Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Randomness thread, part two.

Page 320 of 421 FirstFirst ... 220270310318319320321322330370420 ... LastLast
Results 23,926 to 24,000 of 31516
  1. #23926
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy
    Take it up with Taleb. He could be wrong. Though I agree with him. But it could be confirmation bias.
    hehe. OK, I was borderline triggered there. a bit.
  2. #23927
    Just wait, next Imma assume your gender, xir.
  3. #23928
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Just wait, next Imma assume your gender, xir.
    1 in 15 chance, I like those odds.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  4. #23929
    Moron virtue signallers are yet to realise that LGBTQ is a discriminatory acronym. The B stands for "bisexual", which, by definition, assumes attraction to two genders. What about people like me? I'm dodecasexual. And no that doesn't mean I'm gay. I'm not into dudes. Just the twelve genders with tits and fanny.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  5. #23930
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Moron virtue signallers are yet to realise that LGBTQ is a discriminatory acronym. The B stands for "bisexual", which, by definition, assumes attraction to two genders. What about people like me? I'm dodecasexual. And no that doesn't mean I'm gay. I'm not into dudes. Just the twelve genders with tits and fanny.




  6. #23931
    The left is where racial/sexual/etc. discrimination goes to convince people it's not discrimination.
  7. #23932
    I hope everyone at Southwest Airlines gets botulism
  8. #23933
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    hehe. OK, I was borderline triggered there. a bit.
    You misunderstood what Taleb's point was. He's not saying if something's complex we can't or shouldn't try to understand it. He saying in a complex system with a lot of variables, some of which are unknown and the interactions between which are often unknown, trying to model such a system with very incomplete information is certain to be fruitless.

    It's like trying to predict the weather where you live six months from now. If a butterfly farts in China, it may start a chain of events that make all your predictions end up being way off. And since you can't know if that butterfly will or will not fart, you should stfu with your lame ass model (economists <cough cough> economists). According to Taleb.
  9. #23934
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    lame ass model (economists <cough cough> economists).
    fwiw i think only a handful of models in economics are any good. Lots of them are indeed lame ass.

    The real danger is faulty derivation from the models. For example, because the other side of the equation of the GDP model includes "+government spending", many economists deduce that increasing government spending increases GDP. But the model is insufficient to tell us that, because of things like how increasing government spending decreases investment spending and increases tax expectations. And what's *really* going on there is something that isn't modeled in the first place. It's something like aggregate demand has fallen because money demand has fallen because the central bank has lost credibility to maintain its implicit nominal GDP target because of .....
  10. #23935
    On a different board, somebody stated that he sees economics as having experienced only three major revolutions in thought (which I agree with):

    1) Beginning with Adam Smith, the observation that free markets are effective at providing for preferences of those transacting in the market. The Invisible Hand.

    2) From the Great Depression, the Keynesian idea that aggregate demand exists, meaning that output and prices can in aggregation change together in an entire economy due to some other stimulus.

    3) From Stagflation, the Friedman-y idea that nominal variables affect real variables (because of expectations in price changes). In classical economics, prices are thought to move freely to offset changes in other inputs, but in reality they don't move freely since humans are psychological beings who don't like certain kinds of movements in prices. In the former world, you could have large changes in inflation or deflation and it wouldn't affect real income, and in the latter world it would affect real income. The latter world is the more correct version.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 08-04-2017 at 02:55 PM.
  11. #23936
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The left is where racial/sexual/etc. discrimination goes to convince people it's not discrimination.
    Both sides are full of idiots who think they have a morally superior position. Both sides have vocal people who probably are closet bigots, and plenty of people who are apologists. Mostly, though, I think both sides are not composed of bigots, just people who come from very different backgrounds and when one of them talks about an issue, the other hears it in a context not intended by the original speaker.

    So long as they aren't actually trying to oppress people, everything will work out in the long run. Look how far we've come in our lifetimes. There will be ups and downs, but I think people are better served by the information age than ever before to realize that it's easy to talk smack on the internet, but also easy to help a stranger when they're right in front of you, or at least have a non-combative conversation with a stranger in public.

    There's dichotomy in people. I doubt that will change. So long as people's actual actions are such that they work toward making a generally chill environment, I think we can settle down about the name-calling and finger pointing.
  12. #23937
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I hope everyone at Southwest Airlines gets botulism
    Grow a pair, man.

    Stop making your world a shithole and pretending other people owe you something more.
  13. #23938
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    It's like trying to predict the weather where you live six months from now. If a butterfly farts in China, it may start a chain of events that make all your predictions end up being way off. And since you can't know if that butterfly will or will not fart, you should stfu with your lame ass model (economists <cough cough> economists). According to Taleb.
    I'm hearing a call to arms to develop the calculus of butterfly flatulence, is that right?
  14. #23939
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I think we can settle down about the name-calling and finger pointing.
    Sure. It is, however, important to reveal the disease of leftism for what it is. Its core philosophy is one of oppressors vs. victims and that the oppressor or victim status is innately determined by each person's belonging to a group. Merit has vanished from leftist thought; what remains is identity and determination based on it. Leftist ideology has become what MLK spoke out against.*

    So, yeah, I don't think we should be pointing fingers at people. But we should be pointing fingers at ideas that hurt people.

    *Well, it hasn't exactly become that, since it has always been that. The manifestation used to be about wealth status or nationality status. The West's recent adoption has transformed the manifestation to other identities and the core bigotry of it remains. People don't accept bigotry when it's clear. So, it has to be painted as something else, like a religion or a political ideology that professes to be helping people.
  15. #23940
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    fwiw i think only a handful of models in economics are any good. Lots of them are indeed lame ass.

    The real danger is faulty derivation from the models. For example, because the other side of the equation of the GDP model includes "+government spending", many economists deduce that increasing government spending increases GDP. But the model is insufficient to tell us that, because of things like how increasing government spending decreases investment spending and increases tax expectations. And what's *really* going on there is something that isn't modeled in the first place. It's something like aggregate demand has fallen because money demand has fallen because the central bank has lost credibility to maintain its implicit nominal GDP target because of .....
    I think this is you agreeing with me, so I may have to mark this day on my calendar.

    If I understand Taleb correctly, the economic model that has any predictive power hasn't been devised yet.
  16. #23941
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I think this is you agreeing with me, so I may have to mark this day on my calendar.

    If I understand Taleb correctly, the economic model that has any predictive power hasn't been devised yet.
    Did you see him say that?

    He's definitely not a fan of contemporary economics. And I tend to agree with his criticisms. Lots of economists these days are IYIs and (I believe) they don't understand (or ignore) their own theories.

    Though I believe some models do have consistent predictive power, here's an example of how much uncertainty there is in economics: the two chief/competing macroeconomic models that express the same thing just in different terms are AS/AD and IS/LM. My approximation is that about 30% of economists think we should use AS/AD while the rest think we should use IS/LM. I agree with the AS/AD side since I have found what I believe to be two systematic problems with IS/LM that aren't in AS/AD.
  17. #23942
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Did you see him say that?
    More or less. And how can you possibly model a complex system with incomplete information?

    An analogy is to social psychology. All variables more or less interact with each other, meaning that any time you measure one variable against another there is likely to be a correlation of around r2 = .2 or thereabouts (what a guy named Meehl once referred to as the 'crud factor'). And since you can't possibly analyze how all possible factors covary because a) it's impossible to know all the variables that might be important; b) if you did know where to look, you still wouldn't have enough data; and c) even if you did satisfy a and b above, you'd need a computer the size of the moon to do the calculations.

    As such, social psychologists are better off looking for 'large' effects (large in terms of social psychology that is, explaining 20% of the variance is a big deal) and simplifying their model to say 'A links with B, and a lot of other stuff is going on that we don't understand'. And since they usually can't do an experiment where they manipulate A to study its effects on B (which would allow them to make a causal link rather than just observing a correlation) then their best possible outcome is generally a model that is essentially an educated guess. Doesn't seem very satisfying to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    He's definitely not a fan of contemporary economics. And I tend to agree with his criticisms. Lots of economists these days are IYIs and (I believe) they don't understand (or ignore) their own theories.
    "Intellectual yet idiot" is an unfortunate term that says more about Taleb's arrogance than anything else imo.

    There's a lot that goes into being smart, and it's rare that anyone's head is so together that they don't have at least one weakness, be it maths, logic, social interaction, artistic ability, physical coordination, or articulation of their ideas. For example, while I write well, I struggle at times with spoken communication because my thoughts come slower than most. Does that make me an IYI? I guess so.

    Taleb (naturally) labels anyone who's not a whiz at maths but can do the other smart stuff as an IYI, but he could himself be called an IYI if you picked apart his reasoning in places, because it can be a bit shaky. That said, I can appreciate his frustration, indignance, and let's be honest, jealousy, when he objects to people devising intricate statistical models of economics that don't work and getting rewarded with Nobel prizes.

    The paradox to me is that anyone who really understands complex maths shouldn't be drawn to a field where being a whiz at maths isn't all that useful because the questions being asked are unanswerable due to incomplete information. It makes one suspicious that these people either really don't understand what they're doing, or understand it and are using it to dupe others.
  18. #23943
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    More or less. And how can you possibly model a complex system with incomplete information?

    An analogy is to social psychology. All variables more or less interact with each other, meaning that any time you measure one variable against another there is likely to be a correlation of around r2 = .2 or thereabouts (what a guy named Meehl once referred to as the 'crud factor'). And since you can't possibly analyze how all possible factors covary because a) it's impossible to know all the variables that might be important; b) if you did know where to look, you still wouldn't have enough data; and c) even if you did satisfy a and b above, you'd need a computer the size of the moon to do the calculations.

    As such, social psychologists are better off looking for 'large' effects (large in terms of social psychology that is, explaining 20% of the variance is a big deal) and simplifying their model to say 'A links with B, and a lot of other stuff is going on that we don't understand'. And since they usually can't do an experiment where they manipulate A to study its effects on B (which would allow them to make a causal link rather than just observing a correlation) then their best possible outcome is generally a model that is essentially an educated guess. Doesn't seem very satisfying to me.
    How about a model like the Big Five personality traits? Can't you say things like "somebody who scores in a particular high range of neuroticism is more likely a woman than a man."?

    I'm certainly not talking about models to predict nuanced details of the economy. But we can model some things directionally and within a range of accuracy. Example: if the Fed adopts a new policy, without changing any other policies, of writing every resident a $1000 check every week that comes out of newly minted bills and they will never have to pay back, the money market and AS/AD models predict that inflation will increase (by a lot given those numbers). This may not happen 100% of the time, but that's pretty standard because we don't know of anything that we have 100% certainty happens 100% of the time.




    "Intellectual yet idiot" is an unfortunate term that says more about Taleb's arrogance than anything else imo.

    There's a lot that goes into being smart, and it's rare that anyone's head is so together that they don't have at least one weakness, be it maths, logic, social interaction, artistic ability, physical coordination, or articulation of their ideas. For example, while I write well, I struggle at times with spoken communication because my thoughts come slower than most. Does that make me an IYI? I guess so.

    Taleb (naturally) labels anyone who's not a whiz at maths but can do the other smart stuff as an IYI, but he could himself be called an IYI if you picked apart his reasoning in places, because it can be a bit shaky. That said, I can appreciate his frustration, indignance, and let's be honest, jealousy, when he objects to people devising intricate statistical models of economics that don't work and getting rewarded with Nobel prizes.

    The paradox to me is that anyone who really understands complex maths shouldn't be drawn to a field where being a whiz at maths isn't all that useful because the questions being asked are unanswerable due to incomplete information. It makes one suspicious that these people either really don't understand what they're doing, or understand it and are using it to dupe others.
    Did you read his main IYI article?

    https://medium.com/incerto/the-intel...t-13211e2d0577

    The term appears to be about being smart (or at least appreciating ideas) while lacking sense. And about being smart but undergoing significant cognitive biases. Also being smart yet thinking you are prepared to have a strong opinion on a topic you essentially are ignorant on. And typically carries with it arrogance. I agree with Taleb that the IYI approach appears to be a thing.

    And yeah Taleb does come off as arrogant. He recently addressed why and it is a unique reason but I forget what it is. I think it might have something to do with the idea that the IYI judges style over substance. He also has a thing where a set of the most competent people in a field are the ones that stylistically look the least competent. It's because they had to overcome a lot more to get where they are, which signals very high competence.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 08-05-2017 at 12:38 PM.
  19. #23944
    My favorite line from the article:

    [The IYI] has mentioned quantum mechanics at least twice in the past five years in conversations that had nothing to do with physics.
  20. #23945
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    How about a model like the Big Five personality traits? Can't you say things like "somebody who scores in a particular high range of neuroticism is more likely a woman than a man."?
    Maybe. I don't know enough about personality psych to answer that.

    But I'm guessing it's similar to the fact that you can be fairly certain that someone near the very top of the maths skills distribution is male. This is true, but that in and of itself tells us little about the underlying distributions. The maths skills distribution for males may be shifted slightly to the right of the female (with higher scores on the right), so that men are on average better at maths than women. Or it may be a wider distribution so that both the highest and lowest scores are in the male set, but the means between males and females are comparable. Or the two distributions may have different shapes.

    Point is, knowing the top maths people are almost all male doesn't tell us much about the underlying distribution, only about the top tiny % of the population. So the predictive power of that fact is very low outside of the unusual case where you're sampling the very best maths skills people. If you take someone with average skills at maths there's no way of predicting whether they're male or female.


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I'm certainly not talking about models to predict nuanced details of the economy. But we can model some things directionally and within a range of accuracy. Example: if the Fed adopts a new policy, without changing any other policies, of writing every resident a $1000 check every week that comes out of newly minted bills and they will never have to pay back, the money market and AS/AD models predict that inflation will increase (by a lot given those numbers). This may not happen 100% of the time, but that's pretty standard because we don't know of anything that we have 100% certainty happens 100% of the time.
    Right. I don't know these models, but the idea seems pretty obvious. I suppose a test of the models would be how well they could predict the rate of inflation and what other factors would impact it that they do or don't account for.
  21. #23946
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Did you read his main IYI article?

    https://medium.com/incerto/the-intel...t-13211e2d0577

    The term appears to be about being smart (or at least appreciating ideas) while lacking sense. And about being smart but undergoing significant cognitive biases. Also being smart yet thinking you are prepared to have a strong opinion on a topic you essentially are ignorant on. And typically carries with it arrogance. I agree with Taleb that the IYI approach appears to be a thing.
    I think there is something to the idea that people who are smart overestimate their ability to understand things they know little about.


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    And yeah Taleb does come off as arrogant.
    I think Taleb is himself a bit of an IYI, by his own definition. If you look at the number of topics he claims to have insight into (GMO - does he have a degree in biology or anything related to it?), coupled with the fact he seems unable to articulate those insights in any way that doesn't go on for pages without having any real substance... he's certainly excellent at maths, has a few good ideas ("skin in the game") and recognizes when people are bad at maths. Beyond that, i don't see a lot to give him credit for tbh.


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    He recently addressed why and it is a unique reason but I forget what it is. I think it might have something to do with the idea that the IYI judges style over substance. He also has a thing where a set of the most competent people in a field are the ones that stylistically look the least competent. It's because they had to overcome a lot more to get where they are, which signals very high competence.
    well if you take the article you linked, a lot of it is invective without any substance ("always drinks red wine with steak, hasn't read [insert some authors you've never heard of"]. He might have a better style if he just stuck to his argument and stopped acting so butthurt against intellectuals.
  22. #23947
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I think Taleb is himself a bit of an IYI, by his own definition. If you look at the number of topics he claims to have insight into (GMO - does he have a degree in biology or anything related to it?), coupled with the fact he seems unable to articulate those insights in any way that doesn't go on for pages without having any real substance... he's certainly excellent at maths, has a few good ideas ("skin in the game") and recognizes when people are bad at maths. Beyond that, i don't see a lot to give him credit for tbh.
    I've no dog in the GMO fight since I know too little. As far as I can tell, Taleb's criticism is that GMO follows a fat-tailed distribution by nature, meaning that events of great ruin have a higher probability than if thin-tailed. This would be due to how something can go wrong with GMO such that it affects the entire food supply. He claims that biologists and others are getting the statistical assessment of GMO wrong. That is a criticism he has of several things. I remember reading from him a while back something about how models of financial collapse are thin-tailed yet the evidence is that they're fat-tailed. Basically people are using statistical methods that assume a much lower probability of ruin than he thinks they should. I didn't quite understand it, as I never quite understand the mathy stuff he discusses.
  23. #23948
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    hasn't read [insert some authors you've never heard of"].
    I found that funny. I know some people who, if deducing from his examples, would qualify as IYI that I don't think are IYI. I suspect Taleb would say deducing from his examples is a bad idea. Lots of people might do some things that may signal IYI status while not actually being IYI. Both my brother and I have done the quantum mechanics outside of physics thing and I don't think either of us qualify for Taleb's idea of IYI. I totally understand why he would use that as an example though. Quantum mechanics is hot topic. It makes people feel like they're smart when they know some things about it, and knowing some things about it also makes it appear useful analogically. It's bait for IYIs.
  24. #23949
    My pick for the most illuminating paragraph on what an IYI is:

    "IYIs fail to distinguish between the letter and the spirit of things. They are so blinded by verbalistic notions such as science, education, democracy, racism, equality, evidence, rationality and similar buzzwords that they can be easily taken for a ride. They can thus cause monstrous iatrogenics without even feeling a shade of a guilt, because they are convinced that they mean well and that they can be thus justified to ignore the deep effect on reality. You would laugh at the doctor who nearly kills his patient yet argues about the effectiveness of his efforts because he lowered the latter’s cholesterol, missing that a metric that correlates to health is not quite health –it took a long time for medicine to convince its practitioners that health was what they needed to work on, not the exercise of what they thought was “science”, hence doing nothing was quite often preferable via negativa. But yet, in a different domain, say foreign policy, a neo-con who doesn’t realize he has this mental defect would never feel any guilt for blowing up a country such as Libya, Iraq, or Syria, for the sake of “democracy”. I’ve tried to explain via negativa to a neocon: it was like trying to describe colors to someone born blind."


    It's basically what Scott Adams calls "word-thinking." It's like the difference between how it is so common to hear the word "inequality" and people think "we gotta fix that" instead of trying to figure out what the specific type means, why it arises, the problems regarding how it was derived statistically, if it is even bad in the first place, the unintended consequences of proposed solutions, etc..
    Last edited by wufwugy; 08-05-2017 at 03:26 PM.
  25. #23950
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I've no dog in the GMO fight since I know too little. As far as I can tell, Taleb's criticism is that GMO follows a fat-tailed distribution by nature, meaning that events of great ruin have a higher probability than if thin-tailed. This would be due to how something can go wrong with GMO such that it affects the entire food supply. He claims that biologists and others are getting the statistical assessment of GMO wrong. That is a criticism he has of several things. I remember reading from him a while back something about how models of financial collapse are thin-tailed yet the evidence is that they're fat-tailed. Basically people are using statistical methods that assume a much lower probability of ruin than he thinks they should. I didn't quite understand it, as I never quite understand the mathy stuff he discusses.
    Well the difference there is that there's a lot of evidence that economic systems are fat-tailed; I don't think that's at all clear re: GMO. And if it is, it's up to Taleb to explain it. maybe he has, but I haven't seen it written down anywhere.
  26. #23951
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I found that funny. I know some people who, if deducing from his examples, would qualify as IYI that I don't think are IYI. I suspect Taleb would say deducing from his examples is a bad idea. Lots of people might do some things that may signal IYI status while not actually being IYI. Both my brother and I have done the quantum mechanics outside of physics thing and I don't think either of us qualify for Taleb's idea of IYI. I totally understand why he would use that as an example though. Quantum mechanics is hot topic. It makes people feel like they're smart when they know some things about it, and knowing some things about it also makes it appear useful analogically. It's bait for IYIs.
    Ya, the article was about 95% trolling, which is what makes him look like he's kind of bitter.

    The other 5% he has a point. I'd prefer he just stick to his point and explain it more clearly than being a jerk but w/e.
  27. #23952
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post

    It's basically what Scott Adams calls "word-thinking." It's like the difference between how it is so common to hear the word "inequality" and people think "we gotta fix that" instead of trying to figure out what the specific type means, why it arises, the problems regarding how it was derived statistically, if it is even bad in the first place, the unintended consequences of proposed solutions, etc..[/FONT][/SIZE]
    Yup, good point. There is such an emotional connotation to certain words that it often makes rational thought difficult i believe.
  28. #23953
    I may be getting it wrong, but it appears that if Taleb's criticism is that GMO is fat-tailed, it's that failure results in greater ruin; thus higher standard deviations would have higher probabilities than in a thin-tailed distribution. Correct me if I make a mistake since statistics is one of the things I get wrong more easily than other stuff.

    --- It appears that the last thing I quote from Taleb's paper is the best explanation for why he thinks GMO is fat-tailed and has a much higher probability of causing ruin than consensus currently thinks.

    Reading this:

    Let's say people deposit their money in your bank, and you use it to place bets. If you think the outcomes of the bets are normal, but they're actually fat-tailed, the bets will still pay off most of the time. But sometimes you'll be very, very wrong. Then the government will have to bail you out to stop a bank run like the one at the end of It's a Wonderful Life .
    It isn't just banks that should take notice, though. We also see fat tails in hurricane damage, crop losses, death from deadly conflicts, and other arenas that public policy addresses.
    http://vudlab.com/fat-tails.html

    So it sounds like crop failures are considered fat-tailed. Taleb's point is that GMO failure would more likely have global ramifications instead of local ones.

    From his paper:

    More generally, engineered modifications to ecological systems (through GMOs) are categorically and statistically different from bottom up ones. Bottom-up modifi-cations do not remove the crops from their long term evolutionary context, enabling the push and pull of the ecosystem to locally extinguish harmful mutations.Top-down modifications that bypass this evolutionary pathway unintentionally manipulate large sets of interdependent factors at the same time, with dramatic risks of unintended consequences. They thus result in fattailed distributions and place a huge risk on the food system as a whole.
    http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf

    the systemic consequences of fat tailed events in GMO risks that are not present in conventional breeding and agricultural technology innovation—the difference lies in the absence of passive barriers or reactive circuit-breakers (a term also used in market regulation) that limit the propagations of errors for GMOs to prevent wider damage
    Fat Tails from a Top-Down, Engineered Design In human made variations the tightly connected global system implies a single deviation will eventually dominate the sum of their effects. Examples include pandemics, invasive species, financial crises and monoculture
    When variations lead to independent impacts locally, the aggregate effect of those variations is small according to the central limit theorem, guaranteeing thin-tailed distributions.When there is interdependence, the central limit theorem does not apply, and aggregate variations may become much more severe due to mutual reinforcement.Interdependence arises because of the coupling of behavior in different places. Under these conditions, cascades propagate through the system in a way that can cause large impacts. Whether components are independent or dependent clearly matters to systemic disasters such as pandemics and financial or other crises. Interdependence increases the probability of ruin, ultimately to the point of certainty.Consider the global financial crash of 2008. As financial firms became increasingly interdependent during the latter part of the 20th century, small fluctuations during periods of calm masked the vulnerability of the system to cascading failures. Instead of a local shock in an independent area of the system, we experienced a global shock with cascading effects. The crisis of 2008,in addition, illustrates the failure of evidentiary risk management. Since data from the time series beginning in the 1980s exhibited stability, causing the period to be dubbed "the great moderation," it deceived those relying on historical statistical evidence.
    ^^^ It sounds like this is saying that when events have sufficient independence, rare events end up being fewer standard deviations from the mean than when events are interdependent. When they are interdependent, the same type of rare event can cascade, resulting in event many standard deviations from the mean. Am I getting that right?
  29. #23954
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I may be getting it wrong, but it appears that if Taleb's criticism is that GMO is fat-tailed, it's that failure results in greater ruin; thus higher standard deviations would have higher probabilities than in a thin-tailed distribution. Correct me if I make a mistake since statistics is one of the things I get wrong more easily than other stuff.
    A fat-tailed distribution is more likely to experience an extreme event than a normal distribution, yes.



    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    --- It appears that the last thing I quote from Taleb's paper is the best explanation for why he thinks GMO is fat-tailed and has a much higher probability of causing ruin than consensus currently thinks.

    Reading this:



    http://vudlab.com/fat-tails.html

    So it sounds like crop failures are considered fat-tailed.
    Don't have the data to hand, but seems plausible. If the variable in question is food supply, then a crop failure of a large enough scale certainly would seem to be a fat tail event.

    So far so good.



    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Taleb's point is that GMO failure would more likely have global ramifications instead of local ones.


    From his paper:



    http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf

    Here's where some knowledge of biology is essential before he makes his argument:

    More generally, engineered modifications to ecological systems (through GMOs) are categorically and statistically different from bottom up ones. Bottom-up modifi-cations do not remove the crops from their long term evolutionary context, enabling the push and pull of the ecosystem to locally extinguish harmful mutations.Top-down modifications that bypass this evolutionary pathway unintentionally manipulate large sets of interdependent factors at the same time, with dramatic risks of unintended consequences. They thus result in fattailed distributions and place a huge risk on the food system as a whole.
    What's lacking here is the evidence that a) genetically engineered mods are categorically different than selective breeding mods (just calling one top-down and the other bottom-up isn't an argument in and of itself); and b) that GMO mods manipulate large sets of interdependent factors simultaneously whereas selective breeding doesn't.

    If (e.g.,) someone GMOs rice with a bigger grain, it isn't at all clear to me how that satisfies b) above. We have been making rice with bigger grains through selective breeding for thousands of years already. All GMO does is speed up the process by developing the big rice gene(s) in the lab through manipulation of the genome rather than in the field through selective breeding.

    Arguably the GMO rice could end up failing, and it may be more likely to fail than selectively bred rice (he hasn't made this argument very convincingly though). Also, even if this is true I don't see why it's a problem unless we replace all the current rice fields with GMO fields simultaneously. Pretty sure that's not how it's done. The plants are put through their trials.



    ^^^ It sounds like this is saying that when events have sufficient independence, rare events end up being fewer standard deviations from the mean than when events are interdependent.
    Swap 'independence' and 'interdependent' and you have it right.


    When they are interdependent, the same type of rare event can cascade, resulting in event many standard deviations from the mean. Am I getting that right?
    More precisely, it is the the rare event that becomes more extreme because of cascading effects. When variables are interdependent, changing one variable may ultimately have effects well beyond its main effect, because it impacts other variables, which themselves impact other variables, and so on.

    IOW, the butterfly farting in China causes minute changes to the local weather system, but these can ultimately cascade to change the weather in your hometown six months from now, and in a big way.


    Overall, what hasn't been made convincing to me is the idea that speeding up the selection process through GMO is any more likely to result in a cascading effect than traditional selective breeding is. He might be on to something, but he needs to develop his arguments in more detail.

    What the question really needs is someone who really understands GMO as well as statistics, not just someone who understands statistics and claims to understand GMO without really being able to explain his arguments about it in sufficient detail to make them convincing.

    There's a difference between writing a book or blog post and writing a peer-reviewed article in a reputable journal. I suspect if he really had a strong argument to make about GMO he would be able to publish it in the latter.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 08-06-2017 at 06:05 AM.
  30. #23955
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Bolt got 3rd!
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  31. #23956
    Yeah but we all know he really got 2nd, because the winner has been banned twice for doping.

    Seriously, once, you punish the athlete and give him another chance when he's clean. Twice, you ban the cunt for life.

    But don't forget Russia are a bunch of cheating bastards.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  32. #23957
    They are all at it lol.
  33. #23958
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Anyone understands this language?


    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4ynpg5
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  34. #23959
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    First time that I know of that Bolt ran a 9.90+. But on track, I concur with savvy, they are all doping imo
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  35. #23960
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Anyone understands this language?


    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4ynpg5
    All I hear are boobs.
  36. #23961
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    [The IYI] has mentioned quantum mechanics at least twice in the past five years in conversations that had nothing to do with physics.
    A) So if I mention QM, for any reason - to ask a question, or to point out a fact which is counterpoint to an assertion, or whatever - that counts?

    B) Twice in 5 years?

    Twice in 5 years!?
    I'm not prepared (qualified?) to name anything I've done at least once in the past 5 years that I haven't done twice in that time.

    C) "has nothing to do with physics"
    lol
    good one.
  37. #23962
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    First time that I know of that Bolt ran a 9.90+. But on track, I concur with savvy, they are all doping imo
    It's a bit loose to say this. What is "doping"? For the sake of game integrity, it means taking banned substances.

    Of course they're all legally doping. Of course they're all taking supplements that aren't banned. But they're not all cheating.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  38. #23963
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Swap 'independence' and 'interdependent' and you have it right.
    Oh I see what you mean. With fat-tails from interdependence, 1 st dev from the mean is a more rare event than 1 st dev from a thin-tailed distribution. What I was trying to say is something different, so let me know if I'm thinking correctly. A thin-tailed distribution may have an event 5 st dev from the mean 0.00005% of the time or something, but a fat-tailed one could have a 5 st dev from the mean event 0.5% of the time or something. If I'm reading right, it sounds like that might be Taleb's point, that due to interdependence, higher st dev from the mean events happen more than with independence.


    As for the rest, I agree that he possibly would need to show biological knowledge regarding how laboratory manipulation is more susceptible to failure than an evolutionary one. His logic may still have merit, though. Evolution smooths out a lot of what we don't know; whereas laboratory manipulation has a problem of insufficient knowledge such that scientists might not be able to predict the effects of a genetic manipulation and we won't know until it's too late. Still, biological knowledge can probably go towards heightening or lessening the risk of that effect. However, Taleb's point is that even if the risk is very, very tiny, it's still big enough that it's virtually certain.

    I think that maybe Taleb's point should be worded such that GMO *might* follow a fat-tailed distribution. We just don't know. Though wouldn't that mean that the risk of GMO is still fat-tailed because the distribution has to adjust for not having certainty of what kind of tail it is? Like if we are 100% certain a system fails 1% of the time, then it fails 1% of the time, but if we are 80% certain it fails 1% of the time and 20% certain it fails between 0% and 10% of the time, doesn't that increase the probability of failure as far as our measurements go?
  39. #23964
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    A) So if I mention QM, for any reason - to ask a question, or to point out a fact which is counterpoint to an assertion, or whatever - that counts?

    B) Twice in 5 years?

    Twice in 5 years!?
    I'm not prepared (qualified?) to name anything I've done at least once in the past 5 years that I haven't done twice in that time.

    C) "has nothing to do with physics"
    lol
    good one.
    I suspect the observation falls apart when it comes to somebody who knows enough about physics that he knows everything is physics.
  40. #23965
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Oh I see what you mean. With fat-tails from interdependence, 1 st dev from the mean is a more rare event than 1 st dev from a thin-tailed distribution.
    Right.

    +/-1 sd from the mean is nominally a "common" event. +/-3 sd and further is generally what one would call 'rare'. Because the thin-tailed distribution has somewhat more of its area under the central part of the curve than a fat-tailed one, common events are somewhat more probable in the former than in the latter.



    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What I was trying to say is something different, so let me know if I'm thinking correctly. A thin-tailed distribution may have an event 5 st dev from the mean 0.00005% of the time or something, but a fat-tailed one could have a 5 st dev from the mean event 0.5% of the time or something. If I'm reading right, it sounds like that might be Taleb's point, that due to interdependence, higher st dev from the mean events happen more than with independence.
    That's the general idea, yes.



    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    As for the rest, I agree that he possibly would need to show biological knowledge regarding how laboratory manipulation is more susceptible to failure than an evolutionary one. His logic may still have merit, though. Evolution smooths out a lot of what we don't know; whereas laboratory manipulation has a problem of insufficient knowledge such that scientists might not be able to predict the effects of a genetic manipulation and we won't know until it's too late. Still, biological knowledge can probably go towards heightening or lessening the risk of that effect. However, Taleb's point is that even if the risk is very, very tiny, it's still big enough that it's virtually certain.
    Depends on how tiny and how large the consequences are. If GMO foods could (say) end starvation with the risk of a big famine once every 1k years on average it's probably worth it. Places have famines on a regular basis as it is, so...

    If it's going to be a big famine every 20 years well that's different.

    Problem is we don't know which it is.



    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I think that maybe Taleb's point should be worded such that GMO *might* follow a fat-tailed distribution. We just don't know.
    We don't know his point because he hasn't stated it precisely enough. He starts out by saying that 1) famines are fat-tailed events (which seems right), 2) says that GMO isn't subject to the same checks and balances as selective breeding, and 3) concludes that as a consequence of this GMO increases the size of the tail.

    It's the leap from 2 to 3 above that isn't clear. What he needs to do is elaborate on how that would happen exactly.


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Though wouldn't that mean that the risk of GMO is still fat-tailed because the distribution has to adjust for not having certainty of what kind of tail it is? Like if we are 100% certain a system fails 1% of the time, then it fails 1% of the time, but if we are 80% certain it fails 1% of the time and 20% certain it fails between 0% and 10% of the time, doesn't that increase the probability of failure as far as our measurements go?
    I think it's fruitless to speculate on what distributions might be. One can always come up with a distribution that fits their argument; showing it's the proper distribution to model the data with requires some hard work.
  41. #23966
    Thanks for the informative responses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I think it's fruitless to speculate on what distributions might be. One can always come up with a distribution that fits their argument; showing it's the proper distribution to model the data with requires some hard work.
    I think part of his argument is that because there is not enough research regarding the risks of GMO and because famine is fat-tailed, using GMO extensively is bad. Perhaps this means that I was relating his argument somewhat wrongly.
  42. #23967
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    On standard deviations and probabilities:

    {mean} +/- 1 SD represents, by definition, 68% of the results.
    {mean} +/- 2 SD represents, by definition, 95% of the results.
    {mean} +/- 3 SD represents, by definition, 99.7% of the results.

    Whether a distribution is fat or thin will tell us how wide the distribution is at these values.

    Interestingly, for a normal distribution (standard bell curve) the part where the bell curve is concave down is exactly the area contained by the 1st SD.

    I think the way to understand Taleb's assessments is to think that the fat tailed systems have a load of events which would be outliers in a thin tailed system, but in the fat tail system, they are fewer SD's from the mean, representing greater liklihood. He's really talking about the stability of a system. A thin-tailed distribution is more predictable, the range of events "near" the mean is "small." A fat tailed distribution is less predictable, because a wider range of events happen with "more equal" probability.

    Thin tailed = sharp spike
    Fat tailed = gradually sloped bump
  43. #23968
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I suspect the observation falls apart when it comes to somebody who knows enough about physics that he knows everything is physics.


    You were meant to point out that plenty of things may have elements of them which can be well described by physics, but that physics can't deal with the whole at all. Like economics, for example. Or psychology. Sure, we can talk about particles and molecules and interactions, but that's not a good descriptive system to understand mental health, or whether or not to regulate an industry.

  44. #23969
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I think part of his argument is that because there is not enough research regarding the risks of GMO and because famine is fat-tailed, using GMO extensively is bad. Perhaps this means that I was relating his argument somewhat wrongly.
    That is kind of assuming that GMO means changing something to all be the same which it doesn't it can be used to solve tonnes of the problems that crops have naturally which themselves have the same terrible outcomes but more regularly, it's not uncommon for people to starve due to problems we have with crops in lots of places. Also to think that you'd automatically go to not using anything that isn't GMO is madness so even if something insane happened ultimately it'd be no worse than other crops faililng.

    His argument can be applied to pretty much anything as a reason for not doing it because guess what you can die. In fact eating has probably got a terrible fat tailed distribution. Exercise, that shit can ruin you, for the slight benefit it gives you in your day to day life, definitely not worth it.
  45. #23970
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    His argument can be applied to pretty much anything as a reason for not doing it because guess what you can die. In fact eating has probably got a terrible fat tailed distribution. Exercise, that shit can ruin you, for the slight benefit it gives you in your day to day life, definitely not worth it.
    Fat-tailed for you, thin-tailed for society. His argument that you quoted is due to the global ruin risk. He doesn't use the same argument for local ruin risk.

    It appears that the question is whether GMO does actually increase the risk of global ruin.
  46. #23971
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It appears that the question is whether GMO does actually increase the risk of global ruin.
    The answer is pretty strongly a no.
    I mean. If geneticists design a crop to be single-point failure prone, then that was their accident or choice, not a fault in GMO, as a process.

    All foods are GMO foods. GMO is ancient technology that we are getting better and better at.
    It's not new in practice, it's just that the means to perform it are more and more technological.

    Sufficiently advanced tech is indistinguishable from magic.
    -Some Fiction Author

    People understand Selective Breeding, so they don't consider it bad. Instructions to selective breed are in the Old Testament, so people see it as natural.
    Modern practices in the exact same endeavor are done by people who study for years to understand what the processes are that can accomplish anything at all. They can't really explain to a lay-person what they are doing and why. They can't easily explain that selective breeding has a high failure rate, and takes long time-frames to get incremental progress. Modern methods can pinpoint an exact change w/o making 99% of the offspring crop mutants with defects. Modern methods can affect the exact set of changes they desire in a single generation, instead of hundreds or thousands.

    Fighting GMO's categorically (as opposed to specific GMO products or practices) is like thinking a baby is so cute when it crawls, that you should do everything you can to prevent it from walking, or running.
  47. #23972
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    All foods are GMO foods. GMO is ancient technology that we are getting better and better at.
    It's not new in practice, it's just that the means to perform it are more and more technological.
    Evolutionary and laboratory modification could be quite different. Taleb's point appears to involve a heuristic that works for lots of things, while Doop has a good point that to show Taleb's point being accurate it *might* be a good idea to demonstrate greater biology knowledge. Granted I suspect Taleb would claim the heuristic is reliable enough. It goes back to the sufficient complexity problem. When you have that, the sense that has stood the test of time is on average more reliable.
  48. #23973
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    On standard deviations and probabilities:

    {mean} +/- 1 SD represents, by definition, 68% of the results.
    {mean} +/- 2 SD represents, by definition, 95% of the results.
    {mean} +/- 3 SD represents, by definition, 99.7% of the results.
    Only the case for a symmetrical distribution, which generally isn't the case for fat-tailed distributions. I tried to avoid going down this road in my discussion with Wuf because a) i understood what he was getting at (extreme events are more likely in a fat-tailed than normal distribution), and b) it's not relevant to understanding a) above.

    But it's good to know someone is paying attention
  49. #23974
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Evolutionary and laboratory modification could be quite different. Taleb's point appears to involve a heuristic that works for lots of things, while Doop has a good point that to show Taleb's point being accurate it *might* be a good idea to demonstrate greater biology knowledge. Granted I suspect Taleb would claim the heuristic is reliable enough. It goes back to the sufficient complexity problem. When you have that, the sense that has stood the test of time is on average more reliable.
    Maybe Taleb's grandmother is against GMO and that's where he got the idea.
  50. #23975
    ^^I lol'd.

    On a serious note, he probably would say Grandma's Wisdom is a good idea to have here. Grandma would say "So you're playing God? That's sure to go over well," while Science says "So far so good."

    That's not to say that Taleb is right about this. But, well, maybe it can be accurately said that the more humans deviate from the evolutionary way, the greater the unintended consequences.
  51. #23976
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    It's literally no more playing god than selective breeding. It's just that selective breeding is like using a cudgel, and modern gene manipulation is like using a laser scalpel. The fact that you're changing the DNA of a species is the same as it's been for tens of thousands of years.

    Playing God like you did, gramma, when you created life in your womb and birthed one of my parents?
  52. #23977
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    It's literally no more playing god than selective breeding. It's just that selective breeding is like using a cudgel, and modern gene manipulation is like using a laser scalpel. The fact that you're changing the DNA of a species is the same as it's been for tens of thousands of years.
    I agree. And it appears that there have been some negative unintended consequences of selective breeding too.

    Playing God like you did, gramma, when you created life in your womb and birthed one of my parents?
    Given that that's basically the "goal" of evolution, I'd characterize it as the least like playing God. I wouldn't characterize playing God as doing something regarding creation or destruction, but doing something with great deviation from normal, evolved for behavior (probably on a system-wide level).
    Last edited by wufwugy; 08-07-2017 at 06:59 PM.
  53. #23978
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post

    I wouldn't characterize playing God as doing something regarding creation or destruction, but doing something with great deviation from normal, evolved for behavior (probably on a system-wide level).
    If selectively breeding wolves over hundreds of generations until you get chihuahuas is ok...then doing it all in one step isn't?
  54. #23979
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    If selectively breeding wolves over hundreds of generations until you get chihuahuas is ok...then doing it all in one step isn't?
    That's a very good point, and I think from it we can understand the counterpoint. Do scientists know how to get a chihuahua from a wolf through laboratory manipulation? No. If scientists try, how many would be failures? Tons. How many would appear to be successes yet at a later date have revealed a systemic weakness that results in failure? Probably a few.

    How is this different than the actual chihuahua? Because at every stage of the evolutionary development, there is a level of robustness determined by the trial and error of marginal changes directionally towards chihuahua-ness that isn't present when attempting to do it in one step.

    However, I don't think laboratory manipulation would ever attempt it in one step, so that's a counterpoint to my counterpoint. Frankly, I do agree with you that a better understanding of GMO is a good idea in order to assess risk of ruin. Given the point I just made, GMO could be a slow enough and trial-and-error enough of a process to be equally as robust as selective breeding. Granted, if it becomes ubiquitous, that is a problem. A big problem.
  55. #23980
    Also the breeding towards chihuahua doesn't represent risk of non-localized ruin. Imagine if all dogs were chihuahuas now. I think Taleb is referring more about that sort of event.
  56. #23981
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Given that that's basically the "goal" of evolution, I'd characterize it as the least like playing God. I wouldn't characterize playing God as doing something regarding creation or destruction, but doing something with great deviation from normal, evolved for behavior (probably on a system-wide level).
    Well, I'm not really serious, since the whole God thing only makes sense to me in a, "I can rationalize those human behaviors based on my observations," kind of way.

    My point was that genetic manipulation via selective breeding is kinda exactly how humans choose their mates. Humans do not randomly mate with whomever is near like plants and most animals.

    EDIT: My final point may be fairly weak, considering college life. I suspect that it still holds true far more often than not.
    Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 08-08-2017 at 09:02 AM.
  57. #23982
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    How is this different than the actual chihuahua? Because at every stage of the evolutionary development, there is a level of robustness determined by the trial and error of marginal changes directionally towards chihuahua-ness that isn't present when attempting to do it in one step.
    @ underline: Source, please.

    When I think "genetic mutation" I think most people's response would be, "Oh, that's a sad thing that no one would choose, and it tends to come with serious health problems."

    Even when it all goes according to plan, you get breeds like the Lahsa Poo (sp?) which has an adorable scrunched up, foldy face, and almost definitely will require surgery to fix its sinuses.
  58. #23983
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    @ underline: Source, please.

    When I think "genetic mutation" I think most people's response would be, "Oh, that's a sad thing that no one would choose, and it tends to come with serious health problems."

    Even when it all goes according to plan, you get breeds like the Lahsa Poo (sp?) which has an adorable scrunched up, foldy face, and almost definitely will require surgery to fix its sinuses.
    If child dies before breeding, grandchild doesn't result. If child doesn't die before breeding, grandchild results. Continue for generations. The result is a level of robustness regarding survivability given the selecting environments.

    This doesn't mean a similar effect can't be had with modern GMO techniques.
  59. #23984
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    If child dies before breeding, grandchild doesn't result. If child doesn't die before breeding, grandchild results. Continue for generations. The result is a level of robustness regarding survivability given the selecting environments.
    A) this is not remotely relevant information to the topic you're claiming it affects.

    Don't get me wrong, mitosis is among the most fascinatingly complex and reliable process I've ever heard of, but it still has a failure rate, resulting in random genetic mutations. So, I do agree that this is a robust system to replicate genetic material, but not ideal, and certainly not guided by any logic or rational choices. Many genetic diseases persist in humans. Undoubtedly new ones will arise, as some combination of random mis-copies is always happening, and some fraction of those go unfixed.

    Natural selection is only robust over millenia. It functions by brute-force searching its "nearby" DNA configurations, nearly all of which result in negative or inconsequential results.

    The notion that this clumsy method of creating mostly abonimations for decades to millennia to get a 1% improvement on mating ability is superior to people making choices and changes for OUR good, which includes, but is not limited to, the mating ability of the species... how does that make sense to anyone?

    How is randomly swinging a club in the dark superior to snipers with night vision?


    B) By "source," I didn't mean some story you heard of, I meant a scholarly article which asserts your claim, with a detailed explanation which I, a sensible person (I hope), can confidently agree with.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    This doesn't mean a similar effect can't be had with modern GMO techniques.
    Provided skeptics like you keep interested and educating yourself, you can provide sensible feedback to the businesses and agencies which perform these kinds of research and therapies.
  60. #23985
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  61. #23986
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    We need to find three players by the time the series in Australia comes along. If we can do it, we've got a great chance of stuffing them. As things stand, I think it's finely balanced. They probably edge it with home advantage.
    Yeah it's a bit of a strange one even though we have some massive gaps in our team I'd fancy us to be competitive with any team in the world.

    1) Cook
    2)
    3)
    4) Root
    5)
    6) Stokes
    7) Bairstow
    8) Ali
    9)
    10) Board
    11) Anderson

    Not necessarily in that batting order but those are definitely in the team, the other places are all up for grabs. Sadly I think too much will be made of the Windies series and that 3rd fast bowler really needs to be capable of bowling in Australia, not England. I think Woakes is the best choice currently but I'm not sure how he'd fare down under.

    I think the main problem is finding someone to open with Cook, no one is even near the standard needed that we have tried so far. Hales is probably the best choice (of those tried, plenty we haven't) and he is leaving a lot to be desired. 3 and 5 are much easier fixes imo, I'm not sure Westley and Malan are the answer but it's less of an issue.
  62. #23987
    Quote Originally Posted by savy
    I think the main problem is finding someone to open with Cook, no one is even near the standard needed that we have tried so far.
    Hameed is the one for me, it's just if a question of fitness and experience. He's young and already oozing quality technique, he's going to be a big player for us in the years to come. Perhaps it's too soon for him though, idk.

    I'd take Hales and Woakes. It's that #3 spot that I'm stuck on. Westley or Stoneman? Fuck knows. I don't care so long as we beat the Aussies.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  63. #23988
    Hameed isn't good enough, he's in bad form and at test level his technique was exposed with him constantly nicking it outside his off stump. Long term maybe but I see no reason to rush him back in and him fail again. People like Lyth and Vince are much better imo.
  64. #23989
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    A) this is not remotely relevant information to the topic you're claiming it affects.

    Don't get me wrong, mitosis is among the most fascinatingly complex and reliable process I've ever heard of, but it still has a failure rate, resulting in random genetic mutations. So, I do agree that this is a robust system to replicate genetic material, but not ideal, and certainly not guided by any logic or rational choices. Many genetic diseases persist in humans. Undoubtedly new ones will arise, as some combination of random mis-copies is always happening, and some fraction of those go unfixed.

    Natural selection is only robust over millenia. It functions by brute-force searching its "nearby" DNA configurations, nearly all of which result in negative or inconsequential results.

    The notion that this clumsy method of creating mostly abonimations for decades to millennia to get a 1% improvement on mating ability is superior to people making choices and changes for OUR good, which includes, but is not limited to, the mating ability of the species... how does that make sense to anyone?

    How is randomly swinging a club in the dark superior to snipers with night vision?


    B) By "source," I didn't mean some story you heard of, I meant a scholarly article which asserts your claim, with a detailed explanation which I, a sensible person (I hope), can confidently agree with.


    Provided skeptics like you keep interested and educating yourself, you can provide sensible feedback to the businesses and agencies which perform these kinds of research and therapies.
    I don't disagree with any of this, and it appears that we are talking about two slightly different things.
  65. #23990
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    This video is informative regarding sinister effects of the root causes. It doesn't answer the title of the video correctly though it does detail some of those sinister effects.

    If you wish to spot the cognitive dissonance, notice at the beginning he says it's not the politicians who did this, but then later he says it IS the politicians who did this. An educational moment may be when she says she doesn't want to lose her job because then she could lose her health insurance. That situation -- where health insurance is so closely linked to employment -- is one of the causes of why healthcare prices are so high and it has been created by government. Economists have covered this extensively for quite a long time. I can explain the details if you would like.

    The effect of the behavior of the hospitals and insurers that Adam Ruins Everything describes emerges from a lack of competitiveness in the market. There is nothing remotely naturally non-competitive regarding the vast majority of treatments in healthcare that currently have such a high price tag. The lack of competitiveness is caused by government laws.

    If you would like me to explain any of this, ask.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 08-08-2017 at 04:17 PM.
  66. #23991
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Hameed isn't good enough, he's in bad form and at test level his technique was exposed with him constantly nicking it outside his off stump. Long term maybe but I see no reason to rush him back in and him fail again. People like Lyth and Vince are much better imo.
    He might be finding form at just the right time... I think he's 77 not out for Lancs and batting for his ton tomorrow, if the rain holds off.

    Hameed is good enough. His recent bad form is obviously down to recovering from a broken finger. There aren't many batsmen of his quality at 20. He's not the finished article yet, but who is at that age? He's at least competing with his rivals, and it won't be long before he outclasses them.

    He's the long term solution for sure, but Australia might come too soon. If he works hard though and gets big scores, then maybe.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  67. #23992
    Hammed has a better test average than Lyth and Vince combined. Since Cook took over, Hameed is second only to Root when it comes to averages.

    [image doesn't work]

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/40862946

    Image titled "the wrong picks"
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  68. #23993
    Averages start telling a story after like 50 innings, he's played 3 test matches. He was never doing all that well when he got picked for England in the first place and since then he's been doing awful, his 77 has been slow and laborious and now the rain has taken a day away letting him get to his century would make the game a definite draw because he's incapable of upping the pace. People like Lyth & Vince are proven very good bastmen and a poor bit of form for England doesn't change that.

    Jos Buttler had the highest test average in the world for quite a while at like 63, now he's at 31. Tbh I don't really see why Buttler isn't in the team as wicket keeper because Bairstow isn't as good behind the stumps and is a class batter. I should add that this shouldn't happen now but there was a time for the India test ( I think) that both were in the team and Bairstow was keeping, silly really. Sorts out the #5 issue easily as Butler is easily good enough to bat #7/8 in a test side.

    I also really want Ballance to sort himself out, he's brilliant and should be nailing that #3 role.
    Last edited by Savy; 08-08-2017 at 04:51 PM.
  69. #23994
    Maybe we can keep the cricket shitposting to one thread. Or better yet, start a new thread that everyone else can ignore, like Wuf does.
  70. #23995
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Maybe we can keep the cricket shitposting to one thread. Or better yet, start a new thread that everyone else can ignore, like Wuf does.
    ur gonna love the maga one because ur a big fan of facts and maga = fact
  71. #23996
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Maybe we can keep the cricket shitposting to one thread. Or better yet, start a new thread that everyone else can ignore, like Wuf does.
    Shut up.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  72. #23997
    I'm only talking about cricket because wuf hates it.

    I couldn't give a toss about a series against South Africa or Windies.

    I do give a toss about the upcoming Ashes series though.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  73. #23998
    i fuckin love cricket. me and all me mates wank off to et. arse to elbow.
  74. #23999
    You'd love it if you actually went to a cricket match. What's not to love about drinking beer while waiting for the rain to stop before watching some little people on a field chasing after a ball that you can't see properly? While drinking more beer?

    Cricket really is the best.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  75. #24000
    how british of you.

    suffering to fit in.

    murika does the same (probs the blimey roots)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •