Valuation = measurement. Adding more words just makes you sound like Deepak Chopra.
I don't suppose there's a chance you two could just kiss and make up --?
Seriously - "If values are measurements, how is accuracy not the purpose?" <--- If I were to post that to almost any forum and ask for people to guess who said that, Deepak Chopra would very likely be the most common guess. Would you care to give it a try with me?
That isn't what sleight of word means.
And yes when people can't see the obvious you have to spell it out for them.
Whether Deepak Chopra does it is irrelevant. You always have to do that when people fail to see the obvious
Which is why I was pointing out the tautology in your use of valuation and measurement. As I said, adding more words just makes you sound more like Deepak Chopra. I guess you don't want to take me up on that survey to find out just how many other people agree. Oh well, carry on.
There is a major difference between equating two ideas and making a tautology. How can you not see that?
Equating is not the same thing as making a tautology. I am willing for you to prove that it is. However if it is, then it isn't a bad thing to do.
That's enough - I said carry on!
Archaeopteryx, I actually like to pick her brain, because it is rigid-minded. She provides a decent alternate perspective sometimes. It allows me to test for error, (See below what I said to unseen about increasing the sample size.)
Valuation without a metric is nonsense. It also needs a scale. When it comes to morality or ethics, the scale is the range between right and wrong. How can praise and blame/scorn not be at the ends of the scale? What takes their place? In your system, what is at each end of the range of not good/bad, right/wrong?
I had tautology once, but a single shot of penicillin cleared it all up!
Really just nothing I can say to defuse this, is there --?
A measurement needs a metric. What is it and how can we know that it is THE metric in use. If I say "I can know if something is a meter long or is longer or shorter," ultimately the metric is the standard meter which is an actual physical object in France. The valuation of options or actions seems not subject to an objective metric. If it has no metric (one that can be used by people other than yourself), your theory will remain irrelevant.
You also need to work on explaining it more plainly, but I suspect its tautological aspects would simply be brought into view more plainly if you did so. For most of us, I gather, it seems like so much "sleight of word."
Also, ethics and morals are philosophy. Psychology is a soft science. The best psychology can do is to describe the process people use to arrive at ethical choices, but that is a FAR way from determining what's right and what's wrong.
I was taught that the reason ethical arguments never seem settled is that ethical disputes are about attitudes, not facts. Until facts can be agreed upon and a consistent way of talking about them is devised, there will never be an absolute ethic and it will all be about irresolvable disputes.
Unseen if choice is measurement of values determined for the sake of accuracy, then humans value accuracy above all else. If so, at the core of measurement, accuracy can then be nothing other than the purpose of it.
People don't tap into the reality that humans value everything for the sake of accuracy, and that is a very major idea. If that is the case, choice is math. Error is measurement. Nothing else.
The simple explanation is this alternative to the notion of free-will:
Humans have a need to act as finite beings, but an uncertainty as to the proper course of action. As acting is necessary for a finite being, the means of selection of actions has evolved so that everything is assigned value, and those values are subsequently compared/weighed to determine the appropriate course of action. The means through which values are obtained is through the perceptions. The perceptions can be inaccurate, as can be the weighing. Values can be mis-measured. They are also subject to constant re-valuation as new data is obtained. Interference with the delicate chemical processes of the brain can also cause the measuring process to go awry. The mind operates on a delicate chemical balance.
Society benefits from metrics. However I don't see us as evolved enough to have a standard metric. All the above reasons I just stated about what goes awry shows that the perceptions are unreliable and the mind is prone to miscalculation. It is pretty easy to call bad choices bad math.
But you are right, and this is really essential. If we are all measuring, we need a metric. But we don't and can't have one. My proposal is that we need to do the equivalent of increasing the sample size in an experiment.
We need to get rid of scorn, shaming, and all that nonsense which encourages people to cling to unnecessary levels of self-sufficiency. I am not saying eliminate self-sufficiency altogether. People simply need feel okay with being wrong, and not shamed about it. That would enable humans to dismiss inaccurate ideas easier, because they are clung to on account of fear of shame (Something we know in the behavioral sciences to be a well-tested fact). Trusting a singular vantage point, and a singular set of perceptions leads to bad accuracy.
Most of this is simply putting a number of already understood facts together in a way that it should have happened a long time ago. Hell, I was shocked to find out how much of this the behavioral sciences already knew yet didn't put together, because finding this out was what lead to my deconversion before beginning my studies in that field. I found it absurd for God to punish people because they are bad at math. I found out that Albert Ellis, and others were already paving the way for this to become common knowledge some day, but never unified this all.