UP | HOME

Axiology

The Nature Of Value

1. What Are Values?

Axiology is the philosophical study of value. Values are both goals that we strive to keep, and judgments about what is “good” or “bad” from a given perspective, and they can be positive or negative accordingly. They are typically generated from motivation. Every value must have an undesirable alternative, and a desirable alternative worth striving for, lest it would cease to be a value since there’s no point in positively or negatively valuing some aspect of reality that a subject has no choice over.

Value judgments concerning material objective things are both positive and negative.

Unlike truth, value is not convergent for similar brains. Tom and Joe could have identical brains, but make very different value judgments from their perspectives. For example, suppose that Joe and Tom both want to date Sally. Their value judgments are identical in one way, but opposite in another way. Joe positively values Joe dating Sally, and negatively values Tom dating Sally. Tom positively values Tom dating Sally, and negatively values Joe dating Sally. – Blithering Genius, from What is Subjectivity?

In such cases, all of the linked examples are potential scenarios where people have differing positive and negative value judgments between who gets what. In many cases when this happens, the Space Utility Optimization Principle (SUOP) applies.

Values by themselves are not irrational, but when forming any general theory1 of value, there are various ways how said theory1 may be rational or irrational:

  • It could generate two conflicting value judgments, i.e. a contradiction.
  • It could have false or unquestioned assumptions.
  • It could be justified by fallacious reasoning.
  • It could generate no value judgments at all, in which case it would be empirically vacuous, like a scientific theory that makes no predictions.

A value can be self-affirming after you have it, but one cannot judge a value without a value. To illustrate this, if we were to ask: “What is the best theory of value?”, then we would need a theory of value in order to answer the question because it’s a normative question. But we can’t use a theory of value to answer the question if we haven’t already established the right theory of value that we should use. This infinite regress demonstrates that there is no foundation for value in philosophy.

Hence, people tend to have theories1 of value, where each of the values that they esteem each imply each other. Also note that “set of values” is typically less precise that “theory of value(s)”, since all the values within a set of values don’t necessarily have to affirm each other. Additionally, rationality is more than the absence of contradictions. It is conformance to norms of judgment/decision-making. Likewise, values are about projecting what we want to become true onto the real world, that is how we want to change objective reality. Values are about making what we want to be true to become true in the real world.

The deontological and consequentialist ethics dichotomy conflates intent with consequences. All ethical arguments are inevitably derived from appealing to the consequences, since values cannot be judged without a pre-existing framework of values. Whether a value is “good” or not depends on other values, so ultimately the judgment of each of the values in the framework must appeal to the consequences of whether or not the values each support each other. This is consistent with how consequentialism is the justification for why people should be held accountable for their actions from a deterministic perspective.

Intrinsic Value is defined as valuing something for its own sake. Anything that has intrinsic value would have value as a property of its being, so intrinsic value is effectively the same thing as objective value. We’ve already established that value is perspective-dependent and cannot be judged without other values to judge them by, so intrinsic value doesn’t exist. Ergo, the traditional instrumental and intrinsic value dichotomy isn’t a real dichotomy and it’s not philosophically useful for categorizing values at all.

Related Reading: Lucifer’s Question.

1.1. The Four Types Of Value

2. Judging, Ranking, And Comparing Value

All the values within a theory of value can be organized as a hierarchy of values. Since the justification for every value depends on the judgment of other values, that implies that there is no single value that stands at the top of the value hierarchy by itself, but rather there is a set of most important values, which all imply each other, and which also imply all of the subsequent lower levels of value that are each derived from the higher level values.

Read More: All Values Are Instrumental (Critiquing Ayn Rand’s Objectivism)

Visually mapping values as a hierarchy of values is useful because it more clearly shows up which values have greater importance to us than others. Value hierarchies are also helpful for identifying core values, which are important to identify since the change in one core value can change all the other values that are instrumental to achieving it. The value hierarchy can be modeled by a graph known in discrete mathematics as a directed graph. The relationship between any two values within the hierarchy is a binary relation.

If you are a rational agent, then you need a well ordering of preferences. Mathematically, this means that your preference for ordering values needs to obey the binary relation of transitivity. I would argue that trying to well-order values should imply rationality to some extent, and this is consistent with how I personally consider rationality to be my highest value. Rationality is one of my most important values for well-ordering and determining all my other values.

Note: If I ever have the time to add more content to this post, I will create some directed graphs for modeling theories and hierarchies of value.

It is generally impractical to quantify the value for things, people, memories, etc by numbers, except in the case of prices within a market economy. Generally speaking, value in one object or another can only be ranked on a scale with other objects, and the value of different objects can be compared against each other of course. Almost no one (maybe even everyone) would value all their possessions according to weighted ranks, although whole number or even integer ranks are reasonable. And it does get harder and harder to rank every item in one’s possessions for ever, to the point where doing so would become pointless at some, especially for the least important items a person owns. Even though there are no good evolutionary reasons to rank the objects in one’s possessions with a continuum of real numbers, it does make perfect sense to rank things relative to other things, based on how much we need / like / want things that we may or may not have. The reason why currency becomes necessary to compare the values of many different things is because the additional complexity is needed in order to replace the bartering system, especially since prices are based on how the community (many different individuals instead of just one) that interacts with those markets collectively determine the value of all the different available things that can be traded on the market.

Ranking things in a list is often unproductive since it’s not reasonable to perfectly number the “best” or “most important” people/objects/events/etc in a category, but it’s often done on the Internet anyway because people love to read lists.

2.1. Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs Is Made-Up

People can create their own theories of values that have completely different hierarchies from Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. These “exceptions” to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs should be seen as contradictions, not exceptions. A true scientific theory would never have exceptions that contradict the theory itself. It would be more accurate to say that there is a tendency for physiological needs to rank above other needs, but this is by no means a law, just a strong tendency. Additionally, it would make the most sense to place Life and Reproduction at the top of the value hierarchy, according to a Darwinian perspective.

There is no higher authority who can tell you what to do with your life, or what is the right value, besides yourself. It is up to every individual to decide for themselves how their values should be judged, chosen, ranked, and prioritized, ideally in a rational manner.

3. Absurdism, Existentialism And Nihilism

You Will Never Do Anything Remarkable: This video is about initiating some hope in an individual, the misconception of “greatness”, the notion of “great vs average dwellers” and why that is incorrect. It advises individuals to pursue their interests once more/or start pursuing for the time being, and it then goes on tell things about niches, and how while deeply interested/indulging in things can lead you into unknown fascination and those unknown fascination might be the remarkability you looking for. It’s about learning to live with what you can in the Universe.

The meaning of life, according to different philosophers.
Figure 1: The meaning of life, according to different philosophers.
Basic relationships between existentialism, absurdism, and nihilism.
Figure 2: The basic relationships between existentialism, absurdism, and nihilism.

Absurdism is basically about insisting that humans go through the power process, in spite of the Absurdism and Intrinsic Nihilism in our world.

You’ll have the rest of eternity to be dead. You won’t have the rest of eternity to live. Once you die, that’s it. No turning back, forever. Don’t end this experience early. It’s literally all you have.

4. Reproduction: Humanity’s Objective Purpose

A man’s meaning and purpose is derived from his immutable biological identity as a reproducing machine. A man can choose to be an effective version of what he is, or he can choose to be an ineffective version of what he is. But he can’t choose to not be a reproducing machine.

“Reproduction is your natural purpose, but you are not forced to accept it. You are free to accept it or reject it. God can’t make that choice for you. Neither can I. If you choose reproduction as your purpose, then you will be a reproducing machine struggling to reproduce. You will have a purpose, but that purpose will not be transcendent and cosmic. It will be biological and personal. If you reject your natural purpose, then you will still be a reproducing machine. Your nature will not change. You will still go through the motions of a reproducing machine: eating, sleeping, avoiding danger, pursuing love and sex, etc. But you will not reproduce. The choice is yours.” – T. K. Van Allen, Immanentizing the Abyss.

Objective purpose should be differentiated from subjective purpose. The objective purpose of a biological organism is to reproduce, when viewing them as an object. Subjective purpose can be anything that a subject wants it to be, which will probably be some activity that enables them to go through the power process.

For the record though, I am not claiming that it’s more rational than to accept life than to reject it. Accepting life and rejecting life both require crossing the is-ought gap, so neither is more reasonable than the other. Both choices can be equally rational, but the point is that neither one is uniquely rational. Every human is free to make whichever choice they want. He can give arguments for accepting life or give arguments for rejecting it. Both positions can potentially be equally rational since there is no foundation for value.

In accordance with accepting reproduction as the ultimate value, the values at the highest level of one’s value hierarchy would probably be:

  • Valuing one’s physiological needs,
  • An affirmation for the existence of biological life,
  • The supremacy of might makes right and the self-justifying nature of power,
  • The continuance of might makes right into the future,
  • Self-sustaining recursion, and
  • Reproduction as a biological reproducing machine that is designed to have and raise offspring.

Read More: Rational Humanism: A Value Framework for Humanity based on Reproduction and Civilization.

4.1. Reproduction As The Most Fundamental Value For All Life

  • All life is designed to reproduce because all life evolved to reproduce. Even if someone chooses not to have children, there is no denying that their bodies, desires, and even their DNA were all shaped by millions of years of continuous reproduction.
  • Upholding reproduction as a primary value to strive for reduces the misfortunes of Evolutionary Mismatch (as long as artificial barriers to reproduction are installed).
  • Having and raising children gives meaning to human lives, which gives them a goal to strive towards when fulfilling the power process2. It is natural for humans to want and like raising children.
  • Valuing reproduction is compatible with many biological, social, and psychological desires: the desires to have love, sex, children, raise them.
  • Having children and passing one’s genes onto them is a way of ensuring a form of immortality, which has psychological benefits. DNA is the most intrinsic thing about any organism because every organism is an expression of what the DNA did in its environment.
  • Having offspring that will continue the human species for a countless number of future generations gives humans something to look forwards to.
  • Reproduction and selection in humans selects good genes and excludes bad genes for future generations.
  • Aside from rewarding the most productive people and couples with more children, continuing human reproduction in the proposed manner of artificial barriers and incentives to continue to human civilization maintains genetic variation, which will help sustain the future human population through many crises.
  • If humans are designed to be reproducing machines that survive, struggle, and thrive, we might as well do it gloriously: forming empires with giant temples and monuments, colonizing the stars, keeping a massive archive of everything we’ve done and achieved, and doing everything we can to prolong and further human civilization.
  • Setting reproduction as one’s purpose in life immanentizes the abyss upon rejecting philosophical theories of value like hedonism.
  • Reproduction is an organism’s objective purpose. Choosing to willingly affirm it as one’s purpose in life on a personal level is to synchronize one’s subjective purpose with their objective purpose.
  • Those who make the greatest ideas own the future.
  • Those who reproduce own the future (in terms of genetics).

5. g-Factors and s-Factors

In many cases, it’s useful to have a single rating that works as a general measurement for multiple specific measurements overall. In spite of the dense amount of information that these general measurements provide, their calculations and ratings will always be subjective and debatable, especially for contentious topics like IQ scores and real estate values. For easier parlance, we shall call these terms “g-factors” (general factors) and s-factors (specific factors), and we can broaden the terms to talk about much more than just general and specific intelligence. In some contexts, s-factors may also be called: “(component) factors”, “(specific) measurements”, “(economic) values”, “variables”, “characteristics”, “scores”, “grades”, etc, since there are many different applications for this concept.

Examples of g-Factors that depend on multiple s-Factors:

  • Land Value Appraisals: location values, soil quality, natural resources (if any), condition of land / pollution levels, local flora and fauna, land area, improvements that cannot be reasonably separated from the land, inflation rates, etc.
    • Other Factors In Non-Georgist Economies: interest rates, property tax rates, government subsidies, economic conditions, etc.
  • Location Value Appraisals: proximity to shops, businesses, schools, parks, etc; job markets, demographics, proximity to transportation networks (railroads, roads, harbors, airports, etc), vulnerability to natural disasters and pests/weeds, etc.
  • IQ Scores: logic abilities, visual reasoning, verbal reasoning, spatial reasoning, mathematical reasoning, processing speed, short-term memory, etc.
  • Language Proficiency: speaking, reading, writing, listening, vocabulary, etc.
  • Grades in Education: daily participation, homework assignments, projects, tests, final exams, etc.
  • Racial Classification: All the characteristics on this list, etc.
  • Language Classification within a Dialect Continuum: phonological characteristics, morphological characteristics, grammatical characteristics, semantic/vocabulary characteristics, etc.
Illustration of s-factors for computing the IQ as a g-factor.
Figure 3: IQ is an example of a g-factor that is calculated based on numerous s-factors that each influence and deviate from the g-factor. From Veritasium’s IQ Video.

5.1. The Fairness and Validity of g-Factors

In the examples above (and potentially many cases), there are many s-factors that could influence the calculations of the g-factors. Some people will dispute the weights of the s-factors, and some people may be biased towards including or excluding various s-factors. Other people reject g-factors altogether because there are different ways to assess and compute them, and they think that g-factors obscure information. But as we shall see, most people would agree there are indeed “fair” ways to create metrics that accurately assess, correlate, and synthesize the measurements of various s-factors into dense amounts of information.

If someone believes that it’s possible in any one of these scenarios to create a score, ranking, or category that assigns an overall rating for all the individual components together, then they also have to accept that the same can be done for all the other cases in this list, if they wish to be logically consistent. For example, if a Georgist claims that IQ cannot be measured accurately, but they also believe that (unimproved) land values can be accurately assessed, then they have a contradiction. If both of these g-factors are based on multiple different s-factors, and one can be accurately assessed, then why not the other as well? Land value appraisals and IQ scores may not be the same thing, but they are both calculated using the same fundamental assumptions. The calculations of these g-factors both assume that there are reasonable ways to measure the s-factors, that there are “fair” ways to determine the weightings for each s-factor, and that the g-factors measure and communicate useful information, albeit in a compressed form.

The second way to be logically consistent is to believe that it’s never meaningful, useful, or fair to create g-factors that measure all these s-factors overall. This would require rejecting the validity of land value appraisal, IQ tests, general language proficiency ratings, weighted grading, and every other conceivable g-factor. The justification would most likely be that the assumptions for computing g-factors are invalid, or one of the following reasons, which we shall demonstrate and address with examples:

  • The Fallacy of Composition is an informal fallacy that arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.
    • For example, someone may infer that having a remarkably high ability for visual-spatial reasoning implies having a high IQ. It’s true that higher s-factors tend to correlate with having higher g-factors, but we always have to keep in mind s-factors do not say anything about g-factors directly. The only way to accurately measure and judge a g-factor is to assess every s-factor and compute the weighted scoring for the g-factor. The Fallacy of Composition is worth understanding, but it does not invalidate g-factors as long as s-factors aren’t used to make presumptuous conclusions about g-factors without the consideration of other s-factors.
  • The Fallacy of Division is applicable regarding whether g-factors can be fairly and accurately isolated into separate s-factors.
    • For example, someone may assume that a high IQ (general intelligence) implies having strong abilities for every type of specialized intelligence. It’s true that high g-factors tend to correlate with having higher s-factors, but we always have to keep in mind that g-factors do not measure specific s-factors directly. The only way to accurately measure and judge an s-factor is to assess the s-factor itself. The Fallacy of Division is worth understanding, but it does not invalidate g-factors as long as they aren’t used to make definitive assessments of s-factors outside the appropriate context.
    • The Fallacy of Division is also relevant when trying to separate the value of improvements to a parcel of land from the other s-factors that affect the appraised value of the land itself. Many anti-Georgists have used this as a talking point to argue that land value tax is “unfair” and problematic. However, it’s already common practice in the real estate industry to assess land values and property values separately from each other, so this generally isn’t an issue.
  • Some people may argue: “g-factors can never be a reliable way to measure anything because there are different ways to assess and compute g-factors.”
    • This ignores that g-factors have predictive and explanatory power. g-factors tend to correlate with their s-factors, and vice versa. They don’t always do, but that’s precisely why we have to be mindful of the Composition and Division Fallacies.
    • Even if there are different ways to compute a specific g-factor, the scores for g-factors using one assessment tend to correlate with scores assigned via other assessments.
    • Regression to the Mean is applicable to many g-factors and s-factors. However, it is purely an observational effect in statistical data, not a law that applies to the objective reality that the data aims to measure. Fortunately, a conscientious statistician or observer can account for regression to the mean when analyzing data and making conclusions.
    • Furthermore, most people wouldn’t reject all g-factors just because they object to one or a few of them, so this is a contradiction. Accepting the validity of at least one g-factor implies accepting the validity of all the others.
  • Some people have argued that the analysis of s-factors as g-factors will always be unfair no matter what since g-factors arguably obscure many informational details.
    • The alternative to not using g-factors is to always holistically measure and calculate everything there is to know about X in every context that talks about things relating to X. The problem with this alternative is that it ignores the limited scope and nature of human knowledge. Subjects often have to make decisions based on limited information. g-factors are helpful and useful measurements when they are used appropriately precisely because they are a way to compress lots of information and attain predictive and explanatory power.
  • Some people may argue: “What gets measured, gets managed. Collecting statistics about things like race could lead to them getting managed by the state. We don’t have to measure things in order to know information about them.”
    • There are cases where collecting and measuring data may lead to it getting abused. However, if we take this argument to the extreme, then it requires denying knowledge that has predictive and explanatory power. “We shouldn’t collect data on X” implies “We shouldn’t analyze X”, which implies “We should be ignorant about X”.
    • As with everything political and everything that has conflicts of interest, it’s important to have safeguards that prevent information from being abused.
  • Goodhart’s Law states: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure”.
    • For example, if an IQ score of at least 70 points is necessary for not being considered “retarded”, there may be social pressures for people to jerry-rig IQ tests to avoid labeling some people as “retarded”. Likewise, there may be similar social pressures for reaching IQs of 130+ to be considered “gifted”. However, IQ tests and other g-factors will retain their validity as long as they are used exclusively for measuring and communicating information, and not used as targets.
Illustrating how different measurements may yield different results under Goodhart's Law.
Figure 4: According to Goodhart’s Law, measurements cease to be good measurements when they become targets. If this happens, different measurements will yield different results.

The Economic Calculation Problem and the necessity of prices are another good reason to accept the validity of g-factors. Prices are a way to measure the economic values of goods and services, and they can also be thought of as information about humanity’s available resources and demands. The price of a product depends on multiple factors: 1. The prices of the inputs to its production. 2. The prices of competing products. 3. The supply and demand for the product, given the prices of other products. Since prices depend on other prices, we can conceptualize every price as being a g-factor that depends on other g-factors (i.e. prices), with the exception of prices for natural resources. Prices are necessary to create a productive and efficient economy, and rejecting the utility of g-factors implies rejecting the utility of prices.

As we have demonstrated, deeming all g-factors to be invalid may be a logically consistent position, but this belief is less reasonable because it ignores the following:

  1. The nature of knowledge often requires subjects to make decisions based on limited information.
  2. It’s possible to create helpful and useful measurements that attain predictive and explanatory power by compressing lots of information.
  3. Just because it’s possible to abuse information, that does not invalidate the utility of the information when it is used in an appropriate context.

When a set of s-factors and their weights are selected and standardized, this can become a formal assessment or appraisement for measuring the g-factor in question.3 For example, some of the most widely accepted guidelines for measuring general language proficiency include the CEFR, the ILR Scale, and other tests. Likewise, some notable IQ tests include the Mensa IQ Challenge, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, and other tests. Some g-factor weightings will be better (more fair) than others, depending on who you ask. But generally speaking, it’s usually possible to reach a consensus or majority opinion that favors “fairer” weightings over more biased weightings. The weights used for the g-factor calculations may be subjective or inter-subjective, but they aren’t completely arbitrary.

5.2. Interactive Javascript Applet

This goal of this JavaScript applet4 is to demonstrate the visual intuition for how land values, IQ scores, language proficiency, and other g-factors are computed. As such, it features multiple sliders that can model how different scores and weights for s-factors affect the resulting g-factors.

Explaining How The Applet Works

Each slider has some text above it to help us conceptualize each score as an s-factor, and the g-factor label changes to the corresponding text that is selected from the drop down menu. A numerical value is displayed to the right of every slider in order to indicate what its value is.

The g-factor slider uniquely cannot be changed manually, hence why it is grayed-out. The g-factor slider can only increase or decrease in value by changing the scores and/or weights for the s-factors.

The score sliders and the g-factor slider can be anywhere from 0 to 100, while the values from all the weight sliders always sum up to 100, since they are percentages. Increasing the weight of one s-factor with a slider will thus decrease the weights of all the other s-factors, starting with the most highly weighted slider. As a consequence of the applet’s design, this can make it somewhat tedious to precisely allocate the weights for each factor to the exact numeric values that one wants, but this applet still accomplishes its goal at illustrating and modeling the calculation of g-factors using the scores and weights of s-factors.

Using the applet is straight-forward. The user begins by selecting a g-factor that is computed from multiple s-factors from the drop-down list. And they proceed by changing the scores and weights for the s-factors, while observing how these changes affect the selected g-factor.



The formula for calculating g-factor is:
g-factor = score_1 * weight_1 + score_2 * weight_2 + ... + score_5 * weight_5.

This tutorial has some notes and limitations that should be pointed out:

  • The scores and weights for only five s-factors are displayed here, but there may be far more than just five s-factors for affecting a resulting g-factor in the real world.
  • Fewer than five s-factors can be achieved in this demonstration by assigning an s-factor a weight of 0%, which mathematically excludes that s-factor from being used to compute the g-factor.
  • All the s-factor and g-factor sliders are limited to values between 0 and 100 in this demonstration. In the real world, these scores often exceed 100 for the units that they use, but it’s too cumbersome to represent values that may go scale up to billions of units, especially for demonstration purposes only.
  • g-factors and s-factors that have economic values are not displayed as having monetary units (e.g. dollars, euros, yen, etc), whereas they would be labeled and measured with various currencies in the real world.

As we can see by interacting with the score and weight sliders, the main takeaways here are:

  1. The weighted ranking of different s-factors affects the calculation of the g-factor scores.
  2. There are indeed many different ways to compute g-factors that are based on multiple different s-factors, but g-factor assessments that that use different weightings tend to correlate with each other.
  3. Higher s-factors tend to correlate with higher g-factors and vice versa.
  4. Thus even if the calculation of g-factors is subjective, there is still some good basis for it. Overall, it is possible to create “fair” g-factors that are representative of all the different s-factors.

For IQ (general intelligence) specifically, we should acknowledge that it is estimated to be ~80% inheritable (genetic) and 20% environmental. This is different from how IQ is tested and measured, which depends on a weighted and scoring criteria for s-factors.

Disclaimer: The way how this Javascript applet depicts the calculation of IQ scores is an oversimplification of how IQ scores are usually calculated, but the main ideas and takeaways regarding the concept are still accurate.

Mathematically, we can conceptualize the power set of s-factors as all the possible sets of s-factors that could be used to compute a g-factor. Sometimes, a g-factor in one context can even be an s-factor in another context, and vice versa. For example, location value appraisal is a g-factor that is computed based on a location’s proximity to shops, markets, transportation networks, etc (among other things), but location value appraisal is also one of the multiple s-factors that are used to compute the land value appraisal g-factor. More generally, prices are a great example of g-factors that depend on other g-factors.

6. Applied Axiology: Introduction To Ethics, Game Theory, And Political Philosophy

6.1. Important Concepts And Definitions Related To Ethics

Game Theory
The study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among selfish rational agents; the study of how and why people make decisions.
Prisoner’s Dilemma
A game-theoretical thought experiment that challenges two completely rational agents: each can cooperate for mutual benefit or betray their partner (“defect”) for individual reward.
Tragedy of the Commons (TotC)
A game-theoretical problem where if numerous independent individuals should enjoy unfettered access to a finite, valuable resource e.g. a pasture, they will tend to over-use it, and may end up by destroying its value altogether.
Free-Rider Problem
A game-theoretical problem and market failure that occurs when those who benefit from resources, public goods, and common pool resources do not pay for them or under-pay.
Social Construct
A social convention or perception, used by a particular society to describe human behavior.
Overton Window
The range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time.

6.2. Introduction To Ethics

  1. The Nature of Value
  2. The Nature of Morality
  3. Contract Theory Ethics
  4. Political Philosophy: The Foundations of Society

Morality FAQs: These are mostly intended to be a set of follow-up questions that people may ask after reading: What is Morality?.

6.4. Aesthetics

Aesthetics is a branch of applied axiology that is concerned with the nature of beauty and the nature of taste; and functions as the philosophy of art.

See: Wikipedia: Aesthetics.

Footnotes:

1

By “theory”, we mean a set of sentences that is closed under logical implication. That is, given any subset of sentences {s_1, s_2, ...} in the theory, if sentence r is a logical consequence of {s_1, s_2, ...}, then r must also be in the theory.

2

The “Power Process” is a term coined by Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) to refer to the psychological need to do things for attaining life fulfillment.

3

An assessment or weighting criteria may attempt to estimate a g-factor, but the methods and assessments for measuring g-factors are not equivalent to g-factors themselves. g-factors are a conceptualization for generalizing the values or assessed scores for s-factors.

4

The Javascript code for the g-Factors and s-Factors applet was designed by Sawuare.

Last Modified: 2024 June 08, 03:15

Author: Zero Contradictions