I suspect, but can’t prove, that now so many justify wanting something because of climate change that they don’t actually want a solution until and unless they have already got whatever they actually want.
I like it. I’d love to pair it with a prediction market so we can find out who best understands what drives these metrics
What values are exclusively centrist?
I think you’re overlooking the biggest (best?) reason to not worry about this.
Just because someone has said it doesn’t mean everyone has heard it. Unless everyone you’re writing for knows everything ever written....you are making the world a better place by letting them know whatever the thing is.
I love it, but since unpaid internships are extremely frowned on and/or explicitly illegal I can only imagine that “you pay me” internships are a non starter.
How many people truly wish they were never born?
I’d like to read it. PM me please if you decide not to post it publicly.
First, how can we settle who has been a better forecaster so far?
The first forecaster thought it was less likely that 2 out of 3 things that didn’t occur - wouldn’t. The second forecaster thought it was more likely that 2 out of 3 things that didn’t occur—would. So I think that the first forecaster has got a pretty easy case on this one.
I think the rest of your questions seem to be thinking that the percentages are measuring something in the real world. They are a measure of the predictor’s confidence. A way to tell the world how seriously they think you should take their prediction.
What kind of argumentation can the first forecaster make to convince the other one that 42% is the ‘correct’ answer?
I don’t think he can. He is technically a little less sure that humans that will land on the Mars than second forecaster. (or, if you prefer, a little more sure that they won’t) And a 1% difference is functionally 0 difference in this situation.
If they had vastly different levels of confidence, they could discuss the gaps in the optimism/pessimism, but at 1% difference....that’s just personal preference
And what does this numerical value actually mean, as landing on Mars is not a repetitive random event nor it is a quantity which we can try measuring like the radius of Saturn?
To repeat self, They are a measure of the predictor’s confidence. A way to tell the world how seriously they think you should take their prediction.
If one believes the 42% is a better estimation than 43%, how can it help making any choices in the future?
Even if you had predictors with so many predictions that you could actually take a 1% difference seriously....I still don’t know when that 1% would matter much.
There are people who want to be at the top of an organization, for status or money, not because they care about the stated goals of an organization.
By definition, the larger and more successful the organization is the more these types of people will be attracted to it.
Also, by definition, these people are willing to do far more to get to the top than people who only want to “be good” at their jobs.
Given that willingness to do anything to get to the top, they have an edge on hiring and promotions and will eventually succeed.
To ensure they don’t lose their position, they will bring in people that are loyal to them. The only way to prove loyalty is by doing something against their own self interest and/or the interests of the organization. Loyalty means being willing to act dumb.
Over a long enough timeline, the odds that a large organization is led by people who don’t care about the goals of the organization approaches 1. And those leaders will bring in people whose most valuable trait is a willingness to act in a non-productive fashion.
I would consider that most people aren’t really in the market to have their mind changed. Especially about politics. They aren’t talking do open a discussion. They are talking to let you know how smart or ‘good’ they are. (or how dumb or ‘bad’ the people who disagree with them are)
If you want to change people’s mind, start with people who accept the concept of ‘mind changing’.
Shameless plug for my idea for a new internet forum :)
National Guard blaming DOD. Not sure that DOD has responded.
This makes a lot of sense. Thanks.
This is a good, fair point (unlike the person who wrote me and told me I was spreading Nazi propaganda). Thank you.
I confess I am not tech savvy enough to validate these arguments, but I have heard that Piratebay is much simpler (text files that point to other files) and is much easier to keep play cat and mouse games than, say, a social network.
But, either way, you are right to point out that a determined opponent can keep up a fight for awhile.
Except blogs have been removed from the internet. And entire, smaller platforms are wiped from the internet.
It’s becoming less true that you can always move to a blog or a smaller platform. That’s what I said. Seems true and not in the article.
But I suppose I will live to fight another day.
As I wrote: that is becoming less and less true.
I’m surprised that that was taken so negatively. I’m not exactly sure why.
Now you can access all the opinions.
This is becoming less and less true. Removing people from social media. Removing entire websites. Even denying people the ability to participate in financial systems.
Sure. I’d love to hear what other caveats you think are important.
2) If you’re not feeling “hell yeah!” then say no
I’ve thought a lot about this myself.
I think the first thing you have to stipulate is that this helps when deciding on goals, not necessarily the things you have to do to get the goal. You may be “hell yeah” about traveling the world, but not “hell yeah” about packing. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t travel the world. I don’t think Derek was arguing for this level of decision making.
If you buy that, I think the key is that it only works when you have a lot of slack. Derek Sivers is and has been independently wealthy and has way way more options than most people do. It’s a very good sorting move in that situation. If you have few options, you probably can’t use this as universally as he suggests.
It would probably be better described as staying within the Overton window.
It’s a different name, but by definition, this standard means you are not getting new, unorthodox opinions to the public.
OP was trying to figure out how to have respectability follow ‘rightness’. Only talking to people who are already respectable doesn’t help that at all.
I hesitate to bring this up since politics, but in the US it is a very common perception that the media is liberally biased.
And the fact that certain stories are almost exclusively discussed in certain outlets based on politics makes me think that it is not random error.
Also, wouldn’t avoiding controversial figures be the opposite of helpful if you are trying to get new information out. Seems to not solve the problem of getting legible expertise that is contrary to popular opinion into the marketplace.