Why allow Davison to lie?

I don't think I'll be able to respond effectively until someone tells me how one "explains things" to Terrell Owens, Dennis Rodman and John Rocker, but trying anyway...The power that moderators have is balanced by a responsibility to the goals of EvC Forum: productive, constructive, evidence-based discussion. Using their personal judgment, moderators intervene when they see behavior that acts as an obstacle to these goals. [forum=-28] is intended not so much as a place where one can continue debating with those restricted from the main forums, but more where you can help the residents develop the skills necessary to gaining a return of full privileges.In this light, complaining that JAD is "doing it again" is redundant. Of course he's doing it again. That's why he's restricted to [forum=-28]. The task (a hopeless one in his case, I'm afraid, but it can be fun to try) is to help JAD see the light so he can return to being (or begin being, actually) a constructive member of EvC Forum.If, like me, you don't believe JAD is helpable, then stay out of his [forum=-28] threads. If you believe his personal comments about you merit a response (you should be asking yourself why the ravings of a lunatic merit a response), then open a thread in [forum=-14].Keep in mind you're not alone in being abused by JAD. We moderators are apparently the reincarnation of Atilla the Hun, but we don't respond to these charges because we're pretty sure that anyone seeing them will consider the source, and ravings are fairly easily recognizable by most people anyway. In other words, excoriations from JAD shouldn't merit much if any attention.I will add that the recent posts from Mammuthus and Pink Susquatch seem more oriented toward continuing the discussion than toward helping JAD "recover", but as long as they stay focused on the issues that is certainly acceptable. We haven't actually figured out how to make [forum=-28] work yet. Responding to a Boot Camp inmate not with a response to their argument but instead with advice about how to improve their style is terrifically condescending, and more likely to cause upset than improvement, yet that's what we've asked. On the other hand, Boot Camp at least removes those incapable of constructive discussion from the main forums.Summing up, even though I think most people confined to Boot Camp will be irremedial, I still think it, or something like it as we learn to use it better, will raise the quality in the main forums.--Percy

I think it's pretty interesting to consider JAD from an artificial intelligence perspective, specifically, the Turing Test. For those unfamiliar with the term, Turing posited that the test of true artificial intelligence is if during conversation (say, via instant messaging) you couldn't tell the difference between a person and a computer.The problem with the Turing Test is that it assumes all people are intelligent. A more subtle problem with the test is that I don't think Turing ever bothered providing a formal definition of intelligence, though the artificial intelligence field may have done so since Turing's time. JAD can put his clothes on in the morning and make coffee, tasks far beyond any computer at present, but he is unable to function effectively in the arena of critical thinking. So JAD does the same thing that the many conversation programs available on the web do - they attempt to mimic understanding while comprehending nothing.Some of the conversation programs are quite sophisticated, and some people have actually become convinced they're conversing with a real person (I believe they're the same people who sign up for get-rich-quick schemes). My view is that in a similar way, JAD is mixing and matching a variety of complex terms that to most people most of the time appear extremely intelligent. But it's amazing just how thin this veneer is, since within just a few posts JAD can shift from eloquent and erudite advocacy of his views to accusations of inferior genetic makeup and upbringing. Like a computer program, JAD fools us by displaying many of the signposts of intelligence, but it takes just a short while to discover there's no substance. But this is so hard to believe, so difficult to accept, that most of us return again and again to joust with JAD. And with WillowTree. And so on.Given his aggressive irrationality, JAD probably has few non-web alternatives for satisfying his human need for interaction, and so he will return here again and again.--Percy

Was it Parry? Or Perry? I have a vague recollection of playing with one of these programs about 15 years ago, I thought it was called Perry. He fled the room within five minutes, so my career as a psychologist was short.About 25 years ago there was another program that I think was called Cacci, or maybe Caci. It's still the best attempt I've seen so far. While it would begni with the traditional, "Tell me about yourself" and follow it with "Tell me more about xyz," where xyz was a noun or adverb from one of your own sentences, it gave the appearance of drawing inferences between different things you had said, something I haven't seen the more recent programs do. I'm pretty sure this was just a device and not comprehension, but it was pretty amazing when it would say things like, "Do you ever pet your cat and ride your bike at the same time?"I think comprehension is still a hugely limiting factor in the recent conversation programs. If you tell them you ride your bike, they'll use that. If you tell them you ride your coffe cup they'll use that, too, with never a hint that it makes no sense at all.--Percy