What is the "Parable Test"?

Previously, I mentioned something I refer to as a "Parable Test".  I'm now going to define this test and how it applies to everyday life.

In a simple definition, the measurement of the Parable Test is that something must meet at least one of four criteria (though ideally it would meet all of them): Quantifiable, Justifiable, Verifiable, Testable.  But what's that exactly mean?


Many years ago, I was rather open and flexible with people.  You could say that I allowed people to run me over verbally and emotionally.  It wasn't until I reached 25 that I started to realize that what I was doing was not healthy, and I did have a very tough manager who showed me that allowing people to run me over would not result in success.  Indeed, it wasn't until I pushed back on her about something that our relationship truly improved, and success came shortly thereafter and has continued on since.

I tried to wrap my head around what I was doing wrong.  That was a mistake.  Instead of thinking about what I was doing, I needed to focus on what I was not doing - I wasn't analyzing anything that was said to me by anyone.  I wasn't criticizing people's decisions or assessments of me.  I wasn't countering negative feedback.  I wasn't calling people out for throwing out random statements due to emotions rather than logic.  It then occurred to me that the real problem was even simpler: when people talk, what they say is either driven from emotion or logic.  If driven from emotion, it has less of a change of standing up to scrutiny than when driven by logic.  It was up to me to evaluate and respond accordingly.

Thus, the so-called "Parable Test" was born.

Quantifiable

Is what you're saying backed up by data or are you just throwing things out there with no real proof or evidence?  For example, if you told me that every Asian woman likes White men, that's not quantifiable, because (A) there's no way you could have met every Asian woman there is, and (B) though the majority of Asian women may indicate a preference to White men, there's no way to know whether that logic applies to all of the various Asian subcultures: Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Cambodian, Thai, etc.  Therefore, the statement "every Asian woman likes White men" is faulty and cannot be quantified by any known means.  It's a statement thrown out under emotion rather than logic.

A more appropriate statement would be, "in my experience, the Asian women I have encountered have all preferred White men."  That statement can be quantified, because if you've met 30 Asian women and all of them stated a preference for White men, the statement becomes true.

Justifiable

Can you back up what you're saying with action or fact, and can you convince me that what you're saying makes sense to someone other than yourself?  For example, if you told me that the only way to ensure satisfaction is to custom build something because it gives you control over the outcome, that's not justifiable, because (A) you're pigeonholing the definition of "satisfaction" to that which applies to your own opinion, and (B) you're assuming that no product exists that can properly satisfy others which is arrogant.  If I wanted to get a home entertainment center, yes...I could buy the components from Home Depot or whatever and put it together myself, and I might very well be "satisfied" with the result, but others may think I created a piece of garbage.  This is because their definition of "satisfaction" differs from mine: some people consider "satisfaction" to be limited to what meets the basic objective, while others expect perfection.

A more appropriate statement might be, "I can only be satisfied with something I build myself."  That statement is justifiable, because you're saying that you personally do not find satisfaction with things created by others which, while still arrogant, can be justified.

Verifiable

Can I independently verify what you're saying to me, or are you making up statements as fact despite others not being able to verify them?  For example, if you told me that cops are all racist, that's not verifiable, despite it being a silly generalization based on the errors of a select group of police officers.  There are over a million police officers across the United States and tons more world wide; it is not possible to find all of them, and even if one could, you can't read their minds to identify racism if they don't project it in some way.  In other words, you might find a few cops who do things that might be considered racist, but you can't verify their racism, nor can you identify racism where it's not obvious, and you can't read the minds of all cops to identify the same.

A more appropriate statement might be, "There are racist police officers."  That statement can be verified, because we have already seen instances where police officers have been disciplined for racial profiling.  

Testable

If you give me a statement that defines an outcome, can I test the statement to get to the same outcome (thus increasing its credibility in my eyes)?  If I can test it, do I reach the same outcome?  That's the trick here: it's not just being able to test, but also being able to reach the same result if I can test.  If either fails, it's not truly testable.

For example, if you told me that girls with short hair get less dates than girls with long hair, that test as stated is not testable, because (A) there's no way to test with every female in the world and (B) even if you could gather all women, there are other factors besides hair that may very well affect the outcome.

A more appropriate statement might be, "I have seen girls with long hair get hit on more frequently than girls with short hair."  That statement can be tested, because I'd simply need to be with you watching the women that you've observed in order to verify the same.

Once you understand all four of the above it's easy to see how it applies when people talk to you.