Why Integrity Is Important Now
The IntegrityMeter: Bush administration integrity to the United States Constitution
WE NEED YOUR INPUT TO MAKE THIS WORK: an incomplete approach will be inaccurate, so please post your comments, thoughts, rankings etc in the comment box below or go to HERE to post on many different topics.
It's time to build some foundations, and some bridges, in American culture. The information we receive determines our perceptions; our perceptions determine what appear to be logical courses of actions. This seems self-evident. But the crucial truth which emerges is that if we do not share the basis of our information, our perceptions will diverge, and our beliefs in what actions are the right ones will polarize.
This has, apparently, already happened.
The IntegrityMeter is one approach to creating a shared information base that can serve as the foundation for shared, rather than polarized, decision-making. It is one we can all contribute to -right, left, high, low, center, and those independents among us who refuse to be characterized by a single spectrum.
We ARE making one big assumption: it is that people from all parts of the political spectrum believe in and will support integrity, and be willing to create a place for it to help guide our public policy. If you don't agree with this - that you yourself have integrity and are willing to be guided by it - then we kindly refer you to some other website.
We believe integrity is a fundamental principle. Thus, the IntegrityMeter is a constructed measure of integrity - a measure of truth, of consistency of own words to actions, to principles, and to legal frameworks such as the Constitution.
Although some of us are scientists, we are not claiming this is scientific - yet it is a measure that we can discuss, debate, and perhaps come to agreement on. We are certainly open to changing it to reflect the most objective estimation, so feel free to contact us or comment in the comment box at the bottom of the page on what you think the measure should be, or how we can improve this one.
Briefly,
- the INTEGRITYMETER SCORE is equal to
- the importance of the issue (because the more important it is, the more we should care about it)
- multiplied by
- the truth or consistency of the things being compared. So,
INTEGRITY = (IMPORTANCE) x (TRUTH/CONSISTENCY)
'Importance' is on a scale of 0 to 10, with '0' meaning utterly unimportant, and '10' meaning 'incredibly or totally important'.
Truth & Consistency (T& C) is on a scale of +10 to -10:
+10 ..+9..+8..+7..+6..+5..+4..+3..+2..+1..0..-1..-2..-3..-4..-5..-6..-7..-8..-9..-10
All the positive numbers indicate at least some degree of truth/consistency, with 10 being Totally True & Consistent. All the negative numbers indicte some degree of untruth, inconsistency, or discrepancy. A slight inaccuracy, for nstance, would be -1 , while a complete and total fabrication would be -10.
When you multiply importance x T&C, you generate a scale of +100 (total Integrity) to -100 (total lack of integrity).
We think it will be helpful to have this kind of a measure to hold against our candidates, our institutions, our government and its policies, and our own words and actions in the world.
More detailed description and diagrams are below and will be enhanced shortly.
- IMPORTANCE : some examples
- 0 = you drop your napkin alone at dinner. Who cares?
- 1
- 2 = Minor harm or good, but some noticeable impact or effect that is not longlasting.
- 3
- 4
- 5 = Moderate harm or positive impact, cost or effect. Not irreparable if negative.
- 6
- 7
- 8 = Major harm or impact; Fundamental principles compromised.
- 9 = NEGATIVE: Major physical or other irreparable harm. Torture, costly damage to infrastructure. POSITIVE: Major positive effects for large numbers of people.
- 10 = Death or irreparable harm. Vast sums of money involved. Future of many compromised. POSITIVE: New potential opened for large number of people and the future
Importance is a multiplier or amplifier for the 'Truth & Consistency'(T&C) factor.
T&C is a measure of truth or consistency, depending on which is being measured. For instance, you can tell a consistent lie - high consistency and low truth - or you can tell a lie and then tell the truth, which is not consistent but at least ends up with the truth. Essentially, we are measuring 'discrepancy' between what was said and done, what was said and what was true, or multiple other kinds of discrepancies which reflect the integrity of the speaker or agent.
We think it will be helpful to have this kind of a measure to hold against our candidates, our institutions, our government and its policies, and our own words and actions in the world. We hope you do too!