The Mathematical Systems that Govern Thread Derails

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
ZyyzYzzy said:
Again not addressing anything I'm saying.

I can't accurately (or at least to a degree to make decisions about safety) model contact exposure from hazards of know chemicals on known surfaces, but Lithose Lithose is unwavering in the accuracy of modeling human behavior on a global scale
Click to expand...


Yeah, you don't seem to be saying shit, that's the problem. You're arguing like Tolan for socialism. "Yeah but you can not KNOW, for sure--thus its wrong!" Your entire argument is predisposed on simply trying to say efficacy is not 100% absolute of the models/situation, but when I outline precisely what paying attention to them should push us to do...You completely agree with me.

You aren't making an argument, or really a coherent one. It's simply 'you can't know that, my utopia MIGHT exist!' But I've readily admitted outliers can happen, I just don't believe outliers will become the norm, and there is a shit tone of evidence from the simplest life on up to us that illustrates this. Technically its possible for a Grandmother from Ohio with no criminal history to want to bomb a plane, while the dozen guys who are radical Islamic speakers and have traveled to risk zones were actually just turning over a new leaf and trying to convince the other terrorists to stop as well. But I don't I should base my strategy on dealing with threats to flights on that.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
Lithose said:
Yeah, you don't seem to be saying shit, that's the problem. You're arguing like Tolan for socialism. "Yeah but you can not KNOW, for sure--thus its wrong!" Your entire argument is predisposed on simply trying to say efficacy is not 100% absolute of the models/situation, but when I outline precisely what paying attention to them should push us to do...You completely agree with me.

You aren't making an argument, or really a coherent one. It's simply 'you can't know that, my utopia MIGHT exist!' But I've readily admitted outliers can happen, I just don't believe outliers will become the norm, and there is a shit tone of evidence from the simplest life on up to us that illustrates this. Technically its possible for a Grandmother from Ohio with no criminal history to want to bomb a plane, while the dozen guys who are radical Islamic speakers and have traveled to risk zones were actually just turning over a new leaf and trying to convince the other terrorists to stop as well. But I don't I should base my strategy on dealing with threats to flights on that.
Click to expand...
All models are wrong is not the same as saying they don't have 100% efficacy.
 
Tolan

Tolan

Member of the Year 2016
<Banned>
7,249
2,038
Lithose said:
Yeah, you don't seem to be saying shit, that's the problem. You're arguing like Tolan for socialism. "Yeah but you can not KNOW, for sure--thus its wrong!" Your entire argument is predisposed on simply trying to say efficacy is not 100% absolute of the models/situation, but when I outline precisely what paying attention to them should push us to do...You completely agree with me.

You aren't making an argument, or really a coherent one. It's simply 'you can't know that, my utopia MIGHT exist!' But I've readily admitted outliers can happen, I just don't believe outliers will become the norm, and there is a shit tone of evidence from the simplest life on up to us that illustrates this. Technically its possible for a Grandmother from Ohio with no criminal history to want to bomb a plane, while the dozen guys who are radical Islamic speakers and have traveled to risk zones were actually just turning over a new leaf and trying to convince the other terrorists to stop as well. But I don't I should base my strategy on dealing with threats to flights on that.
Click to expand...
I think you're confusing me with Jordan Peterson.
 
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
Lithose said:
I have, multiple times. Expounding and giving examples, linking studies on it, even. Your response is always the same. Because you've already agreed with me, Zyyz, multiple times. (Piccasso was to enthralled in his butthurt to see it.) I mean you've made whole arguments mocking informing policy, but you've AGREED WITH THE FUCKING POLICY.




Your argument is essentially models do not have 100% efficacy (Oh, you'll say you're simply saying "all models are wrong" and thus its not a value argument--but my first post was very much a value argument you misread, which you admitted multiple times as well because you didn't read the 'fluff"--"fluff" which was the whole concept that it wasn't binary, which you BELIEVED it was, and that's what originally got you upset). However, what I was advocating with said models you agree with, indicating the efficacy of the model on altruistic agreements rises to the level where my posts were logical. Again, you've agreed with them MULTIPLE times.

Your entire argument is built on nothing. You are literally just angry you misread a line at the start of the argument and jumped on it because you were angry at Kiroy, you admitted later that you didn't read my whole post because....



You've constantly tried to push me into a binary, because you thought that is what I was arguing, and then bitched when I would tell you my entire first post stated in it that there were variables that could change things, and I said this multiple times too.



In short, you don't even know what you're arguing, Zyy. You got angry at a post you didn't read because it was "too long", and now you're trying to make my argument fit YOUR perception of what I said, not what was actually said. Every time I explain to you what I said, you reject it or hand wave it because you're upset. You've carried this on to insane levels, you don't really disagree with me. You seem to be purely upset because some mathematician somewhere probably embarrassed you once working on your thesis and you're carrying a fucking grudge (I really can't understand it.)

So my arguments have begun labeling it what it is--you threw in with the brain trusts of the board, Picasso and fucking Lendarios, and you got really butthurt how it turned out. You now seem hell bent on tagging me in multiple threads throwing a tantrum, and I've begun responding appropriately.
Click to expand...
Still didn't respond. You really don't understand the saying all models are wrong either.
 
  • 1Picard
Reactions: 1 user
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
Picasso3 said:
I'm so upset about that beatdown i'm bringing it up every opportunity I get?
Click to expand...

Yeah, away from the meat of the argument, trying to turn it into a tag line. It's like "RUSSIAN CONNECTION?!?!", the board version. It's actually pretty sad, I had no idea it was that important to you three, honestly. I'm pretty happy that people could read through the argument and come to their own conclusions (Because I'm pretty damn confident in the argument, and the results, as well as the long list of citations I was able to provide.)...But people can make their own minds up if they choose to read it.

You though, you're posting in other threads, away from the argument, one liners that often have little to do with it. That's just headline/sound bite arguing. People can infer what they want, I'm confident in the case I made. You guys should be confident too, if you believe you're correct. But that's the crux isn't it, somewhere deep down this is nagging you, hence why you've been tagging to multiple threads now (And have let most go without responses), while I've mostly forgotten about it until I see it in my notices.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
ZyyzYzzy said:
Still didn't respond. You really don't understand the saying all models are wrong either.
Click to expand...

What's your argument Zyyz. State it concisely and put it in the Rickshaw thread, I'll respond there. Pick a position, don't just argue like Tolan defending socialism.

Edit: Also, btw, I do understand what "All models are wrong" means--you, like most who use the phrase, are leaving out the second half of it. Much like you left out the second half of my sentence that started this all. When you go find the second half of the sentence, you'll understand every argument I made on efficacy has been a response to your repetition of that phrase.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
ZyyzYzzy said:
Lithose Lithose is going full hodj
Click to expand...

Yeah, because I'm the one who the one who posted twice in the mod thread trying to continue this after it stopped. =-/ Even Hodj didn't do that. You need to give it a break, Zyyz. Which is pretty much the opposite of what Hodj would say, and Hodj certainly wouldn't have simply ignored you posting twice, and tagging him with them, which I did.
 
P

Picasso3

Silver Baronet of the Realm
11,333
5,322
Lithose said:
Yeah, away from the meat of the argument, trying to turn it into a tag line. It's like "RUSSIAN CONNECTION?!?!", the board version. It's actually pretty sad, I had no idea it was that important to you three, honestly. I'm pretty happy that people could read through the argument and come to their own conclusions (Because I'm pretty damn confident in the argument, and the results, as well as the long list of citations I was able to provide.)...But people can make their own minds up if they choose to read it.

You though, you're posting in other threads, away from the argument, one liners that often have little to do with it. That's just headline/sound bite arguing. People can infer what they want, I'm confident in the case I made. You guys should be confident too, if you believe you're correct. But that's the crux isn't it, somewhere deep down this is nagging you, hence why you've been tagging to multiple threads now (And have let most go without responses), while I've mostly forgotten about it until I see it in my notices.
Click to expand...

Lithose, I am a simple man with simple plans:
You made an outrageously stupid claim and i'm making fun of you because it's one of those most universally applicable idiotic claims you could ever make.

The notion that the global warming debate or addressing it in anyway is moot because of the "mathematical equations that govern life" or better yet dismissing anyone's input because "they dont understand these equations" is simply insanely stupid. Feel free to post all the paragraphs in the world and all the "no ur butthurt" claims in the world.

If you think this is going any other way, you may need to adjust your personal dissonance variable in your model.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1Picard
  • 1Worf
Reactions: 2 users
Burnem Wizfyre

Burnem Wizfyre

Log Wizard
11,777
19,492
Zyyz is usually a good poster but this autistic screeching has to end jfc.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
Picasso3 said:
Lithose, I am a simple man with simple plans:
You made an outrageously stupid claim and i'm making fun of you because it's one of those most universally applicable idiotic claims you could ever make.

The notion that the global warming debate or addressing it in anyway is moot because of the "mathematical equations that govern life" or better yet dismissing anyone's input because "they dont understand these equations" is simply insanely stupid. Feel free to post all the paragraphs in the world and all the "no ur butthurt" claims in the world.

If you think this is going any other way, you may need to adjust your personal dissonance variable in your model.
Click to expand...

I never said this. And that's the problem. My post was pretty in depth about how to address global warming, and saying there were many methods to address global warming. I simply said expecting cooperation to do so could only be useful in limited time frames/scenarios given strictly voluntary accords. And so we had to explore other avenues of mitigation that relied more on self interest. The reason cooperation was limited was due to mathematical modeling that we can see predicting behavior on just about all cooperative endeavors of living organisms. Normally this would be more complex, but where altruism outside of family is itself an outlier, logically we shouldn't rely on it.

No one has disagreed with the above statement. You guys simply keep trying to reframe it after the argument is over.
 
P

Picasso3

Silver Baronet of the Realm
11,333
5,322
That thread is for the theory, this forum is for the practice.
 
  • 1Worf
  • 1Picard
Reactions: 1 users
P

Picasso3

Silver Baronet of the Realm
11,333
5,322
Lithose said:
I never said this. And that's the problem. My post was pretty in depth about how to address global warming, and saying there were many methods to address global warming. I simply said expecting cooperation to do so could only be useful in limited time frames/scenarios. And so we had to explore other avenues of mitigation that relied more on self interest.

No one has disagreed with the above statement. You guys simply keep trying to reframe it after the argument is over.
Click to expand...

This whole god damn mess started because I tried to make the point that Kiroy should not have the stance that there is not a single thing humanity can do to mitigate/address global warming and to dismiss any discussion on the topic without listening to the proposal. Which sadly, he is too entrenched to entertain.

Your response to that is of course go to your body of knowledge, so you can talk a lot, to make tedious points on your own topics and god forbid someone actually read the mental gymnastics to do so, because this is what happens.

It is a fair point that humans act selfishly or can be predicted with game theory (and yada yada socialism doesn't work), however, we are outside the discussion of that as we are trying to discern what topic would be the variable in the game theory of what is going to happen with GW. Therefore, you can't predict jack shit with you game theory analysis, because you don't have the theoretical input.

Please do not respond to this with an indepth bunch of shit about how my generalization using game theory is incorrect and it's actually the goldstein equation as i'm only trying to convey the broader point.
 
  • 1Picard
Reactions: 1 user
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
Lithose Lithose can model human behavior except in cases in which the model doesn't work, of which there are millions of real examples
 
  • 1Picard
Reactions: 1 user
Burnem Wizfyre

Burnem Wizfyre

Log Wizard
11,777
19,492
Picasso3 said:
This whole god damn mess started because I tried to make the point that Kiroy should not have the stance that there is not a single thing humanity can do to mitigate/address global warming and to not dismiss any discussion on the topic without listening to the proposal. Which sadly, he is too entrenched to entertain.

Your response to that is of course go to your body of knowledge, so you can talk a lot, to make tedious points on your own topics and god forbid someone actually read the mental gymnastics to do so, because this is what happens.

It is a fair point that humans act selfishly or can be predicted with game theory (and yada yada socialism doesn't work), however, we are outside the discussion of that as we are trying to discern what topic would be the variable in the game theory of what is going to happen with GW. Therefore, you can't predict jack shit with you game theory analysis, because you don't have the theoretical input.

Please do not respond to this with an indepth bunch of shit about how my generalization using game theory is incorrect and it's actually the goldstein equation as i'm only trying to convey the broader point.
Click to expand...

:emoji_fork_knife_plate::emoji_poop::emoji_coffin::emoji_gay_pride_flag:.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Status
Not open for further replies.