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.
WhyAsk
Karma: −28
Cost of being less wrong: increased cognitive load?
Benefit oblw: longer life expectancy?
Risk oblw: becoming a pariah in most crowds?
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?
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).
What are then appropriate payoff models for carrying or not carrying, concealed or open?
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
Good point.
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.
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.
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?
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.