‹ First  < 3 4 5
 
   
 

Prologue to Bill Maher & Larry Charles

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  767
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
16 October 2018 15:36
 

Your friend Bob tells you he won Mega-Millions.  After hearing this has your belief that he has, in fact, won that prize gone up or down or stayed the same from having heard him tell you that?

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
16 October 2018 15:45
 
Jan_CAN - 16 October 2018 08:40 AM

I have no mathematical or statistical expertise, but it appears that this type of attempt to determine who is more likely to be telling the truth in this case (or others) would be unlikely to be useful.  There are just too many assumptions that have to be made and variables that cannot be measured.

In addition, care should be taken in how terms like ‘sexual assault’ and ‘rape’ are used and viewed.  Too often it seems, one will be considered worse than the other based on the type of sexual act committed rather than the level of violence, threat of violence, fear or harm done to the victim.

If you are saying computations like this are sorely limited, I agree.  I think their use lays in correcting the misuse of statistical information, not so much in determining the states of the world, so to speak.  What, in real terms, does it even mean to have a 46% chance of lying?  That itself is a vague and deeply philosophically contested question.  But, if one is going to use another statistic—a 5% chance of lying—it is important to know what vaguery we are going to rely on, under what conditions, and for what reasons.  All I intend here is to provide one alternative way to quantity what people are going to “intuitively quantify” anyway—if that makes sense.  At the end of the day, all the reasoning shows is that saying one assailant is more likely to be true relative to saying two assailants, not whether her claim is any more or less believable in itself.  For that, I use my gut, just like everyone else—just updated, though, through informal Bayesian reasoning that even infants rely on to learn. 

And where it can be done, updating in formal terms temptations to misuse the information we have.

[ Edited: 17 October 2018 06:57 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
16 October 2018 15:45
 
GAD - 16 October 2018 08:49 AM
Jan_CAN - 16 October 2018 08:40 AM

I have no mathematical or statistical expertise, but it appears that this type of attempt to determine who is more likely to be telling the truth in this case (or others) would be unlikely to be useful.  There are just too many assumptions that have to be made and variables that cannot be measured.

In addition, care should be taken in how terms like ‘sexual assault’ and ‘rape’ are used and viewed.  Too often it seems, one will be considered worse than the other based on the type of sexual act committed rather than the level of violence, threat of violence, fear or harm done to the victim.

Yet that didn’t stop you from judging.

Now now let’s play nice, people.  The Anus functions better when everyone gets along!

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3494
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
16 October 2018 16:49
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 16 October 2018 03:45 PM
Jan_CAN - 16 October 2018 08:40 AM

I have no mathematical or statistical expertise, but it appears that this type of attempt to determine who is more likely to be telling the truth in this case (or others) would be unlikely to be useful.  There are just too many assumptions that have to be made and variables that cannot be measured.

In addition, care should be taken in how terms like ‘sexual assault’ and ‘rape’ are used and viewed.  Too often it seems, one will be considered worse than the other based on the type of sexual act committed rather than the level of violence, threat of violence, fear or harm done to the victim.

If you are saying computations like this are sorely limited, I agree.  I think their use lays in correcting the misuse of statistical information, not so much in determining the states of the world, so to speak.  What, in real terms, does it even mean to have a 46% chance of lying?  That itself is a vague and deeply philosophically contested question.  But, if one is going to use another statistic—a 5% chance of lying—it is important to know what vaguery we are going to rely on, under what conditions, and for what reasons.  All I intend here is to provide one alternative way to quantity what people are going to “intuitively quantify” anyway—if that makes sense.  At the end of the day, all the reasoning shows is that saying one assailant is more likely to be true relative to saying two assailants, not whether her claim is any more or less believable in itself.  For that, I use my gut, just like everyone else—just updated, though, through in informal Bayesian reasoning that even infants rely on to learn. 

And where it can be done, updating in formal terms temptations to misuse the information we have.

Thanks for the response, and I appreciate that you also see these computations as “sorely limited”.

We do often have to depend on our ‘gut feelings’ regarding likelihoods, as flawed as this can be, when it comes to such things as these.  It’s how good we are at it and how much weight we put on it that often matters.  Personally, I’ve found I can usually trust my gut regarding who to trust and in detecting deception (at least in the real world), but would not wholly trust it to convict someone.

(As to your following post, I agree that we function better when everyone gets along.)

 

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  18004
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
16 October 2018 17:12
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 16 October 2018 03:45 PM
GAD - 16 October 2018 08:49 AM
Jan_CAN - 16 October 2018 08:40 AM

I have no mathematical or statistical expertise, but it appears that this type of attempt to determine who is more likely to be telling the truth in this case (or others) would be unlikely to be useful.  There are just too many assumptions that have to be made and variables that cannot be measured.

In addition, care should be taken in how terms like ‘sexual assault’ and ‘rape’ are used and viewed.  Too often it seems, one will be considered worse than the other based on the type of sexual act committed rather than the level of violence, threat of violence, fear or harm done to the victim.

Yet that didn’t stop you from judging.

Now now let’s play nice, people.  The Anus functions better when everyone gets along!

It’s no coincidence that right after you posted “the following approach updates the probability that Ford is lying” that jan chimes in to say that she doesn’t think you can prove this functionally. And we know if it looked like it would have supported her judgement based on nothing but emotion that she would have been saying how much she love your brilliance. That was worthy of a shot.

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  767
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
16 October 2018 19:04
 

Well, there’s no arguing with the belief that truth lies in your gut, bolstered by informal quasi-Bayesian arguments.

This ending brings to mind this cartoon.
https://xkcd.com/2059/

[ Edited: 17 October 2018 04:16 by mapadofu]
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1035
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
17 October 2018 02:45
 
GAD - 16 October 2018 05:12 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 16 October 2018 03:45 PM
GAD - 16 October 2018 08:49 AM
Jan_CAN - 16 October 2018 08:40 AM

I have no mathematical or statistical expertise, but it appears that this type of attempt to determine who is more likely to be telling the truth in this case (or others) would be unlikely to be useful.  There are just too many assumptions that have to be made and variables that cannot be measured.

In addition, care should be taken in how terms like ‘sexual assault’ and ‘rape’ are used and viewed.  Too often it seems, one will be considered worse than the other based on the type of sexual act committed rather than the level of violence, threat of violence, fear or harm done to the victim.

Yet that didn’t stop you from judging.

Now now let’s play nice, people.  The Anus functions better when everyone gets along!

It’s no coincidence that right after you posted “the following approach updates the probability that Ford is lying” that jan chimes in to say that she doesn’t think you can prove this functionally. And we know if it looked like it would have supported her judgement based on nothing but emotion that she would have been saying how much she love your brilliance. That was worthy of a shot.

That was acrimony fatigue on my part joking around, with some truth to it.  This has been a trying thread.  Carry on.

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3494
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
17 October 2018 07:13
 
GAD - 16 October 2018 05:12 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 16 October 2018 03:45 PM
GAD - 16 October 2018 08:49 AM

Yet that didn’t stop you from judging.

Now now let’s play nice, people.  The Anus functions better when everyone gets along!

It’s no coincidence that right after you posted “the following approach updates the probability that Ford is lying” that jan chimes in to say that she doesn’t think you can prove this functionally. And we know if it looked like it would have supported her judgement based on nothing but emotion that she would have been saying how much she love your brilliance. That was worthy of a shot.

Yeah, so what?  When I disagree with someone, I’ll say so; when I agree with someone, I’ll say so.  And I’ll say why.  You accuse me of basing judgement on emotion, but you do the same.  Your thing is to disagree and never agree, without any real attempt to understand what is being said.  And you think this is preferable?  Yup ... worthy of a shot.

In addition, these potshots you enjoy making (lately often in my direction) distract from the topics of threads.  If you actually challenged by responding with your views, this would not be the case.  I intend to limit my rebuttals to minimize this.

 

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  18004
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
17 October 2018 08:00
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 17 October 2018 02:45 AM
GAD - 16 October 2018 05:12 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 16 October 2018 03:45 PM
GAD - 16 October 2018 08:49 AM
Jan_CAN - 16 October 2018 08:40 AM

I have no mathematical or statistical expertise, but it appears that this type of attempt to determine who is more likely to be telling the truth in this case (or others) would be unlikely to be useful.  There are just too many assumptions that have to be made and variables that cannot be measured.

In addition, care should be taken in how terms like ‘sexual assault’ and ‘rape’ are used and viewed.  Too often it seems, one will be considered worse than the other based on the type of sexual act committed rather than the level of violence, threat of violence, fear or harm done to the victim.

Yet that didn’t stop you from judging.

Now now let’s play nice, people.  The Anus functions better when everyone gets along!

It’s no coincidence that right after you posted “the following approach updates the probability that Ford is lying” that jan chimes in to say that she doesn’t think you can prove this functionally. And we know if it looked like it would have supported her judgement based on nothing but emotion that she would have been saying how much she love your brilliance. That was worthy of a shot.

That was acrimony fatigue on my part joking around, with some truth to it.  This has been a trying thread.  Carry on.

When you are dealing with other people it is also trying wink

 
 
‹ First  < 3 4 5