Rough Agreement

The IETF described ways to reach a rough consensus as follows: [1] the total value of diamonds traded through the CCP The proposal for a weak agreement in aesthetic effects assessments is reinforced by the finding that we have not seen greater convergence among experts. Individual differences in the knowledge of art or the interest of art do not matter for the degree of agreement in the perception of aesthetic effects: when people have more knowledge or interest, they no longer agree and have no more common evaluation than those who have less knowledge or interest. Fourth, apart from our comparison between experts and non-experts, we had a relatively homogeneous sample: all of our participants were the so-called “WEIRD” (Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic) [53], in addition to the large proportion of women cited above. This does not determine the extent to which our results can be generalized for other population groups. However, given that we found a rather weak consensus on this homogeneous sample, it seems unlikely that a greater consensus would be reached in a more heterogeneous sample. Although it is theoretically possible that other samples may be more consistent, this seems unbelievable, given that the theories we tested come from the history of Western art and have therefore been tested in a culturally congruent context. First of all, in the light of the literature on aesthetic effects and modal correspondence, it is surprising to note that there is more agreement on the complex image than on the different elements. One of the reasons may be that, although the colors and lines varied in our study, they had no systematic variation: if you wanted to test a modal correspondence between a visual (z.B. colors, lines) and haptic domain (the haptic domain is implemented in our design by the aesthetic effects of smooth-smooth,soft-hard, cold) one would normally focus on a color aspect ( B brightness). However, in our design, the different color stimuli varied not only in brightness, but also in hue and saturation. In the same way, the lines differed in alignment, thickness, etc.

From this point of view, even the lower functions in our design had several aspects. This variation may have masked some of the modal matches. However, if we look at these effects in an aesthetic context, we are dealing with irritating materials that will always have relatively large variations. If we compare one image to another, it is unlikely that we will distinguish it only by the force of the line. This does not mean that it is not worth examining how the thickness of the line contributes to our aesthetic perception, but only that the theory that cross-equivalents would apply to such complex stimuli is seriously questioned if these cross-sectional correspondences occur only at a very low level and do not reflect images that are too complex as works of art (because there are too many other factors that influence our judgment) , the theory that cross-matches are applicable to such complex stimuli is seriously questioned. To test the theory that these effects apply to works of art, we need to test them with real works of art as stimuli, and that is exactly what we did in this study. While our results do not indicate that these effects are not applicable, they do indicate that people do not agree with these effects. That is, the matches are very strange. The Kimberley Process organized 3 special KP Chair forums on the evaluation of rough diamonds to address the problem of undervaluing rough diamonds. To measure aesthetic effects, we used 14 scales of evaluation. Each rating scale was a bipolar scale of type 7 Likert (also called semantic differential), which meant that each aesthetic effect was represented by opposite pairs as poles of the scale, for example. B “hot-cold.” On the basis [2], we used the terms: positive negative, passive-active, living-quiet, happy-sad-peaceful-sweet-sweet, warm, cold,