specialization: was important to people

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents thing
Weight: 0.56
, factor
Weight: 0.48
, program
Weight: 0.48
, option
Weight: 0.47
Siblings facet
Weight: 0.45
, characteristic
Weight: 0.31
, niche
Weight: 0.31
, design pattern
Weight: 0.31
, socialization
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
was important to people 1.00
was important to ancient people 0.86
be important in business 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

0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(factor, be important in business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Typical(specialization, was important to people)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(specialization, was important to people) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(factor, be important in business)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.17
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(specialization, was important to people) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(factor, be important in business)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(specialization, was important to people) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(niche, be important in business)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(factor, be important in business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(specialization, was important to people) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Plausible(specialization, was important to people)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.33
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(specialization, was important to people) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(niche, be important in business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(niche, be important in business)

Salient implies Plausible

0.16
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(specialization, was important to people) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Salient(specialization, was important to people)

Similarity expansion

0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(specialization, was important to people) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(specialization, was important to ancient people)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(specialization, was important to people) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(specialization, be important in business)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.06
Typical(specialization, was important to people) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Typical(specialization, was important to ancient people)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.59
Salient(specialization, was important to people) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Salient(specialization, was important to ancient people)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(specialization, was important to people) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(specialization, was important to ancient people)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.59
Salient(specialization, was important to people) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Salient(specialization, be important in business)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(specialization, was important to people) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(specialization, be important in business)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.06
Typical(specialization, was important to people) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(specialization, be important in business)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
Salient(specialization, was important to people) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Typical(specialization, was important to people) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(specialization, was important to people)

Typical implies Plausible

0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(specialization, was important to people) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Typical(specialization, was important to people)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.12
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(specialization, was important to people) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(factor, be important in business)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.02
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.23
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(specialization, was important to people) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(niche, be important in business)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.15
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.06
Typical(specialization, was important to people) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(factor, be important in business)