If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.
You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

Ann Romney (redirected from Ann R)

Page history last edited by Mike 11 years, 3 months ago

I made a website about Mitt Romney. I wanted to make a site about something that I knew about, to promote this idea. Now that Mitt Lost, I am still getting some hits, so see below for Ann Romney stuff.

But while your hear, I would like to promote the purpose I made this site...

Table of Contents:

Abstract

SQL Project Description

Why we should use SQL/PHP databases to count the reasons to agree and disagree with a conclusion

Abstract

SQL Project Description

Basically it is a family tree database with these differences:

Parents are replaced by arguments and
children are replaced by conclusion, in such a way that multiple arguments (parents) are combined to support a conclusion (child).
Multiple arguments are organized to support conclusions, but we will add arguments that also link to conclusion, but they will go into a table of reasons that disagree with the conclusion. So just as some parents are tagged as "male" and some parents are tagged as "female" some arguments will be tagged as reasons to agree, and some will be tagged as reasons to disagree.
We will use the listed formulas to count the number of reasons that agree and subtract the number of reasons that disagree (ancestors)

This is an open source family tree website, that we could use as a starting place:

http://gitorious.org/opengb#more

Why we should use SQL/PHP databases to count the reasons to agree and disagree with a conclusion

How do you define a good conclusion? It is simple: a good conclusion has lots of good arguments that support it, and not very many good arguments that oppose it. But how do you know if an argument is any good? Well of course the turtle stack goes all the way down: good arguments have lots of good reasons to agree with them, and not very many good reasons to disagree with them.

(For example, as you can see below, the conclusion in red has two reasons to support it, and one reason to disagree with it. The first reason to agree with the conclusion also has a reason to agree with it, and a reason to disagree with it. So the conclusion in essence has 3 reasons to agree with (shown in black) and 2 reason to disagree with it (in blue and green).

Diagram #1: Arguments support conclusions. Other arguments support them.

So if we build a debate forum, in which people enter their arguments in a structured way, we could gather the data necessarily to count the relative number of reasons to agree or disagree with each conclusion. Luckily people love to debate. People will debate who the hottest supermodel is, and won't shut up about who is going to win the Superbowl. Of course we could just wait and find out, but opinions are like elbows, everyone has them. With the world wide population approaching 7 billion, if we have a good forum, it shouldn't be too hard to get a few hundreds of people enter data.

I propose that we build the SQL/PHP code that would facilitate an online forum. This forum would use a relational database to track reasons to agree and disagree with conclusions. It would also allow you to submit a belief as a reason to support another belief (see the image above):

Arguments are currently made on websites, in books, and even in videos and songs. It would be powerful to outline all the arguments that agree or disagree with a conclusion and put them on the same page. The best way to do this, is with a relational database, as seen below:

Having the structure of how all these arguments are used to support each other, could allow us to automatically strengthen or weaken a conclusion's score based on the score of their assumptions.

The purpose of the Idea Stock Exchange (this site) is to find ways to give conclusions scores based on the quality and quantity of reasons to agree or disagree with them with an open sourced SQL database.

Pros and Cons are a tried and true method to evaluate a conclusion

Many people, including Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin advocated making a list of pros and cons, to help them make decisions. The assumption is that the quantity and quality of the reasons to agree or disagree with a proposed conclusion has some bearing as to underlining strength of that conclusion. I wholeheartedly agree.

No one has yet harnessed the power of Pros and Cons in the information age, we can

However, now that we have the internet, we can crowd source the brainstorming of reasons to agree or disagree with a conclusion.

The only trick is how do you evaluate the strength of each pro or con? Many people suggest putting the strongest pros or cons at the top of the list. Also, if we had enough time we might make a separate list FOR each pro or con.

For instance, FDR had to decide if we should join WWII or not. One pro might be that the German leaders were bad. There were many reasons to support this belief, and this belief was used to support another belief.

Not very many people have enough time to do a pro or con list for each pro or con. But on the internet we keep making the same arguments over and over again. For thousands of years we have been repeating the same arguments that Aristotle and Homer have made. Most of our arguments have been made thousands or millions of times. However no one has ever taken the time to put them into a database, and outline how they relate to each other. We can change this.

How we build algorithms that count reasons to agree and disagree with a conclusion

I propose that we find algorithms that attempt to promote good conclusions and arguments. This simplest and best method of scoring conclusions is to counting the number of reasons to agree, and subtracting the number of reasons that disagree. Because some arguments are better than other arguments, we should repeat this process for every argument until we reach verifiable data. The following equation represents this plan:

We can use algebra to represent each term, and make it look a little more mathematical, with the below formula:

n: Number of “steps” the current arguments is removed from conclusion
A(n,i)/n: When n=1 we are looking at arguments that are used directly to support or oppose a conclusion. The 2nd subscript is “i”. This is used to indicate that we total all the reasons to agree. So when n=1, we could have 5 “i’s” indicating there are 5 reasons to agree. These would be labeled A(1,1), A(1,2), A(1,3), A(1,4), and A(1,5). N on the bottom indicates that reasons to agree with reasons to agree only contribute ½ a point to the overall conclusion. Thus reasons to agree with reasons to agree with reasons to agree would only contribute 1/3 of a point, and so on.
D(n,j)/n Ds are reasons to disagree, and work the same as As but the number of reasons to disagree, are subtracted from the conclusion score. Therefore, if you have more reasons to disagree, you will have a negative score. “J” is used, just to indicate that each reason is independent of the other.
The denominator is the total number of reasons to agree or disagree. This normalizes the equation, resulting the conclusion score (CS) representing the total percentage of reasons that agree. The conclusion score will range between -100% and 100% (or -1 and +1)
L: Linkage Score. The above equation would work very well, if people submitted arguments that they honestly felt supported or opposed conclusions. We could probably find informal ways of making this work, similar to how Wikipedia trusts people, and has a team of editors to ensure quality. However, we could also introduce formal ways to discourage people from using bad logic. For instance, people could submit that the “grass is green” as a reason to support the conclusion that we should legalize drugs. The belief that the grass is green, will have some good reasons to support it, and may have a high score. At first, to avoid this problem, I would just have editors remove bad faith arguments. But a formalized process would be to have for each argument a linkage score, between -1 and +1 that gets multiplied by the argument’s score that represents the percentage of that argument’s points that should be given to the conclusions points. See LinkageScore for more

Examples

We might be arguing the conclusion that “It was good for us to join WWII.” Someone may submit the argument that “Nazis were doing bad things” as a reason to support the conclusion about entering the war. The belief that Nazis were doing bad things might already have a score. Let’s suppose that this idea score has a high ranking of 99%. This might be awarded a linkage score of 90% (as a reason to support the conclusion that we should have gone to WWII). In this situation it would contribute 0.495 points (0.99 X 0.5) to the conclusion score for the beliefs that “It was good for us to join WWII”. Someone else might submit a belief that “Nazis were submitting wide scale systematic genocide” as a reason to support the belief that “It was good for us to go to WWII”. Because we don’t go to war with every country that “does bad things”, we would assume that this linkage score would be higher, perhaps a 98%.

For example the belief that Nazi Germany leaders were evil, is a belief with many argument to support it. However it can also be used as an argument to support other conclusions, such as the belief that it was good of us to join WWII.

Additional Information

Other Algorithms that could be used to promote good conclusions

Questions for Ann

Greta Van Sustern

What do you see as the single most important issue?

Mike Wallace

Did you and Ann have pre-marital sex

Mitt Talks About Ann: Excerpts from a speech at the Operations Kids tribute to Ann Romney, November 2006

External links

Ann's Sons:

Articles about Massachusetts First Lady Ann Romney

External Links

Wikia

In The News

Ann Romney Opens Up, By: Sandra Sobieraj Westfall, People, Thursday, Jul 26, 2007

George Romney: Mitt's Dad

Family

George Stephanopoulos

Is divorse something voters should take into account?

Brian Lamb

Brian Lamb

Greta Van Susteren:

How are you different from your father?

Press Releases from Governor Mitt Romney on the Family.

2003

01-21-2004, ROMNEY DETAILS MANDATORY PARENTAL PREP PLAN

02-11-2004, ROMNEY STATEMENT REGARDING CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

02-24-2004, STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR ROMNEY ON THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

03-12-2004, STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY ON CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

06-22-2004, "Preserving Traditional Marriage: A View from the States"

2006

04-20-2006, ROMNEY ANNOUNCES AWARD OF ABSTINENCE EDUCATION CONTRACT

05-31-2006, ROMNEY FILES BILL TO PROMOTE PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

Also See:

I hope you like my site. Please contact me if you would like to help edit it:

Mike Laub Create Your Badge

I created this site, hopping to edit Mitt Romney content in an open source sort of way. I have the following projects designed to brainstorm reasons to agree and disagree:

http://code.google.com/p/ideastockexchange/

Romney Arguments:

I want to use Romney's candidacy to advance his causes and arguments. This means debate. Thomas Jefferson said we should list pros and cons. Here is my list of reasons to agree and disagree. Please help me advance the arguments:

We should not build a moon colony until we have a budget surplus.

"America cannot continue to lead the family of nations around the world if we suffer the collapse of the family here at home." - Governor Mitt Romney, UPI, February 26, 2005

+53