hehe. OK, I was borderline triggered there. a bit.Originally Posted by wufwugy
08-04-2017 12:56 PM
#23926
| |
| |
08-04-2017 01:02 PM
#23927
| |
|
Just wait, next Imma assume your gender, xir. |
08-04-2017 01:12 PM
#23928
| |
| |
08-04-2017 01:17 PM
#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. | |
| |
08-04-2017 01:24 PM
#23930
| |
08-04-2017 01:38 PM
#23931
| |
|
The left is where racial/sexual/etc. discrimination goes to convince people it's not discrimination. |
08-04-2017 02:02 PM
#23932
| |
|
I hope everyone at Southwest Airlines gets botulism |
08-04-2017 02:20 PM
#23933
| |
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. | |
08-04-2017 02:29 PM
#23934
| |
|
fwiw i think only a handful of models in economics are any good. Lots of them are indeed lame ass. |
08-04-2017 02:48 PM
#23935
| |
|
On a different board, somebody stated that he sees economics as having experienced only three major revolutions in thought (which I agree with): |
Last edited by wufwugy; 08-04-2017 at 02:55 PM. | |
08-04-2017 04:21 PM
#23936
| |
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. | |
08-04-2017 04:32 PM
#23937
| |
08-04-2017 04:35 PM
#23938
| |
08-04-2017 04:47 PM
#23939
| |
|
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.* |
08-04-2017 05:41 PM
#23940
| |
08-04-2017 06:20 PM
#23941
| |
|
Did you see him say that? |
08-05-2017 05:31 AM
#23942
| |
More or less. And how can you possibly model a complex system with incomplete information? | |
08-05-2017 12:32 PM
#23943
| |
|
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."? |
Last edited by wufwugy; 08-05-2017 at 12:38 PM. | |
08-05-2017 12:43 PM
#23944
| |
|
My favorite line from the article: |
08-05-2017 01:32 PM
#23945
| |
Maybe. I don't know enough about personality psych to answer that. | |
08-05-2017 01:55 PM
#23946
| |
I think there is something to the idea that people who are smart overestimate their ability to understand things they know little about. | |
08-05-2017 02:37 PM
#23947
| |
|
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. |
08-05-2017 02:43 PM
#23948
| |
|
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. |
08-05-2017 03:23 PM
#23949
| |
|
My pick for the most illuminating paragraph on what an IYI is: |
Last edited by wufwugy; 08-05-2017 at 03:26 PM. | |
08-05-2017 05:00 PM
#23950
| |
08-05-2017 05:05 PM
#23951
| |
08-05-2017 05:08 PM
#23952
| |
08-05-2017 06:58 PM
#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. |
08-06-2017 06:00 AM
#23954
| |
A fat-tailed distribution is more likely to experience an extreme event than a normal distribution, yes. | |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 08-06-2017 at 06:05 AM. | |
08-06-2017 07:31 AM
#23955
| |
Bolt got 3rd! | |
| |
08-06-2017 07:37 AM
#23956
| |
Yeah but we all know he really got 2nd, because the winner has been banned twice for doping. | |
| |
08-06-2017 08:03 AM
#23957
| |
|
They are all at it lol. |
08-06-2017 08:24 AM
#23958
| |
Anyone understands this language? | |
| |
08-06-2017 08:26 AM
#23959
| |
First time that I know of that Bolt ran a 9.90+. But on track, I concur with savvy, they are all doping imo | |
| |
08-06-2017 08:32 AM
#23960
| |
08-06-2017 10:49 AM
#23961
| |
| |
08-06-2017 04:10 PM
#23962
| |
| |
08-06-2017 04:23 PM
#23963
| |
|
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. |
08-06-2017 04:24 PM
#23964
| |
| |
08-06-2017 04:54 PM
#23965
| |
Right. | |
08-06-2017 05:46 PM
#23966
| |
|
Thanks for the informative responses. |
08-07-2017 08:51 AM
#23967
| |
On standard deviations and probabilities: | |
08-07-2017 08:56 AM
#23968
| |
| |
08-07-2017 11:35 AM
#23969
| |
|
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. |
08-07-2017 11:57 AM
#23970
| |
| |
08-07-2017 12:55 PM
#23971
| |
The answer is pretty strongly a no. | |
08-07-2017 01:23 PM
#23972
| |
|
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. |
08-07-2017 04:31 PM
#23973
| |
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. | |
08-07-2017 04:32 PM
#23974
| |
08-07-2017 06:12 PM
#23975
| |
|
^^I lol'd. |
08-07-2017 06:34 PM
#23976
| |
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. | |
08-07-2017 06:52 PM
#23977
| |
|
I agree. And it appears that there have been some negative unintended consequences of selective breeding too. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 08-07-2017 at 06:59 PM. | |
08-07-2017 07:06 PM
#23978
| |
08-07-2017 07:18 PM
#23979
| |
|
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. |
08-07-2017 07:20 PM
#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. |
08-08-2017 08:59 AM
#23981
| |
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. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 08-08-2017 at 09:02 AM. | |
08-08-2017 09:07 AM
#23982
| |
@ underline: Source, please. | |
08-08-2017 11:06 AM
#23983
| |
|
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. |
08-08-2017 01:48 PM
#23984
| |
A) this is not remotely relevant information to the topic you're claiming it affects. | |
08-08-2017 02:01 PM
#23985
| |
| |
| |
08-08-2017 03:02 PM
#23986
| |
|
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. |
08-08-2017 03:33 PM
#23987
| |
| |
| |
08-08-2017 03:39 PM
#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. |
08-08-2017 03:52 PM
#23989
| |
| |
08-08-2017 04:13 PM
#23990
| |
|
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. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 08-08-2017 at 04:17 PM. | |
08-08-2017 04:26 PM
#23991
| |
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. | |
| |
08-08-2017 04:34 PM
#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. | |
| |
08-08-2017 04:45 PM
#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. |
Last edited by Savy; 08-08-2017 at 04:51 PM. | |
08-08-2017 05:23 PM
#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. | |
08-08-2017 05:39 PM
#23995
| |
| |
08-08-2017 08:12 PM
#23996
| |
| |
08-08-2017 08:14 PM
#23997
| |
I'm only talking about cricket because wuf hates it. | |
| |
08-08-2017 08:23 PM
#23998
| |
|
i fuckin love cricket. me and all me mates wank off to et. arse to elbow. |
08-08-2017 08:44 PM
#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? | |
| |
08-08-2017 08:54 PM
#24000
| |
|
how british of you. |