harekaze

I understand the idea of {} that you talk about, but I don't know how it works in the context of logical reasoning. Can you give examples on how it interacts with the other 4 values under different logical connectives?

It takes time for me to find and try understanding the materials you mentioned. I'm unlikely to have a meaningful reply to your comment anytime soon. Let me just thank you here :)

The abstraction you mentioned isn't really similar to what I mentioned in parent. INVALID would be like X, I guess, but there is no counterpart of Z in the logic I used daily. Nonetheless it's interesting to learn about the abstraction :)

Yes, I use INVALID for scenarios where "p" is unsatisfiable, as well as scenarios where I encounter other types of nonsense sentences. For example, "the uppercase is having a daydream", or a more subtle one, "the country is proud of its own products" when considered literally (as a country is incapable of feeling proud). I should have called it NONSENSE instead.

Yep. I use INVALID in many different scenarios. One type of the scenarios is like encountering someone saying "the uppercase is having a daydream" in a serious discussion and no one really knows what "uppercase" means here. The usual usage would be more subtle. Maybe NONSENSE would be a better name.

Exactly. Thank you.

For recent years I've been using a kind of four-valued logic in my daily thinking: TRUE, FALSE, an UNKNOWN of limited contagiousness, and an INVALID of full contagiousness. I feel estranged somewhat after learning there is no such logic in the most commonly used ones.

I found a critique of MMT, by another (seemingly) heterodox economist, which outlines the difference between MMT and some superficially similar heterodox perspectives. It worths a read, in my opinion.

https://sovereignmoney.eu/modern-money-theory-revisited

If only there are deflector shields in reality. Current technologies fail to afford a clear distinction between offensive and defensive potentials, which inevitably leads to controversies and trust issues. Forgive my imaginativeness, if there are effective yet distinctly defensive potentials like deflector shields in reality, I guess most controversies and trust issues will magically resolve by investing most of the resources in this domain to develop such technologies, even though technologies that are not distinctly defensive will still be needed.

(1) The details of popular IQ tests are considered commercial secrets by testing companies. The reliability data and validity data are kept secret to people other than selected experts connected to those companies. This opaqueness does nothing to enhance the credibility of IQ tests.

(2) The claims that IQ tests are supported by consensus of psychologists ignore that, scientific knowledge does not rely on consensus to justify its credibility, but the explanatory power and predictive power stemmed from such knowledge. Plus, most psychologists don't do research on IQ tests, the so-called consensus can be regarded to an extent as textbook claims in disguise.

(3) There have always been disagreements. Multiple intelligence theory is one that made its way to textbooks. But there are others. For example, the mutualism model by van der Maas, Kan, and Borsboom (2014) claims that IQ tests do not constitute as a reliable measure that can reflect the underlying mental capacity (if there is one, not none or multiple), the value of IQ tests can only be (weakly, in my opinion) justified by pragmatic considerations [0]. The mutualism model is somewhat tangential to the claims made by Taleb, but my point is that IQ tests are not something that should be glorified.

(4) Psychometrics in general, has deep issues. Operationalism plagues the discipline. The practice of many (I shall reserve properly that it's not all) psychometricians does not meet the idea of validity as instigated by current recommended guidelines, and what should be constitutive of validity is still somewhat an open question that remains to be explored. These are not direct evidence for or against the credibility of IQ tests, but nonetheless should make us cautious how we reach our judgments.

[0] https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/2/1/12

EDIT: grammar