The Mathematical Systems that Govern Thread Derails

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
ZyyzYzzy said:
So what is it precise methods or broad generalizations for meaningful results?
Click to expand...

Precise methods of action for the data in the model, broad observations of normal human behavior for the players within the model. If I know, for example, a human being listens to an authority figure 90% of the time in country X, but only 50% in country Y, the model changes--but I'm using a broad data set for behavior, and a specific method of action (The authority figure) to build the model. Models can use multiple data inputs, too.

In the case of global warming though, altruism is such a predictable force when brushing up against basic needs? That the results are, as said, common sense. Barring a technological innovation that makes those basic needs "greener", or some method of punishment (Like America having a drone army that is Captain Planet the terminator edition), cooperation at that level just won't work.
 
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
Lithose said:
Precise methods of action for the data in the model, broad observations of normal human behavior for the players within the model. If I know, for example, a human being listens to an authority figure 90% of the time in country X, but only 50% in country Y, the model changes--but I'm using a broad data set for behavior, and a specific method of action (The authority figure) to build the model. Models can use multiple data inputs, too.

In the case of global warming though, altruism is such a predictable force when brushing up against basic needs? That the results are, as said, common sense. Barring a technological innovation that makes those basic needs "greener", or some method of punishment (Like America having a drone army that is Captain Planet the terminator edition), cooperation at that level just won't work.
Click to expand...
And I'm saying you don't have sufficient data for parameters like the example above across all nations, cultures and sub-cultures in order to make the results of that model meaningful
 
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Lithose said:
Okay. Like I said, these arguments are effectively the same for "why socialism can work". They rely on rejecting common sense. It's very believable people looking to maintain basic electricity are not going to build cheap, effective coal power plants (For example) because of an agreement to fight global warming. I have to rely on very 'sketchy' variables to understand that, because no one can truly know the 'hearts' of mankind.

Yeah, I'm the one using "faith". Maybe you should use your hear ring to summon Captain Planet.

View attachment 137750
Click to expand...
Are we back to socialism?

Yes, we are back to socialism. Oh lord.

Point A.
We don't know how to model to a mathematical level, human behavior, in way that the model can be predictive of outcomes.

Point B
We don't have enough actual information about the problem itself (GW) and its sources, due to its complexity. We mainly have the partial outcomes and have to work our way backwards to figure out the cause.

Point C
Combining Point A and B into a predictive model will yield unreliable results.

Point D
All we have is models built upon models, built upon assumptions, with a lot good educated guesses thrown in to the mix.
 
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
ZyyzYzzy said:
And I'm saying you don't have sufficient data for parameters like the example above across all nations, cultures and sub-cultures in order to make the results of that model meaningful
Click to expand...

Okay, so you're saying there are cases where people will go without basic needs to combat global warming. (That's not hyperbole. Coal is cheap, coal power plants are essential best practice and "easy" to build.)

India is part of the new accords, and yet immediately said it would be breaking them in order to increase their electrical penetration.

Access+to+Electricity.jpg


IndiaCoal.png



This is what I'm saying, at a certain level behaviors become so predictable that you can count on them except outliers (Which is why I said the life thing, you guys aren't asking a nuanced, complex model--you're asking whether you can make a deal with people looking to feed themselves more reliably, and have more stable environmental protection.)

This pattern, raid adoption of fossil fuels in developing economies. The ONLY exception to this, the only point of data that disrupts this trend is access to hydro or thermal power. Barring a new technology (A rapid increase in solar or batteries, and a drastic price drop in the latter or fusion or some shit)...This pattern is reliable.

This is what you're arguing, you're arguing against common sense.
 
Mario Speedwagon

Mario Speedwagon

Gold Recognition
<Prior Amod>
18,801
67,743
Are you guys really arguing that the results of an international cooperative agreement where cooperation provides no tangible benefits and potentially significant negatives while not cooperating has potentially huge benefits and no consequences is unpredictable? Is that REALLY what this whole fucking derail has been about? Jesus you don't even need a fucking model to know what the likely outcome is. You just have to be not retarded.
 
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
Lendarios said:
Are we back to socialism?

Yes, we are back to socialism. Oh lord.

Point A.
We don't know how to model to a mathematical level, human behavior, in way that the model can be predictive of outcomes.

Point B
We don't have enough actual information about the problem itself (GW) and its sources, due to its complexity. We mainly have the partial outcomes and have to work our way backwards to figure out the cause.

Point C
Combining Point A and B into a predictive model will yield unreliable results.

Point D
All we have is models built upon models, built upon assumptions, with a lot good educated guesses thrown in to the mix.
Click to expand...

Read the above reply. Your argument is predicated that people might put global warming over having more reliable food, water and heat for their families, the BILLIONS of people who are in this situation.

You're right, it's not socialism, its much more naive than that.
 
  • 1Worf
Reactions: 1 user
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
Lithose said:
Barring a new technology (A rapid increase in solar or batteries, and a drastic price drop in the latter or fusion or some shit)...This pattern is reliable.
Click to expand...
Which is why attempting to model a century out with no tangible way to properly represent this huge fucking caveat you point out all the time is relatively useless
 
P

Picasso3

Silver Baronet of the Realm
11,333
5,322
Mario Speedwagon said:
Are you guys really arguing that the results of an international cooperative agreement where cooperation provides no tangible benefits and potentially significant negatives while not cooperating has potentially huge benefits and no consequences is unpredictable? Is that REALLY what this whole fucking derail has been about? Jesus you don't even need a fucking model to know what the likely outcome is. You just have to be not retarded.
Click to expand...

No, that's what lithose fabricated to justify himself
 
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
Picasso3 said:
No, that's what lithose fabricated to justify himself
Click to expand...

No, it's what you're arguing. I can show my first damn post, and its exactly what I said. I then, in a VERY detailed manner, explained it. You continued railing against it saying I can't possibly know what people will choose. It is as ridiculous as it sounds.
 
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
ZyyzYzzy said:
Which is why attempting to model a century out with no tangible way to properly represent this huge fucking caveat you point out all the time is relatively useless
Click to expand...

I'm not though, the model is based on the best course of action for policy NOW. Right now, with no punishment, and no real benefit for developing economies, there is only a limited amount of use pursuing a cooperative agreement. You can very easily make the argument, again, given that we know innovation is the best answer to the issue, that entering into an agreement that might hinder our economy is actually harmful--since the U.S. and Europe have massive leads in innovation. (Exception being, of course, where restricting forces development of new innovation--which I brought up.)

Understanding how people are going to react to attempts to cooperation under the paradigms were using, should absolutely affect our policy pursuits. It's not complex because the self interest is so clear, and the risk is so abstracted to be all but non-existent. I don't need to know a lot of about culture, or the people to understand this basic function--we're talking a level that's seen in bacteria on up, in every living being. You can count on it when the risk vs reward is this extreme.

If we add any nuance, yeah, it becomes more complex and modeling it would become less effective. But this specific scenario has a name (Tragedy of the Commons) because the extremes of the situation and motivations make it so predictable.
 
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
Lithose said:
If we add any nuance, yeah, it becomes more complex and modeling it would become less effective. But this specific scenario has a name (Tragedy of the Commons) because the extremes of the situation and motivations make it so predictable.
Click to expand...
Tragedy of tge Commons is not applicable to the GW scenario, making the first part actually relevant
 
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
Mario Speedwagon said:
Global warming is literally cited in the introductory section of the tragedy of the commons wiki article as an example.
Click to expand...
It's almost as if economists are making the assumption that trade of fossil fuels will remain static between parties as is for another century
 
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
ZyyzYzzy said:
Tragedy of tge Commons is not applicable to the GW scenario, making the first part actually relevant
Click to expand...

Yes it is, it's a perfect example of it.

ZyyzYzzy said:
It's almost as if economists are making the assumption that trade of fossil fuels will remain static between parties as is for another century
Click to expand...

No, they are using the state of the world as it is right now to analyze agreements used right now that will affect policy right now. In 100 years we could develop fusion and power massive carbon collecting machines for free and not worry about any of this shit. But for right now, basing policy off of the assumption that you won't achieve cooperation, and that carbon use in the third world will grow is logical. Our policy should strike a balance between developing carbon neutral technologies that will be viable on their own (Because there are other benefits to that, like the fact that despite shale the supply is still finite) and ensuring economically we don't hamstring ourselves so we're weakened when the real problem hits.

Because that is the unsaid aspect of the commons problem--the party who is strongest going into the collapse, will typically stand to gain a great deal if they can whether it.
 
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
Lithose said:
Because that is the unsaid aspect of the commons problem--the party who is strongest going into the collapse, will typically stand to gain a great deal if they can whether it.
Click to expand...
So not accounting for any possible change, or any other aspects of the actual world you are confident in saying China will be the global power if certain policy actions are followed.

Sounds awfully like someone has a bit too much hubris.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.