computer user: understand technology

from ConceptNet
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents user
Weight: 0.67
, information
Weight: 0.56
, program
Weight: 0.50
, everyone
Weight: 0.50
Siblings computer programmer
Weight: 0.81
, customer
Weight: 0.65
, computer database
Weight: 0.35
, computer file
Weight: 0.34
, free software
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
understand technology 1.00
wants to be understand 0.80
requires know how computer work 0.76
be motivated by new software 0.76

Priors about this statement

Cues

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Joint Necessity Sufficiency Implication Entailment Contradiction Entropy

Evidence

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(program, be motivated by new software)
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(computer user, understand technology)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(program, requires know how computer work)
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(computer user, understand technology)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.15
Plausible(everyone, wants to be understand)
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(computer user, understand technology)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(computer user, understand technology)
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Plausible(everyone, wants to be understand)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(computer user, understand technology)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(program, requires know how computer work)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(computer user, understand technology)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(program, be motivated by new software)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.26
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(computer user, understand technology)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(program, be motivated by new software)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(computer user, understand technology)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(everyone, wants to be understand)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(computer user, understand technology)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(program, requires know how computer work)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.29
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(program, be motivated by new software)
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(computer user, understand technology)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(computer user, understand technology)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(program, requires know how computer work)
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(computer user, understand technology)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(computer user, understand technology)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.15
Plausible(everyone, wants to be understand)
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(computer user, understand technology)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(computer user, understand technology)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(computer user, understand technology)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Salient(computer user, understand technology)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Salient(computer user, understand technology)
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(computer user, understand technology)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(computer user, understand technology)

Typical implies Plausible

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(computer user, understand technology)
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(computer user, understand technology)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.35
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(computer user, understand technology)
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Typical(program, requires know how computer work)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(computer user, understand technology)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(everyone, wants to be understand)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(computer user, understand technology)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(program, be motivated by new software)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.20
Typical(computer user, understand technology)
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Typical(program, requires know how computer work)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.20
Typical(computer user, understand technology)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(everyone, wants to be understand)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.20
Typical(computer user, understand technology)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(program, be motivated by new software)