That sort of idea. See the LW wiki for more about how the term has been used around here.
Thanks, I bookmarked that, and will be more specific.
[Edited: Content removed.]
Don't quit your day job.
I was telling you not to say those sorts of things to people, because they reveal more about you than you probably expect they do, and reveal things about yourself you don't want to be advertising.
Welcome back.
Can you be specific, without paraphrasing? And no ad hominem, please.
At this point you might as well let the cat all the way out of the bag, if there is a cat to be let out.
Am I in physical danger? If yes, from whom?
BTW, this is about the strangest thread I've ever participated in. I guess it's an opportunity to learn, which is what I hope I'm doing on this forum.
Of course, lots of people have attacked me verbally. But they don't know me closely enough to really know how to insult me. So their worst attacks don't even need a reply: they're hopelessly misfired. I can let them yell as long as they want. The part of me they want to hurt is one they can never reach and will never see.
Even with that protection, in my experience it's emotionally exhausting to be constantly expecting attacks from every interaction. If you stop seeing an aggressive intent behind every comment, your life will be much less stressful. People are essentially good, and most of them are too busy going through their own day to bother ruining other people's.
We've gotten derailed.
All we need do is ask O. Wilde what his or her intentions were in those posts.
Note to readers: this "hypothetical" scenario was actually this exchange.
You're reading too much into just a few words, and you seem overconfident in your ability to divine other people's intentions. Interpreting the above exchange as a "mind game" is ridiculously paranoid.
Note to readers: I never said it was hypothetical.
And, the textbooks written about my personality type say I have a sensitivity to other people's issues.
And, I'm not starting from zero; over the years I've had office mates and others who acted in a similar way and so I know what works.
Strangely, some of these people may actually have wanted my approval or recognition. Very few get that, even those who are well-behaved. I think I know what causes this, but that info is classified - sorry.
They may have spotted ways that we two are similar. Of course, the idea that I am similar to these verbal bullies is repugnant to me but it's very likely accurate. In my whole life maybe a half dozen people fit this pattern.
Also, there are books on "Verbal Judo" but they are hard to come by from my local library. I scoop up what I can. As long as all I do is counterpunch, block-then-strike, I feel I have the moral high ground.
But, that aside, if this is a false positive for a mind/head/word game, what do you make of this exchange? Is the literal meaning the only thing going on?
In your whole life, have you ever met someone who "put one over on you", left you with the feeling that you've been "had" and you couldn't even verbalize how? If yes, in retrospect, what really went on? Did you act optimally? What would you change for future encounters of this type?
Thanks for reading. :)
If that is all it says, you have nothing to be offended about.
It's not your call.
Who are you?
and that women are biologically superior in any case?
This says far more about you than you could possibly imagine. I suggest being more cautious going forward.
It says that I take for fact what people say who study this type of thing.
I suggest that your conduct in this post is offensive.
Nothing is wrong with this picture -- it's just Bob trolling Alice :-)
Alice should avoid at all costs being drawn onto Bob's turf. There are several ways to avoid this.
Without a link to Vos Savant's argument I don't think this comment is helpful.
She didn't provide her reasoning and I was not able to pull up this particular answer to her readers from the Web.
I guess she wants to remove the middleman costs & admin costs from your "donation." And you get direct feedback on "the fruits of your labor". There might also be psych benefits in that you can see your troubles might not be so bad in the big picture view of things.
For the class of people who think their troubles are better than anyone's (e.g., the "inverse pride" of paranoids) I guess I recommend the monetary contribution route.
Am I putting too much stock in Marilyn's high IQ and that women are biologically superior in any case?
IIRC, Ms. Vos Savant says don't give money, just go in person to the soup kitchens or whatever and put in your own labor.
Hey WhyAsk, I can see the truth value in your statement, but I'm not quite sure the exact connection to the above posts (?).
Some people hold on more strongly to their original beliefs if someone tries to convince them otherwise. This might have been in the book "On Being Certain."
I think this kind of persuasion is a lost cause but I am still sometimes drawn into trying, against my better judgement.
Even if you don't convince the non-rationalists you may learn some new mindgames, based on what they throw at you, their wacky justifications for their illogical ideas and their non-sequiturs.
On the other hand, I might just be off on a tangent. :(
If the person you're persuading makes a swatting motion, it means you're not getting through and your persuadee is annoyed.
I think WhyAsk's model of the situation was "get karma while not doing anything" rather than "get karma independently of what you're doing". (WhyAsk, the reality is much nearer the latter than the former.)
A lot of what I was sure of, I'm not any longer. . .:D
Why does my Karma score keep increasing when I don't do anything? It's a disincentive to post. . .?
Cost: Not much that I wasn't already doing, less optimally. Benefit: Social group that I can count on to at least TRY to be epistemically honest. Also, openness towards odd people. Risk: Pariah? I'm already considered odd by a lot of people.
:D
The textbooks written about my personality type say I'm "eccentric".
LW should make this unique thread widely known. Many couples facing similar decisions can be helped.
I am sorry for your loss.
EDIT: This association to your post won't leave me alone, so here it is: APACHE II software gives the odds of an adult leaving an ICU alive. Perhaps there is, or will soon be, an intrauterine version of this using blood values & other metrics that can prompt preventive measures early in a pregnancy.
Finding a crowd that allows your abilities to bloom is a useful skill as well :)
That's one reason I'm here, but in the limited time the mortality tables give me I'd like to find a way to present myself favorably to almost any crowd.
In the past, very few have cheered me on and a more vocal few have fervently hoped I'd fail.
Cost of being less wrong: increased cognitive load?
Benefit oblw: longer life expectancy?
Risk oblw: becoming a pariah in most crowds?
Well, some coordination problems get solved, and others don't. I think the most common solution to coordination problems is the large organization - governments, corporations, political parties, labor unions, etc., but, of course, they have their own set of issues...
So in this case it's the Little People against two large orgs and the LP are the enemy of both.
The orgs are above the law and it is in their interest to punish people who don't like them, but they can possibly be embarrassed.
Stay out of it unless you can help anonymously and your odds are good for the risk you are taking; this from a whistleblower.
Has this problem been solved in any country?
simple thought experiment: You are carrying a gun. Someone else decides they want to do something dangerous with a gun. (shoot some people; commit a gun-crime, etc.). They know they are about to become a target because everyone else is usually also self-preserving. They decide to shoot anyone with the means to slow them down. That primarily includes everyone else with a gun; anyone else strong enough to overpower them, and anyone able to alert authorities on them.
Who do they shoot first? anyone else with a gun. Likely a not safe position to carry a gun
The decision tree for this gets complex even after the split for concealed or open carry.
Also, shot through the heart, a person has about 10 seconds left to act (to return fire, I hope).
I only read a synopsis of their book, but it's massively incorrect to take their statements as "game theory says" anything about carrying a gun in the real world. In their incredibly wrong payoff model, gun ownership does dominate. But that payoff model is simply is simply insane.
What are then appropriate payoff models for carrying or not carrying, concealed or open?
I think the word "paradox" is ill-defined, because "seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory" is a "2-place word" -- seems X to whom?
Thanks, it'll take me some time to digest this link. Can you suggest a better definition and would this anecdote be included or excluded? If excluded, how would you define this odd exchange?
Game Theory (Nalebuff, Avinash) says carrying a gun is a dominant strategy. Does it favor concealed, or open carry? TIA.
Two people were lamenting the state of affairs of the world.
A bystander said, "When I become 'King of the World' I will fix things."
One of the two said, "Can I trust you?"
The bystander said, "Of course not."
The retort was, "In that case, I trust you."
Is this a
par·a·dox/ˈperəˌdäks/ noun 1. a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.
?
Not to get all medical on you, but. . .
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=LD50&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
and
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=ed50&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Here's a letter to an editor.
"The Dec. 6 Wonkblog excerpt “Millions and millions of guns” [Outlook] included a graph that showed that U.S. residents own 357 million firearms, up from about 240 million (estimated from the graph) in 1995, for an increase of about 48 percent. The article categorically stated that “[m]ore guns means more gun deaths.” How many more gun deaths were there because of this drastic increase in guns? Using data from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, total gun murders went from 13,673 in 1995 to 8,454 in 2013 — a decrease in gun deaths of about 38 percent resulting from all those millions more guns. I’m not going to argue causation vs. correlation vs. coincidence, but I can say that “more guns, more gun deaths” is wrong, as proved by the numbers."
Getting into lurking variables is one way of handling this but I'm wondering why the author just didn't "go all the way" and declare that more guns = less deaths rather than just more guns <> more deaths.
Maybe making false statements or lying while sounding credible is not so easy. Maybe the statement can't be too counterintuitive to too many people.
E.g., I complained to a chain store about customer service via their e-mail link, and the cust. service rep. said he couldn't help me because he works the night shift and the store in question is open in the daytime.
Also see https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/extreme-fear/201005/top-ten-secrets-effective-liars
It's not stable. The problems I mentioned are getting worse.
Besides cognitive biases and logical fallacies, the 20 or so defense mechanisms should be added to the ways people become more wrong. Russell is using rationalization.
A lot of problems that the establishment has been ignoring for decades, e.g., illegal immigration, out of control PC policing, pensions for government employees crowding out other spending, are starting to become critical and the seasoned politicians don't know how to address these problems. In fact they probably can't be addressed without upsetting established interests to whom the seasoned politicians are beholden to.
So we are locked into a stable, nowhere-near-optimum equilibrium. :(
"blaming of victims"
See Lerner's book, The Belief in a Just World. . ." It's really bad when judges have it. Many people have it and they don't know it, hence "delusion."
Having viewed the video, I'm disappointed in the 3rd Earl Russell.
Why can't seasoned politicians handle a windbag millionaire?
Is it because he is a caricature of them?
I don't know how to reply to this thread as a whole, so I defaulted to this.
Like the Veiled Statue at Sais, I'm thinking this drama is revealing some truth about the US society and the US government. Some people recoil and want the veil restored, some want to see more and some don't know what to do, but no one is neutral.
What does Game Theory suggest in this situation? Is a tie the best that can be done? I don't think the "have you no decency?" retort will work here.
Also see DSM-IV, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, the first choice for any world leader according to Jerrold Post.
Why can't seasoned politicians handle a windbag millionaire?
Is it because he is a caricature of them?
If you're really ambitious, solve the problem of http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=complementary+schismogenesis&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 so men and women (which is cross-cultural communication) can communicate unambiguously.
I've read both of D. Tannen's books on thIs and I still get sucked into traps but at least I know now that women are most likely not playing Bait and Switch with me.
Dunno' if women on this site have a problem with this since this site is not a random sample.
BTW, by reading some of my own posts, I'd think that I have or had a problem with women. :(
Know thyself, what else can I tell you?
Imagine the following situation: we are having a lawsuit against each other. Let's say it is already obvious for both of our lawyers which side is going to win, but it is not so obvious for us.
The lawyers have an option to do it quickly and relatively cheaply. But they also have an option to charge each of us for extra hours of work, if they tell us it is necessary. Neither option will change the outcome of the lawsuit. But it will change how much money the lawyers get from us.
In such case, it would be rational for the lawyers to cooperate with each other, against our interests.
That's been my experience, and any questions about "How much more is this going to cost me?" are not received well.
Almost every lawyer I've hired or dealt with gave me almost nothing for my money. And good luck trying to get a bad lawyer disbarred.
What I should probably do is solicit bids for a particular legal problem.
A "person that you are not likely to see again" is not a complete description of a lawyer's client; it's missing the part where "this person pays me for my services so I need many of this person in order to make a living."
Your post reminds me of something.
If there is a huge disparity of power between the lawyer and you, Game Theory kind of "goes out the window".
Right?
Any US lawyers here?
A woman who once worked in a law office told me that clients come and go (she used the word e·phem·er·al) so the real allegiance for a lawyer is to other lawyers. Because they will see them again and again.
And Game Theory has something to say about how to treat a person that you are not likely to see again.
Please, folks, do not ask me to justify this "hearsay". I found her credible, so please take this woman's word as gospel, as an axiom, and go from there.
Please confirm, deny, explain or comment on her statement.
TIA.
The close button on your web browser window will allow you to ignore all posters, but otherwise no; LW has no filtering/blocking features.
Thanks for your answer.
Is there a button somewhere on this site that allows me to ignore certain posters?
TIA.
Booo! I'm the monster under your bed!
Haha. I don't think I'm any one of those. I don't think I'm sexually deviant, just keen to prioritise for now.
Considering castration seems to indicate that you believe you are the monster, under the bed or wherever.
This may be a reasonable viewpoint for you or for others, or you may view sexual urges of any kind as deviant.
Get other opinions. For the outlying opinions, visit Provincetown, MA [either in person or virtually].
Good luck with what you are struggling with.
You would do better to engage and consider seriously the possibility that you might be missing something.
It looks to me as if either (1) you are taking pop evo-psych as literal unquestionable fact, in which case you're making a mistake, or (2) you are deliberately being inexact and handwavy while others take you literally, in which case they're making a mistake but you can correct it and move on.
If #1, then I think Lumifer's objections really should be sufficient to make you reconsider. It demonstrably isn't the case that men devote their lives to maximizing offspring, still less to maximizing the number of different women they impregnate; similarly for women and maximizing the quality of their offspring. So any set of ideas that leads you to say they do must be wrong.
If #2 -- e.g., if what you really mean is something like "there are evolutionary pressures pushing us toward maximizing offspring number for men and offspring quality for women, and maximizing these things is very different from thinking rationally and may sometimes be impaired by it, so we shouldn't expect our brains to be well optimized for rational thinking" then I think you will find that (as well as getting a better reception here) you will think about this stuff more clearly if you're more explicit and careful about what you're claiming. E.g., it seems like rational thinking could be a useful tool for maximizing offspring number/quality so it's not at all clear that being optimized for offspring has to be an obstacle to thinking rationally; there's some pressure for men to optimize quality and women to optimize number too, which maybe makes some difference; there are such things as kin selection and (in special circumstances, whose rareness is disputed) group selection, and these can help genes to prosper even if their direct effect on offspring is negative; etc., etc., etc.; it's easier to assess the impact of considerations like these on your argument if your argument is more precise and less handwavy.
To raise the likelihood that your genes will survive.
That's not my "job" and isn't really an imperative either -- lots of people remain childless by choice. I think it is an empirically observable fact that males do NOT attempt to impregnate as many females as possible and the women do NOT stick to the richest male they can attach themselves to. It's just not happening.
Maybe you think this is the way it should be or was meant to be, but your opinion is normative, not descriptive.
I give up.
... accepted as common knowledge ... I take what I read as fact.
I don't understand in which sense a statement along the lines of "it is the job of adult males to impregnate as many females as possible" can be seen as a fact.
To raise the likelihood that your genes will survive. Same reason for women finding a man with resources. It's probably somewhere in Game Theory. The oil sheik with harem arrangement may be an example of this.
For me this is settled but if you can find counterexamples I'd like to read them.
You could also try http://www.amazon.com/unSpun-Finding-Facts-World-Disinformation/dp/1400065666
This is the page of your comments. I got to it by clicking on your username, then clicking comments at the top. Unfortunately, the comments can only be sorted chronologically with the most recent first unless you use something like WeiDai's tool, which can be sorted (but apparently only in descending order, and it doesn't seem to have the -20 comment).
Since you have so few comments, it's relatively easy to look at them all and find it here.
Found it.
The info in the -20 comment is, I believe, accepted as common knowledge by people who study "sexual politics." The different goals have to do with the nine months of discomfort females may have to endure while men have no such risk. Also see http://www.amazon.com/Chimpanzee-Politics-Power-among-Apes/dp/0801886562
I'd hope persons who feel that strongly would post their reasons for objecting but in this case I take what I read as fact.
Short answer: No, it isn't unusual. You have 23 comments total, if my lazy calculation is correct, all of which were made within the last three months, and around half of which were made in the past month. Your comments tend to be negatively voted, and some percentage of people here, when finding a comment they don't like, go through a user's history to downvote other comments they don't like. (The reverse is somewhat rarer, by my estimation, but also happens.)
Since you're new and aren't well-calibrated on how a given comment will be taken, your comments will be all over the place. I note in particular a political angle to some of your comments, which - well, some of those who agree with you will upvote, most people here will downvote, as politics are discouraged.
You have one comment with -20 Karma. I'm honestly impressed. I've never seen a Karma value that low before. One out of every three of your downvotes has come from that one comment.
Thanks for your answer.
How do I find that -20 comment? Outliers can be ignored but at the risk of not learning something new.
My Karma score vs. time and vs. my participation seems to be volatile. Is this unusual?
Why are they ignoring this?
Because it's been basically stable for so long it's easy to believe it won't blow up.
So we are back to the Black Swan event.
Prepare yourself.
This may shock some of you, even by my standards.
Suspend your judgement for a moment to objectively consider the prospect of chemical castration.
There are health benefits, and growing numbers of voluntary eunuchs who don't do it because of prostate cancer or coercion.
I, for one, have felt compelled to chemically castrate for many years. I do not know if the feeling that my sexual urges are more trouble than they are worth is idiosyncratic or more widely shared, but too taboo to act upon. So, I'm opening up the question to the thread!
I have some reservations based on implementation. So, even if I do decide it would be a desirable course of action, the execution may be delayed until the evidence of safety becomes clearer or new techniques emerge.
My concerns specifically are:
- The ambiguous evidence on the reversibility of bone mineral density losses due to long term use of chemical castrates.
- De-masculanisation resulting in lower attractiveness (physical or behaviour) and therefore less social, political and career clout, esteem.
I would appreciate any evidence anyone can dig up on bone mineral density loss and chemical castrates, relating to long term use and reversibility. I'm struggling to find what I need. And, in the spirit of improving my research skills - if you can give me suggestions for how to do it myself (keywords for google scholar, for instance) that would be good as an alternative! It seems to be a very long and specific question so it's hard to get clarity!
I'll probably trial depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (antiandrogen associated with bone mineral loss for long term use) and trial Benperidol (antipsychotic that reduces sexual urges) instead of Androcur, since the latter has well known depression and withdrawal side effects. There seems to be a huge vacuum on internet information and research on the antipsychotic. But, it may be easier for me to get access too since I have other, ambiguously psychotic symptoms. Any info on that antipsychotic truly appreciated. Given that it's the most potent neuroleptic (tranquiliser), and I've been on other antipsychotics which were overwhelmingly neuroleptic (and thus I discontinued them), I most likely won't give it a try, actually.
edit: I'm considering this now in light of reflection on other libido reducing substances (antidepressants) that didn't feel very good. Sexual desirelessness felt and probably will feel undesirable in light of this, contrary to my earlier thoughts
". . .my sexual urges. . ." You're scaring me.
I'm not a doctor, but DSM II through V may give you a prognosis, and society's views on your problem as those views evolved over these several editions.
Evidently your symptoms are ego-dystonic, which speaks well for change.
Avoid slippery slopes. With drugs, look for irreversible side effects (that may not show up for years).
Good luck.
Not that a solution would ever be implemented or that politicians would ever evolve into better people, but how would a Game Theorist approach this nasty problem?
Certainly not by allowing a specific court to judge politicians for every political decision that it doesn't like. That would be a good recipe for civil war.
Thanks for all answers.
I still have notes from Durant's "The Lessons of History" so I should comb through these replies using this source, looking for contradictions.
This thread is perhaps an outlier as to the Level of Nesting.
Why are they ignoring this?
Nobody can get a promotion by focusing his attention on the topic?
These people are being paid to make these kinds of difficult decisions for the good of "their people" and not just to avoid demotion. Anyone can make easy decisions. And they don't have to be right, they just have to meet The Reasonable Person standard.
But, there was a Dilbert cartoon that said you shouldn't even be in the same room when a decision is made.
I guess a world court would charge these 'leaders' with Dereliction of Duty, fraud, incompetence, negligence, etc..
Not that a solution would ever be implemented or that politicians would ever evolve into better people, but how would a Game Theorist approach this nasty problem? This could be added to Dr. Miller's videos.
As far as dropping bombs on your own guys, see Carpenter's Crispy Critters.
"A “pink flamingo” is a term recently coined by Frank Hoffman to describe predictable but ignored events that can yield disastrous results. Hoffman argues that these situations are fully visible, but almost entirely ignored by policymakers. "
Why are they ignoring this?
Anti-intellectual?
And he's proud of it. :(
In a way, he's putting down eggheads without directly saying so.
From what little I know about Game Theory I'd say being ignorant is never a dominant strategy.
Perhaps "incurious", which you might have seen applied to G W Bush in Keith Stanovich's book "What intelligence tests miss". (Quoting David Frum, I think.)
Yes, I've heard that.
This word defines more of a in-your-face-ignorant attitude. It may also go into contempt for those who work to achieve knowledge.
I didn't record it because I thought I would never need it again. My bad.
For someone who believes false things I'd say "Reality attacks your beliefs in a hundred little ways every day" but I have no rebuttal for this lifestyle for someone of privilege.
When I get a chance I'll search the Exchange link and try a few more searches containing the word 'Bush'.
Thanks for your help, folks. . .
Thanks for the link, I'm sure it will be helpful for this word and others.
I had a word and then lost it.
It meant willfully ignorant, or ignorant & proud of it. This was applied to a former U.S. president.
Can anyone supply this word?
TIA
I don't seem to be able to reply to a Gunnar Zarncke reply to my comment on another thread because of my low comment score.
How can I explain my comment and myself [to the extent that I can] to this resident of Germany?
BTW, my view of the world seems to be different than most of you.
Possibly it's because the mortality tables say that half the men born on the same day as me will dead in 14 years and so my priorities may be different.
Also, most of my life has been lived so I'm not so much worried about the uncertainties that most of you seem to be. In fact, what else can they [they, in a general sense] do to me? :)
The books [don't ask which, I don't remember them all] tell me that I should come to terms with the life I have lived. This is not easy. I have failed to bring down almost all bad guys and failed to protect good guys.
I do thank this site for making me aware of things I've never heard of but I don't know that I can teach anyone here anything.
Thanks for reading.
Note that Petrov suffered very few consequences after the initial backlash. His US counterpart Harold Hering was discharged from the Air Force, drove a truck for a while to make ends meet and watched his personal life crumble, for asking the question
How can I know that an order I receive to launch my missiles came from a sane president?"
I don't know if his stand forced any changes in the missile launch protocols, but I admire his courage to take his oath literally and seriously and his refusal to back down under pressure from his superiors more than Petrov's 5 min of agonizing over a decision to disobey a faulty computer algorithm he himself helped design.
Thanks for the Hering link.
I, too, got into a dispute with the USAF but did considerably better and there was a lot less at stake. True to form for whistleblowers, a Lt. Col. who tried to help me on a related issue got sent to Taiwan. The punishment is worse for higher-ups because they should have known better by then.
Decades later, in my response to questioning how to sue a government agency for negligence, a lawyer told me "No one can sue the King." Questioning a King's sanity, or competence, may be worse than suing.
You said
The Law has some answers
What are the answers for the cartoons which Charlie Hebdo published?
A reasonable person might say that a group being ridiculed deserved that ridicule for a number of reasons, or that the ridiculer is off base. So, two "no answers", two different reasons.
Most people or groups don't "know themselves" so outside information about yourself or the entity that you belong to is almost always valuable.
So tell me about Charlie Hebdo.
What specifically would you like to know?
The Law has some answers for when human relations fail. It might ask: "Would a Reasonable Person find the e-mail offensive?"
In view of this http://essay.utwente.nl/66307/1/Bolle%20Colin%20-s%201246933%20scriptie.pdf did the smartphone makers anticipate addiction, as did the tobacco companies in the U.S.?
Certainly both are profiting from it.
For me it seems like some version of The Tulip Mania.
This is a broad question, and it will get broad answers.
Can you give some examples when avoiding biases made life less enjoyable?
For me, avoiding biases means a cognitive load which means I have to be vigilant which means I can't relax. Perhaps when and if avoiding all/most of the foibles becomes second nature then it will be less of a load. I hope! :)
My conscience is as hypertrophied as the next person, but how is a balance struck between avoiding cognitive biases, logical fallacies, etc., and enjoying life?
". . .or things they still want to accomplish, they have none."
The job at that age is to use their remaining years to review their life as they have lived it, try to make sense of the many decisions they made, and come to terms with it.
I started on this project a bit late. :(
I have a feeling that I won't be on this forum much longer because of my difficulties with navigating this site and because of the "high burden of proof".
It kind of reminds me of the government agency I tried to blow the whistle on; I had to have documentation for almost everything I said or wrote.
In that case, the problem wasn't that they didn't believe me. The problem was they did. They knew I was on to them.
But I do thank you for your videos, especially the ones on evolution. Now I should find a way to summarize the payoff matrices in a text document, if I can, and practice.
This may not be worth a new thread and in any case I don't know how to post one yet. I guess in this forum I am not yet "evolutionarily fit".
I have much evidence that people know when they are being stared at.
I have statistical evidence for the existence of ESP but I cannot find the right search terms to get similar strong evidence for this "eye beam" effect.
Can you (in the collective sense) help?
TIA.
Even if half of what's posted here is at present beyond me or if I am not currently interested in a specific topic, I can learn a lot from this forum.
Let's say I make six predictions or statements that I believe to be true about someone I've never met and I say the statements taken as a whole are true with P = 0.7. Note that I do not claim to be psychic.
The P of each statement must then lie between 0.7 and 1.0, and if they are equal then the P of each statement is 0.7 ^ (1/6) = 0.94. Let's say 0.9 because I doubt any statement about this type of probability should be reported with two significant figures, and perhaps even one significant figure without an attached tolerance band is a bit of a stretch.
I'd say that a P this high for each statement, given this example, is well nigh impossible.
Agreed?
Maybe I'm not so underqualified as to be unable to enjoy this forum.