tool: were important to hunters-gatherers

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents method
Weight: 0.65
, gift
Weight: 0.62
, mechanism
Weight: 0.62
, resource
Weight: 0.61
Siblings metaphor
Weight: 0.71
, task force
Weight: 0.69
, spreadsheet
Weight: 0.69
, free software
Weight: 0.69
, calculator
Weight: 0.68

Related properties

Property Similarity
were important to hunters-gatherers 1.00
be important to organisation 0.88
were helpful to early people 0.84
be important for being 0.84
were helpful to people 0.83
be important to people 0.83
be important for us 0.80
be important for human being 0.79
be important in country 0.79
be important to us 0.79

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

0.39
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(resource, be important to organisation)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(resource, be important for human being)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(resource, be important to people)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(resource, be important to organisation)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(resource, be important to people)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(resource, be important for human being)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.23
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(resource, be important to organisation)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(resource, be important to people)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(resource, be important for human being)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(resource, be important to organisation)
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(resource, be important to people)
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(resource, be important for human being)
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)

Salient implies Plausible

0.27
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Salient(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)

Similarity expansion

0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.99
Salient(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Salient(tool, were helpful to early people)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.98
Typical(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(tool, were helpful to early people)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.99
Salient(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Salient(tool, were helpful to people)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.98
Typical(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(tool, were helpful to people)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(tool, were helpful to early people)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(tool, were helpful to people)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(tool, were helpful to early people)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(tool, were helpful to people)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.99
Salient(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)

Typical implies Plausible

0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(resource, be important to organisation)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(resource, be important to people)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(resource, be important for human being)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.98
Typical(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(resource, be important to organisation)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.98
Typical(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(resource, be important to people)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.98
Typical(tool, were important to hunters-gatherers)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(resource, be important for human being)