Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 1.125.48.250 (talk) at 11:29, 6 April 2015 (Added content). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

One Small Change

Summary What if Goku got hit in the head in a spar with Gohan? Will it bring back some memories? Maybe even some Saiyan programming... Post-Buu saga.

"You're pretty good," Goku commended, panting.

"You too," Gohan, Goku's son replied." Let's end this in one Ki blast, okay."

"Sure".

"KA...ME..." "MASENKO..." "HA...ME..." "HA!" They both yelled as they shot their beams. The struggle went on but Gohan was losing. Goku was gaining and gaining until Gohan made a risky move. He flew up and performed a double axe handle hit on his father, the beams whooshing past him. Goku and Goku passed out from exhaustion.

Goku's POV I just woke up from the spar when I realised something was wrong. There was only darkness and he couldn't seem to use Instant Transmission to get out. "Greetings." Came a robotic voice.

" Your name is Kakarot. You are a Saiyan warrior. You serve under the king, King Vegeta and the prince, Prince Vegeta." It said as pictures of a chibi Vegeta came up and someone who resembled him a lot.

"This is Lord Frieza. We Saiyans serve under him." As Frieza in his first formy came up. "Your task is to eliminate all life forces on Earth. Eliminate all life forces. Then return to Planet Vegeta in your space pod. Look at the moon, Kakarot. Look at the moon, Kakarot."

" GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!!" Goku yelled as he went Super Saiyan. Then he woke up. He was sweating.

Gohan's POV I just woke up from the spar and saw my father... screaming? I woke him up and saw that he was sweating. "Tou-san, what's wrong?" I asked, concerned. " It was nothing," he replied, " Just a nightmare." I didn't believe him, but I didn't want to bother him right now. So let's go Gohan said. AN now I'm too lazy too do the speech marks so bear with me ok? D enough to There was going to be a party at caps corporations so the son family was heading their for I don't know Bulmas birthday or something. So Goku used IT to transport his family to inside Caps Corporations. He immediately felt that voice in his head when he saw Vegeta. This is Prince Vegeta it said You shall serve him. Bow down, Kakarot. Bow down, Kakarot. It said. Luckily, Goku was trained intensely in both physical and mental ways so he suppressed the sudden urge to bow down in front of Vegeta. No one noticed except for Gohan who was keeping an eye on his dad.' I wonder what's wrong with him.'

They ate the cake and there was music. Everyone and ate dinner the Saiyans more so of course, and before they knew it, the party was over. Ok say goodbye everyone chichi said. This time Goku couldn't fully keep the urge to bow down under control so Goku half bowed and ended up falling over. He quickly used IT to leave before anyone could ask any questions. I

Goku POV "What's wrong with me " he wondered why was this happening to him. Then he understood hey give me some credit I not completely stupid just really naive! It was the Saiyan programming! It must have come back when he got dealer that blow to the head. He flew up really high and crashed into the ground at supersonic speeds but it wasn't enough to knock ck him out he decided to shoot a Kamehameha up in the sky then outrun it to hit his head hard enough to rid himself of some Saiyan programming. He did this at Super Saiyan 3 and knocked himself unconscious.

No POV Everyone from caps corps was confused. Then the people there that could sense Ki all felt Goku go SSJ 3 and felt his Ki go to unconsciousness what? Vegeta was forced to go on find Kakarot the Baka and bring him home or else no gravity room for over 9000 years duty. He found Kakarot lying on the ground and picked him up. Goku wake up and saw Vegeta ." Prince Vegeta!." He said so Vegeta was surprised he had not been addressed as Prince for years and it was quite refreshing to hear. Prince Vegeta how may i serve you Goku asked. Stand up Kakarot Vegeta said Yes sire said Goku

Oh no the blow only made Goku forget about his life on EArth instead of making him forget about the Saiyans what will he do now I don't know read to find out what the hail is going to happen today on the Saiyans going to eradicate the super Saiyans so stay tuned until then! Good bye I think....

Legal controversy

In the theory of law, a controversy differs from a legal case; while legal cases include all suits, criminal as well as civil, a controversy is a purely civil proceeding.

For example, the Case or Controversy Clause of Article Three of the United States Constitution (Section 2, Clause 1) states that "the judicial Power shall extend ... to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party". This clause has been deemed to impose a requirement that United States federal courts are not permitted to hear cases that do not pose an actual controversy—that is, an actual dispute between adverse parties which is capable of being resolved by the . In addition to setting out the scope of the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, it also prohibits courts from issuing advisory opinions, or from hearing cases that are either unripe, meaning that the controversy has not arisen yet, or moot, meaning that the controversy has already been resolved.

Benford's law

Benford's law of controversy, as expressed by science fiction author Gregory Benford in 1980, states: Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real (true) information available. In other words, the fewer facts are known to and agreed on by the participants, the more controversy there is, and the more is known the less controversy there is. Thus, for example, controversies in physics are limited to subject-areas where experiments cannot be carried out yet, whereas Benford's Law implies that controversy is inherent to politics, where communities must frequently decide on courses of action based on insufficient information.

Psychological bases

Controversies are frequently thought to be a result of a lack of confidence on the part of the disputants - as in Benford's law of controversy. For example, in the political controversy over anthropogenic climate change that is prevalent in the United States - it has been thought that those who are opposed to the scientific consensus did so because of a lack of evidence. A study of 1540 US adults found instead that levels of scientific literacy were correlated with the strength of opinion on climate change, but not on which side of the debate that they stood.

The puzzling phenomenon of two individuals being exposed to the same evidence and being able to reach different conclusions, has been frequently explained (particularly by Daniel Kahneman) by reference to a 'bounded rationality' - that is most judgments are made by fast acting heuristics (system 1) that work well in every day situations, but are not amenable to decision making about complex subjects such as climate change. Anchoring has been particularly identified as relevant in climate change controversies as individuals are found to be more positively inclined to believe in climate change if the outside temperature is higher, if they have been primed to think about heat, and if they are primed with higher temperatures when thinking about the future temperature increases from climate change.

In other controversies - such as that around the HPV vaccine, the same evidence seemed to license inference to radically different conclusions. Kahan et al. explained this by the cognitive biases of biased assimilation and a credibility heuristic.

Similar effects on reasoning are also seen in non-scientific controversies, for example in the gun control debate in the United States. As with other controversies, it has been suggested that exposure to empirical facts would be sufficient to resolve the debate once and for all. In computer simulations of cultural communities, beliefs were found to polarize within isolated sub-groups, based on the mistaken belief of the community's unhindered access to ground truth. Such confidence in the group to find the ground truth is explicable through the success of wisdom of the crowd based inferences, however, if there is no access to the ground truth, as there was not in this model, the method will fail.

Bayesian decision theory allows these failures of rationality to be described as part of a statistically optimized system for decision making. Experiments and computational models in multisensory integration have shown that sensory input from different senses is integrated in a statistically optimal way, in addition, it appears that the kind of inferences used to infer single sources for multiple sensory inputs uses a Bayesian inference about the causal origin of the sensory stimuli. As such, it appears neurobiologically plausible that the brain implements decision-making procedures that are close to optimal for Bayesian inference.

Brocas and Carrillo propose a model to make decisions based on noisy sensory inputs, beliefs about the state of the world are modified by Bayesian updating, and then decisions are made based on beliefs passing a threshold. They show that this model, when optimized for single-step decision making, produces belief anchoring and polarization of opinions - exactly as described in the global warming controversy context - in spite of identical evidence presented, the pre-existing beliefs (or evidence presented first) has an overwhelming effect on the beliefs formed. In addition, the preferences of the agent (the particular rewards that they value) also cause the beliefs formed to change - this explains the biased assimilation (also known as confirmation bias) shown above. This model allows the production of controversy to be seen as a consequence of a decision maker optimized for single-step decision making, rather than as a result of limited reasoning in the bounded rationality of Daniel Kahneman.

See also

2. Part 2

• Argument
• Bipartisanship
• Dialectic
• ProCon.org

References

1. "EFF Quotes Collection 19.6". Electronic Frontier Foundation. 2001-04-09.
2. "Quotations: Computer Laws". SysProg. Archived from the original on 2008-08-22. Retrieved 2007-03-10.
3. Ungar, S. (2000). "Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture: climate change versus the ozone hole". Public Understanding of Science. 9 (3): 297–312.
4. Pidgeon, N.; B. Fischhoff (2011). "The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks". Nature Climate Change. 1 (1): 35–41. Bibcode:2011NatCC...1...35P. doi:10.1038/nclimate1080.
5. Kahan, Dan M.; Maggie Wittlin; Ellen Peters; Paul Slovic; Lisa Larrimore Ouellette; Donald Braman; Gregory N. Mandel (2011). "The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change". SSRN eLibrary. SSRN 1871503.
6. Kahneman, Daniel (2003-12-01). "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics". The American Economic Review. 93 (5): 1449–1475. doi:10.1257/000282803322655392. ISSN 0002-8282. JSTOR 3132137.
7. Tversky, A.; D. Kahneman (1974). "Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases". Science. 185 (4157): 1124–31. Bibcode:1974Sci...185.1124T. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124. PMID 17835457.
8. Joireman, Jeff; Heather Barnes Truelove; Blythe Duell (December 2010). "Effect of outdoor temperature, heat primes and anchoring on belief in global warming". Journal of Environmental Psychology. 30 (4): 358–367. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.03.004. ISSN 0272-4944. Retrieved 2011-11-26.
9. Saul, Stephanie; Andrew Pollack (2007-02-17). "Furor on Rush to Require Cervical Cancer Vaccine". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2011-11-26.
10. Kahan, Dan M.; Donald Braman; Geoffrey L. Cohen; Paul Slovic; John Gastil (2008-07-15). "Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study of the Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition". SSRN eLibrary. SSRN 1160654.
11. Lord, Charles G.; Lee Ross; Mark R. Lepper (1979). "Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37: 2098–2109. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098. ISSN 0022-3514. Retrieved 2011-11-26.
12. HOVLAND, CARL I.; WALTER WEISS (1951-12-21). "The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness". Public Opinion Quarterly. 15 (4): 635–650. doi:10.1086/266350. Retrieved 2011-11-27.
13. ^ Braman, Donald; James Grimmelmann; Dan M. Kahan. "Modeling Cultural Cognition". SSRN eLibrary. SSRN 1000449.
14. Fremling, G.M.; J.R. Lott Jr (2002). "Surprising Finding That Cultural Worldviews Don't Explain People's Views on Gun Control, The". U. Pa. L. Rev. 151: 1341.
15. Ayres, I.; J.J. Donohue III (2002). Shooting down the more guns, less crime hypothesis. National Bureau of Economic Research.
16. Lee, M.D. "A Model-Based Approach to Measuring Expertise in Ranking Tasks". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
17. Ernst, Marc O.; Martin S. Banks (2002-01-24). "Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion". Nature. 415 (6870): 429–433. Bibcode:2002Natur.415..429E. doi:10.1038/415429a. ISSN 0028-0836.
18. Wozny, D.R. (2008). "Human trimodal perception follows optimal statistical inference". Journal of vision. 8 (3). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
19. Brocas, Isabelle; Juan D. Carrillo. "From perception to action: An economic model of brain processes". Games and Economic Behavior (0). doi:10.1016/j.geb.2011.10.001. ISSN 0899-8256. Retrieved 2011-11-27.

External links

• Brian Martin, The Controversy Manual (Sparsnäs, Sweden: Irene Publishing, 2014).

• Controversies
• Conflict process
• Interpersonal relationships
• Legal terms