Let's say I make six predictions or statements that I believe to be true about someone I've never met and I say the statements taken as a whole are true with P = 0.7. Note that I do not claim to be psychic.
The P of each statement must then lie between 0.7 and 1.0, and if they are equal then the P of each statement is 0.7 ^ (1/6) = 0.94. Let's say 0.9 because I doubt any statement about this type of probability should be reported with two significant figures, and perhaps even one significant figure without an attached tolerance band is a bit of a stretch.... (read more)
Thanks, I bookmarked that, and will be more specific.
"Dark arts" =
Don't quit your day job.
Can you be specific, without paraphrasing? And no ad hominem, please.
At this point you might as well let the cat all the way out of the bag, if there is a cat to be let out.
Am I in physical danger? If yes, from whom?
BTW, this is about the strangest thread I've ever participated in. I guess it's an opportunity to learn, which is what I hope I'm doing on this forum.
We've gotten derailed.
All we need do is ask O. Wilde what his or her intentions were in those posts.
Note to readers: I never said it was hypothetical.
And, the textbooks written about my personality type say I have a sensitivity to other people's issues.
And, I'm not starting from zero; over the years I've had office mates and others who acted in a similar way and so I know what works.
Strangely, some of these people may actually have wanted my approval or recognition. Very few get that, even those who are well-behaved. I think I know what causes this, but that info is classified - sorry.
They may have spotted ways that we two are similar. Of course,... (read more)
It's not your call.
Who are you?
It says that I take for fact what people say who study this type of thing.
I suggest that your conduct in this post is offensive.
Alice should avoid at all costs being drawn onto Bob's turf. There are several ways to avoid this.
She didn't provide her reasoning and I was not able to pull up this particular answer to her readers from the Web.
I guess she wants to remove the middleman costs & admin costs from your "donation." And you get direct feedback on "the fruits of your labor". There might also be psych benefits in that you can see your troubles might not be so bad in the big picture view of things.
For the class of people who think their troubles are better than anyone's (e.g., the "inverse pride" of paranoids) I guess I recommend the monetary contribution route.
Am I putting too much stock in Marilyn's high IQ and that women are biologically superior in any case?
IIRC, Ms. Vos Savant says don't give money, just go in person to the soup kitchens or whatever and put in your own labor.
Some people hold on more strongly to their original beliefs if someone tries to convince them otherwise. This might have been in the book "On Being Certain."
I think this kind of persuasion is a lost cause but I am still sometimes drawn into trying, against my better judgement.
Even if you don't convince the non-rationalists you may learn some new mindgames, based on what they throw at you, their wacky justifications for their illogical ideas and their non-sequiturs.
On the other hand, I might just be off on a tangent. :(
If the person you're persuading makes a swatting motion, it means you're not getting through and your persuadee is annoyed.
A lot of what I was sure of, I'm not any longer. . .:D
Why does my Karma score keep increasing when I don't do anything? It's a disincentive to post. . .?
The textbooks written about my personality type say I'm "eccentric".
LW should make this unique thread widely known. Many couples facing similar decisions can be helped.
I am sorry for your loss.
EDIT: This association to your post won't leave me alone, so here it is: APACHE II software gives the odds of an adult leaving an ICU alive. Perhaps there is, or will soon be, an intrauterine version of this using blood values & other metrics that can prompt preventive measures early in a pregnancy.
That's one reason I'm here, but in the limited time the mortality tables give me I'd like to find a way to present myself favorably to almost any crowd.
In the past, very few have cheered me on and a more vocal few have fervently hoped I'd fail.
Cost of being less wrong: increased cognitive load?
Benefit oblw: longer life expectancy?
Risk oblw: becoming a pariah in most crowds?
So in this case it's the Little People against two large orgs and the LP are the enemy of both.
The orgs are above the law and it is in their interest to punish people who don't like them, but they can possibly be embarrassed.
Stay out of it unless you can help anonymously and your odds are good for the risk you are taking; this from a whistleblower.
Has this problem been solved in any country?
The decision tree for this gets complex even after the split for concealed or open carry.
Also, shot through the heart, a person has about 10 seconds left to act (to return fire, I hope).
What are then appropriate payoff models for carrying or not carrying, concealed or open?
Thanks, it'll take me some time to digest this link. Can you suggest a better definition and would this anecdote be included or excluded? If excluded, how would you define this odd exchange?
Game Theory (Nalebuff, Avinash) says carrying a gun is a dominant strategy. Does it favor concealed, or open carry? TIA.
Two people were lamenting the state of affairs of the world.
A bystander said, "When I become 'King of the World' I will fix things."
One of the two said, "Can I trust you?"
The bystander said, "Of course not."
The retort was, "In that case, I trust you."
Is this a
1. a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.
Not to get all medical on you, but. . .
Here's a letter to an editor.
"The Dec. 6 Wonkblog excerpt “Millions and millions of guns” [Outlook] included a graph that showed that U.S. residents own 357 million firearms, up from about 240 million (estimated from the graph) in 1995, for an increase of about 48 percent.
The article categorically stated that “[m]ore guns means more gun deaths.” How many more gun deaths were there because of this drastic increase in guns? Using data from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, total gun murders went from 13,673 in 1995 to 8,454 in 2013 — a decrease in gun dea... (read more)
Besides cognitive biases and logical fallacies, the 20 or so defense mechanisms should be added to the ways people become more wrong. Russell is using rationalization.
So we are locked into a stable, nowhere-near-optimum equilibrium. :(
"blaming of victims"
See Lerner's book, The Belief in a Just World. . ."
It's really bad when judges have it. Many people have it and they don't know it, hence "delusion."
Having viewed the video, I'm disappointed in the 3rd Earl Russell.
I don't know how to reply to this thread as a whole, so I defaulted to this.
Like the Veiled Statue at Sais, I'm thinking this drama is revealing some truth about the US society and the US government. Some people recoil and want the veil restored, some want to see more and some don't know what to do, but no one is neutral.
What does Game Theory suggest in this situation? Is a tie the best that can be done? I don't think the "have you no decency?" retort will work here.
Also see DSM-IV, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, the first choice for any world leader according to Jerrold Post.
Why can't seasoned politicians handle a windbag millionaire?
Is it because he is a caricature of them?
If you're really ambitious, solve the problem of
so men and women (which is cross-cultural communication) can communicate unambiguously.
I've read both of D. Tannen's books on thIs and I still get sucked into traps but at least I know now that women are most likely not playing Bait and Switch with me.
Dunno' if women on this site have a problem with this since this site is not a random sample.
BTW, by reading some of my own posts, I'd think tha... (read more)
That's been my experience, and any questions about "How much more is this going to cost me?" are not received well.
Almost every lawyer I've hired or dealt with gave me almost nothing for my money. And good luck trying to get a bad lawyer disbarred.
What I should probably do is solicit bids for a particular legal problem.
Your post reminds me of something.
If there is a huge disparity of power between the lawyer and you, Game Theory kind of "goes out the window".
Any US lawyers here?
A woman who once worked in a law office told me that clients come and go (she used the word e·phem·er·al) so the real allegiance for a lawyer is to other lawyers. Because they will see them again and again.
And Game Theory has something to say about how to treat a person that you are not likely to see again.
Please, folks, do not ask me to justify this "hearsay". I found her credible, so please take this woman's word as gospel, as an axiom, and go from there.
Please confirm, deny, explain or comment on her statement.
Thanks for your answer.
Is there a button somewhere on this site that allows me to ignore certain posters?
Considering castration seems to indicate that you believe you are the monster, under the bed or wherever.
This may be a reasonable viewpoint for you or for others, or you may view sexual urges of any kind as deviant.
Get other opinions. For the outlying opinions, visit Provincetown, MA [either in person or virtually].
Good luck with what you are struggling with.
I give up.