The Mathematical Systems that Govern Thread Derails

Lithose · May 6, 2017

Picasso3 said:
"You inject this shit, go on about it, and then drown the broader point in minutiae. "

Please acknowledge this.

The broader point Kiroy was making was that mitigation of effects, rather than mitigation of outcomes, was probably a better overall strategy. Everything in my post was illustrating why he was using hyperbole to express that, and why its a viable strategy. If the posts were long and full of "minutiae" its because the topic is incredibly complex and nuanced. Which is why its been rather aggravating that you guys have repeatedly tried to paint my point as simplistic and binary, because I actually have taken the time to express the nuance in it (And then explain it, over and over--and its often hand waived as 'lol didn't read', followed by completely misrepresenting what I said.)

ZyyzYzzy · May 6, 2017

Lithose said:
Thank you. I was waiting for you to make this point (Almost started to think you wouldn't. Maybe you'd caught it.)

Now Zyyz....Does that prove your point...or mine, that a cooperative treaty even WITH punishment was broken in multiple ways? Or do you think that adds a lot to my argument that the expectation of global altruism in the face of benefits for non-adherence and no punishments for adherence is silly.

Beautiful. Thanks Zyyz!

Yep. So your works the way you want when you want it to but when it doesn't tjose same criteria are no applicable in other situations ever.

Picasso3 · May 6, 2017

Lithose said:
The broader point Kiroy was making was that mitigation of effects, rather than mitigation of outcomes, was probably a better overall strategy. Everything in my post was illustrating why he was using hyperbole to express that, and why its a viable strategy. If the posts were long and full of "minutiae" its because the topic is incredibly complex and nuanced. Which is why its been rather aggravating that you guys have repeatedly tried to paint my point as simplistic and binary, because I actually have taken the time to express the nuance in it (And then explain it, over and over--and its often hand waived as 'lol didn't read', followed by completely misrepresenting what I said.)

I think you're giving him too much credit with hyperbole.

"mitigation of effects, rather than mitigation of outcomes"

Can you clarify this

Mist · May 6, 2017

This is some next-level shitposting.

Sludig · May 6, 2017

And I'm triggggerrreedddddd. But apparently I shouldnt be.

Picasso3 · May 6, 2017

Sludig said:
And I'm triggggerrreedddddd. But apparently I shouldnt be.

Lithose knew this would upset you and he did it anyway

Lithose · May 6, 2017

ZyyzYzzy said:
Yep. So your works the way you want when you want it to but when it doesn't tjose same criteria are no applicable in other situations ever.

Uhh, the prediction was that it wouldn't work. As I said, the waterloo prediction (And a few others, the papers are 20 years old now, though, and I haven't read them, they were just discussed, as well as the failure of the biological agreement under Bush.) explained multiple methods the "cheating" would come in, one of them was delays between the countries with largest stock piles.

You're confusing me explaining why the matrices in this, a system with punishment and transparency enforcement between players is a lot more complex, and more likely to produce a 'good' equilibrium (But not the outcome desired within the treaty), as saying that the treaty would work. The treaty and what a model of this would predict are not the same thing, you realize that right?

Which all goes back to the original argument. If a situation where you have countries agreeing to use force/economic punishment to enforce the binding agreement fails, then what hope is there for altruistic cooperation where there is no threat of force, and no mechanism for transparency? Yeah, exactly, Zyyz. You made my argument for me.

Lithose · May 6, 2017

Picasso3 said:
I think you're giving him too much credit with hyperbole.

"mitigation of effects, rather than mitigation of outcomes"

Can you clarify this

Yeah, mitigation of outcomes was a sloppy way to phrase it, no edit. =-/

I mean mitigation of effects, which means preparing for waters to rise, and other significant impacts. Rather than hoping to significantly alter the outcome through cooperation (Technological alterations are feasible, but you have to go in with the mind set that any restriction/regulation is done hopefully to produce an innovation which can/will stand on its own once it matures. Your LED example was a good one--the technology is competitive on its own.)

Picasso3 · May 6, 2017

Which all goes back to the original argument. If a situation where you have countries agreeing to use force/economic punishment to enforce the binding agreement fails, then what hope is there for altruistic cooperation where there is no threat of force, and no mechanism for transparency?

Are you sure

ZyyzYzzy · May 6, 2017

Lithose said:
Uhh, the prediction was that it wouldn't work. As I said, the waterloo prediction (And a few others, the papers are 20 years old now, though, and I haven't read them, they were just discussed, as well as the failure of the biological agreement under Bush.) explained multiple methods the "cheating" would come in, one of them was delays between the countries with largest stock piles.

You're confusing me explaining why the matrices in this, a system with punishment and transparency enforcement between players is a lot more complex, and more likely to produce a 'good' equilibrium (But not the outcome desired within the treaty), as saying that the treaty would work. The treaty and what a model of this would predict are not the same thing, you realize that right?

Which all goes back to the original argument. If a situation where you have countries agreeing to use force/economic punishment to enforce the binding agreement fails, then what hope is there for altruistic cooperation where there is no threat of force, and no mechanism for transparency? Yeah, exactly, Zyyz. You made my argument for me.

What biological agreement under Bush? The biological weapons convention happened during Nixon's presidency.

Sludig · May 6, 2017

Picasso3 said:
Lithose knew this would upset you and he did it anyway

No, I think lithose is generally right, but he has a condition to try and beat people into submission who are wrong, no matter how stubborn they are also. It's like tilting at windmills. Ain't never getting zz in this case to back down, and never going to be able to logic keg/lend/xeq into sanity in the usual arguments.

Picasso3 · May 6, 2017

Lithose said:
Yeah, mitigation of outcomes was a sloppy way to phrase it, no edit. =-/

I mean mitigation of effects, which means preparing for waters to rise, and other significant impacts. Rather than hoping to significantly alter the outcome through cooperation (Technological alterations are feasible, but you have to go in with the mind set that any restriction/regulation is done hopefully to produce an innovation which can/will stand on its own once it matures. Your LED example was a good one--the technology is competitive on its own.)

This premise is ancillary as it's a specific treatment for gw.

Lithose · May 6, 2017

ZyyzYzzy said:
What biological agreement under Bush? The biological weapons convention happened during Nixon's presidency.

The 2001 review to strengthen the agreement. I was doing my undergrad and specifically taking a class on modeling and this was a topic, which is why I remember some of the papers on how and why the agreements would "fail", but produce better that zero cooperative results (Literally reach an equilibrium where no one achieves everything they want, but total cooperation isn't achieved either--which is what they tried to make that nice movie about.)

ZyyzYzzy · May 6, 2017

Lithose said:
The 2001 review to strengthen the agreement. I was doing my undergrad and specifically taking a class on modeling and this was a topic, which is why I remember some of the papers on how and why the agreements would "fail", but produce better that zero cooperative results (Literally reach an equilibrium where no one achieves everything they want, but total cooperation isn't achieved either--which is what they tried to make that nice movie about.)

Did your model tell you wjy they were doomed to fail?

They were too intrusive and who hamper medical and other research on the traditional BWAs (and other select agents) for zero benefit. But hey don't need to understand why just regurgitate model results

Mario Speedwagon · May 6, 2017

I just created and ran a model to determine the outcome of this thread. Turns out you're all autistic AND gay.

Picasso3 · May 6, 2017

That just goes to show you all models are wrong

Lithose · May 6, 2017

ZyyzYzzy said:
Did your model tell you wjy they were doomed to fail?

They were too intrusive and who hamper medical and other research on the traditional BWAs (and other select agents) for zero benefit. But hey don't need to understand why just regurgitate model results

Yes, that's part of making a good model, what are the negatives, vs the interests for parties (It's also what the Bush administration specifically said for their reasoning too, which was in the paper I cited). For weapons, for example (Of all times), limiting production has the negative of reducing research into delivery mechanisms, and potential countermeasures to those new developments subsequently. That's something that needs to be taken into account.

You act like modelling never attempts to discern the precise method of action, in fact its been one of your biggest arguments. But that's completely wrong--in fact, getting the precise methods of action, so better models can be made, is one of the most important parts of data collection. Once you start having multiple points of risk and multiple rewards--models become extremely complex, and less reliable. Some still have enormous value, and can give you a pretty good idea of possible outcomes. But purposely getting exact methods of action is important (This is why I brought up plane overbooking yesterday--understanding that some of the behavior comes from flight delays, allows you to create a much better model).

But that all illustrates why GW, in regards to the current attempts at cooperation, is a lot easier to 'predict'--because it falls into a very specific common problem in modeling (Tragedy of the commons). Where self interest is very high for those willing to use the resource, and the direct punishment doesn't exist. That self interest is compounded because its driven by basic needs, billions of people are trying to just feed themselves and heat their homes--expecting altruistic cooperation that makes that more difficult is naive. That kind of thing disrupts cooperation at *every level* studied. All models are wrong, but some have value--this one has a truck load of value, so much so that I'd almost say its common sense.

Lendarios · May 6, 2017

Sludig said:
No, I think lithose is generally right, but he has a condition to try and beat people into submission who are wrong, no matter how stubborn they are also. It's like tilting at windmills. Ain't never getting zz in this case to back down, and never going to be able to logic keg/lend/xeq into sanity in the usual arguments.

Lithose is wrong on this case, he places too much faith on untested mathematical models, (made with an unknown number of unknown variables and incorrect information), that try to predict human behavior.

That is the crux of this argument, faith on models that are untested, unpredictable and incomplete.

The rest is just word soup.

ZyyzYzzy · May 6, 2017

Lithose said:
Yes, that's part of making a good model, what are the negatives, vs the interests for parties (It's also what the Bush administration specifically said for their reasoning too, which was in the paper I cited). For weapons, for example (Of all times), limiting production has the negative of reducing research into delivery mechanisms, and potential countermeasures to those new developments subsequently. That's something that needs to be taken into account.

You act like modelling never attempts to discern the precise method of action, in fact its been one of your biggest arguments. But that's completely wrong--in fact, getting the precise methods of action, so better models can be made, is one of the most important parts of data collection. Once you start having multiple points of risk and multiple rewards--models become extremely complex, and less reliable. Some still have enormous value, and can give you a pretty good idea of possible outcomes. But purposely getting exact methods of action is important (This is why I brought up plane overbooking yesterday--understanding that some of the behavior comes from flight delays, allows you to create a much better model).

But that all illustrates why GW, in regards to the current attempts at cooperation, is a lot easier to 'predict'--because it falls into a very specific common problem in modeling (Tragedy of the commons). Where self interest is very high for those willing to use the resource, and the direct punishment doesn't exist. That self interest is compounded because its driven by basic needs, billions of people are trying to just feed themselves and heat their homes--expecting altruistic cooperation that makes that more difficult is naive. That kind of thing disrupts cooperation at *every level* studied. All models are wrong, but some have value--this one has a truck load of value, so much so that I'd almost say its common sense.

So what is it precise methods or broad generalizations for meaningful results?

Lithose · May 6, 2017

Lendarios said:
Lithose is wrong on this case, he places too much faith on untested mathematical models, (made with an unknown number of unknown variables and incorrect information), that try to predict human behavior.

That is the crux of this argument, faith on models that are untested, unpredictable and incomplete.

The rest is just word soup.

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.

The Mathematical Systems that Govern Thread Derails

Buzzfeed Editor

RIP USA

Silver Baronet of the Realm

Eeyore Enthusiast

Silver Baronet of the Realm

Silver Baronet of the Realm

Buzzfeed Editor

Buzzfeed Editor

Silver Baronet of the Realm

RIP USA

Silver Baronet of the Realm

Silver Baronet of the Realm

Buzzfeed Editor

RIP USA

Gold Recognition

Silver Baronet of the Realm

Buzzfeed Editor

Trump's Staff

RIP USA

Buzzfeed Editor