(04-03-2018, 07:58 AM)eric Wrote: When in law school the same lesson took place, its purpose was to demonstrate to the future(hopefully) lawyers how what one person can swear they saw a blue dress, another a green dress, and another great looking legs. We focus on some item and miss another. Since we have the show on tape, we should be able to review it at our leisure and come to an agreement as to what we saw. Maybe if we all just looked at the episode again we could reach some consensus. If not, maybe we are just pushing an argument to fill the day. Me, I don't notice clothes, i saw the legs. Once a pig, always a pig.

(04-02-2018, 11:59 PM)syscrash Wrote: Your last post explains exactly how and why Cambridge Analytica's was able to do what they did. Even now that it is pointed out what happen and how. You have a large part of society that either disbelieve or refuse to believe it is possible. They do not want to admit they are able to be manipulated. Even now so many can not tell real post from fake post. You do know all post even on the Grimm forum are not real. Bots on Grimm like other forums frame conversations to find people with a certain type of understanding. these people are most likely to click on links posted that direct the viewer to somewhere else. Once there the program knows these people are susceptible . they are then directed father down the rabbit hole. Eventual they are deep into the belief system of what the designer wanted them to participate in. This type of misdirection may or may not be directed by the writers or the developers of the show. It is most times a third party that is seizing on an opportunity.
The test that you teacher used is a common tactic used on the internet to gather data on how people think and respond. What makes it work is most people only see it as people will view the same thing in different way people justify this difference on a lot of outside influences. The fact is what you saw had only one set of facts meaning there was only one description. What was subjective was how people interpretative what they saw. For most people there interpretation was based on what they knew. Then there where others that where able to look past what they knew apply critical thinking and where able to give a very accurate explanation of what and why.

And that is my point without applying critical thinking to what is viewed and discussed. To not just chalk it up as different people have different opinions. You will find your self just another one of the masses that is being controlled by some very creative people who have figured out how to push people buttons. A little FYI if you are ever in doubt if a post is a person or bot. To test, apply the turing rules. Ask a question that requires abstract thinking. It use to be you only had to ask non logical question. But you have bot like Sophia who can actually hold philosophical conversations.

If you are wondering why I spend so much time on this subject. I spent years helping to design some of the tools that are now being abused. When I was doing it. The purpose was to make games seem more realistic. To give single user to same feeling as if playing multiplayer. I am retired now and as time goes on I see a lot of what was developed being used in ways I do not agree with. What I would like is people to be aware that scripted shows, commercials, online conversations all use the same knowledge an understand of what and how to direct peoples thinking without them even knowing they are being manipulated. That is not to see all these platform have evil intent. At least no more then the guy that sold you your last car. It is the ones do have bad intentions that concern me. It is seeing people not making informed choices and knowing why.

(04-04-2018, 05:12 AM)brandon Wrote: Nick expected to be alone to make the proposal to Juliette.
I do not see anything bad that he had gone with his aunt outside, she was the one who raised him and could have spent some time without seeing.
Either that they had sex in the afternoon-Nick and Adalind/Juliette-.it's normal.

(04-04-2018, 06:34 PM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: Nick picked up the ring that day, but it was never said that he planned to propose that same day. But even if he did, his terminally ill aunt showing up unexpectedly and saying "we need to talk" would be a red flag that something more urgent has just come up.

(04-04-2018, 07:36 PM)Hell Rell Wrote: I don't think seeing writers' intent is nearly as difficult as some people are making it. The point shows like Grimm, GoT, and the ones in the Arrowverse are trying to make are not hard to see. A discussion about writers' intent is interesting but we're talking about something more important here as it relates to quality.

Writers' intent doesn't improve the story on the screen. I'm not going to think any story is better because of what the writers' wanted to portray. I know the writers' intent on a show like GoT because they talk about certain plot points after every single episode. If anything, it makes me think less of the show because of the sloppiness, continuity issues, and out-of-character moments that constantly happen. They often let their intent get in the way of a well-written story. In some instances, it can lead to a lot of controversy.