Put your money where your BRAIN is: how money could be used to help weigh the validity of a belief

This function will add points to conclusions that have money invested in them or their supporting arguments, and subtract points from conclusions that tend to have money invested against them.

Why do this? Because Vegas understands the relative strength of football team. Wall Street understands the relative strength of each company, and Intrade will tell you which president will win. Why don't we use “markets” to tell us the relative strength of each argument, before we make life or death decision in the Middle East?  Why do we have more processing power dedicated to analyzing football games than we do life or death problems?

Below is an explanation of the terms in my equation. I would love input!

My equation in words:

My equation in math:

• M_an/n: When n is 1, this equation will add all the money invested in a belief. When n is equal to 2 it will take the money invested in arguments that support the belief, divides it by 2, adds that to the conclusion score. Money invested in a belief, +1/2 the money invested in beliefs that agree with this belief, etc – Money invested against this belief, -1/2 the money invested in beliefs that disagree with this belief, etc
• M_dn/n: This equation does the same as above but subtracts the total amount of money invested in arguments that disagree with it.
• TM = Total Money invested in the forum
• #B = number of beliefs
• The average amount of money invested in an idea = TM / #B. The goal of this idea is to assign 1 point for the average belief, and 2 points for a belief that has twice the average amount of money invested.
• The assumption is that people would be able to purchase “stock” in a belief at its idea score. They would purchase it assuming that the idea score was going to go up. We would have to set the transaction fee high enough, to ensure that we don’t lose money, and only smart people are making money. We would also only sell stock in relatively stable ideas. 

The code for an application of my equation in SQL: 

Coming soon! As soon as I learn SQL... Please help by contributing to my open source google project: http://code.google.com/p/ideastockexchange/

Your equation in math:

Do you have a better equation that would use people's aversion to part with their money, that would promote good arguments, and beliefs? Leave a comment, or a link, and I will link to your project. I don't need the credit, I just don't want to live in a world of non-structured beliefs, and conclusions that people don't even try to support in an intelligent manor. Is money the answer? No, but it could help people try to really evaluate the true strength of a conclusion, if they felt that that conclusion would go up in value based on its truth strength... Do you disagree? Leave a comment. 

Put your money where your BRAIN is: how money could be used to help weigh the validity of a belief

This function will add points to conclusions that have money invested in them or their supporting arguments, and subtract points from conclusions that tend to have money invested against them.

Why do this? Because Vegas understands the relative strength of football team. Wall Street understands the relative strength of each company, and Intrade will tell you which president will win. Why don't we use “markets” to tell us the relative strength of each argument, before we make life or death decision in the Middle East?  Why do we have more processing power dedicated to analyzing football games than we do life or death problems?

Below is an explanation of the terms in my equation. I would love input!

My equation in words:

My equation in math:

• M_an/n: When n is 1, this equation will add all the money invested in a belief. When n is equal to 2 it will take the money invested in arguments that support the belief, divides it by 2, adds that to the conclusion score. Money invested in a belief, +1/2 the money invested in beliefs that agree with this belief, etc – Money invested against this belief, -1/2 the money invested in beliefs that disagree with this belief, etc
• M_dn/n: This equation does the same as above but subtracts the total amount of money invested in arguments that disagree with it.
• TM = Total Money invested in the forum
• #B = number of beliefs
• The average amount of money invested in an idea = TM / #B. The goal of this idea is to assign 1 point for the average belief, and 2 points for a belief that has twice the average amount of money invested.
• The assumption is that people would be able to purchase “stock” in a belief at its idea score. They would purchase it assuming that the idea score was going to go up. We would have to set the transaction fee high enough, to ensure that we don’t lose money, and only smart people are making money. We would also only sell stock in relatively stable ideas. 

The code for an application of my equation in SQL: 

Coming soon! As soon as I learn SQL... Please help by contributing to my open source google project: http://code.google.com/p/ideastockexchange/

Your equation in math:

Do you have a better equation that would use people's aversion to part with their money, that would promote good arguments, and beliefs? Leave a comment, or a link, and I will link to your project. I don't need the credit, I just don't want to live in a world of non-structured beliefs, and conclusions that people don't even try to support in an intelligent manor. Is money the answer? No, but it could help people try to really evaluate the true strength of a conclusion, if they felt that that conclusion would go up in value based on its truth strength... Do you disagree? Leave a comment. 

"My life story": Alta Lealette, Anderson Laub.

This is my dad's mom's mom's life history. Also check out the ongoing projects for my dad, and mom, and mom's mom.

(I (Michael Laub) typed the below from a photocopy of the original, which was typed from my Grandmother. I did it pretty fast, and know there are lots of spelling mistakes... )

My Parents were Mormon pioneers, my father, James Peter Anderson, was born 28th of August 1862, Ephraim, Sandpete County Utah, was the son of Neil's Anderson, who came from Lond Sweden, and his mother Ingaborg Paulsen who came from Dyver Norway for the Gospel. My mother's father was Peter Thomander, son of one of Sweden’s Great Theology professors, John Henric Thomander who was head of the theological department at Lund University when the first Mormon Missionaries went to Sweden. Peter Thomander met Ingaborg Pearson, his wife to be, on the ship which brought them to America, where they were to join the Saints in Ephraim, Sanpete County, Utah. Shortly after arriving, they were called to go to Circle Valley to help build up that area. And that is where my mother, Martha Caroline Thomander was born 12th of June 1866.

Because of the Indian troubles the Saint of Circle Valley, Piute County were recalled to Ephraim and it was there eight of the 10 children of my parents were born:

• · 14th of April 1887, James IRA. 
• · 1st of November 1888, James (still born); 
• · 9th of February 1890. Lucretia; 
• · 8th of July 1892, Drusilla Naomi; 
• · 13th of September 1894, Ada Beulah, 
• · 2nd of September 1896, Hugh Preston, 
• · 2nd of May 1899 Onedia May 
• · 26 Nov 1902, Luella Theora; 

My family moved to spring to Spring Glen in 1904. Spring Glen is a small picturesque town situated on the bench land east of the Rail Road and Highway that connect Helper and Price, in Carbon County Utah. It was given its name because of the lovely green and inviting appearance in the spring of the year. To this community my parents made their way a few months before my birth 21 July 1905. I was given the name of Alta Lealette, the second name being that of my oldest sister’s music teacher. I was never called Alta or Lealette by my family, but called Lea or Leah, have been known as Alta on most of my Church records. I was named or Christened by Thomas Rhodes, presiding Elder of the Spring Glen Branch of the Latter-day Saints Church, when I was 12 days old 3 August 1905.

For many Americans, it's more lucrative to stay unemployed and collect welfare entitlements than to work.

Welfare / Incentives

Reasons to Agree:

🔗 Reasons Database

1. Welfare Pays More Than Low-Wage Jobs – Some studies suggest that government assistance provides more disposable income than minimum-wage employment.
2. Welfare Cliff Effect – Many welfare programs reduce benefits as income increases, sometimes at a rate that discourages full-time work.
3. Labor Market Participation Decline – Expanded welfare benefits post-pandemic have correlated with a decrease in workforce participation in some sectors.

---

Reasons to Disagree:

🔗 Reasons Database

1. Many Welfare Recipients Already Work – Most able-bodied adults on welfare already have jobs but remain eligible due to low wages and high living costs.
2. Work Requirements Exist in Most Programs – Programs like TANF and SNAP require work participation, limiting long-term dependency.
3. Flawed Comparisons – Some studies compare gross wages to total welfare benefits, without factoring in taxes, childcare, and transportation costs.

---

Evidence That Agrees:

🔗 Evidence Scores

1. Gary Alexander’s Chart (Pennsylvania Welfare Secretary) – Suggests that in some cases, welfare recipients have more disposable income than full-time workers.
2. Cato Institute Study (2013) – Found that in 35 states, welfare benefits exceeded full-time minimum wage earnings.

---

Evidence That Disagrees:

🔗 Evidence Scores

1. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) Report – Welfare recipients rarely receive all possible benefits simultaneously.
2. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Data – Most able-bodied welfare recipients do work but have jobs with low wages and inconsistent hours.

---

Most Likely Benefits of Accepting This Belief:

🔗 Most Likely Benefits

1. Encourages Workforce Participation – If welfare is reduced or restructured, more individuals may seek employment over dependency.
2. Economic Growth – A larger workforce contributes to higher GDP and lower government spending on social programs.
3. Lower Tax Burden – A reduction in welfare programs may allow for tax cuts or reallocating funds to other areas like infrastructure or education.

---

Most Likely Costs of Accepting This Belief:

🔗 Most Likely Costs

1. Increased Poverty and Hardship – Cutting welfare without raising wages or creating better jobs may push more families into poverty.
2. Strain on Local Governments and Charities – If federal aid decreases, nonprofits and state-level programs may struggle to fill the gap.
3. Higher Turnover in Low-Wage Jobs – Pushing people off welfare without sustainable job opportunities may increase job instability.

---

Books That Agree:

🔗 Books

• "Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980" – Charles Murray
• "The Tragedy of American Compassion" – Marvin Olasky

---

Books That Disagree:

🔗 Books

• "Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City" – Matthew Desmond
• "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America" – Barbara Ehrenreich

---

Laws That Agree:

🔗 Local, Federal, and International Laws

• 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act – Enforced work requirements and time limits on welfare.
• Right-to-Work Laws – Promote employment and limit government dependency.

---

Laws That Disagree:

🔗 Local, Federal, and International Laws

• Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) – Ensures a minimum wage, but critics argue it's not enough to replace welfare benefits.
• Affordable Care Act (ACA) – Expanded Medicaid eligibility, reducing incentives to leave welfare for low-wage jobs without benefits.

---

Songs That Agree:

🔗 Songs That Agree

• "Take This Job and Shove It" – Johnny Paycheck
• "Welfare Cadillac" – Guy Drake

---

Songs That Disagree:

🔗 Songs That Agree

• "9 to 5" – Dolly Parton
• "Working Class Hero" – John Lennon

---

Web Pages That Agree:

🔗 Web Pages

• Cato Institute Reports on Welfare Reform
• Heritage Foundation Research on Welfare Incentives

---

Web Pages That Disagree:

🔗 Web Pages

• CBPP Reports Debunking Welfare Myths
• Brookings Institution Research on Work and Welfare

---

Images That Agree:

🔗 Images That Agree

• Charts comparing welfare benefits to wages.
• Infographics from conservative think tanks on welfare disincentives.

---

Images That Disagree:

🔗 Images That Agree

• Graphs showing workforce participation among welfare recipients.
• Cost-of-living comparisons explaining welfare necessity.

---

Supporting Media (Movies, Videos, Podcasts):

🔗 Media

Videos That Agree:

• "Welfare Reform: The Case for Work" – Heritage Foundation
• "The Welfare Trap Explained" – PragerU

Videos That Disagree:

• "The Myth of the Welfare Queen" – Vox
• "Why People Stay on Welfare" – PBS Frontline

---

Best Objective Criteria for Assessing This Belief:

🔗 Objective Criteria Scores

1. Disposable income comparisons between welfare recipients and workers.
2. Studies on workforce participation rates among welfare recipients.
3. Longitudinal analysis of welfare recipients transitioning into employment.

James is tall and growing fast (+0, unresolved)

Background 
Megan took James to his yearly doctors appointment. James was cute, and asked many time: "what are you doing to me". He didn't try to stop the nurse when she gave him the nasal inhaler flu shot.

James is tall and growing fast (+1, unresolved)

Best reasons to agree: +3

1. He is in the 95.72 percentile. This means of 100 kids, 4.28 of them would be taller. 
2. He gained 7 lbs, and 3" this year. 
3. We could say that we are using the McDonald's systems of measurement: small, medium, and large. Using these categories we could sort of "grade on a curve" and decide 33% of people are small, 33% of people are average, and 33% of people are tall. James, at 95.72 percentile, would be in the "tall" category as long as the sample population is limited to people born in O4. 
4. James has doubled his size in just a few years. The universe will take billions of years to double its size. Therefore, James is growing fast. 

Best reasons to agree: -2

1. Some pumpkins can grow 40 lbs a day. All things being relative, James is not growing fast.
2. Robert Pershing Wadlow was 8'-11". All things being relative, James is not tall. 

Best Images that agree: -1

1. 

Opposing Values between those who agree and disagree:

1. 
   

Interest of those who agree:

1. 
   

Interest of those who agree:

1. 
   

Score:

# of reasons to agree: +4

# 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: +1

Explanation: 

I'm looking for items from everyday life that I can turn into conclusions, with evidence to support them. 

I hate it when people state opinion as facts, and don't have evidence to support their beliefs. And so at the risk of sounding weird, I'll give my evidence to believe the above conclusion. 

See here for an explanation of my plan. 

Feds