Talk:Integrity

message: There is no mention of environmental integrity despite it redirecting to this page. It's an important aspect of environmental ethics, especially since Leopold, the origin of one of the first ecocentric ethics in the west, mentions it as one of the things relevant in determining if an action is right or wrong according to his land ethic. 76.78.203.193 (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental Integrity 

message: Many people say that integrity is always good, but you have to  earn it by your behavior, do the right things,listen and be friendly to all people, follow ALL laws and rules,but most of all be responsible.If you pass that task or not it's who you are and how you are.Don't try to be good be yourself and if your bad your bad, but if your good your good.Integrity means a lot of things but,thats what i believe.Please listen to this paragraph it will get you somewhere one day or any other day, because this helped me.
: I added that Integrity also refers to Accuracy.   In Information Assurance, accuracy of information is a vital principle. --74.107.74.39 (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to earn integrity and the right way 

message: :Forgive my ignorance of customary formatting. Regarding the above linguistic note: You may want to look into ontology. The nouns you refer to are considered properties and only exist (depending on the theory) insofar as they are predicated of another existent. See also predication, universals, particulars. This is off the top of my head, but it might help you approach your goal.
::As far as ontology/epistemology is concerned, what you said about ontology is valid only for nominalist and eventually for conceptualist theories. Realist theories say that properties really exist. E.g., the property of having beauty (being beautiful) is due to participating to the Idea of Beauty. Beauty exists in itself. Even the language tells it "She has beauty", i.e. she owns a piece of the Idea of Beauty. Altough, from a realist standpoint, more correctly it would be said that she participates in Beauty, or that Beauty has her.
::Further, "quality" is also a noun. There is no "qualitous" or so.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgeorgescu (talk • contribs) 15:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Integrity Notes 

message: As said, there is an easy way to cheat at integrity tests. But not all answers have to be a 100% agreement with the mentioned attributes, because no person in that area is so dumb in order for him/her to believe in a 100% perfect integrity score. Tgeorgescu 10:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Observation in respect to integrity tests

message: On 2008-09-26 at 0556 hours an unregistered Wikipedian using a previously non-editing IP address removed almost 50 percent of this article, obliterating multiple tags and eliminating various views of integrity without making any comment. Failing an explanation on the Talk-page, I propose to restore the deleted material. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the article from massive vandalism committed by a group of cultists called "Psycans", who spread their ideology as if it were a mainstream scientific fact. E.g., there are no (nummerical) measures for ethical values -- the edit made by Psycans is a complete rant. I suggest that this page become protected by moderators, and that the vandals (often known only by their IP's) are banned from Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Why is it plain vandalism? First, deleting relevant information without due reason (we may guess that the adepts of Psycanics feel extremely uncomfortable with mainstream viewpoints, thus seek to delete mainstream information from Wikipedia...). Second, as written by User:Hgilbert on October 29, 2007, "Wikipedia does have clear guidelines about an editor not putting in his/her own formulations, even if based upon a carefully built case and backed up with evidence; instead, we as editors should report on the conclusions drawn by authorities in the field. It's well worth reading the guidelines as to where the line is to be drawn between reporting on conclusions and drawing one's own. ... By the way, only peer-reviewed, print-published, non-polemical sources should be used; see Verifiability standards to clarify this (and for exceptions)."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgeorgescu (talk • contribs) 17:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappearance of material 

message: I want to ask you what is the depth and the breadth of a value system? Are they measured in centimeters? Why value systems should be congruent "with a wider range of observations"? What does that mean? Does it mean that the subculture having those values has to generate realistic behavior (as opposed to idealistic behavior)? Does it mean that they have to behave as they preach? Why do people are required to account for the discrepancy between parts of a value system? Does it matter at all how they construct such account? Or they are simply hypocrite, regardless of how they account for this discrepance?
I remind you that "This article is about the ethical concept. For other uses, see Integrity (disambiguation)." So, I suggest to move the contributions about mathematical integrity elsewhere, or start an article Integrity (mathematics).
Further I do not understand what those titles Testing via... mean. Do they mean that one tests (measures) integrity? A scientific theory is falsified or not falsified, it is falsifiable or not falsifiable. So what is that discussion about testing (measuring) integrity? How does one measure how much scientific integrity some theory has? The scientific integrity means "The integrity of science is based on a set of testing principles known as the scientific method. To the extent that a proof follows the requirements of the method, it is considered scientific. The scientific method includes measures to ensure unbiased testing and the requirement that the hypothesis have falsifiability." I.e. integrity is specific to the scientific community when it operates 100% as it should (as in Merton's norms). It is not a characteristic of scientific theories.
A reader cannot understand what psychological integrity tests are about, as the article looks at this time. It writes: "Testing via Psychological Tests The pretension of such tests to detect fake answers plays a crucial role in this respect, because the naive really believe such outright lies and behave accordingly, reporting their past deviance because they fear that otherwise their answers will reveal it. The more Pollyannaish the answers, the higher the integrity score.[1]" This is too elliptic to be understandable. It does not say what these tests measure and what their use is.
Further, I know of no (serious) consistent values system. The more serious and respectable a value system is, the more contradictions it seems to contain. This is because the accuse of hypocrisy is itself hyppocrite, since nobody lives at the top (height) of his/her moral and political ideals, so it is hypocritical to blame others for not living 100% by their own book. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the list of users who agree that integrity (ethical concept) cannot be measured or tested, and to assume otherwise is a hoax:
User:Sortitus
User:216.36.186.2
User:J-Star
User:Pedant17
User:Tgeorgescu 
Otherwise, start an article about Integrity (mathematics) with mentioning how scientific theories are said in the philosophy of mathematics to have integrity, what that means, and what is the source for that meaning in mainstream scientific-philosophic literature. I cannot immagine that there are nummerical measures or tests for such integrity (mathematical concept), since the philosophy of mathematics operates with concepts, not with nummerical measures. 
To put it bluntly, it is a lame thing to say that integrity (ethical concept) could be measured or tested. It is sheer nonsense, and you should not mix the philosophy of mathematics with ethics and psychological tests. 
I also support censorship of this article by moderators, and I affirm that persisting in this version of this article is an exercise in confusion and nonsense. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Undoing my recovery of "Integrity"

message: The following affirmation from "Integrity in ethics" sounds like utter rubbish to me: "If we define a value as an assumption upon which to extrapolate either implementation or other values, then a value system emerges as a set of consistent values and measures." So, help me out of my ignorance: how in God's name is one able to extrapolate a moral value? Use the square to make it right? How does one plot moral values on a graph? How does one then draw then a line to extrapolate a single moral value? What is the "implementation" of a value? Does it mean anything at all? Or is it just sheer nonsense?
[Comment: This was not my edit, and I do find it a little obscure, but my own 
interpretation of the word "extrapolate" in this context is "to use as 
the basis for action in the real world."  So, to extrapolate implementation 
from a value would be to act in an actual situation based upon that value. Diversitti (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What this means?

message: I cannot offer quotes from drs. R.J.A.M. Hulst's college, since it was a spoken college. On Van Minden's fame: in october 2006 was printed the 23rd revised print of the mentioned book. Having one's book printed anew 23 times says something about how popular such book is.
"Twee belangrijke uitgangspunten bij het gebruik van deze 'integriteitstests' (dat klinkt prettiger dan eerlijkheids- of leugentests) zijn:
1 Ze hebben een hoge validiteit en betrouwbaarheid.
2 De solicitant kan zich hierop niet voorbereiden, noch de test doorgronden; het zijn dus robuste instrumenten.
De werkelijkheid legt de zwakheden van deze tests bloot...
Schriftelijke tests
De schriftelijke integriteitstests zijn gemakkelijk af te nemen. Ze zijn gebaseerd op enkele aannamen, die er duidelijk in zijn terug te vinden:
Minder eerlijke personen:
1 rapporteren een grotere mate van oneerlijk gedrag
2 zijn geneigd eerder oneerlijk gedrag te verontschuldigen
3 zijn geneigd meer excuses of redenen voor diefstal aan te voeren
4 denken vaker over diefstal
5 zien vaker oneerlijk gedrag als acceptabel
6 zijn vaker implusief
7 zijn geneigd zichzelf en anderen zwaarder te straffen" (Van Minden, 2006:207).
Translation:
"Two important assumptions in the use of 'integrity tests' (they sound nicer than honesty or lies tests) are:
1 They have a high validity and reliability.
2 The person who wants to be employed neither can he/she prepare himself/herself for the test, nor can he/she understand the test; therefore they are robust instruments.
The reality exposes the weaknesses of such tests...
Written tests
The written integrity tests are easy to perform. They are based on some assumptions, which are clearly found therein:
Less honest persons:
1 they report a higher amount of dishonest behavior
2 they are more prone to find excuses for dishonest behavior
3 they are more prone to name excuses or reasons for theft
4 they think often about theft
5 they see often dishonest behavior as acceptable
6 they are often impulsive
7 they are prone to punish themselves and others severely" (loc. cit.) 
I think this is fair use of Van Minden's book. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quotes. Do they come from van Minden's cited book? Can we find a page-number? -- Discussion on the merits and reputation of van Minden might take place more appropriately at J. J. R. van Minden or on the  talk-page of that article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they come from his book, mentioned inside the article. As stated above in a Harvard-style quotation, they come from page 207. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested quotes 

message: The Integrity of the article, in particular the subsection on ethics, seems to be seriously flawed. At least I cannot bring together Immanuel Kant, Ayn Rand and Ted Bundy...--Olag (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The point about Bundy was: one could have integrity in doing evil, not just in doing the good. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

text: I agree completely. Ayn Rand wasn't a notable ethicist, anyway. --Lucas (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency

message: Mr H. believed that those of the Jewish faith were antagonistic towards the German people. All his actions and all his talk held fast to this ethic. Integrity is the broken door handle on the toilet of life, once you have integrity you could find yourself trousers down spewing the same old shit forever.
31.185.158.95 (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler had integrity  

message: Integrity. Integrities. Integritious? Not a word. Cant be used as an adjective, only noun.🤔. Integrited? Also, not real word. 🤔 2603:6011:C306:4FD5:ED2B:11ED:DCF7:88FB (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The correct yet different ways to use integrity