Revamping Democracy: The Imperative for Evidence-Based Political Parties

We stand at a crossroads. Our political parties and our collective decision-making processes are in disarray. The remedy? Replacing our existing political affiliations with parties rooted in cost-benefit analysis. This approach paves the way for rational political entities that resist the pull of personality cults and reject blinkered, one-sided worldviews.

Implementing the scientific method in politics is not just beneficial - it's vital. It is the fulcrum on which the future of democracy, freedom, and our planet balances. By harnessing the techniques of conflict resolution, we can chart the most effective path forward, meticulously weighing the costs, benefits, and risks associated with each policy decision.

Imagine open online forums that challenge the stronghold of special interests, biases, emotional reactions, and anecdotal evidence. Picture a political landscape that sidesteps the futile cheerleading and antagonism inherent in our existing political parties. Instead, the strength of our beliefs would be directly proportional to the robustness of the evidence supporting them.

This is more than a pipe dream; it's a necessity. Basing our policy decisions on solid evidence is the most cost-effective and reliable method for problem-solving. Moreover, it's the only approach capable of addressing the multifaceted challenges we face. Now, more than ever, we need to revamp our democratic processes to ensure a viable and sustainable future.

Curbing Hysteria: The Need for Reason and Cost-Benefit Analysis in Decision Making

In the latter half of 2009, a wave of fear swept over hundreds of Toyota owners. They raised a terrifying claim: their cars were suddenly accelerating out of control. The aftermath was a whirlwind of activity - Toyota recalled 10 million vehicles, settled numerous lawsuits, and paid fines exceeding $1 billion. The conclusion appeared self-evident - there was a significant flaw in the world's most popular cars. Except, there wasn't. What transpires when hysteria supersedes common sense?

Mentioned Podcast

Our society teeters dangerously close to the precipice if we continue making decisions based on narratives, biases, anecdotes, and infotainment. It's time we pivot towards a more pragmatic approach - a political party that leans on reason and cost-benefit analysis to steer its decision-making process.

Malcolm Gladwell's insightful podcast delves into the intricacies of public folly. Instances like the Toyota acceleration debacle wouldn't occur if we prioritized deliberation and rationality over raw emotion.

Sure, a billion-dollar fine for Toyota and a few months of fear may not signal the end of the world. But it serves as an alarming illustration of how misinformation and hysteria can proliferate unchecked. We must learn from these episodes and strive for a more rational, evidence-based society.

Redefining Democracy: The Case for a More Informed and Inclusive Voting System

In the realm of political thought, a provocative idea has emerged - should we lower the voting age to zero but weigh votes based on voters' understanding of relevant information? This concept was recently discussed by Robin Hanson:

"Can we extend voting to younger ages, but also weigh votes via informedness?" (Link to source)

That would combine the liberal and conservative approaches, such as from @jasonfbrennan.

Let me clarify - I'm not advocating for an immediate drop of the voting age to zero and the introduction of a test to rank votes. Instead, I'm more interested in questioning the roots of our current voting age limit. Is it a blanket assumption that older individuals possess more knowledge? That's certainly not always the case. So, why not consider testing knowledge directly, rather than using age as a loose proxy?

One might question, "Who gets to decide what it takes to be informed?" A fair counter, but couldn't the same be asked of our current system, "Who gets to decide how old is old enough to vote?"

This line of thought inevitably leads to another question: Should we judge individuals who are uninformed? It's not always their fault - they may have had poor educational opportunities or lack positive role models. This brings us to the crux of the matter: who bears responsibility if one's life is less than ideal? Traditional conservative thought posits that individuals should largely be held accountable for their own circumstances, under the belief that society functions more effectively when we assume the existence of free will.

The question I propose is this: "If you are uneducated, is that more a result of your circumstances or your age?" It seems unjust to penalize young, knowledgeable individuals by depriving them of their right to vote. In contrast, a person's lack of knowledge may be more attributable to their own choices than a child's youth is to their own.

Now, consider this: do we even need to vote for representatives anymore? In the age of the internet, we could potentially create an online platform for direct democracy. We could use a system similar to Wikipedia, where people propose costs, benefits, and risks for each policy. Everyone could post reasons to agree or disagree with the likelihood of these outcomes, allowing users to rank arguments. This dynamic could be continually updated as better arguments or new information emerge.

However, we should acknowledge that people are often resistant to change. Despite voicing a desire for progress, many people are inherently uncomfortable with it. But I firmly believe that reason will eventually triumph, though not without a certain amount of inevitable trial and error.

Creating a political party that operates on open cost/benefit/risk analysis might sound outlandish, but consider these points:

• There's no reason for the federal government to act without first conducting a cost-benefit analysis.
• There's no reason for such analysis to be hidden from public view.
• Wikipedia has demonstrated the efficacy of group efforts, provided quality is rewarded.
• There's no reason not to base our conclusions on the strength of the evidence.

As for the concern about implementing online democracy and using algorithms for decision making, consider the success of Wikipedia and Google. Both have demonstrated that algorithms can effectively analyze and prioritize quality content. The ultimate truth is that our conclusions should be based on the strength of the evidence.

In conclusion, I'm not a blind believer in technology as the panacea for all our woes. I have faith in reason and order. I believe that we can reason together, if we are organized. We need to lay out all the arguments, data, causal relationships, and scientific studies, link them, and vet them thoroughly. With the right tools, people can solve their problems. That's whyI'm a firm advocate for Direct Democracy.

In this potential new world of direct democracy, the question of who gets to decide what it takes to be informed could be answered fairly by the collective. We could implement a graded system, wherein if you match your parents' score, your vote is weighted 100%. Score twice as high? Your vote counts for 200%.

Now, some may argue that the use of algorithms in decision-making is a dangerous path. However, our current systems, such as the electoral college and primaries, already utilize algorithms. A direct democracy, even in its simplest form, cannot function without some sort of algorithmic assistance. In this context, I argue that an online democracy, utilizing algorithms and clear reasoning, could flourish, much like Wikipedia has.

Is there a potential for abuse in such a system? Certainly. However, Google has proven capable of outsmarting link farms, and Wikipedia has managed to maintain a high standard of quality through community efforts. I firmly believe in the strength of evidence and sound logic. We can identify and account for bias, we can discern causal relationships, we can dissect problems into individual components, and we can collect and analyze reasons to agree on the same page. Through the teachings of conflict resolution, we can focus on the interests of conflicting sides, rather than their positions, helping us navigate towards resolution.

To those who argue that reliance on technology is a fallacy, I would argue that I'm not placing blind faith in technology itself. I have faith in reason and order. I believe that we can reason together, if we organize. We need to lay out all the arguments, data, causal relationships, and scientific studies, link them, and vet them thoroughly. This approach requires a highly systematic and organized method to address our problems.

Ultimately, the goal is to equip people with the tools they need to solve problems. By bridging the gap between liberal and conservative approaches, as proposed by thinkers such as @jasonfbrennan, we could create a more balanced, fair, and effective political system. I believe that with the right tools and an openness to change, society can advance towards a more reasoned, more democratic future.

Towards a More Nuanced Understanding of Capitalism: Building Bridges, Not Walls

The internet has given rise to numerous discussions, debates, and ideological sparring platforms. From LateStageCommunism to LateStageCapitalism, these forums often present divergent views of the world. While critical discussions are essential for growth, it's equally important to acknowledge the need for nuance and compromise, especially when discussing economic systems like capitalism and communism.

We indeed need to educate everyone about the gulags and the failures of communism, but simply mocking or belittling those who contribute to forums like LateStageCapitalism is not the solution. Winning hearts and minds is not about outdoing the other side in low-quality, over-simplistic rhetoric. It's about out-thinking them, out-facting them, and engaging them with empathy and respect.

One common critique that often surfaces in these discussions is the issue of monopolies. While opponents of capitalism criticize its potential for creating business monopolies, they often overlook the potential for monopolies in government. Transparency and competition should be encouraged in both sectors. We should unite in our common goal to fight corruption and oppose the concentration of power, the real enemy of free societies.

It's essential to question why people would want to give more power to the government, knowing that a leader like Trump could potentially wield that power. We must be consistent in our belief systems, advocating for less government interference regardless of who is in power.

In our democracy, why does the president have the power to pardon or dictate trade? Shouldn't we prioritize trade with the least corrupt or most free countries? As advocates of capitalism and democracy, we need to ask these questions and strive for answers that align with our principles.

On this subreddit, LateStageCommunism, we need to work not just to debunk misconceptions about communism but also to convert people to a more nuanced understanding of capitalism. This can be achieved by building on common beliefs and jointly fighting corruption and power concentration.

A fantastic resource for this perspective is "The Cost-Benefit Revolution" by Cass Sunstein. The book argues that government policies should be based on careful consideration of their costs and benefits rather than on intuition, popular opinion, or pressure from interest groups. This principle, which could be found here, aligns seamlessly with our advocacy for reason-based decision-making.

In my view, the goal of capitalism is to remove arbitrary power from government officials who decide our lives behind closed doors. We need science and reason to predict the outcomes of specific regulations. If a regulation fails to achieve its intended result, it should be automatically revoked. Good intentions do not justify harmful results.

Capitalism rewards effort and allows for failure, but it should not reward the idle descendants of successful ancestors indefinitely. Each generation should start from a relatively equal footing, promoting fairness and competition.

I consider myself a moderate. I believe in a capitalist approach for adults, where individuals are responsible for their own success or failure. However, I'm more of a socialist when it comes to children, advocating for equal opportunities for all, regardless of their background.

While I'm critical of well-intentioned government programs that inadvertently cause harm, I believe that intelligent analysis can determine which programs and regulations truly benefit society. The person responsible for making these decisions should be ruthlessly practical and concerned with real-world results.

Capitalism is often accused of being a utopian dream, but I believe it's the closest we've come to a system that works in the real world. It prioritizes efficiency, aligns motivation with results, and rewards hard work. It's not about worshipping a doctrine but about improving society based on evidence and reason. My politics are rooted in reality and the desire to see improvements in society, not emotional needs or tribal allegiances.

We should reject radicalism, which is the rejection of the ordinary, the imperfect, and the real for an unattainable utopia. We should focus on what works, continually improve it, and respect our history. We don't need to destroy to rebuild but to enhance what we have based on reason and facts.

I encountered comments on this subreddit that resonate with my beliefs. One comment suggested that we're united by our dislike of communism and that there's no point in discussing our disagreements. I believe we can balance unity with open discussion as long as our goal is improvement and not division. Let's not fall into the trap of fostering hatred, as was seen with the Russian-paid trolls who fanned the flames of division. We can win with honesty, openness, and positivity.

As for the comment that seemed to dismiss the idea of fixing capitalism, I understand the sentiment. However, acknowledging the imperfections of our system is crucial to its continual improvement. It doesn't mean we're betraying our beliefs, but rather that we're committed to making them better.

To the person who labeled my thoughts as "commie talk," I assure you I am not a communist. I have worked for moderate Republican campaigns and strongly believe in capitalism. However, I also believe in maintaining an open dialogue and not turning our space into an echo chamber.

In conclusion, our love for capitalism should not be a blind devotion to an unachievable utopia but a commitment to a system that we can continuously improve. Let's respect our past, acknowledge our present, and work towards a better future, guided by reason and facts. The only group worth being a part of values diverse perspectives and follows the side with the best arguments. In the end, we're all in this together, striving to create a world that is just, fair, and prosperous for all.

If you're interested in joining the conversation or learning more, you can visit GroupIntel or check out the IdeaStockExchange. Let's keep the dialogue open, respectful, and focused on creating a better world.

Kids like (and are are like) wild animals

Kids like (and are are like) wild animals 

Reasons to Agree: 2

1. Animals are cool.
2. Seeing wild animals connects people to millions of years of hunting: which has historically included risk and adrenalin. It seems almost natural to start chasing wild animals. 
3. Seeing wild animals connects kids to another world, and so it is eye-opening, which can be fun and interesting..

Videos that agree:

James and Geese on the Payette Lake

Images that agree

Big Horn Sheep, Rocky Mountain National Park, 2014

Phil looking at an Elk in Estes Park, 2014

A bare we saw in Estes Park, 2014. Megan kept saying all the guys were trying to get closer, but the women were protecting the kids.

Big Horn Sheep, Rocky Mountain National Park, 2014

 
This is a photo of a mother "merganser" with its baby riding on its back. My kids and I watched it on the Payette Lake which is in Northern Idaho (2012).


A photo of a Stellar's jay, on the railing of my cousin's cabin in McCall Idaho (2012)


Do you have any cool wildlife photos? Maybe I should take it up as a hobby.

Osprey and James at the Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge, 2012

Osprey at the Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge, 2012

Osprey and James at the Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge, 2012

A Frog we caught at the local park

Webpages that agree:

1. Laub Life: The Robin Has Landed

I don't know what type of bird this is, 2014, Bear Lake, Rocky Mountain National Park

Not so wild animals

3.  A worker at the World Center for Birds of Prey in Boise Idaho: Peregrine Falcon, 2012

Grandma, Grandpa, and James Birds of Prey 2012


James, Ali, and Carlene with a wingspan at the Brookfield Zoo (2012)


James with a California Condor wingspan at the Idaho Birds of Prey (2012)

James, Teddy Roosivelt, and some bass at the Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge, 2012

Ali is a good artist

Ali did this awesome picture. I love the fish floating all around. It is a sketch within a sketch. She based it on my sketch of a sketch below. 

The lake that I worked at in the summer of 1995, sketched from my freshman dorm room that fall. 

Andre Breton is not the father of surrealism

Pretty good detail

I tried to do some combined art, but it needs some work...

Ali hard at work

. 

"The Plains" is a good Conservation Center +7

Background, Context, and Assumptions

Links:

1. https://www.facebook.com/plainscenter
2. http://www.plainscenter.org/
3. We need conservation centers
4. The state should pay for conservation centers.
5. The state should have conversations centers near major towns? Perhaps not. They keep rattle snakes, which is OK I guess. But deer are not endangered. In fact, sense we killed off wovles their are probably too many of them. I guess it is good for for people who live in cities to see them, but they also get hit by cars a lot. When you put conservation centers in places where cities are trying to grow, you are forcing people to drive further. Sure, you could develop more densely, but your not so your only options for a particular piece of land is subdivision nearer the city, or on the other side of the conservation center, and their is an argument to be said to move all the "conversations centers" further away from the cities... But, I guess people need parks and stuff, and public spaces...

___________________________________________________________________________
Best reasons to agree: +

1. They have Prairy Dogs
2. They have snakes
3. They have an old fashioned play ground, with a giant sand box.
4. They have over 5 miles of hiking trails.
5. They have a visitor center with live animal displays and interactive exhibits
6. They have a 1837 Cheyenne Indian camp
7. They have a replica 1887 sod homestead with soddies, one-room schoolhouse, workshop with blacksmith forge, and farm animals.

Best reasons to disagree: -

1. 
   

Score:

# of reasons to agree: +3

# of reasons to disagree: -3

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: +0

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change.

For a full explanation of this project, please visit our  Google code website: https://code.google.com/p/ideastockexchange/

___________________________________________________________________________

Images that agree:

1.  
   
   
   
   

Images that disagree:

1. 
   

Blog Explanation
Besides just trying to come up with a list of reasons to agree or disagree, I am trying to promote an algorithm, that counts these reasons and gives each conclusion a score based on the number of reasons to agree compared to the number of reasons to disagree. However, because each reason (or argument) that supports a conclusion will not be just as valid as the other arguments, I think an algorithm should be made that also judges REASONS or arguments based on the number of REASONS that agree or disagree with them...

This blog is trying to use this format of outlining arguments and sub arguments.

Below is my score, so far, for the above belief. The score is based on arguments that I have come up with so far. But I need your help. I can't brainstorm all the reasons to agree or disagree with an argument by myself. And the number of arguments that agree or disagree with a conclusion will affect the overall score.  

I spent my time wisely spending two years of my life in Tennessee

My parents mailed my bike to me in Tennessee

Background, Context, and Assumptions
Wise can be economic

Best reasons to agree (+):

1. I had a lot of good experience. Growing up with my closes brother being 8 years older than me, it was good for me to see what other people were like. 
2. Going on a mission forced me to grow up, and become who I am. I lived by myself. Ever few months I could start over with a new co-worker. 
3. You can find yourself better through hard work, and dedication to something better than through philosophy classes, or acting stupid with fellow vapid, ignorant teenagers. 
4. Before I went, I didn't know what I wanted to do with my life. I went into the home of some engineers, that seemed to have a pretty good life. I was a "business" major before my mission, and changed to "mechanical engineering" after my mission. That decision has greatly impacted my life, and I quickly made back the money that was spent on that decision. I always felt that engineering was a real skill that the world needed, that made lives better. Business was just a bunch of gobbly goop that was just kissing up and kicking down, and playing the game of climbing the social ladder. Business was just being a used car salesman taking money from stupid people for stuff that they didn't really need. Sure, I guess engineers make the stupid stuff that people don't really need, but at least there is something noble in the making... instead of the art of being a middle man. I know this is some of the stupidest most self righteous stuff, and that there are lots of noble "businessmen" but the whole science of it seemed like something I did not want to study. Or course it is necessary. Countries will fail that don't understand economics. You have to understand psychology to know how to sell to people. There is something to being smart enough to trick people out of their money, but it doesn't seem like it was for me. Of course, I know this is stupid. There are good business people that really do give people things they need, in efficient ways.

Best reasons to disagree (-):

1. 
   

Besides just trying to come up with a list of reasons to agree or disagree, I am trying to promote an algorithm, that counts these reasons and gives each conclusion a score based on the number of reasons to agree compared to the number of reasons to disagree. Because each reason (or argument) that supports a conclusion will not be just as valid as the other arguments, I think an algorithm should be made that also judges REASONS or arguments based on the number of REASONS that agree or disagree with them... For instance if you were FDR you could have come up with reasons to join WWII. For instance "Germany is doing bad things". You could then come up with reasons to agree (or disagree) with this argument.

If, at each level better arguments get better scores, then at the top level, conclusions with better arguments will also get better scores. 

Below is my score, so far, for the above belief. The score is based on arguments that I have come up with so far. But I need your help. I can't brainstorm all the reasons to agree or disagree with an argument by myself. And the number of arguments that agree or disagree with a conclusion will affect the overall score.  

Score:

# of reasons to agree: +4

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: +4

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change.

For a full explanation of this project, please visit our  Google code website: https://code.google.com/p/ideastockexchange/

Best books that agree (+):
Best books that disagree (-):


Best webpages that agree (+):
Best webpages that disagree (-):


Interest of those who agree: +
Interest of those who disagree (-):

Best Videos that agree (+):

Best Videos that disagree (-):

Poems that agree (+):

Poems that disagree (-):

Podcast that agree (+):

Podcast that disagree (-):

Songs that agree (+):

Songs that disagree (-):

Images that agree (+):

Images that disagree (-):

This is going to be a place for me to dump stuff from my mission. As sort of an archive, so I can keep an electronic copy, and throw away a lot of my papers. 

I "walked" for 2 years, ever other week in Tennessee on my Mission, and put lots of miles on my Dr. Martins

We would go around to people's house, and we were asked to leave a spiritual thought... We would find stuff we liked. Here is a folded up piece of paper that I kept, and read in many people's homes:

Dee Groberg - "THE RACE"

“Quit! Give up! You’re beaten!” they shout at me, and plead. 
“There’s just too much against you now, this time you can’t succeed.”

And as I start to hang my head in front of failure’s face, 
My downward fall is broken by the memory of a race. 
And hope refills my weakened will, as I recall that scene, 
For just the thought of that short race rejuvenates my being.

They all lined up so full of hope, each thought to win that race. 
Or tie for first, or if not that, at least take second place. 
And fathers watched from off the side, each cheering for his son, 
And each boy hoped to show his dad, that he would be the one.

The whistle blew, and off they went, young hearts and hopes afire, 
To win and be the hero there was each young boy’s desire. 
And one boy in particular, whose dad was in the crowd, 
Was running near the head, and thought, “My dad will be so proud!”

But as he fell, his dad stood up, and showed his anxious face, 
Which to the boy so clearly said, “Get up and win the race.” 
He quickly rose, no damage done, behind a bit, that’s all, 
And ran with all his mind and might to make up for his fall.

So anxious to restore himself, to catch up and to win, 
His mind went faster than his legs; he slipped and fell again!
He wished then he had quit before with only one disgrace. 
“I’m hopeless as a runner now, I shouldn’t try to race.”

But in the laughing crowd he searched, and found his father’s face, 
that steady look that said again, “Get up and win the race!”
So up he jumped to try again, ten yards behind the last, 
“If I’m to gain those yards,” he thought, “I’ve got to move real fast.”

Exceeding everything he had he gained back eight or ten, 
But trying so to catch the lead, he slipped and fell again.
Defeat! He lay there silently, a tear dropped from his eye. 
“There is no sense in running more. Three strikes, I’m out, why try?”

The will to rise had disappeared, all hope had fled away. 
So far behind, so error prone, a loser all the way.
“I’ve lost, so what’s the use,” he thought, “I’ll live with my disgrace.” 

But then he thought about his dad, who soon he’d have to face.

“Get up!” an echo sounded low, “Get up, and take your place. 
You were not meant for failure here, get up and win the race.”
“With borrowed will get up,” it said, “You have not lost at all. 
For winning is no more than this: to rise each time you fall.”

So up he rose to run once more, and with a new commit, 
He resolved that win or lose, at least he wouldn’t quit.
So far behind the others now, the most he’d ever been, 
Still he gave it all he had, and ran as though to win.

Three times he’d fallen stumbling, three times he’d rose again, 
Too far behind to hope to win he still ran to the end. 
They cheered the winning runner, as he crossed the line first place. 
Head high and proud and happy, no falling, no disgrace. 

But when the fallen youngster crossed the finish line last place, 
The crowd gave him the greater cheer for finishing the race.
And even though he came in last, with head bowed low, unproud, 
You would have thought he won the race to listen to the crowd.

And to his dad, he sadly said, “I didn’t do so well.” 
“To me you won!” his father said, “You rose each time you fell.”

And when things seem dark and hard, and difficult to face, 
The memory of that little boy helps me to win my race. 
For all of life is like that race, with ups and downs and all, 
And all you have to do to win is rise each time you fall.

“Quit! Give up! You’re beaten!” they still shout in my face. 
But another voice within me says: “GET UP AND WIN THE RACE!”

Health Goals and Tasks: With arguments

Rethinking Fitness Equipment Purchases: A Logical Approach

When considering the purchase of weight lifting equipment, a logical approach involves evaluating the necessity against your current fitness capabilities and goals. A structured method of analysis, inspired by the Idea Stock Exchange's approach to automated conflict resolution and cost-benefit analysis, can guide this decision.

Evaluating the Need for Weight Lifting Equipment

1. Reasons to Delay Purchase (Score: +5-1=+4):

   • Free Alternatives: Push-ups, pull-ups, and burpees offer no-cost exercises (Score: +2).
   • Space and Assembly Constraints: Exercise equipment can be cumbersome and space-consuming (Score: +2).
   • Safety and Health Considerations: Push-ups are argued to be safer and healthier than benching, involving more comprehensive body engagement and less risk of injury (Score: +4).
   • Counterargument: In certain scenarios, the inability to avoid physical confrontations may require a more intimidating physical presence, making strength training essential (Score: -1).

2. When to Consider Purchasing Equipment:

   • Progress Plateau: If you've maximized your gains from bodyweight exercises, then purchasing equipment can offer new challenges and growth opportunities.
   • Specific Muscle Targeting: Equipment like benches can isolate specific muscle groups more effectively than push-ups (Score: -1).
   • Affordability and Space: If budget and space are not constraints, investing in equipment can enhance your exercise routine.

3. Balanced Approach:

   • Cost-Benefit Analysis: Compare the potential benefits of equipment with its costs, including monetary, space, and setup effort.
   • Functional Training Consideration: Dumbbells, for example, offer a practical way to strengthen biceps and forearms, enhancing everyday functionality (Score: -1).

Algorithmic Approach to Decision Making:

This method involves counting the reasons to agree or disagree with a conclusion, assigning scores to each argument based on their validity and relevance. For instance, in the context of fitness equipment:

• "Germany is doing bad things" could be an argument for joining WWII, with subsequent layers of arguments supporting or opposing it.
• Each level of argument is scored based on its strength, influencing the overall conclusion score.

Conclusion:

Before purchasing weight lifting equipment, consider the strength and relevance of arguments for and against the purchase. Only proceed when the benefits, considering your current fitness level and goals, outweigh the costs and constraints.

Action Items:

• Non-Repeating Tasks:
  1. Buy forearm squeezy thing for grip strength.
  2. Find a suitable location for pull-ups.
  3. Consider buying dumbbells after reaching a plateau with bodyweight exercises.
• Repeating Tasks:
• Continuously evaluate your fitness progress and equipment needs.

You should wait to buy weight lifting equipment until you have maxed out your push-ups, pull-ups and burpees. (score=+5-1=+4)

Best reasons to agree: +2+2+4-1-1-1: +5

Best reasons to disagree: -1

It is free to do push-ups.  Exercise equipment is a hassle to put together and takes up too much room. Push-ups are better for you than benching.  Reasons to agree. +2 You have to keep your back straight for push-ups. That is good for your back. It is much better for your back and stomach muscles than sit-ups. Google it. Sit-ups are bad for your back. You should just do push-ups.  It is not good to load up heavier weight. You shouldn't try to bulk up. Reasons to agree: +4 It is easier to hurt yourself trying to bulk up. Although people can get knee surgeries, it is better on your knees if you don't bulk up.  After 35 you can't bulk up without hurting yourself. The best you can hope for is to tone up. Wimps with guns can hurt you. Adults don't get into fights. Thinking about fighting is dumb. You have kids to support. You have your whole life ahead of you. This isn't the wild west. You don't have to stand up to crime, and lawlessness. Trust the police. Criminals will eventually get their come up-ens.  Reasons to disagree: -1 Sometimes, you can't choose to not get in a fight. It's better to be intimidating than to be a wimp. Being big prevents fights. People with guns don't carry their guns all the time. Sometimes, you have to stand up for something.  Reasons to disagree: -1 Bench isolates your pectorals better than push-ups, and so it makes sense to buy a bench. You can load up heavier weights benching than push-ups, so it makes sense to buy a bench.  Reasons to disagree (see above: "It is not good to load up heavier weight. You shouldn't try to bulk up."

If you have lots of money, exercise equipment is a better purchase than other things. Also, weight machines don't cost that much. Also, if spare rooms or moving casts are not a big concern, you can disregard them.  Dumbbells don't cost that much, take up much room, and are the best way to exercise your bicep and forearm. These practical muscles could improve your functionality and not just make you look better.

Besides just trying to come up with a list of reasons to agree or disagree, I am trying to promote an algorithm that counts these reasons and gives each conclusion a score based on the number of reasons to agree compared to the number of reasons to disagree. Because each reason (or argument) that supports a conclusion will not be as valid as the other arguments, an algorithm should be made that also judges REASONS or arguments based on the number of REASONS that agree or disagree with them... For instance, if you were FDR, you could have come up with reasons to join WWII. For instance "Germany is doing bad things". You could then come up with reasons to agree (or disagree) with this argument.

If, at each level, better arguments get better scores, then at the top level, conclusions with better arguments will also get better scores. 

Non Repeating Tasks:

1. Buy forearm squeezy thing.
2. Find a good place to do pull-ups. 
3. Buy dumbbells after you have plateaued with push-ups, burpees, and pullups.

Repeating Tasks: