. It's so completely structured with checks and balances, cross-references, etc., that even slight uncooperation on the taker's part is instantly picked up.

No experience with it , so can't say. I wonder though. . . if you can't outright fool it, what would it take to at least make it inconclusive?

However, I suspect that it can be fooled with enough preparation and forethought. Research required, it seems I have a pet project for the next couple days.

I suppose what it all comes down to really is that modern medical science, whatever the field, is still very much in a primitive state. Whether it be psychology (the newer, better phrenology) or treatments like chemotherapy (the new bloodletting) we're still bumbling around in the dark.

So referencing an earlier analogy, the "bones" may be right, but we have yet to figure out how the muscle fits over them properly. We don't even know about skin yet.

It’s why the primary basis of any psychological or psychiatric help is predicated on a willing participant. You have to want it.

Quite true.

Those who play games are either afraid of the judgment of such tests or professional help (often due to being in an adversarial relationship, witness Cobra) or are looking for attention.

Sure, when it's adversarial the rules are completely different. You don't want help, you want to trick the examiner into looking elsewhere.

So in some cases, you play games with them because you don't want attention.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1121181097

clark · 2005-07-12 09:22:24

In the sense of "obstacle to a goal." Though most of the time I volunteered as "foil" for the purpose of misleading. Educational purposes for those folks that ask pertinent questions while others watch from behind the mirror.

Understood. It is a rare gift for an individual to be able to easily mislead or fool others. It seems you possess such a gift. However, wouldn't your experience be more indicitive of you own abilities than those whom you are helping to hone their skills?

You didn't learn how to do the things you do without time, experience, and a fair number of mistakes. Right?

For all the similarity in behavior and motivations between people, analysis of them can't help but be at least partially subjective.

Partially subjective, true. But then all things are partially subjective. I believe that is generally why they train psychologists and psychiatrists to keep a certain level of distance from their patients.

They also work around issues of subjectivity through the DSM 9 critera. If you are going to tackle the MMPI (all you can do is manipulate your final personality profile by carefully selecting your answers to be inline with the standardized personality assesments) I suggest you lead through the DSM 9 for some more background.

If one really works out what they want to convey in detail and stick to it they can skew the analysis to whatever they want.

True, but then that is defeating the purpose of seeking help. Most psychiatric relationships are built on a foundation of trust, not advesrity. If an individual feels judged, then they shut down and start second guessing their responses, making final treatment nearly impossible.

Perhaps not as much as they intend, but two different shrinks can get different impressions from the same subject if that subject skillfully manipulates the exchange and is willing to give a little. I've seen it done.

Just as two physicians can come to different conclusions based on the same test results.

BWhite · 2005-07-12 09:25:53

"Fooling" the MMPI will likely result in a "your horse is pregnant" variety of result - - besides, related to what clark writes, why bother?

Palomar · 2005-07-12 09:27:10

1.
There is some real bone beneath the meat of psychiatry.
Certainly, however the inner workings of the mind are subject to more guesswork and interpretation than say, the inner workings of the colon.
2.
There were many patients in that hospital (and in clinics, relative to other work) who thought they were easily putting one over on the doctor; figured they were outsmarting the tests; etc.
If crazy people could truly potray themselves as sane, would they really belong in a mental hospital? Perhaps not the best wording, but a valid inquiry nonetheless.
Point being, someone truly mentally ill thinking they're pulling one over is not the same as someone perfectly sane actually misleading an examiner.
3.
And MMPIs (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory)? Can't fool it. It's so completely structured with checks and balances, cross-references, etc., that even slight uncooperation on the taker's part is instantly picked up.
No experience with it , so can't say. I wonder though. . . if you can't outright fool it, what would it take to at least make it inconclusive?

*First point: Well, it seems to me the process is more objective than is given credit for. Again, human behavioral patterns (generally very predictable, regardless of how "unique" each patient presumes their troubles and reactions to them are...remember in elementary school when probably all of us thought we were the only one who was afraid to do this or that, were afraid of a certain teacher, and everyone else seemed so cool and poised, then years later you surprisingly discover most everyone else felt the same way? Same principle) make the process that much easier.

2nd: Not necessarily "crazy/insane." Could range from clinical depression to disturbing behaviors (but not necessarily psychotic). Some of the folks taking the tests were court-ordered to do so (does their criminal behavior have a psychological basis?), etc. The truly "crazy" people -- such as paranoid schizophrenics in a psychotic state -- wouldn't be able to take a test anyway, in that condition.

3rd: Based on what reports I transcribed and what I've read, no. If the taker is uncooperative/dishonest/misrepresentational/apathetic, those qualities will be picked up immediately.

Of course I'm not a pro, just typing what familiarity I have based on reading and work-related stuff.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-07-12 09:36:40

The heart of the MMPI, and indeed psychology, is statistical analysis.

An old saying I was taught in a stat class: Liars can figure, and figures can lie.

Unless you are dealing with a significant population and can control for as many variables as possible, your results will be bunk.

One of the faults of many standardized tests (MMPI included) is that it does not necessarily translate for all individuals because they fall outside the generalized statistical parameters that were used to define the scope and results of the tests.

Same with just about any psychological diagnosis, which is why psychiatry is continually reassessing how the final assessment is configured (ex. DSM 1-8). You used to be crazy if you were gay, now you are sane, but damned.

Anyway, it is fun to take the MMPI honestly because it can be so strangely accurate.

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-12 10:26:19

Understood. It is a rare gift for an individual to be able to easily mislead or fool others. It seems you possess such a gift. However, wouldn't your experience be more indicitive of you own abilities than those whom you are helping to hone their skills?

Such praise. :laugh:
But if I were that good. . .

The real question is what approach is taken to misleading a psychologist in an adversarial context. If a mentally ill person wants to appear sane they probably can't pull it off, just as a sane person trying to portray some illness will usually botch it. The trick is in carefully manipulating subtleties. Little gestures, how you say things, what you convey about motives. Consciously or not every subject gives away certain clues that add weight to certain aspects while running interference for others.

Just as two physicians can come to different conclusions based on the same test results.

Which is a prelude to more tests. Unfortuantely in this case, none of the tests measure anything directly. We simply don't know enough about the hows and whys of human personality to devise tests whose results are anything more than suggestive.

One of the faults of many standardized tests (MMPI included) is that it does not necessarily translate for all individuals because they fall outside the generalized statistical parameters that were used to define the scope and results of the tests.

Indeed. Not only that, but a statistical correlation doesn't necessarily mean there's a causal connection.

For example, I've seen crime statistics that show that people with satellite dishes are much less likely to have their car stolen.

Point being, a psychological profile showing a set of traits that statistically correlate to certain ailments/behaviors may be entirely coincidental given the small sample.

You used to be crazy if you were gay, now you are sane, but damned.

Is that clinically damned?

Wait, don't want to end on that.

Anyway, it is fun to take the MMPI honestly because it can be so strangely accurate.

The same can be said of placemats at Chinese restaurants.

There, that's better.

clark · 2005-07-12 12:40:44

The trick is in carefully manipulating subtleties. Little gestures, how you say things, what you convey about motives. Consciously or not every subject gives away certain clues that add weight to certain aspects while running interference for others.

Well, the truth is that a psychologist can only connect the dots. The individual has to provide the dots, and the shrink only has that to work with. Part of the job is to draw the individual out, keep them talking, to create a greater number of "dots" by which to work with.

Your effort, at least without more information, seems to be directed at teaching the shrinks how not to jump to conclusions and have a better understanding of how to evaluate information. It makes them more effective in the long run. Besides, if you are acting, it would make sense that their final assessment be based on the available information you have provided.

We simply don't know enough about the hows and whys of human personality to devise tests whose results are anything more than suggestive.

I disagree. It's probability. We know enough to be rather certain, and rather right, most of the time. All the time? No, of course not. But as I pointed out, we derive our ability to assess based on statistical analysis that controls for the appropriate variables. One data point is not significant to generalize to a group, but a group of data points is significant to generalize to one individual.

Indeed. Not only that, but a statistical correlation doesn't necessarily mean there's a causal connection.
For example, I've seen crime statistics that show that people with satellite dishes are much less likely to have their car stolen.

Well, you can correlate anything, but you have to establish that there is direct relationship between your correlation. This is why they do control studies and try to account for the variables- all in order to build the appropriate correlations.

Remember what I said, Liars can figure and figures can lie? Same thing. You can draw correlations as you point out, but it is meaningless. That of course doesn't mean there are not real correlations.

If you don't believe me, go run with some scissors on a busy freeway.

Point being, a psychological profile showing a set of traits that statistically correlate to certain ailments/behaviors may be entirely coincidental given the small sample.

Psychological profile use large samples and advanced stats to account for variables. You have a better shot of discounting the correlation by demonstrating how the sample does not apply to a particular group. You need to identify the variables that are confounding the results.

Rxke · 2005-07-12 14:02:31

I was going to reply, but you guys are already deep into this. And I somehow feel my grotty Engrish is not up to it.

One Q though: DSM 9, was that series originally spelled out in Roman numbering?

I, II, II, IV etc... I have some recollection with something that sounds similar, but I thought it was XYZ IV or V (or even up to VIII, but not IX for sure...)

Oh, @Clark: no I can't resist
and @Clark: ... experience with psychologists... in an adversarial role?
When they lock you up, you can try to smash the windows or *talk* your way out... When they don't wnt you on Mars, you can hijack a shuttle or *talk* your way in.

I'm just practicing!

clark · 2005-07-12 14:36:21

Dah! DSM IV (4) is the most current. My number game is way off as of late (Bill will atest). All apologies. Perhaps there was a freudian slip up with some star trek theme...

And Rxke, we're all practicing. The question is, "for what"?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-06-26 21:55:58

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

#27 2005-06-27 03:44:31

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

#28 2005-06-27 05:05:16

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

#29 2005-06-27 12:07:34

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

#30 2005-06-27 14:37:39

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

#31 2005-07-09 18:39:59

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

#32 2005-07-11 20:40:51

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

#33 2005-07-12 04:19:14

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

#34 2005-07-12 05:19:04

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

#35 2005-07-12 07:35:24

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

#36 2005-07-12 07:46:43

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

#37 2005-07-12 07:56:52

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

#38 2005-07-12 08:13:26

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

#39 2005-07-12 08:38:43

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

#40 2005-07-12 08:41:40

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

#41 2005-07-12 08:48:42

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

#42 2005-07-12 09:07:34

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

#43 2005-07-12 09:22:24

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

#44 2005-07-12 09:25:53

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

#45 2005-07-12 09:27:10

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

#46 2005-07-12 09:36:40

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

#47 2005-07-12 10:26:19

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

#48 2005-07-12 12:40:44

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

#49 2005-07-12 14:02:31

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

#50 2005-07-12 14:36:21

Re: An Ethics Exam for Mars Citizenship - If you were rejected, what would you do?

Board footer