Good question. Here's the fable, retold by Wikipedia:
"A scorpion wants to cross a river but cannot swim, so it asks a frog to carry it across. The frog hesitates, afraid that the scorpion might sting it, but the scorpion promises not to, pointing out that it would drown if it killed the frog in the middle of the river. The frog considers this argument sensible and agrees to transport the scorpion. Midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog anyway, dooming them both. The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung despite knowing the consequence, to which the scorpion replies: "I am sorry, but I couldn't resist the urge. It's in my nature.
Also, according to Wikipedia, "The earliest known appearance of this fable is in the 1933 Russian novel, The German Quarter by Lev Nitoburg"
1933 in Russia would be a good test case to see if the article's proposed method of 'probabilistic contextualization' could work - as there's broadly two different historical paradigms for understanding the great purges that began that year, on the one hand, the result of targeted assassinations within the USSR by fascist powers, or, on the other hand, as the result of Stalin's psychotic paranoia.
Could the probabilistic-contextualistic method bring some depolarization?
"A scorpion wants to cross a river but cannot swim, so it asks a frog to carry it across. The frog hesitates, afraid that the scorpion might sting it, but the scorpion promises not to, pointing out that it would drown if it killed the frog in the middle of the river. The frog considers this argument sensible and agrees to transport the scorpion. Midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog anyway, dooming them both. The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung despite knowing the consequence, to which the scorpion replies: "I am sorry, but I couldn't resist the urge. It's in my nature.
Also, according to Wikipedia, "The earliest known appearance of this fable is in the 1933 Russian novel, The German Quarter by Lev Nitoburg"
1933 in Russia would be a good test case to see if the article's proposed method of 'probabilistic contextualization' could work - as there's broadly two different historical paradigms for understanding the great purges that began that year, on the one hand, the result of targeted assassinations within the USSR by fascist powers, or, on the other hand, as the result of Stalin's psychotic paranoia.
Could the probabilistic-contextualistic method bring some depolarization?