RE: Fiat 500 roadster concepts
Discussion
My favorite Fiat is the panda, I absolutely love the way they drive, I bought one for my father a few years ago, and even though I have an R8 I love hooning around in it when I get a chance.
Fiat 500 I'm afraid is too "in fashion" for my liking a bit like the new mini was a few years ago.
- Pete
Fiat 500 I'm afraid is too "in fashion" for my liking a bit like the new mini was a few years ago.
- Pete
Two nights ago I posted a number of comments on this thread with an intention.
I created a series of posts that were designed to explore the psychology of moral reasoning. More specifically, I wanted to explore whether the intuitions based in unconscious reasoning govern our ability to discern multiple issues of morality in a given situation.
All of the conversation that took place on this public forum will be documented and used for comparison in live situations, but will not be reproduced or published. Neither will any of the identities be published at any time. The purpose for this activity was for reference only. There were no incorrect or correct responses.
I apologise if it got anyone a little hot under the collar, but the structure of the text, the escalation in tone, and the alter ego I created were designed to elicit some response. I understand, completely, if any of those people who responded would not like to engage in feedback on the exchange. However, your thoughts would be incredibly valuable.
When development of this scenario commenced, I struggled for sometime with the ethics of engaging people in a scenario that was by its very nature deceitful. I will state for the record that I am not comfortable with it. I chose to have this as a completely blind scenario and must live with the morality of that, but it is important that the answers given were as instinctual as possible. It is one of the reasons this scenario was conducted in a forum where people do not have body language to inform their response, and so have chosen to engage with others in a suspension, on a subjective level, of what is real.
Further experiments have been developed that will take place with person to person contact and this reference material will make for an interesting comparison of conscious and unconscious responses.
I created a series of posts that were designed to explore the psychology of moral reasoning. More specifically, I wanted to explore whether the intuitions based in unconscious reasoning govern our ability to discern multiple issues of morality in a given situation.
All of the conversation that took place on this public forum will be documented and used for comparison in live situations, but will not be reproduced or published. Neither will any of the identities be published at any time. The purpose for this activity was for reference only. There were no incorrect or correct responses.
I apologise if it got anyone a little hot under the collar, but the structure of the text, the escalation in tone, and the alter ego I created were designed to elicit some response. I understand, completely, if any of those people who responded would not like to engage in feedback on the exchange. However, your thoughts would be incredibly valuable.
When development of this scenario commenced, I struggled for sometime with the ethics of engaging people in a scenario that was by its very nature deceitful. I will state for the record that I am not comfortable with it. I chose to have this as a completely blind scenario and must live with the morality of that, but it is important that the answers given were as instinctual as possible. It is one of the reasons this scenario was conducted in a forum where people do not have body language to inform their response, and so have chosen to engage with others in a suspension, on a subjective level, of what is real.
Further experiments have been developed that will take place with person to person contact and this reference material will make for an interesting comparison of conscious and unconscious responses.
porsche200471 said:
Two nights ago I posted a number of comments on this thread with an intention.
I created a series of posts that were designed to explore the psychology of moral reasoning. More specifically, I wanted to explore whether the intuitions based in unconscious reasoning govern our ability to discern multiple issues of morality in a given situation.
All of the conversation that took place on this public forum will be documented and used for comparison in live situations, but will not be reproduced or published. Neither will any of the identities be published at any time. The purpose for this activity was for reference only. There were no incorrect or correct responses.
I apologise if it got anyone a little hot under the collar, but the structure of the text, the escalation in tone, and the alter ego I created were designed to elicit some response. I understand, completely, if any of those people who responded would not like to engage in feedback on the exchange. However, your thoughts would be incredibly valuable.
When development of this scenario commenced, I struggled for sometime with the ethics of engaging people in a scenario that was by its very nature deceitful. I will state for the record that I am not comfortable with it. I chose to have this as a completely blind scenario and must live with the morality of that, but it is important that the answers given were as instinctual as possible. It is one of the reasons this scenario was conducted in a forum where people do not have body language to inform their response, and so have chosen to engage with others in a suspension, on a subjective level, of what is real.
Further experiments have been developed that will take place with person to person contact and this reference material will make for an interesting comparison of conscious and unconscious responses.
It's a picture of a car... Moral reasoning? Really? I created a series of posts that were designed to explore the psychology of moral reasoning. More specifically, I wanted to explore whether the intuitions based in unconscious reasoning govern our ability to discern multiple issues of morality in a given situation.
All of the conversation that took place on this public forum will be documented and used for comparison in live situations, but will not be reproduced or published. Neither will any of the identities be published at any time. The purpose for this activity was for reference only. There were no incorrect or correct responses.
I apologise if it got anyone a little hot under the collar, but the structure of the text, the escalation in tone, and the alter ego I created were designed to elicit some response. I understand, completely, if any of those people who responded would not like to engage in feedback on the exchange. However, your thoughts would be incredibly valuable.
When development of this scenario commenced, I struggled for sometime with the ethics of engaging people in a scenario that was by its very nature deceitful. I will state for the record that I am not comfortable with it. I chose to have this as a completely blind scenario and must live with the morality of that, but it is important that the answers given were as instinctual as possible. It is one of the reasons this scenario was conducted in a forum where people do not have body language to inform their response, and so have chosen to engage with others in a suspension, on a subjective level, of what is real.
Further experiments have been developed that will take place with person to person contact and this reference material will make for an interesting comparison of conscious and unconscious responses.
porsche200471 said:
Two nights ago I posted a number of comments on this thread with an intention.
I created a series of posts that were designed to explore the psychology of moral reasoning. More specifically, I wanted to explore whether the intuitions based in unconscious reasoning govern our ability to discern multiple issues of morality in a given situation.
All of the conversation that took place on this public forum will be documented and used for comparison in live situations, but will not be reproduced or published. Neither will any of the identities be published at any time. The purpose for this activity was for reference only. There were no incorrect or correct responses.
I apologise if it got anyone a little hot under the collar, but the structure of the text, the escalation in tone, and the alter ego I created were designed to elicit some response. I understand, completely, if any of those people who responded would not like to engage in feedback on the exchange. However, your thoughts would be incredibly valuable.
When development of this scenario commenced, I struggled for sometime with the ethics of engaging people in a scenario that was by its very nature deceitful. I will state for the record that I am not comfortable with it. I chose to have this as a completely blind scenario and must live with the morality of that, but it is important that the answers given were as instinctual as possible. It is one of the reasons this scenario was conducted in a forum where people do not have body language to inform their response, and so have chosen to engage with others in a suspension, on a subjective level, of what is real.
Further experiments have been developed that will take place with person to person contact and this reference material will make for an interesting comparison of conscious and unconscious responses.
Do you write incmprehensible boll*cks for a living?I created a series of posts that were designed to explore the psychology of moral reasoning. More specifically, I wanted to explore whether the intuitions based in unconscious reasoning govern our ability to discern multiple issues of morality in a given situation.
All of the conversation that took place on this public forum will be documented and used for comparison in live situations, but will not be reproduced or published. Neither will any of the identities be published at any time. The purpose for this activity was for reference only. There were no incorrect or correct responses.
I apologise if it got anyone a little hot under the collar, but the structure of the text, the escalation in tone, and the alter ego I created were designed to elicit some response. I understand, completely, if any of those people who responded would not like to engage in feedback on the exchange. However, your thoughts would be incredibly valuable.
When development of this scenario commenced, I struggled for sometime with the ethics of engaging people in a scenario that was by its very nature deceitful. I will state for the record that I am not comfortable with it. I chose to have this as a completely blind scenario and must live with the morality of that, but it is important that the answers given were as instinctual as possible. It is one of the reasons this scenario was conducted in a forum where people do not have body language to inform their response, and so have chosen to engage with others in a suspension, on a subjective level, of what is real.
Further experiments have been developed that will take place with person to person contact and this reference material will make for an interesting comparison of conscious and unconscious responses.
Sorry if the previous message seemed a little dry. It is the standard blurb you issue as part of a study.
In answer to the two questions, yes I love cars. I look at the PH website everyday to see what new or old cars have popped onto PHs radar.
And yes, most academics have to talk b
ks for a living.
The moral part came in the form of one contributor's description of a car as "gay." I've been watching threads for a few days now, waiting for a remark like this to pop up. I then set the character I created to work on being obnoxiously moralistic with other readers about the moral question of using such a word to describe an object, which in this case was a car.
Sorry. Wandering back into talking bks again.
For the record I haven't driven a mini or a 500 so I don't have an opinion on the dynamics of either vehicle, but as shameless reincarnations go I prefer the look of the 500.
Dream drives would be a 4.0 GT3 RS, Zonda 760RS, an Atom or 500 Caterham, any M3 or M5, a 67 Shelby 350, a 92 Legacy RS in McRae Rothman colours.
The problem with a dream garage is the lack of walls doesn't help to focus what you are allowed to have.
In answer to the two questions, yes I love cars. I look at the PH website everyday to see what new or old cars have popped onto PHs radar.
And yes, most academics have to talk b
ks for a living.The moral part came in the form of one contributor's description of a car as "gay." I've been watching threads for a few days now, waiting for a remark like this to pop up. I then set the character I created to work on being obnoxiously moralistic with other readers about the moral question of using such a word to describe an object, which in this case was a car.
Sorry. Wandering back into talking b
ks again.For the record I haven't driven a mini or a 500 so I don't have an opinion on the dynamics of either vehicle, but as shameless reincarnations go I prefer the look of the 500.
Dream drives would be a 4.0 GT3 RS, Zonda 760RS, an Atom or 500 Caterham, any M3 or M5, a 67 Shelby 350, a 92 Legacy RS in McRae Rothman colours.
The problem with a dream garage is the lack of walls doesn't help to focus what you are allowed to have.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff