Plagiarism
I read in Daniel Kahneman’s book about a method to improve grades without really improving knowledge. Something that relies on the heuristics he discovered. He claims that if you start answering the questions you know best at the beginning of the test (and not necessarily according to the order), the test taker will judge incomplete answers (answered at the end) as correct. He will assume based on the excellent answers at the beginning of the test that the ambiguity and incompleteness do not stem from a lack of knowledge. The question is, is this plagiarism? Assuming that this tactic is used to improve a score without a real basis in knowledge, is this plagiarism?
It’s a bit reminiscent of the question about salt flatness (asked to steal an idea), but I’m interested in the theoretical aspect of the concept and its limits and I wondered if there was a connection between the scenario I described and the above concept.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
0 Answers
From an explanation, I would say that there is no prohibition in this, since I use my legitimate tools (like catching a judge on a good day). Of course, if I prevent negative biases in the weighting of the score, it is legitimate.
One thing is clear. If you do this for your own reasons (because it is convenient for you to answer first what you know well) then there is certainly no prohibition. You should not give up your own interest to spare him bias.
On second thought, it seems to me that it has nothing to do with plagiarism. You didn’t withhold any piece of information from him. You simply manipulated him. It has nothing to do with the prohibition of plagiarism. On the boundaries of the prohibition of plagiarism, see my article here:
גניבת דעת וקניין רוחני
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
From an explanation, I would say that there is no prohibition in this, since I use my legitimate tools (like catching a judge on a good day). Of course, if I prevent negative biases in the weighting of the score, it is legitimate.
One thing is clear. If you do this for your own reasons (because it is convenient for you to answer first what you know well) then there is certainly no prohibition. You should not give up your own interest to spare him bias.
On second thought, it seems to me that it has nothing to do with plagiarism. You didn’t withhold any piece of information from him. You simply manipulated him. It has nothing to do with the prohibition of plagiarism. On the boundaries of the prohibition of plagiarism, see my article here:
גניבת דעת וקניין רוחני
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
From an explanation, I would say that there is no prohibition in this, since I use my legitimate tools (like catching a judge on a good day). Of course, if I prevent negative biases in the weighting of the score, it is legitimate.
One thing is clear. If you do this for your own reasons (because it is convenient for you to answer first what you know well) then there is certainly no prohibition. You should not give up your own interest to spare him bias.
On second thought, it seems to me that it has nothing to do with plagiarism. You didn’t withhold any piece of information from him. You simply manipulated him. It has nothing to do with the prohibition of plagiarism. On the boundaries of the prohibition of plagiarism, see my article here:
גניבת דעת וקניין רוחני
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
From an explanation, I would say that there is no prohibition in this, since I use my legitimate tools (like catching a judge on a good day). Of course, if I prevent negative biases in the weighting of the score, it is legitimate.
One thing is clear. If you do this for your own reasons (because it is convenient for you to answer first what you know well) then there is certainly no prohibition. You should not give up your own interest to spare him bias.
On second thought, it seems to me that it has nothing to do with plagiarism. You didn’t withhold any piece of information from him. You simply manipulated him. It has nothing to do with the prohibition of plagiarism. On the boundaries of the prohibition of plagiarism, see my article here:
גניבת דעת וקניין רוחני
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
From an explanation, I would say that there is no prohibition in this, since I use my legitimate tools (like catching a judge on a good day). Of course, if I prevent negative biases in the weighting of the score, it is legitimate.
One thing is clear. If you do this for your own reasons (because it is convenient for you to answer first what you know well) then there is certainly no prohibition. You should not give up your own interest to spare him bias.
On second thought, it seems to me that it has nothing to do with plagiarism. You didn’t withhold any piece of information from him. You simply manipulated him. It has nothing to do with the prohibition of plagiarism. On the boundaries of the prohibition of plagiarism, see my article here:
גניבת דעת וקניין רוחני
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
From an explanation, I would say that there is no prohibition in this, since I use my legitimate tools (like catching a judge on a good day). Of course, if I prevent negative biases in the weighting of the score, it is legitimate.
One thing is clear. If you do this for your own reasons (because it is convenient for you to answer first what you know well) then there is certainly no prohibition. You should not give up your own interest to spare him bias.
On second thought, it seems to me that it has nothing to do with plagiarism. You didn’t withhold any piece of information from him. You simply manipulated him. It has nothing to do with the prohibition of plagiarism. On the boundaries of the prohibition of plagiarism, see my article here:
גניבת דעת וקניין רוחני
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
From an explanation, I would say that there is no prohibition in this, since I use my legitimate tools (like catching a judge on a good day). Of course, if I prevent negative biases in the weighting of the score, it is legitimate.
One thing is clear. If you do this for your own reasons (because it is convenient for you to answer first what you know well) then there is certainly no prohibition. You should not give up your own interest to spare him bias.
On second thought, it seems to me that it has nothing to do with plagiarism. You didn’t withhold any piece of information from him. You simply manipulated him. It has nothing to do with the prohibition of plagiarism. On the boundaries of the prohibition of plagiarism, see my article here:
גניבת דעת וקניין רוחני
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
From an explanation, I would say that there is no prohibition in this, since I use my legitimate tools (like catching a judge on a good day). Of course, if I prevent negative biases in the weighting of the score, it is legitimate.
One thing is clear. If you do this for your own reasons (because it is convenient for you to answer first what you know well) then there is certainly no prohibition. You should not give up your own interest to spare him bias.
On second thought, it seems to me that it has nothing to do with plagiarism. You didn’t withhold any piece of information from him. You simply manipulated him. It has nothing to do with the prohibition of plagiarism. On the boundaries of the prohibition of plagiarism, see my article here:
גניבת דעת וקניין רוחני
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
From an explanation, I would say that there is no prohibition in this, since I use my legitimate tools (like catching a judge on a good day). Of course, if I prevent negative biases in the weighting of the score, it is legitimate.
One thing is clear. If you do this for your own reasons (because it is convenient for you to answer first what you know well) then there is certainly no prohibition. You should not give up your own interest to spare him bias.
On second thought, it seems to me that it has nothing to do with plagiarism. You didn’t withhold any piece of information from him. You simply manipulated him. It has nothing to do with the prohibition of plagiarism. On the boundaries of the prohibition of plagiarism, see my article here:
גניבת דעת וקניין רוחני
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
From an explanation, I would say that there is no prohibition in this, since I use my legitimate tools (like catching a judge on a good day). Of course, if I prevent negative biases in the weighting of the score, it is legitimate.
One thing is clear. If you do this for your own reasons (because it is convenient for you to answer first what you know well) then there is certainly no prohibition. You should not give up your own interest to spare him bias.
On second thought, it seems to me that it has nothing to do with plagiarism. You didn’t withhold any piece of information from him. You simply manipulated him. It has nothing to do with the prohibition of plagiarism. On the boundaries of the prohibition of plagiarism, see my article here:
גניבת דעת וקניין רוחני
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
From an explanation, I would say that there is no prohibition in this, since I use my legitimate tools (like catching a judge on a good day). Of course, if I prevent negative biases in the weighting of the score, it is legitimate.
One thing is clear. If you do this for your own reasons (because it is convenient for you to answer first what you know well) then there is certainly no prohibition. You should not give up your own interest to spare him bias.
On second thought, it seems to me that it has nothing to do with plagiarism. You didn’t withhold any piece of information from him. You simply manipulated him. It has nothing to do with the prohibition of plagiarism. On the boundaries of the prohibition of plagiarism, see my article here:
גניבת דעת וקניין רוחני
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
From an explanation, I would say that there is no prohibition in this, since I use my legitimate tools (like catching a judge on a good day). Of course, if I prevent negative biases in the weighting of the score, it is legitimate.
One thing is clear. If you do this for your own reasons (because it is convenient for you to answer first what you know well) then there is certainly no prohibition. You should not give up your own interest to spare him bias.
On second thought, it seems to me that it has nothing to do with plagiarism. You didn’t withhold any piece of information from him. You simply manipulated him. It has nothing to do with the prohibition of plagiarism. On the boundaries of the prohibition of plagiarism, see my article here:
גניבת דעת וקניין רוחני
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
From an explanation, I would say that there is no prohibition in this, since I use my legitimate tools (like catching a judge on a good day). Of course, if I prevent negative biases in the weighting of the score, it is legitimate.
One thing is clear. If you do this for your own reasons (because it is convenient for you to answer first what you know well) then there is certainly no prohibition. You should not give up your own interest to spare him bias.
On second thought, it seems to me that it has nothing to do with plagiarism. You didn’t withhold any piece of information from him. You simply manipulated him. It has nothing to do with the prohibition of plagiarism. On the boundaries of the prohibition of plagiarism, see my article here:
גניבת דעת וקניין רוחני
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
From an explanation, I would say that there is no prohibition in this, since I use my legitimate tools (like catching a judge on a good day). Of course, if I prevent negative biases in the weighting of the score, it is legitimate.
One thing is clear. If you do this for your own reasons (because it is convenient for you to answer first what you know well) then there is certainly no prohibition. You should not give up your own interest to spare him bias.
On second thought, it seems to me that it has nothing to do with plagiarism. You didn’t withhold any piece of information from him. You simply manipulated him. It has nothing to do with the prohibition of plagiarism. On the boundaries of the prohibition of plagiarism, see my article here:
גניבת דעת וקניין רוחני
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
From an explanation, I would say that there is no prohibition in this, since I use my legitimate tools (like catching a judge on a good day). Of course, if I prevent negative biases in the weighting of the score, it is legitimate.
One thing is clear. If you do this for your own reasons (because it is convenient for you to answer first what you know well) then there is certainly no prohibition. You should not give up your own interest to spare him bias.
On second thought, it seems to me that it has nothing to do with plagiarism. You didn’t withhold any piece of information from him. You simply manipulated him. It has nothing to do with the prohibition of plagiarism. On the boundaries of the prohibition of plagiarism, see my article here:
גניבת דעת וקניין רוחני
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
From an explanation, I would say that there is no prohibition in this, since I use my legitimate tools (like catching a judge on a good day). Of course, if I prevent negative biases in the weighting of the score, it is legitimate.
One thing is clear. If you do this for your own reasons (because it is convenient for you to answer first what you know well) then there is certainly no prohibition. You should not give up your own interest to spare him bias.
On second thought, it seems to me that it has nothing to do with plagiarism. You didn’t withhold any piece of information from him. You simply manipulated him. It has nothing to do with the prohibition of plagiarism. On the boundaries of the prohibition of plagiarism, see my article here:
גניבת דעת וקניין רוחני
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
From an explanation, I would say that there is no prohibition in this, since I use my legitimate tools (like catching a judge on a good day). Of course, if I prevent negative biases in the weighting of the score, it is legitimate.
One thing is clear. If you do this for your own reasons (because it is convenient for you to answer first what you know well) then there is certainly no prohibition. You should not give up your own interest to spare him bias.
On second thought, it seems to me that it has nothing to do with plagiarism. You didn’t withhold any piece of information from him. You simply manipulated him. It has nothing to do with the prohibition of plagiarism. On the boundaries of the prohibition of plagiarism, see my article here:
גניבת דעת וקניין רוחני
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
From an explanation, I would say that there is no prohibition in this, since I use my legitimate tools (like catching a judge on a good day). Of course, if I prevent negative biases in the weighting of the score, it is legitimate.
One thing is clear. If you do this for your own reasons (because it is convenient for you to answer first what you know well) then there is certainly no prohibition. You should not give up your own interest to spare him bias.
On second thought, it seems to me that it has nothing to do with plagiarism. You didn’t withhold any piece of information from him. You simply manipulated him. It has nothing to do with the prohibition of plagiarism. On the boundaries of the prohibition of plagiarism, see my article here:
גניבת דעת וקניין רוחני
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
From an explanation, I would say that there is no prohibition in this, since I use my legitimate tools (like catching a judge on a good day). Of course, if I prevent negative biases in the weighting of the score, it is legitimate.
One thing is clear. If you do this for your own reasons (because it is convenient for you to answer first what you know well) then there is certainly no prohibition. You should not give up your own interest to spare him bias.
On second thought, it seems to me that it has nothing to do with plagiarism. You didn’t withhold any piece of information from him. You simply manipulated him. It has nothing to do with the prohibition of plagiarism. On the boundaries of the prohibition of plagiarism, see my article here:
גניבת דעת וקניין רוחני
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
From an explanation, I would say that there is no prohibition in this, since I use my legitimate tools (like catching a judge on a good day). Of course, if I prevent negative biases in the weighting of the score, it is legitimate.
One thing is clear. If you do this for your own reasons (because it is convenient for you to answer first what you know well) then there is certainly no prohibition. You should not give up your own interest to spare him bias.
On second thought, it seems to me that it has nothing to do with plagiarism. You didn’t withhold any piece of information from him. You simply manipulated him. It has nothing to do with the prohibition of plagiarism. On the boundaries of the prohibition of plagiarism, see my article here:
גניבת דעת וקניין רוחני
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
From an explanation, I would say that there is no prohibition in this, since I use my legitimate tools (like catching a judge on a good day). Of course, if I prevent negative biases in the weighting of the score, it is legitimate.
One thing is clear. If you do this for your own reasons (because it is convenient for you to answer first what you know well) then there is certainly no prohibition. You should not give up your own interest to spare him bias.
On second thought, it seems to me that it has nothing to do with plagiarism. You didn’t withhold any piece of information from him. You simply manipulated him. It has nothing to do with the prohibition of plagiarism. On the boundaries of the prohibition of plagiarism, see my article here:
גניבת דעת וקניין רוחני
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
