The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
59% of British MPs Flunked Probability of Flipping Two Heads in a Row
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Polling firms have financial and cultural incentives to make poll respondents sound pretty smart. So we seldom see surveys designed to reveal how clueless people (especially elite people, such as British Members of Parliament) tend to be. Here’s a small survey of MPs from 2012 on the question: if you flip a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?*

From the BBC in 2012:

What happened when MPs took a maths exam
Mark Easton Home editor

Published 2 October 2012

… And when the Royal Statistical Society (RSS) recently tested the ability of honourable members to answer a relatively simple mathematical question, only a quarter of Labour MPs got it right.

A total of 97 MPs were asked this probability problem: if you spin a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?*

Among Conservative members, 47% gave the wrong answer, which is disappointing enough. But of the 44 Labour MPs who took part, 77% answered incorrectly.

(*The correct response, of course, is 25%.)

The survey also asked MPs if they generally felt confident when dealing with numbers –

76% of Tories said they did
72% of Labour MPs surveyed expressed confidence

In the Parliament elected in 2010, 34% of Tory MPs were women vs. 57% of Labour MPs.

Here’s part of the Private Universe video in which the documentary makers asked Harvard grads and blue collar kids at a public high school why it’s hotter in summer than in winter. Both groups said it’s because, you see, that the earth’s orbit around the sun is an ellipse, so that means we are closer to the sun in summer so it’s hotter. But the townies sound not very confident when offering this explanation — after all, who is going to believe a townie about science — while the Harvard types display persuasive self-confidence. (Granted, I don’t know how many people got the answer right and got cut out of the video. But still …)

 
Hide 369 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. A total of 97 MPs were asked this probability problem: if you spin a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?*

    But what were the stakes? What did they have on the line? Certainly not their seats.

    Much more care will be taken when you have an *.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    @Reg Cæsar

    As Steve has pointed out before, when people fail seemingly simple logic questions it's usually because they failed at the reading comprehension half of the "word problem" format.

    Here, the question was "if you spin a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?" (I guess Brits "spin" coins instead of flipping them)

    45 of the 57 who answered wrong (80% of the wrong answers) were wrong in the same way -- they answered 50%. They know that a coin has a 50% chance of being heads. So you have to believe that they simply misread/assumed the question to be asking: "if you get heads on the first flip, what are the odds of getting two heads in a row."

    So I'd say this doesn't necessarily show that they are innumerate, but just that they lack reading comprehension regarding very basic logic issues. This may be equally alarming, but it's still a different problem.

    Now, as the 12 MPs that answered 15%, 40%, 75% or "I don't know," they can be officially certified as morons.

  2. Our elites, ladies and gentlemen. Basically, morons. I bet the performance in the US Congress would be no better. Heck, chances are good that the % correct will be similar bad for students at our today’s universities (provided they are surveyed randomly).

    • Disagree: Gamecock
    • Replies: @Yancey Ward
    @Anonymous

    Oh, I am quite sure our Congresscritters would perform worse.

    , @Gamecock
    @Anonymous


    Our elites, ladies and gentlemen. Basically, morons.
     
    Absolutely wrong. They are not the problem.

    I am friends with my state senator. He is a good, honest man. Very smart. A real estate attorney by trade.

    I conversed with him by email this last year over several issues before the senate. Here's the thing: he knows nothing about boating. He knows nothing about guns and shooting. Nor many other subjects. Yet he participates in selecting what the state's laws and regulations will be. The process is, he listens to other people, and selects whatever position seems the most rational to him.

    He got one item conspicuously wrong, in spite of my sending him documentation showing him the facts. Someone else convinced him. He knows nothing of the subject. He listened to a storm of opinions. I think he voted by his gut feel, or he was influenced by one other guy, a person in position of authority.

    My state senator is not a moron.

    At the national level, we have similar people. Tasked with making decisions on extremely important matters, of which they have no knowledge. The problem, of course, is Washington's assumption of power over the people.

    Consider government mandates of breathalysers in cars. You can look at how individual reps voted, and make a good case that they are morons - on that subject - yet the real problem is governments' power to mandate breathalysers. They should have no such authority.

    Should we strip government down to their just powers only, the intelligence of representatives will go way up.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    “Our elites, ladies and gentlemen. Basically, morons,”

    What does that say about the white people who elect them?

    Replies: @Jack D, @J.Ross, @anon

  3. And what’s with the Brythonic color scheme?

    • LOL: Philip Owen
  4. Women and children and leftists aren’t very good at statistics and probability due to the “empathizing-systemizing theory” first identified by Simon Baron-Cohen.

    • Agree: Drapetomaniac
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @Trelane

    This may be common knowledge, but SBC is a cousin of Borat, even though the family inconsistently hyphenates their name.

    Replies: @Kjr

    , @JimB
    @Trelane


    Women and children and leftists aren’t very good at statistics and probability due to the “empathizing-systemizing theory” first identified by Simon Baron-Cohen.
     
    They also aren’t very good with finance. Which is why every liberal government thinks there is infinite money in the future to tax for spending today.

    Replies: @Anon, @slumber_j

    , @Triteleia Laxa
    @Trelane

    Baron-Cohen's work is profound as 10,000 hours. The only people who think it is good are those who want to.

    Anyone who isn't rigid or prone to panic can work out:

    TT
    TH
    HT
    HH

    1/4

    Conservative MPs are just often smarter because there aren't so many randomers from sub-par University student unions and token individuals.

    Replies: @ThreeCranes

  5. Wow. Just wow.

    • Replies: @Bartleby the Scrivner
    @John Johnson

    Hey

    Math is hard.

  6. In the Parliament elected in 2010, 34% of Tory MPs were women vs. 57% of Labour MPs.

    Many thanks to Steve for cutting to the real heart of the matter.

    On a similar note, many of us have heard that half of American adults don’t know that the Earth goes around the Sun in one year. What the MSM stops short of is revealing the gender breakdown of those who didn’t know that. Such data would be unpublishable.

    This sort of thing, across all countries, really puts the education system in question. It is almost as though educational systems of Five Eyes countries have been forcibly dumbed down to make it appear as if women are as smart as men, especially at higher educational levels.

    I believe little boys and girls are equally adept at the three Rs until the age of 9 or so, with the divergence starting after that point, and widening more and more over time. If higher education were truly about equal standards and career preparation, only 15% of grad students in any demanding field would be women, with the more quantitative fields shrinking to 3% or less.

  7. In the 2010 General Election, Labour won 258 seats, of which 81 were won by women.
    See table in the link below:
    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/general-election-2019-how-many-women-were-elected/

    And it would be a stretch to call the average British MP part of the elite.

  8. • Replies: @Bill Jones
    @JohnnyWalker123

    I looked at the link. The questions are so stunningly childish that to call them a financial literacy test is asinine.

    , @Colin Wright
    @JohnnyWalker123

    'Check this out...'

    Wouldn't 'financial literacy' largely be a function of how closely one's personal economic experience corresponded to some theoretical economic model?

    I recall noticing when I had my moving business how few of my competitors behaved in an economically rational manner (and I was no exception). We all seemed to be affected by various non-economic considerations. This even though we probably all felt we should be trying to rationally maximize profit.

    So would an Indian peasant be 'financially literate' by the standards of a Western economic model? After all, he might be much wiser to borrow a thousand rupees at twenty percent interest from his brother in law than a thousand rupees at ten percent interest from Max Merciless, village moneylender. His brother-in-law is more likely to prove understanding if things go sideways somehow, and if things do work out, Indian peasant has accrued various intangible forms of credit with his brother-in-law and his extended family in general that he wouldn't have if he'd borrowed from Max.

    Here, note that the Japanese -- although perhaps the most intelligent population on the earth -- don't seem to be especially 'financially literate.' And of course, if you're familiar with Japan's economy, it's affected by all sorts of non-economic considerations -- it's wildly inefficient, in fact.

    ...inefficient according to a Western economic model, that is. For the Japanese, it seems to deliver what they want.

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

  9. A total of 97 MPs were asked this probability problem: if you spin a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?

    Do we really want to find out?

    [MORE]

  10. They should have been given an easier question:
    If you have just flipped a coin four times, and it came up heads every time, what are the odds that your next coin-flip will also be heads?

    • Replies: @epebble
    @Badger Down

    That is a much harder question and it is somewhat excusable if many more people get it wrong.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Anonymous

    , @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    @Badger Down

    "They should have been given an easier question:
    If you have just flipped a coin four times, and it came up heads every time, what are the odds that your next coin-flip will also be heads?"

    How is this an easier question? The premises of the problem are not stated. Is the problem to assess the probability that the coin is biased? Or is it stipulated that the coin is unbiased?

    Replies: @SFG

    , @Yancey Ward
    @Badger Down

    And if you just flipped it 100 times in a row and it came up heads.............?

    Replies: @George Weinbaum

    , @El Dato
    @Badger Down

    You could go through entire set of bad heuristics applied by human brains that way.

    The one question of interest is what certain groups of people are worse, what groups of people are better of surviving another day if, say the world is transformed into a Terminator-style hunting park.

    The COVID outbreak is proof positive that must people can't think further than the front door and are unable to evaluate large-scale dynamical / logistical situations at all. (Misjudging the impact of COVID because people are not keeling over in the streets is the same as misjudging the impact of immigration because you are not living in an emerging ghetto: in both cases "muh mountain retreat is FINE!") Numbers are hard to assess. Some are so confused that they think COVID-19 doesn't even exist because there is no hospital right next door with overflowing emergency care units.

    , @znon
    @Badger Down

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOwLEVQGbrM

    , @Henry's Cat
    @Badger Down

    50%, of course.

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    @Badger Down

    I don't know whether you are aware of the profundity of your hypothetical question.

    I know educated people, doctors, lawyers .. regular jackpot junkies, who cannot get away from bizarre ideas. They understand that, with enough data, you'll get 50/50 (for instance, tossing a coin 5,000 times).

    But they also believe in weird theories of "nets", or some other term, whereby you can profit in the game. For instance, if you toss a coin 20 times & you get a tail 16 times- they believe there is some, so to speak, "inertia" so you're more likely to get a tail in the next 1, 2 or 5 times.

    When I tried to explain to them that any tossing of a coin is starting anew, as if nothing had happened in the past- they couldn't believe it.

    Replies: @JMcG, @Hypnotoad666

  11. “If you spin a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?”

    Answer: Whatever the ADL says it is.

    Or whatever the British version is. The Board of Rabbis or the Chief Rabbi or something. Imagine living in a country that has a Chief Rabbi.

  12. Okay but I’ll bet the Labour MPs believe in Science. Diane Abbott answered ‘zero.’

    “You can’t get two ‘eads from spinnin’ a coin now can you?”

    As of the 2019 election, 1 in 5 Labour MPs is non-white. 6% of Tories. https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50808536

    I would very much like to see our Congress take an easy test like this. Results public, names and all.

    • Replies: @Yancey Ward
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    Well, you couldn't do this exact test now- they will all hear about their British counterparts' failure and what the right answer is, so they will have to find a new question. I suggest, "What is your favorite color?"

    Replies: @Ian M.

    , @Pericles
    @Ghost of Bull Moose


    I would very much like to see our Congress take an easy test like this. Results public, names and all.

     

    "12% were unable to understand the question or started repeating their campaign speech. 88% of the Persons of Congress slid the coin into their trouser or pant suit pockets and departed laughing."
  13. This can’t have been a genuine poll. Everybody knows that a real politician’s response would have been “First, show me the money.”

  14. Although the answers showed ‘man in the street’ level innumeracy, the question did too – since it didn’t specify it was supposed to be a fair coin.

    I might’ve answered ‘depends on the coin’s bias, you dopey cunt‘ or some shit like that.

    One for Americans: what is the probability of choosing a Marine Recon Battalion and (later) discovering that the Sgt Major is a pedophile?

    (Generation Kill has Bayesians updating their prior – quoi que ce soit – with a sample of 1 out of 1).

  15. Anon[240] • Disclaimer says:

    Well, it’s a stupid question. There is no way of knowing the probability of a coin flip. It depends on complex variables like how much force the flipper used with his thumb, where his thumb was located on the coin when he flipped it, etc. No coin toss is ever going to be exactly like the other. It’s not a precision mechanical certainty like pulling a trigger on a revolver.

    What this reveals is that elite people are intelligent and complex, and answer honestly questions that proles think they “know” because they learned them at rheir shit schools back in the 1900s. The correct question to many answers is often “I don’t know” or a standardized “incorrect” answer, because most tests are fucking stupid and most of what we are taught in school is wrong.

    https://phys.org/news/2009-10-tails-key-variables.html

    Using a high-speed camera that photographed people flipping coins, the three researchers determined that a coin is more likely to land facing the same side on which it started. If tails is facing up when the coin is perched on your thumb, it is more likely to land tails up.

    How much more likely? At least 51 percent of the time, the researchers claim, and possibly as much as 55 percent to 60 percent — depending on the flipping motion of the individual.

    In other words, more than random luck is at work.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Anon


    The correct question to many answers
     
    Whoops, obviously that was meant to read "the correct answer to many questions".

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Badger Down

    , @Faraday's Bobcat
    @Anon

    The randomness of an outcome depends on how much is known about the process. In the coin-flip question, it's implied that the observer doesn't have any of the information you listed. In other words, the coin flip in the question is an everyday coin flip and not a lab experiment.

    For this crowd, an analogy is the randomness in estimating someone's IQ. If all you know about him is race and sex, then the expectation value is the average IQ of that race and sex, with a large uncertainty. But if you have five minutes to ask the person a few questions like what he does for a living, what the last book he read was, and what the odds of flipping two heads in a row are, you can get a much more accurate estimate.

    , @Jonathan Mason
    @Anon

    You are reading too much into it when you say this is a stupid question.

    Obviously it has to be taken for granted that we are talking about a 50/50 proposition. That is what the expression "a coin flip" means.

    Actually in the UK that expression is not used but the phrase is " a toss of a coin".

    In a cricket match a coin is tossed to decide which team gets to choose whether to bat first. This is considered to be a fair and random way of making an important choice. Every single British person, whether member of Parliament or not, knows this.

    The fact that so many members of parliament seem to be innumerate seems quite worrying when these are the people who vote on taxation schemes and national budgets and ultimately our responsible for them being enforced on the whole population.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @Bill Jones
    @Anon

    But your bullshit reply fails to provide any basis for bias in the coin facing heads up or down initially, does it?

    So the correct answer is 50% per flip.

    , @bomag
    @Anon

    I bet you were a big hit in math class.

  16. @Trelane
    Women and children and leftists aren't very good at statistics and probability due to the "empathizing-systemizing theory" first identified by Simon Baron-Cohen.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @JimB, @Triteleia Laxa

    This may be common knowledge, but SBC is a cousin of Borat, even though the family inconsistently hyphenates their name.

    • Replies: @Kjr
    @ScarletNumber

    I prefer the one who doesn't publicly ridicule random victims.

    That's the thing about "the free speech debate".

    I'm a woman converting to chassidish Judaism and one of the first culture shocks - and I do mean shocks - is how my new friends regard gossiping about people as a shameful thing to do

    It hit me when I made a comment about my sister at a shabbos meal on Friday night and the kids ranging in age from 9 to 18 all looked down blushing on my behalf!

    It turns out that "hurtful speech" is verboten even when the gossip is true and the person isn't in the room.

    What I came to realize is that intelligent Men prefer to talk about Ideas and intelligent Women prefer to talk about People.

    I'm in a women's group that Zooms together every Wednesday evening to study a Jewish book called The Chofetz Chaim which is about a hundred pages of Hebrew laws about the sin of gossiping.

    It bothers me a little that they don't encourage talking about unkosher ideas either (they really believe that the world is 5,781 years old) but it doesn't bother me too much. I like their closeness to God and songs and family life and kindness. So if I have to pretend that dinosaurs were killed in Noah's flood, who cares?

    But the men in my conversion class (pre covid) kept getting into trouble arguing over things like that.

    That's when I came up with my theory that men can talk about ideas more dispassionately than women can. And men also fail to appreciate the perhaps once beneficial mechanism of personal gossip.

    But I'm now convinced that gossip/libel/slander/mockery and other forms of hurting people by referring to NAMED INDIVIDUALS is worse than talking about uncomfortable ideas, including ideas about groups of people.

    I feel like I discovered some kind of scientific principle.

    In the American media and of course social media (and college campuses, etc) it is considered perfectly acceptable to cuttingly hurt individuals - which is the kind of talk we women are more likely to fall prey to - but not acceptable to talk about ideas that might be harmful - which is the kind of talk that men are more likely to engage in.

    I perfectly accept my new position in the chassidish world. I am covering my hair, my collar bone and my calves. I will never lead a Torah or Davening service and no matter how knowledgeable I become I will never lecture to a group that includes men in it.

    And you know what, I'm totally fine with it!

    The biggest change in my life is that the most popular women are the ones who never ever ever ever speak a bad word about individuals. We love being near thise women like we used to love being near the girls who shared the juiciest gossip!

    And it makes most of the internet pretty cringe to me.

    But instead of deplatforming people who make funnof individuals online, we deplatform people who say mean things about groups of people or who doubt the generally accepted opinions about Covid-19.

    That's because women (or little girls who never grew up) were given complete control of the internet and are perfectly happy to curtail the speech of men that could be harmful, while keeping their own harmful speech not only legitimated but celebrated.

    The sad part of this for me is that I really loved the Borat and Bruno movies! But now I see them as cringe and stipped watching the new Borat movie halfway through felt like I was personally hurting the people who were being publicly ridiculed in the movie, by my watching it.

    If it were up to me, the Chofetz Chaim book would become part of the national discourse. Real people commit suicide every single day because of what people say about them in the news or on social media. So far however I have yet to see concrete evidence that either Charles Murray or Bret Weinstein caused any deaths by dispassionately discussing their socially heretical ideas.


    As a woman I am less inclined to run to the front of the battlefield to fight my sisters who are, in my soon-to-be Jewish opinion, causing the most harm to real living individuals.

    I also really don't want to see men fighting women either (even harpies and crazies).

    But you don't have to!

    All you have to do is fight the men who are encouraging these women!

    As far as I can tell, these children are getting away with it because their bad behavior is cheered on by the sillier sort of men. If these men didn't exist, or if everyone had to read the book I mentioned before, then it would be Game Theory publicly known (that I know that you know that I know) that their behavior is cringe and it would happen a lot less.

    So if there must be a conversation about the limits of free speech, I think it should be about the sort of speech that is designed to hurt a specific individual, rather than the sort of speech that may, possibly, who knows, cause harm through some political process get to occur.

    Replies: @SFG, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar, @Jack D, @Paperback Writer

  17. Anon[260] • Disclaimer says:

    Could this be the reason for the discrepancy between the two political parties?:

    The first thing I thought was that the answer is 0.50 x 0.50, fifty percent of fifty percent, or 0.25 which in fact is the correct answer.

    But then I thought, Is this a trick question? The most common trick question in probability involves making people think that past results have an effect on future attempts. So to a question like, “If you flip a coin 100 times and get tails each time, what are the odds for the next flip?,” many will think that there is a “pent-up” higher probability for a heads — which there isn’t, it’s still fifty-fifty.

    But people who think they are too clever to be tricked might be susceptible to favoring the incorrect answer, even though it does not involve past results in this current case.

    This is like “hyperurbanism” in grammar, overcorrection, as in “between you and I.” You remember, “There’s this thing that rednecks do where they use me instead of I. I won’t make that mistake.”

    So my theory is that conservatives may just ingenuously and straightforwardly give the answer they think is right. On the other hand liberals may think they are smarter than conservatives and think of the answer beyond the simple answer. And that answer beyond the answer is the wrong answer.

    Liberals may in fact be a little smarter than conservatives, on average, and may thus may be more likely to have run across and vaguely remember the “100 times” thing, but they are not smart enough to really understand it perfectly, and they erroneously apply it to a situation where it isn’t relevant, where there are no past flips involved. In other words liberals are too smart for their own good, and their confidence exceeds their intelligence. And politicians may have higher verbal intelligence than math intelligence, exacerbating things.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @Anon

    You forgot to mention crippling test-taking anxiety, among the BIPOC members of Parliament.

    Replies: @vhrm

    , @martin_2
    @Anon

    Since the probability that the coin shows the same face 100 times in succession is more than 10 to the power of 29 surely it would be more rational to predict that the next spin would show the same face again since there must be something going on with the coin.

    , @astrolabe
    @Anon

    I don't think your theory that the incorrect MPs thought that they were being tricked can survive the observation that they (almost) all thought that the probability of two heads was 50%. A shocking number of people think that all probabilities are 50%. They might not express it so boldly, but if you ask them the probability of a thing, they reason that the thing is either true or false, so it must be 50-50.
    Unlikely as it sounds, probability theory is a large part of my job, and we did some work for an insurance company whose technical advisor was of the 50% faith. My colleagues decided to pussy-foot around the issue.

    Replies: @Philip Neal

    , @Jack D
    @Anon

    You are the one who is overthinking it. The Occam's Butterknife explanation is that many politicians are innumerate. They are great at making speeches and with empathizing with the poor (or pretending that they are) but they don't understand simple probabilities. As our political class consists increasing of woman and NAMs (and female NAMs), this is only going to get worse.

    Also keep in mind that Conservative and Labour in the UK are not directly comparable to Republican and Democrat in the US. For example, in the UK, Jews lean Conservative. Jeremy Corbyn, until recently the head of the Labour Party, has only a high school education. The Labour Party has not been completely taken over by college educated elites the way that the US Dem Party has.

    Replies: @Anon, @J.Ross, @Jonathan Mason

    , @John Johnson
    @Anon

    But people who think they are too clever to be tricked might be susceptible to favoring the incorrect answer, even though it does not involve past results in this current case.

    You are overthinking it because if they went to college then they should have learned the answer in basic stats. It's one of the first lessons.

    Liberals may in fact be a little smarter than conservatives, on average

    Liberals on average are probably smarter than most conservatives but the outliers are going to be more conservative even if they identify as independent.

    Typical college educated liberals are basically smarter than average but not smart enough to see their limitations or how prone they are to group think. This is why it can be really frustrating when dealing with them. Most of the time they are just working from the belief that they are correct because they are in the correct group. When you take issue with them they have an unspoken belief that you must be in one of the bad groups.

    Replies: @International Jew

  18. @Anonymous
    Our elites, ladies and gentlemen. Basically, morons. I bet the performance in the US Congress would be no better. Heck, chances are good that the % correct will be similar bad for students at our today's universities (provided they are surveyed randomly).

    Replies: @Yancey Ward, @Gamecock, @Corvinus

    Oh, I am quite sure our Congresscritters would perform worse.

  19. “”59% of British MPs Flunked Probability of Flipping Two Heads in a Row”

    Seems like a stupid gotcha question. Better question for MPs: What’s the public debt to GDP ratio?

    • Agree: Redneck farmer
    • Replies: @Mackerel Sky
    @newrouter

    The point is that if they are too stupid to get such a basic question right, why would they even understand any significance in your alternative metric? In fact Steve Keen once quoted another study that showed most UK parliamentarians don't understand how money is created in the UK. So no, they don't even understand things that are literally part of their jobs.

    , @Anon
    @newrouter

    If you asked a group of bright kids who hadn’t been exposed to probability theory this question you’d probably get the same sorts of results as the Labour MPs.

    What does this mean? Left-leaning people are less likely to study quantitative fields? That should be quite obvious even without this survey: left-wing elites tend to study liberal arts, and the shrinking remainder are blue-collar types who aren’t going to be stellar academics.

    As for the confidence: having self-doubt isn’t something that would get one elected (in a competitive seat), or selected by the party (in a safe seat)

    , @Daniel H
    @newrouter


    Seems like a stupid gotcha question. Better question for MPs: What’s the public debt to GDP ratio?
     
    Actually, no.

    You may assert that reaction time tests are a stupid measure of IQ?

    , @AndrewR
    @newrouter

    While obviously all MPs should know basic economic statistics, the coin question measures basic reasoning ability which is more important than a random economic data point which is meaningless out of context. I could train a three year old to memorize the public debt to GDP ratio. But no three year old could independently explain why this ratio matters.

  20. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Okay but I'll bet the Labour MPs believe in Science. Diane Abbott answered 'zero.'

    "You can't get two 'eads from spinnin' a coin now can you?"

    As of the 2019 election, 1 in 5 Labour MPs is non-white. 6% of Tories. https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50808536

    I would very much like to see our Congress take an easy test like this. Results public, names and all.

    Replies: @Yancey Ward, @Pericles

    Well, you couldn’t do this exact test now- they will all hear about their British counterparts’ failure and what the right answer is, so they will have to find a new question. I suggest, “What is your favorite color?”

    • Replies: @Ian M.
    @Yancey Ward

    Correct answer: "Rainbow".

  21. I am guessing this is is same with our Congressfolks too. If some one were to do research on all the bills and executive decisions done in the last 75 years, we may find that they were done by largely innumerate people – The ones who start a a response to any “difficult” question with – “I am not good at math”.

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @epebble

    "I am guessing this is is same with our Congressfolks too."

    Nope, for our Congress the answer is different...

    CONGRESSMAN: It's a trick question. There can't be two coin flips, because one of the coins was already sent to Israel.

    , @Marquis
    @epebble

    Bills are written by one of two groups: the lobbyists or the federal bureaucracy service branch dorks.

  22. For all the whizzy-whiz tech, we live in an age of the verbalist bullshitter.

    There have always been leaders who rose to power who weren’t particularly mathematical in their thinking–and didn’t pay heed to advice from those who did–but there were real constraints–their tribe would starve; they’d lose battles–that kept this in check.

    Now the checks–in the West, in this post-Cold War age–are fewer. And our intellectual life shows it.

    ~~

    The requirement here isn’t even being able to produce the correct answer to a simple mathematical problem–though we certainly ought to require that. Rather the key is having a basic mathematical reasoning/understanding of the world.

    Anyone aspiring to political leadership should just have a visceral understanding of concepts like “orders of magnitude” and “exponential growth/decline” and the mathematical/logical orientation to “see” reality in those terms.

    What we see in discussions of critical issues like immigration is a bunch of people who are basically nimrods. Some of that–from intelligent people–is no doubt just ethnic hatred. And for others simple immediate–this generation–self-interest; though even that is not looking down the road to effects on their posterity. But mostly what you see are people whose brains are obviously full of gauzy verbalist pieties. They simply have no model of society/nation that is mathematical–includes even the most basic ideas of scale and growth. In fact calling what’s in their brains “a model” is too generous. It’s just verbalist mush.

    Basically if people can’t or won’t do mathematically reasoning, they can’t have any accurate picture or reality and ergo have no real understanding of our actual world.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @AnotherDad

    if people can’t or won’t do mathematically reasoning, they can’t have any accurate picture or reality and ergo have no real understanding of our actual world.

    "You can't be a polymath without the math."

    --Aaron Haspel

  23. Suddenly I intensely desire to engage in a little game of chance with Members of Parliament. So does my friend Bill.

    • Replies: @Ganderson
    @anon

    I dunno if people still think he’s funny, or even know who he is, but he still makes me laugh.

    , @Hypnotoad666
    @anon

    Two tens for a five?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la2BVTLFQ94

  24. …if you spin a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?

    100%.

    That is, if the coin is a 2000 New Hampshire quarter:

    You have the possibility of four heads with either the 2006 or 2013 South Dakota quarter. (We won’t count the ring-necked pheasant’s. The Chinese ring-necked pheasant.)

    • Replies: @David
    @Reg Cæsar

    Plus, with that quarter, there's a fifty percent chance of getting heads and tails in a single toss.

  25. I disagree – this sort of “gotcha” test doesn’t prove anything.
    I’m sure if you explain the correct answer to the failing respondents they would understand the correct answer perfectly well, so they are not as dumb as you think.
    They don’t know the answer because they don’t need to know it. They don’t work with numbers every day and haven’t done any math beyond multiplication since they were students decades ago. This is basic knowledge in statistics but is it really supposed to be common knowledge for everyone for life? Will a political leader really vote the wrong way because they didn’t know this answer without looking it up? Would Andrew Jackson or Lincoln have answered correctly? Does getting the wrong answer mean the politician won’t be able to understand a statistical argument when it is fully presented and explained?

    Okay Unz techies, answer these questions (without Googling the answer):
    How long does it take to milk a cow? (common knowledge for most Americans long ago)
    What is the difference between a paradiddle and a paradiddle-diddle? (common knowledge among concert drummers)
    What is the difference between bourbon and whiskey? (common knowledge on fraternity row)

    • Replies: @Abolish_public_education
    @rebel yell

    30 minutes (if they have milk).
    2 beats.
    Bourbon/whiskey is 30/40%.

    Having poor math skills should not disqualify someone from serving as a legislator. But having a license to practice law should.

    @ Buffalo:

    I once saw a congressman, in a town hall meeting, get a cheap Standing ‘O for admitting that while he wasn’t an actuary, and therefore couldn’t really comment about the strength of the FICA trust fund, he would never do anything to jeopardize it.

    Replies: @rebel yell, @Buffalo Joe

    , @Anon
    @rebel yell


    Okay Unz techies, answer these questions (without Googling the answer):

    o How long does it take to milk a cow? (common knowledge for most Americans long ago)

    o What is the difference between a paradiddle and a paradiddle-diddle? (common knowledge among concert drummers)

    o What is the difference between bourbon and whiskey? (common knowledge on fraternity row)
     

    Your questions are equivalent to the BITCH-100 (Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity) or the Chitling Test, on which blacks score higher than whites because the questions concern black slang and culture.

    It turns out that when such tests become high stakes, the people who do best on them are the same people who do well on IQ tests. Asians would be getting the top scores and blacks the worst scores on a modern high-stakes BITCH-100 test because admission to UC, say, is important enough to learn the stuff.

    As for the probability questions, smart people regularly use simple algebra, exponential thinking, and statistics, which includes integral calculus concepts. HBD and Covid are two examples of contexts where this happens. If you personally never use anything but arithmetic, perhaps you are inadvertently revealing something.

    Smart people somehow come across knowledge more often, notice it, remember it, and use it. This is why, counterintuitively, simple vocabulary tests are one of the most g-loaded IQ tests in the psychometrician's quiver. The University of Chicago can use the 10-question WordSum test on the General Social Survey every year and get a decent IQ estimate very quickly. Likewise, the smarter you are, the more math you truly understood when learned, the more you remember, the more you use in daily life years later.

    , @Charles
    @rebel yell

    American bourbon, by definition, is made in Kentucky. A person may dispute this, but it is nevertheless true.

    Replies: @Ganderson

    , @black sea
    @rebel yell

    I think the best question to be asked of Congressional representatives is: "What is the likelihood that the island of Guam will capsize?"

    , @Colin Wright
    @rebel yell

    'Okay Unz techies, answer these questions (without Googling the answer):
    How long does it take to milk a cow? (common knowledge for most Americans long ago)
    What is the difference between a paradiddle and a paradiddle-diddle? (common knowledge among concert drummers)
    What is the difference between bourbon and whiskey? (common knowledge on fraternity row)'

    Your questions all require more or less specialized, external knowledge of some sort. A Pakistani would probably simply lack the information necessary to tell you the difference between corn and whiskey; it's unlikely my daughter has any idea how long it takes to milk a cow.

    The coin flip question doesn't require any particular background. Given the virtually universal understanding that a coin could equally well come up heads or tails, it's possible to reason out the answer.

    , @JackOH
    @rebel yell

    rebel, you have a point.

    I see this sort of "gotcha" intellectualism at my local Podunk Tech once in a while, and there seems to me something vicious and pathetic about it. Like "polar bear hunting"/"the knockout game", Nerd and Geek Division.

    On a bad day, UR sometimes seems to me the Webzine for disgruntled spelling bee champions, angry and embittered that their memory and knack for spelling aren't getting them the poon, the dough, and the political power to which they're entitled.

    Okay, there, got it out of my system. Morning coffee's working . . . .

    , @Jim Don Bob
    @rebel yell


    They don’t work with numbers every day and haven’t done any math beyond multiplication since they were students decades ago. This is basic knowledge in statistics but is it really supposed to be common knowledge for everyone for life?
     
    Agree. Basic knowledge in statistics isn't generally taught in K-12 classes. The only reason I know about it is that I was curious and read up on it.

    A better more relevant question might be: "If interest rates go to 5%, what will be the interest payment per year on the national debt to the nearest half trillion dollars?"

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education

    , @Ganderson
    @rebel yell

    Put me on a Todd County, Minnesota farm in 1890- guaranteed my great grandfather would be astounded by my lack of practical knowledge.

    , @Anonymous
    @rebel yell


    Okay Unz techies, answer these questions (without Googling the answer):
     
    Those are practical questions that require concrete experience. As opposed to the coin flip question that only requires a minimal ability to think logically. But heck, let's try:

    How long does it take to milk a cow? (common knowledge for most Americans long ago)
     
    I don't know but I imagine that half an hour is a reasonable estimate.

    What is the difference between a paradiddle and a paradiddle-diddle? (common knowledge among concert drummers)
     
    Never heard the word, don't know. How the heck a common knowledge among drummers is relevant here? Are you OK?

    What is the difference between bourbon and whiskey? (common knowledge on fraternity row)
     
    Bourbon is a disgusting drink made from corn (it must be made from corn, which whiskey is never made from) in the dry Bourbon Co, KY.
    , @Dmon
    @rebel yell

    Q. How long does it take to milk a cow? (common knowledge for most Americans long ago)
    A. White fragility

    What is the difference between a paradiddle and a paradiddle-diddle? (common knowledge among concert drummers)
    A. Trump's border crisis

    Q.What is the difference between bourbon and whiskey? (common knowledge on fraternity row)
    A. Systemic racism

    , @AndrewR
    @rebel yell

    A gotcha question is deceptive. This is a simple 4th grade math question. If you forgot 4th grade math then you shouldn't be in charge of anything beyond collecting garbage or cleaning toilets.

    Replies: @rebel yell

    , @David Davenport
    @rebel yell

    I disagree – this sort of “gotcha” test doesn’t prove anything....

    In other words, you don't understand the answer to the coin tossing question.

  26. The class of 2012 were geniuses compared to the current crop of Labour women MPs

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @jimmyriddle

    I've met her. She seems to have made herself quite a few tones paler in her video, which is odd. She also struck me as a very dull bulb.

    Replies: @R.G. Camara, @YetAnotherAnon

    , @Gordo
    @jimmyriddle

    So a half-Jew is cleverer than a half-African. Who would have guessed.

    , @astrolabe
    @jimmyriddle

    It's a cruel sport, but an amusing one.

    , @Philip Owen
    @jimmyriddle

    Raab is not exactly well rounded bright himself. Hard working and verbal. Thuss trainable in his subject, law if given the best teachers.

    Replies: @Anon

    , @Badger Down
    @jimmyriddle

    Raab is not being cruel or humiliating Webbe. He tries to clarify her question. But she's not able to say it clearly.

  27. The first job of legislators is to deal with revenues and expenditures, it is the prime reason legislatures exist. Every Bill voted on involves money somehow.

    So why on earth would we expect these clowns to do simple math, it is not like it is essential to their job……

    Funny though, none of them could pass Probability 101, but every one of them knows how take a bribe and launder money.

  28. I personally don’t think most politicians have any concept of numbers. A billion is a thousand million. How many politicians could express that? When my son ran for the school board in his town he was the only candidate, seated or running, who could read a financial statement. The Buffalo Public Schools budget now exceeds one billion dollars. Do the members of the school realize that is one thousand piles of a million dollars. Probably not because there is never enough money in their budget. Don’t try to confuse politicians with numbers.

    • Agree: Daniel H
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Buffalo Joe


    I personally don’t think most politicians have any concept of numbers. A billion is a thousand million.
     
    A thousand seconds is just over a quarter hour.

    A million seconds is just under twelve days.

    A billion seconds is just under thirty-two years.

    A trillion seconds is just under thirty-two thousand years.




    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/11/25/237D9A5F00000578-2848602-image-10_1416915318049.jpg

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Buffalo Joe

    , @Pericles
    @Buffalo Joe

    On the other hand, Swedish PM Göran Persson (Soc-Dem) at one time described a billion SEK as a rounding error in the national budget, and was severely taken to task by the press. He was actually quite correct in this -- it's entirely insignificant compared to the overall pile of money -- but I as far as I recall, the press never apologized or changed their minds.

    , @John Johnson
    @Buffalo Joe

    I personally don’t think most politicians have any concept of numbers. A billion is a thousand million. How many politicians could express that?

    I have wondered the same thing. How many of our current Democrats know about much a trillion is?

    Someone should jump cam AOC and ask her how much 3/4 of a trillion is in billions.

  29. @rebel yell
    I disagree - this sort of "gotcha" test doesn't prove anything.
    I'm sure if you explain the correct answer to the failing respondents they would understand the correct answer perfectly well, so they are not as dumb as you think.
    They don't know the answer because they don't need to know it. They don't work with numbers every day and haven't done any math beyond multiplication since they were students decades ago. This is basic knowledge in statistics but is it really supposed to be common knowledge for everyone for life? Will a political leader really vote the wrong way because they didn't know this answer without looking it up? Would Andrew Jackson or Lincoln have answered correctly? Does getting the wrong answer mean the politician won't be able to understand a statistical argument when it is fully presented and explained?

    Okay Unz techies, answer these questions (without Googling the answer):
    How long does it take to milk a cow? (common knowledge for most Americans long ago)
    What is the difference between a paradiddle and a paradiddle-diddle? (common knowledge among concert drummers)
    What is the difference between bourbon and whiskey? (common knowledge on fraternity row)

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @Anon, @Charles, @black sea, @Colin Wright, @JackOH, @Jim Don Bob, @Ganderson, @Anonymous, @Dmon, @AndrewR, @David Davenport

    30 minutes (if they have milk).
    2 beats.
    Bourbon/whiskey is 30/40%.

    Having poor math skills should not disqualify someone from serving as a legislator. But having a license to practice law should.

    @ Buffalo:

    I once saw a congressman, in a town hall meeting, get a cheap Standing ‘O for admitting that while he wasn’t an actuary, and therefore couldn’t really comment about the strength of the FICA trust fund, he would never do anything to jeopardize it.

    • Replies: @rebel yell
    @Abolish_public_education



    30 minutes (if they have milk).
    2 beats.
    Bourbon/whiskey is 30/40%.
     
    While my grandparents were farmers and knew how long it takes to milk a cow, I do not know. Google tells me 5-7 minutes, not 30. I suppose the size and condition of the teats could be a factor, as it is in other activities.
    Paradiddle vs Paradiddle-diddle: yes, two beats. But you weren't supposed to look it up!
    Bourbon vs whiskey: don't know where you got 30/40%. All bourbon is whiskey but not all whiskey is bourbon. Bourbon is made in Kentucky, and if it ain't made from corn mash it doesn't count.

    Replies: @Inquiring Mind

    , @Buffalo Joe
    @Abolish_public_education

    A_p_e, thank you. When you think about it there are plenty of politicians who would have a low middle class life if they weren't elected to office. After that it is gravy train forever. Boubon has federal regulations and can only be aged in oak, IIRC, and made in Kentucky? Top of my head answer. I drink Manhattan's made with George Dickel Sour Mash (8 Years) and Martini and Rossi vermouth. My Rob Roys (Scotch Manhattan) are same vermouth, bitters and Monkey Shoulders scotch. Milked cows by hand in my youth, I think 15 minutes tops and watch for the tail, covered in shit, being swung at your head or a splash manure dump 2 feet from you. But, we used to skim the cream and go to the peach orchard and pick up the drops (ripe peaches that dropped from the tree) skin them, slice them and cover them in fresh cream. Can't do that today. Stay safe.

    Replies: @JMcG, @Ralph L

  30. @Buffalo Joe
    I personally don't think most politicians have any concept of numbers. A billion is a thousand million. How many politicians could express that? When my son ran for the school board in his town he was the only candidate, seated or running, who could read a financial statement. The Buffalo Public Schools budget now exceeds one billion dollars. Do the members of the school realize that is one thousand piles of a million dollars. Probably not because there is never enough money in their budget. Don't try to confuse politicians with numbers.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Pericles, @John Johnson

    I personally don’t think most politicians have any concept of numbers. A billion is a thousand million.

    A thousand seconds is just over a quarter hour.

    A million seconds is just under twelve days.

    A billion seconds is just under thirty-two years.

    A trillion seconds is just under thirty-two thousand years.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Reg Cæsar

    A quadrillion seconds is half as old as yo mama.

    , @Buffalo Joe
    @Reg Cæsar

    Reg, when the ultra libs want to give away other peoples' money you can say this...take a billion from this guy and give a million to a thousand people, or half a million to two thousand people or a quarter of a million to four thousand people, a zero sum game and pretty soon that billion doesn't go far enough. But hey, it's not their money.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  31. Oh, trust me, they know all about “heads I win, tails you lose.”

  32. Anon[323] • Disclaimer says:
    @rebel yell
    I disagree - this sort of "gotcha" test doesn't prove anything.
    I'm sure if you explain the correct answer to the failing respondents they would understand the correct answer perfectly well, so they are not as dumb as you think.
    They don't know the answer because they don't need to know it. They don't work with numbers every day and haven't done any math beyond multiplication since they were students decades ago. This is basic knowledge in statistics but is it really supposed to be common knowledge for everyone for life? Will a political leader really vote the wrong way because they didn't know this answer without looking it up? Would Andrew Jackson or Lincoln have answered correctly? Does getting the wrong answer mean the politician won't be able to understand a statistical argument when it is fully presented and explained?

    Okay Unz techies, answer these questions (without Googling the answer):
    How long does it take to milk a cow? (common knowledge for most Americans long ago)
    What is the difference between a paradiddle and a paradiddle-diddle? (common knowledge among concert drummers)
    What is the difference between bourbon and whiskey? (common knowledge on fraternity row)

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @Anon, @Charles, @black sea, @Colin Wright, @JackOH, @Jim Don Bob, @Ganderson, @Anonymous, @Dmon, @AndrewR, @David Davenport

    Okay Unz techies, answer these questions (without Googling the answer):

    o How long does it take to milk a cow? (common knowledge for most Americans long ago)

    o What is the difference between a paradiddle and a paradiddle-diddle? (common knowledge among concert drummers)

    o What is the difference between bourbon and whiskey? (common knowledge on fraternity row)

    Your questions are equivalent to the BITCH-100 (Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity) or the Chitling Test, on which blacks score higher than whites because the questions concern black slang and culture.

    It turns out that when such tests become high stakes, the people who do best on them are the same people who do well on IQ tests. Asians would be getting the top scores and blacks the worst scores on a modern high-stakes BITCH-100 test because admission to UC, say, is important enough to learn the stuff.

    [MORE]

    As for the probability questions, smart people regularly use simple algebra, exponential thinking, and statistics, which includes integral calculus concepts. HBD and Covid are two examples of contexts where this happens. If you personally never use anything but arithmetic, perhaps you are inadvertently revealing something.

    Smart people somehow come across knowledge more often, notice it, remember it, and use it. This is why, counterintuitively, simple vocabulary tests are one of the most g-loaded IQ tests in the psychometrician’s quiver. The University of Chicago can use the 10-question WordSum test on the General Social Survey every year and get a decent IQ estimate very quickly. Likewise, the smarter you are, the more math you truly understood when learned, the more you remember, the more you use in daily life years later.

    • Agree: Yancey Ward, AndrewR
  33. @Anon
    Well, it's a stupid question. There is no way of knowing the probability of a coin flip. It depends on complex variables like how much force the flipper used with his thumb, where his thumb was located on the coin when he flipped it, etc. No coin toss is ever going to be exactly like the other. It's not a precision mechanical certainty like pulling a trigger on a revolver.

    What this reveals is that elite people are intelligent and complex, and answer honestly questions that proles think they "know" because they learned them at rheir shit schools back in the 1900s. The correct question to many answers is often "I don't know" or a standardized "incorrect" answer, because most tests are fucking stupid and most of what we are taught in school is wrong.

    https://phys.org/news/2009-10-tails-key-variables.html


    Using a high-speed camera that photographed people flipping coins, the three researchers determined that a coin is more likely to land facing the same side on which it started. If tails is facing up when the coin is perched on your thumb, it is more likely to land tails up.

    How much more likely? At least 51 percent of the time, the researchers claim, and possibly as much as 55 percent to 60 percent -- depending on the flipping motion of the individual.

    In other words, more than random luck is at work.
     

    Replies: @Anon, @Faraday's Bobcat, @Jonathan Mason, @Bill Jones, @bomag

    The correct question to many answers

    Whoops, obviously that was meant to read “the correct answer to many questions”.

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @Anon

    No, you were right the first time.

    See Hexagram 2.

    Replies: @slumber_j

    , @Badger Down
    @Anon

    The correct question is What?

  34. You don’t have to be smart to be a politician. You just have to be programmable.

  35. ” if you flip a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?”

    Trick question. There are more than just two sides to a coin, bigot.

  36. @rebel yell
    I disagree - this sort of "gotcha" test doesn't prove anything.
    I'm sure if you explain the correct answer to the failing respondents they would understand the correct answer perfectly well, so they are not as dumb as you think.
    They don't know the answer because they don't need to know it. They don't work with numbers every day and haven't done any math beyond multiplication since they were students decades ago. This is basic knowledge in statistics but is it really supposed to be common knowledge for everyone for life? Will a political leader really vote the wrong way because they didn't know this answer without looking it up? Would Andrew Jackson or Lincoln have answered correctly? Does getting the wrong answer mean the politician won't be able to understand a statistical argument when it is fully presented and explained?

    Okay Unz techies, answer these questions (without Googling the answer):
    How long does it take to milk a cow? (common knowledge for most Americans long ago)
    What is the difference between a paradiddle and a paradiddle-diddle? (common knowledge among concert drummers)
    What is the difference between bourbon and whiskey? (common knowledge on fraternity row)

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @Anon, @Charles, @black sea, @Colin Wright, @JackOH, @Jim Don Bob, @Ganderson, @Anonymous, @Dmon, @AndrewR, @David Davenport

    American bourbon, by definition, is made in Kentucky. A person may dispute this, but it is nevertheless true.

    • Agree: rebel yell
    • Replies: @Ganderson
    @Charles

    Is there a generic name for whisky made in TN, like George Dickel? I had been led to understand that while most bourbon came from KY, the Tennessee whiskies were bourbon too. Happy to be corrected.

  37. @Badger Down
    They should have been given an easier question:
    If you have just flipped a coin four times, and it came up heads every time, what are the odds that your next coin-flip will also be heads?

    Replies: @epebble, @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY), @Yancey Ward, @El Dato, @znon, @Henry's Cat, @Bardon Kaldian

    That is a much harder question and it is somewhat excusable if many more people get it wrong.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @epebble

    I think this is a great question, EPebble (and Badger Down). I don't think it's a harder question, math-wise, though. The difference is that this question gets down to the root of the matter, while the one asked to the Miinisters is just a simple math question, appropriate to find out if these guys/ladies are at all numerate.

    On the 4-heads-first question: "What do the last 4 flips have to do with my flipping a coin right now?" or "How does the coin know how it landed the last 4 time?" Those are real basic questions - more philisophical than anything. I would be glad if more of these people were numerate enough to just go "oh, well, if it's half a chance and I need 2 half chances, then yeah one quarter" for the question iSteve quoted. I'd call them above and beyond the average politician if they could think "What do the last 4 flips have to do ..." etc.

    , @Anonymous
    @epebble


    That is a much harder question and it is somewhat excusable if many more people get it wrong.
     
    It is in fact a much, much EASIER question. The ORIGINAL question is in fact VERY DIFFICULT.

    We know that the odds of coming up heads on one flip is 50 percent. We know the odds of coming up heads on a second flip is 50 percent. But how do you combine them to get a probability of coming up heads twice in a row?

    I’d wager that less than 5 percent of commenters here can EXPLAIN it. That’s worse than the MPs!

    Replies: @martin_2, @John Johnson

  38. @Anon
    @Anon


    The correct question to many answers
     
    Whoops, obviously that was meant to read "the correct answer to many questions".

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Badger Down

    No, you were right the first time.

    See Hexagram 2.

    • Replies: @slumber_j
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    The question to everyone's answer
    Is usually asked from within

    --Wallace Stevens

  39. @Trelane
    Women and children and leftists aren't very good at statistics and probability due to the "empathizing-systemizing theory" first identified by Simon Baron-Cohen.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @JimB, @Triteleia Laxa

    Women and children and leftists aren’t very good at statistics and probability due to the “empathizing-systemizing theory” first identified by Simon Baron-Cohen.

    They also aren’t very good with finance. Which is why every liberal government thinks there is infinite money in the future to tax for spending today.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @JimB

    That’s a cute theory, but in reality there seem to be enough numerate liberals to handle finance and resist the spendthrift impulses of the left-wing.

    , @slumber_j
    @JimB


    They also aren’t very good with finance. Which is why every liberal government thinks there is infinite money in the future to tax for spending today.
     
    Well, when they also basically print the money they sort of have a point.
  40. Most Americas assume those British Ministers are smarter than our Congresscreatures due to the British accents of the former. The opposite factor may be noted, as people assume more stupidity in black Congressmen than warranted just due to their accents. Speaking of flipping things, Georgia’s Hank Johnson explained the flipping of whole islands to some Admiral or Surgeon General or something:

    What was the probability of Achmed E. Newman here watching any part of the Bread & Circuses called the 2021 , oops, 2020 Olympiad? Well, you’d have probably lost that one, as I ended up watching 1 hour due to my kid’s wanting to watch swimming. Comments are here. Let me put it this way. I don’t see how you people do it.

  41. @Badger Down
    They should have been given an easier question:
    If you have just flipped a coin four times, and it came up heads every time, what are the odds that your next coin-flip will also be heads?

    Replies: @epebble, @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY), @Yancey Ward, @El Dato, @znon, @Henry's Cat, @Bardon Kaldian

    “They should have been given an easier question:
    If you have just flipped a coin four times, and it came up heads every time, what are the odds that your next coin-flip will also be heads?”

    How is this an easier question? The premises of the problem are not stated. Is the problem to assess the probability that the coin is biased? Or is it stipulated that the coin is unbiased?

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    Nassim Taleb had a good point about this one (one of his Fat Tony stories).

    If someone gives you a (presumably fair) coin that's come up heads 99 times, what's the odds of the coin coming up heads again? Well, the probability theory answer is 1/2, because the coin flip is independent of prior probabilities. But if the coin's come up heads 99 times...it's probably not a fair coin!

    There's a larger point of stepping outside the question and wondering, is the person asking this question telling me everything? Strikes me as the sort of insight that would come naturally to someone with a life in finance.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

  42. Applicants to work at Bletchley, cracking the Enigma, were given this one. What the heck does this mean: (click MORE to reveal answer)

    STGOCH

    [MORE]

    Santiago, Chile.

    I wonder which members of Congress would get it. I wonder if Fauci would.
    Bill Gates. Zuckerberg. Musk. Tucker. Putin. The assembled New York Times editorial board. My plumber.

  43. @Trelane
    Women and children and leftists aren't very good at statistics and probability due to the "empathizing-systemizing theory" first identified by Simon Baron-Cohen.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @JimB, @Triteleia Laxa

    Baron-Cohen’s work is profound as 10,000 hours. The only people who think it is good are those who want to.

    Anyone who isn’t rigid or prone to panic can work out:

    TT
    TH
    HT
    HH

    1/4

    Conservative MPs are just often smarter because there aren’t so many randomers from sub-par University student unions and token individuals.

    • LOL: Trelane
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Here's Ron Unz flipping the coin using your method of keeping track.....

    If I do get vaccinated (H) and Covid is not a threat (H)......then I survive.

    If I do get vaccinated (H) and Covid is a real threat to me (T)......then I am protected and will survive.

    If I don't get vaccinated (T) and Covid is not a threat (H)......then I survive.

    If I don't get vaccinated (T) and Covid is a real threat to me (T).....then I'm screwed.

    It's the 21st century version of Pascal's wager.

  44. Here’s a harder one: you’ve already flipped those two coins. One of them came up heads. What’s the probability the other one also came up heads?

    [MORE]

    Answer: 1/3

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @International Jew

    No, it is 1/2.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Reg Cæsar, @blake121666, @David, @res

    , @JohnnyWalker123
    @International Jew

    I don't get it.

    Explain.

    There are 2 scenarios for the other coin - heads and tails. In theory, wouldn't there be a 50% chance of heads and a 50% chance of tails.

    What am I missing here?

    , @Kjr
    @International Jew

    Before clicking MORE.. one in three?


    Either it's A that is heads, or it's B that is heads, or it's Both are heads.

    , @Deckin
    @International Jew

    Bayes’ Theorem nets another victim!

    , @Odin
    @International Jew


    You’ve already flipped those two coins. One of them came up heads. What’s the probability the other one also came up heads?
     
    Depends what you mean by "one of them":

    --"At least one of them": IJ's usage. Answer 3/4.

    --"One I picked at random": TL's usage. Answer 1/2.

    --"Exactly one of them": Odin's usage. Answer zero.
    , @Bill Jones
    @International Jew

    Wrong. You grifters should be better than this.

  45. @Badger Down
    They should have been given an easier question:
    If you have just flipped a coin four times, and it came up heads every time, what are the odds that your next coin-flip will also be heads?

    Replies: @epebble, @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY), @Yancey Ward, @El Dato, @znon, @Henry's Cat, @Bardon Kaldian

    And if you just flipped it 100 times in a row and it came up heads………….?

    • Replies: @George Weinbaum
    @Yancey Ward

    2^100 = 1.267 x E30. Do you believe such a coin is unbiased?
    I don't.

  46. @jimmyriddle
    The class of 2012 were geniuses compared to the current crop of Labour women MPs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH-_wRC8bt4

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Gordo, @astrolabe, @Philip Owen, @Badger Down

    I’ve met her. She seems to have made herself quite a few tones paler in her video, which is odd. She also struck me as a very dull bulb.

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
    @Triteleia Laxa


    She seems to have made herself quite a few tones paler in her video.
     
    It's never odd. Darker-skinned women around the world have done this for millennia. Even European women would knowingly take poisons to blanch their skin whiter.

    Sammy Sosa is a good example, but its almost a universal female thing.

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @Triteleia Laxa

    The English expression, as used in the UK is "dim bulb" not "dull bulb", which is odd.

    The wartime generation had the phrase "as dim as a Toc-H lamp" - Toc-H being a charity which ran social clubs for armed forces staff.

    https://wordhistories.net/2020/08/05/dim-toc-h-lamp/#:~:text=The%20British%2DEnglish%20phrase%20(as,H%20lamp%20means%20dim%2Dwitted.&text=Toc%20H%2C%20born%20out%20of,as%20ever%2C%E2%80%9D%20said%20Mr.

    About 816,000 results for "dim bulb", mostly about slow-witted people (plus a video game I've never heard of, The Binding Of Isaac)

    About 20,100 results for "dull bulb", mostly about lighting problems.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  47. @International Jew
    Here's a harder one: you've already flipped those two coins. One of them came up heads. What's the probability the other one also came up heads?

    Answer: 1/3

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @JohnnyWalker123, @Kjr, @Deckin, @Odin, @Bill Jones

    No, it is 1/2.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Triteleia Laxa

    He's thinking of Let's Make a Deal.



    https://i0.wp.com/www.geeksaresexy.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Monty_open_door_chances.svg_.png?resize=500%2C508

    And just in time. Monty Hall's 100th birthday is coming up later this month.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Triteleia Laxa

    He's thinking of Let's Make a Deal.



    https://i0.wp.com/www.geeksaresexy.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Monty_open_door_chances.svg_.png

    And just in time. Monty Hall's 100th birthday is coming up later this month.

    , @blake121666
    @Triteleia Laxa

    It would only be 1/2 if he had stated which one was heads (the first or the second). Then there is only 2 possibilities for the other. But he said both coin flips were done and one was heads. That knocks out TT from the possibilities and HH is one of the 3 remaining. Therefore 1/3 probability.

    This is the "Boy or Girl paradox"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox

    , @David
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I think IJ is correct. There are three scenarios in which at least one coin is heads, and in two of them, the other coin is tails.

    , @res
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Reg is right. IJ is (probably) thinking of it like the Monty Hall problem.

    My take is the initial problem statement is underspecified.

    The deal is this. Multiple ways of doing this.

    1. Two coins are flipped and you are simply told 1 came up heads. This is IJ's version and his 1/3 answer is correct. Once you know one is heads you have HH, HT, TH to choose from.

    2. Two coins are flipped and one is turned over (without knowledge of the results, e.g. first, second, or randomly) to show heads. This is your version of the problem and your 1/2 answer is correct.

    The Monty Hall variation is a subtle combination of those two.

    3. Two coins are flipped and one is turned over to show heads by someone who knows the results (i.e. if only one head was flipped choose that coin). That reduces to IJ's 1 since you are again looking at HH, HT, and TH as possibilities.

    P.S. FWIW, there is a lesson here. Perhaps make an effort to understand what the other person is saying before "correcting" them. Especially in definitive terms like "No..." Even more especially if you know the other person (here IJ) usually makes astute comments.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Colin Wright, @Jack D, @John Johnson

  48. @Triteleia Laxa
    @jimmyriddle

    I've met her. She seems to have made herself quite a few tones paler in her video, which is odd. She also struck me as a very dull bulb.

    Replies: @R.G. Camara, @YetAnotherAnon

    She seems to have made herself quite a few tones paler in her video.

    It’s never odd. Darker-skinned women around the world have done this for millennia. Even European women would knowingly take poisons to blanch their skin whiter.

    Sammy Sosa is a good example, but its almost a universal female thing.

  49. @epebble
    I am guessing this is is same with our Congressfolks too. If some one were to do research on all the bills and executive decisions done in the last 75 years, we may find that they were done by largely innumerate people - The ones who start a a response to any "difficult" question with - "I am not good at math".

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Marquis

    “I am guessing this is is same with our Congressfolks too.”

    Nope, for our Congress the answer is different…

    CONGRESSMAN: It’s a trick question. There can’t be two coin flips, because one of the coins was already sent to Israel.

    • LOL: Gordo, Mulegino1
  50. anon[302] • Disclaimer says:

    Most Americas assume those British Ministers are smarter than our Congresscreatures due to the British accents of the former.

    It’s interesting how accent/dialect affects your perception of someone’s character and, in particular, their intelligence.

    When I hear an accent from the American South I, subconsciously, judge them to be of low intelligence. I catch myself doing this. Why is this my perception? It’s not based on personal experience with Southerners. I conclude it’s due to media portrayals — possibly as few as one portrayal which I was exposed to in young childhood and the specifics of which I’ve completely forgotten.

    Regarding the British accent, or “RP English” as the specific dialect is called, I don’t associate this accent with intelligence at all. I suspect that this perception is somewhat generational.

    I associate the British accent with con-artistry. Again, this is subconscious. My hypothesis is that con-artists, observing that the British accent signaled education, intelligence and trustworthiness (probably correctly so at the time) decided to adopt the accent to make themselves sound intelligent and trustworthy. Unfortunately, like Gresham’s law, this rather debased the “brand.”

    Thomm’s comments on women reminded me of this:

    The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives…

    – Arthur Schopenhauer On Women

    That Arthur was so naught.

    • Replies: @rebel yell
    @anon


    When I hear an accent from the American South I, subconsciously, judge them to be of low intelligence.
     
    Southern congressmen were aware of this bias and used it to their advantage for years. The shrewd southern lawyer with folksy ways sneaking up on the un-suspecting confident Yankees. Sam Ervin.
  51. @Anon
    Could this be the reason for the discrepancy between the two political parties?:

    The first thing I thought was that the answer is 0.50 x 0.50, fifty percent of fifty percent, or 0.25 which in fact is the correct answer.

    But then I thought, Is this a trick question? The most common trick question in probability involves making people think that past results have an effect on future attempts. So to a question like, "If you flip a coin 100 times and get tails each time, what are the odds for the next flip?," many will think that there is a "pent-up" higher probability for a heads -- which there isn't, it's still fifty-fifty.

    But people who think they are too clever to be tricked might be susceptible to favoring the incorrect answer, even though it does not involve past results in this current case.

    This is like "hyperurbanism" in grammar, overcorrection, as in "between you and I." You remember, "There's this thing that rednecks do where they use me instead of I. I won't make that mistake."

    So my theory is that conservatives may just ingenuously and straightforwardly give the answer they think is right. On the other hand liberals may think they are smarter than conservatives and think of the answer beyond the simple answer. And that answer beyond the answer is the wrong answer.

    Liberals may in fact be a little smarter than conservatives, on average, and may thus may be more likely to have run across and vaguely remember the "100 times" thing, but they are not smart enough to really understand it perfectly, and they erroneously apply it to a situation where it isn't relevant, where there are no past flips involved. In other words liberals are too smart for their own good, and their confidence exceeds their intelligence. And politicians may have higher verbal intelligence than math intelligence, exacerbating things.

    Replies: @International Jew, @martin_2, @astrolabe, @Jack D, @John Johnson

    You forgot to mention crippling test-taking anxiety, among the BIPOC members of Parliament.

    • Replies: @vhrm
    @International Jew


    You forgot to mention crippling test-taking anxiety, among the BIPOC members of Parliament.
     
    They're BAME over there, you insensitive clod.

    as an aside (related to "insensitive clod") could this comic strip even be published today?

    https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1986/02/14/

    sexual harassment, physical violence, the implication that "no" doesn't mean "no" , glorification of domestic violence... cis het relationship among two white people..

  52. Anonymous[894] • Disclaimer says:

    There was a study of students at some elite college which asked why the Earth had seasons. Most of the respondents got it wrong. (They thought it was because the orbit of the Earth around the Sun is elliptical, when actually it’s a consequence of the tilt of the planet.)

    • Replies: @rebel yell
    @Anonymous


    There was a study of students at some elite college which asked why the Earth had seasons. Most of the respondents got it wrong. (They thought it was because the orbit of the Earth around the Sun is elliptical, when actually it’s a consequence of the tilt of the planet.)
     
    This is a great example of a common error that is not necessarily stupid. The dunce respondents are aware that the earth's orbit is elliptical and have enough common sense to surmise this could affect the seasons. But they don't remember that the earth also tilts, and they don't remember Mrs. Grundy's lesson on astronomy in high school that told them that the tilt causes the seasons.
    Don't beat up on people for getting these kind of answers wrong. There are 10,000 factoids out there and 10,ooo little formulas and thousands of experts, including your car mechanic that knows how to disassemble and reassemble your carburetor. And he's just a car mechanic.
    A more serious question is what kind of knowledge a reasonably educated man should have to be a responsible denizen of the modern world, i.e. what should be common knowledge in 2021. That is a serious question, since the failure of our voters to have adequate common knowledge (common sense) is the root cause of our problems.
    , @J.Ross
    @Anonymous

    Thanks (I was going to say: how is the other hemisphere in opposite season if both are equally removed)? Leaving it this was a clever trick to get more comments.

    , @fondolo
    @Anonymous

    I had to roll through a lot of comments to get this observation.

  53. @ScarletNumber
    @Trelane

    This may be common knowledge, but SBC is a cousin of Borat, even though the family inconsistently hyphenates their name.

    Replies: @Kjr

    I prefer the one who doesn’t publicly ridicule random victims.

    That’s the thing about “the free speech debate”.

    I’m a woman converting to chassidish Judaism and one of the first culture shocks – and I do mean shocks – is how my new friends regard gossiping about people as a shameful thing to do

    It hit me when I made a comment about my sister at a shabbos meal on Friday night and the kids ranging in age from 9 to 18 all looked down blushing on my behalf!

    It turns out that “hurtful speech” is verboten even when the gossip is true and the person isn’t in the room.

    What I came to realize is that intelligent Men prefer to talk about Ideas and intelligent Women prefer to talk about People.

    I’m in a women’s group that Zooms together every Wednesday evening to study a Jewish book called The Chofetz Chaim which is about a hundred pages of Hebrew laws about the sin of gossiping.

    It bothers me a little that they don’t encourage talking about unkosher ideas either (they really believe that the world is 5,781 years old) but it doesn’t bother me too much. I like their closeness to God and songs and family life and kindness. So if I have to pretend that dinosaurs were killed in Noah’s flood, who cares?

    But the men in my conversion class (pre covid) kept getting into trouble arguing over things like that.

    That’s when I came up with my theory that men can talk about ideas more dispassionately than women can. And men also fail to appreciate the perhaps once beneficial mechanism of personal gossip.

    But I’m now convinced that gossip/libel/slander/mockery and other forms of hurting people by referring to NAMED INDIVIDUALS is worse than talking about uncomfortable ideas, including ideas about groups of people.

    I feel like I discovered some kind of scientific principle.

    In the American media and of course social media (and college campuses, etc) it is considered perfectly acceptable to cuttingly hurt individuals – which is the kind of talk we women are more likely to fall prey to – but not acceptable to talk about ideas that might be harmful – which is the kind of talk that men are more likely to engage in.

    I perfectly accept my new position in the chassidish world. I am covering my hair, my collar bone and my calves. I will never lead a Torah or Davening service and no matter how knowledgeable I become I will never lecture to a group that includes men in it.

    And you know what, I’m totally fine with it!

    The biggest change in my life is that the most popular women are the ones who never ever ever ever speak a bad word about individuals. We love being near thise women like we used to love being near the girls who shared the juiciest gossip!

    And it makes most of the internet pretty cringe to me.

    But instead of deplatforming people who make funnof individuals online, we deplatform people who say mean things about groups of people or who doubt the generally accepted opinions about Covid-19.

    That’s because women (or little girls who never grew up) were given complete control of the internet and are perfectly happy to curtail the speech of men that could be harmful, while keeping their own harmful speech not only legitimated but celebrated.

    The sad part of this for me is that I really loved the Borat and Bruno movies! But now I see them as cringe and stipped watching the new Borat movie halfway through felt like I was personally hurting the people who were being publicly ridiculed in the movie, by my watching it.

    If it were up to me, the Chofetz Chaim book would become part of the national discourse. Real people commit suicide every single day because of what people say about them in the news or on social media. So far however I have yet to see concrete evidence that either Charles Murray or Bret Weinstein caused any deaths by dispassionately discussing their socially heretical ideas.

    As a woman I am less inclined to run to the front of the battlefield to fight my sisters who are, in my soon-to-be Jewish opinion, causing the most harm to real living individuals.

    I also really don’t want to see men fighting women either (even harpies and crazies).

    But you don’t have to!

    All you have to do is fight the men who are encouraging these women!

    As far as I can tell, these children are getting away with it because their bad behavior is cheered on by the sillier sort of men. If these men didn’t exist, or if everyone had to read the book I mentioned before, then it would be Game Theory publicly known (that I know that you know that I know) that their behavior is cringe and it would happen a lot less.

    So if there must be a conversation about the limits of free speech, I think it should be about the sort of speech that is designed to hurt a specific individual, rather than the sort of speech that may, possibly, who knows, cause harm through some political process get to occur.

    • Agree: Jonathan Mason
    • Disagree: Drapetomaniac
    • Replies: @SFG
    @Kjr

    You've certainly chosen an interesting channel to read for a Jewish convert. ;)

    Seriously, this is a good point, and an often-unremarked-on (even on the right) consequence of the feminization of American culture (to quote Ann Douglas). It's OK to say bad things about people, but no discussion of ideas that might hurt the feelings of left-wing groups. (Kind of an inversion of the old blasphemy laws.)

    Technically, that's the point of libel laws, but you can't sue every person on social media who says something nasty about you (which is the point of a twitter mob).

    As for fighting only the men encouraging these women...too many women doing this stuff now. My personal opinion is that, given the conditions in the 21st century, women have forfeited the right to chivalry and should be subject to the same rules as men. Certainly in a war I wouldn't hold my fire, though I am old and semifat and unlikely to be in one and I doubt the Chinese would be silly enough to send an amazon brigade to fight us.

    , @J.Ross
    @Kjr

    >there exist Jews who think that defamation is wrong and do not engage in it
    I want to believe; the ones I'm worried about dedicate every minute of every waking hour to defaming their perceived enemies, to the point of inspiring or justifying physical violence.
    Maybe it's the sect, but this commenter doesn't sound --
    >that's why we need to eliminate freedom of speech
    Aaaaand there it is.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Kjr


    they really believe that the world is 5,781 years old
     
    And, in true Darwinian fashion, they have a lot of offspring, correct? Surviving offspring. That's the case with the Amish around here. A paradox, indeed.

    It's Galapagos tortoises all the way down.
    , @Jack D
    @Kjr

    The interesting thing about the Jewish prohibition on "lashon hara" (evil tongue) is that it applies to defamatory statement even if they are TRUE (there is a separate prohibition on blackening someone's name with lies, which is an even more serious offense). Under common law, truth is a defense to defamation.

    However, it is a defense if you are uttering the statement for a constructive purpose. For example, "I hear that Rabbi X has a taste for underage boys" is evil tongue but "you may not want to leave your kid alone with Rabbi X" is ok, assuming the recipient has kids who might be supervised by Rabbi X.

    Not only is it prohibit to utter evil speech but it's also forbidden to receive to it, again a difference from Western law.

    There is also a distinction between incidentally uttering defamatory statements and someone who has the habit of doing so frequently - a MASTER of evil tongue, with the latter of course being much worse. The advice (which I think is good) is to avoid such people. The logic is that the same people who will talk trash about your mutual friends to you behind their back will also talk trash about YOU to your mutual friends when you are not around.

    There is no real explanation in the holy books themselves as to WHY evil speech is prohibited - there are just examples of incidents where someone did it and really bad things happened to them - for example Moses's sister Miriam spoke evil of Moses to their brother Aaron and she got leprosy, so don't do it or bad things will happen to you too.

    There are a LOT of things that are prohibited in Judaism that don't have a "why" attached to them. God said not to do it and it's not up to us to question WHY He said so. For this reason, Jewish law doesn't always make complete sense to people accustomed to Western modes of logic, but it has a logic of its own.

    Replies: @epebble, @Odin, @Hibernian, @Neil Templeton

    , @Paperback Writer
    @Kjr


    I think it should be about the sort of speech that is designed to hurt a specific individual, rather than the sort of speech that may, possibly, who knows, cause harm through some political process get to occur.
     
    Actually, that is exactly what the courts say about the First Amendment.
  54. @Triteleia Laxa
    @International Jew

    No, it is 1/2.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Reg Cæsar, @blake121666, @David, @res

    He’s thinking of Let’s Make a Deal.

    https://i0.wp.com/www.geeksaresexy.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Monty_open_door_chances.svg_.png?resize=500%2C508

    And just in time. Monty Hall’s 100th birthday is coming up later this month.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Reg Cæsar

    Sure, but he doesn't get the point.

    Monty Hall picks 2/3 choices after you pick 1/3.

    Switching, therefore, always makes sense, whether he reveals the 1 of his 2/3 that doesn't work, or not. It remains 2/3.

    Replies: @Mr Mox, @International Jew

  55. @Triteleia Laxa
    @International Jew

    No, it is 1/2.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Reg Cæsar, @blake121666, @David, @res

    He’s thinking of Let’s Make a Deal.

    And just in time. Monty Hall’s 100th birthday is coming up later this month.

  56. @Reg Cæsar
    @Triteleia Laxa

    He's thinking of Let's Make a Deal.



    https://i0.wp.com/www.geeksaresexy.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Monty_open_door_chances.svg_.png?resize=500%2C508

    And just in time. Monty Hall's 100th birthday is coming up later this month.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Sure, but he doesn’t get the point.

    Monty Hall picks 2/3 choices after you pick 1/3.

    Switching, therefore, always makes sense, whether he reveals the 1 of his 2/3 that doesn’t work, or not. It remains 2/3.

    • Replies: @Mr Mox
    @Triteleia Laxa


    Switching, therefore, always makes sense, whether he reveals the 1 of his 2/3 that doesn’t work, or not. It remains 2/3.
     
    But what if he opens both doors?

    Asking for a friend...

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    , @International Jew
    @Triteleia Laxa

    This isn't the Monty Hall problem, it's easier.
    Consider the possibilities:
    HH
    HT
    TH
    TT

    I've told you that in (at least) one of your flips, you got H. That means you can rule out TT; the only possible outcomes are
    HH
    HT
    TH
    And of these three, in only one -- HH -- is it the case that "one of your flips is an H, and the other one is also an H". Hence the probability is 1/3.

    Replies: @Jim

  57. @Abolish_public_education
    @rebel yell

    30 minutes (if they have milk).
    2 beats.
    Bourbon/whiskey is 30/40%.

    Having poor math skills should not disqualify someone from serving as a legislator. But having a license to practice law should.

    @ Buffalo:

    I once saw a congressman, in a town hall meeting, get a cheap Standing ‘O for admitting that while he wasn’t an actuary, and therefore couldn’t really comment about the strength of the FICA trust fund, he would never do anything to jeopardize it.

    Replies: @rebel yell, @Buffalo Joe

    30 minutes (if they have milk).
    2 beats.
    Bourbon/whiskey is 30/40%.

    While my grandparents were farmers and knew how long it takes to milk a cow, I do not know. Google tells me 5-7 minutes, not 30. I suppose the size and condition of the teats could be a factor, as it is in other activities.
    Paradiddle vs Paradiddle-diddle: yes, two beats. But you weren’t supposed to look it up!
    Bourbon vs whiskey: don’t know where you got 30/40%. All bourbon is whiskey but not all whiskey is bourbon. Bourbon is made in Kentucky, and if it ain’t made from corn mash it doesn’t count.

    • Replies: @Inquiring Mind
    @rebel yell

    Your farmer grandparents must have had a practical knowledge of the astronomical cause of the seasons?

    Do you suppose the ignorance of the apparent motion of the Sun in the sky is because the number of people who work sunup to sundown, outside and depending on natural lighting for their outdoor tasks, is dwindling?

    If your family farm was in the Northern Hemisphere, your grandparents must have been aware that the days were particularly long in June and July? This was either a blessing as this long day allowed a lot of the necessary work to be completed, even though they were dead tired at the end of such a work day? And that during that long day, the best working hours were in the very early morning or the late evening because, especially if your family members are light-skinned, the hours around noon when the Sun is high in the sky are perhaps better spent on indoor chores, both on account of the the heat from the Sun beating down on a person working outdoors and also giving them a severe sunburn unless properly attired?

    And towards harvest time, when bringing in a crop could take an enormous amount of work, that work had to be conducted in ever-shortening days where one had to rush before "losing one's light"? And winter has even shorter days, where even a sunny day provides little warmth because the Sun makes a pathetic little circle in the southern sky?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @rebel yell

  58. @International Jew
    Here's a harder one: you've already flipped those two coins. One of them came up heads. What's the probability the other one also came up heads?

    Answer: 1/3

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @JohnnyWalker123, @Kjr, @Deckin, @Odin, @Bill Jones

    I don’t get it.

    Explain.

    There are 2 scenarios for the other coin – heads and tails. In theory, wouldn’t there be a 50% chance of heads and a 50% chance of tails.

    What am I missing here?

  59. What the hell is even the purpose of Anti-Fa? What exactly are Anti-Fa’s financiers trying to accomplish?

    • Replies: @Rob
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Here’s a guess. I have no idea whether this is right. I’m not even saying that I believe it.

    The purpose of antifa is to get some antifa NPCs shot. The financier(s) lose something that has no value to them, just some gutter punks. In exchange? They then use the media, which will not mention that the shooter was being brutalized by a group hitting him with bike locks. Or will do their “A fascist shot 3 counter-protestors, who according to some witnesses, were groupstoming him. These eyewitness accounts are disputed.” Like with Makakaffie the Knife, when the they said “shot black teen. The police claim the video shows her attacking someone with what the police spokesman said is a knife.” The advantages of having the media on your side (the disadvantage? When the media has so clearly chosen a side, everyone, on both sides, knows the media is propaganda, and they cannot get people to wear masks or get vaccines) At the low, low price of some goy gutter punk, they get normies to support a house to house gun grab. To prevent political violence from escalating. Shooting some antifa will make Americans look like villains.

    Pretty obviously, the powers that be support antifa, or we’d hear about how it is a shadowy organization with leadership and sponsors unwilling to own up to what they are doing in public. Instead, we get “it’s a hobby. Like knitting, you might be part of a knitting club, but there’s no one running a national Network of Knitting Clubs,” unlike White Supremacists, where everyone is head of of a two person International Terrorist Network of Hate. We would definitely hear about how about “ Of course we’ll have it [fascism]. We’ll have it under the guise of anti-fascism.”

    Also, with antifa, someone, who may have an agenda that differs from those who abet him, gets his own private army. Of course, it is a junk private army, but the Serbian militias weren’t a bunch of Nicolai Teslas. They still broke a country. The funders think “we’ll build back better.”

  60. Commentary on Parliament

  61. @newrouter
    ""59% of British MPs Flunked Probability of Flipping Two Heads in a Row"

    Seems like a stupid gotcha question. Better question for MPs: What's the public debt to GDP ratio?

    Replies: @Mackerel Sky, @Anon, @Daniel H, @AndrewR

    The point is that if they are too stupid to get such a basic question right, why would they even understand any significance in your alternative metric? In fact Steve Keen once quoted another study that showed most UK parliamentarians don’t understand how money is created in the UK. So no, they don’t even understand things that are literally part of their jobs.

    • Agree: Drapetomaniac
  62. @JimB
    @Trelane


    Women and children and leftists aren’t very good at statistics and probability due to the “empathizing-systemizing theory” first identified by Simon Baron-Cohen.
     
    They also aren’t very good with finance. Which is why every liberal government thinks there is infinite money in the future to tax for spending today.

    Replies: @Anon, @slumber_j

    That’s a cute theory, but in reality there seem to be enough numerate liberals to handle finance and resist the spendthrift impulses of the left-wing.

  63. @Badger Down
    They should have been given an easier question:
    If you have just flipped a coin four times, and it came up heads every time, what are the odds that your next coin-flip will also be heads?

    Replies: @epebble, @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY), @Yancey Ward, @El Dato, @znon, @Henry's Cat, @Bardon Kaldian

    You could go through entire set of bad heuristics applied by human brains that way.

    The one question of interest is what certain groups of people are worse, what groups of people are better of surviving another day if, say the world is transformed into a Terminator-style hunting park.

    The COVID outbreak is proof positive that must people can’t think further than the front door and are unable to evaluate large-scale dynamical / logistical situations at all. (Misjudging the impact of COVID because people are not keeling over in the streets is the same as misjudging the impact of immigration because you are not living in an emerging ghetto: in both cases “muh mountain retreat is FINE!”) Numbers are hard to assess. Some are so confused that they think COVID-19 doesn’t even exist because there is no hospital right next door with overflowing emergency care units.

  64. @anon


    Most Americas assume those British Ministers are smarter than our Congresscreatures due to the British accents of the former.

     

    It's interesting how accent/dialect affects your perception of someone's character and, in particular, their intelligence.

    When I hear an accent from the American South I, subconsciously, judge them to be of low intelligence. I catch myself doing this. Why is this my perception? It's not based on personal experience with Southerners. I conclude it's due to media portrayals -- possibly as few as one portrayal which I was exposed to in young childhood and the specifics of which I've completely forgotten.

    Regarding the British accent, or "RP English" as the specific dialect is called, I don't associate this accent with intelligence at all. I suspect that this perception is somewhat generational.

    I associate the British accent with con-artistry. Again, this is subconscious. My hypothesis is that con-artists, observing that the British accent signaled education, intelligence and trustworthiness (probably correctly so at the time) decided to adopt the accent to make themselves sound intelligent and trustworthy. Unfortunately, like Gresham's law, this rather debased the "brand."

    Thomm's comments on women reminded me of this:


    The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives...

     

    - Arthur Schopenhauer On Women

    That Arthur was so naught.

    Replies: @rebel yell

    When I hear an accent from the American South I, subconsciously, judge them to be of low intelligence.

    Southern congressmen were aware of this bias and used it to their advantage for years. The shrewd southern lawyer with folksy ways sneaking up on the un-suspecting confident Yankees. Sam Ervin.

  65. Anon[185] • Disclaimer says:
    @newrouter
    ""59% of British MPs Flunked Probability of Flipping Two Heads in a Row"

    Seems like a stupid gotcha question. Better question for MPs: What's the public debt to GDP ratio?

    Replies: @Mackerel Sky, @Anon, @Daniel H, @AndrewR

    If you asked a group of bright kids who hadn’t been exposed to probability theory this question you’d probably get the same sorts of results as the Labour MPs.

    What does this mean? Left-leaning people are less likely to study quantitative fields? That should be quite obvious even without this survey: left-wing elites tend to study liberal arts, and the shrinking remainder are blue-collar types who aren’t going to be stellar academics.

    As for the confidence: having self-doubt isn’t something that would get one elected (in a competitive seat), or selected by the party (in a safe seat)

  66. @Anonymous
    There was a study of students at some elite college which asked why the Earth had seasons. Most of the respondents got it wrong. (They thought it was because the orbit of the Earth around the Sun is elliptical, when actually it's a consequence of the tilt of the planet.)

    Replies: @rebel yell, @J.Ross, @fondolo

    There was a study of students at some elite college which asked why the Earth had seasons. Most of the respondents got it wrong. (They thought it was because the orbit of the Earth around the Sun is elliptical, when actually it’s a consequence of the tilt of the planet.)

    This is a great example of a common error that is not necessarily stupid. The dunce respondents are aware that the earth’s orbit is elliptical and have enough common sense to surmise this could affect the seasons. But they don’t remember that the earth also tilts, and they don’t remember Mrs. Grundy’s lesson on astronomy in high school that told them that the tilt causes the seasons.
    Don’t beat up on people for getting these kind of answers wrong. There are 10,000 factoids out there and 10,ooo little formulas and thousands of experts, including your car mechanic that knows how to disassemble and reassemble your carburetor. And he’s just a car mechanic.
    A more serious question is what kind of knowledge a reasonably educated man should have to be a responsible denizen of the modern world, i.e. what should be common knowledge in 2021. That is a serious question, since the failure of our voters to have adequate common knowledge (common sense) is the root cause of our problems.

    • Agree: AKAHorace
  67. @Triteleia Laxa
    @International Jew

    No, it is 1/2.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Reg Cæsar, @blake121666, @David, @res

    It would only be 1/2 if he had stated which one was heads (the first or the second). Then there is only 2 possibilities for the other. But he said both coin flips were done and one was heads. That knocks out TT from the possibilities and HH is one of the 3 remaining. Therefore 1/3 probability.

    This is the “Boy or Girl paradox”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox

    • Thanks: res
  68. @Badger Down
    They should have been given an easier question:
    If you have just flipped a coin four times, and it came up heads every time, what are the odds that your next coin-flip will also be heads?

    Replies: @epebble, @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY), @Yancey Ward, @El Dato, @znon, @Henry's Cat, @Bardon Kaldian

  69. @rebel yell
    I disagree - this sort of "gotcha" test doesn't prove anything.
    I'm sure if you explain the correct answer to the failing respondents they would understand the correct answer perfectly well, so they are not as dumb as you think.
    They don't know the answer because they don't need to know it. They don't work with numbers every day and haven't done any math beyond multiplication since they were students decades ago. This is basic knowledge in statistics but is it really supposed to be common knowledge for everyone for life? Will a political leader really vote the wrong way because they didn't know this answer without looking it up? Would Andrew Jackson or Lincoln have answered correctly? Does getting the wrong answer mean the politician won't be able to understand a statistical argument when it is fully presented and explained?

    Okay Unz techies, answer these questions (without Googling the answer):
    How long does it take to milk a cow? (common knowledge for most Americans long ago)
    What is the difference between a paradiddle and a paradiddle-diddle? (common knowledge among concert drummers)
    What is the difference between bourbon and whiskey? (common knowledge on fraternity row)

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @Anon, @Charles, @black sea, @Colin Wright, @JackOH, @Jim Don Bob, @Ganderson, @Anonymous, @Dmon, @AndrewR, @David Davenport

    I think the best question to be asked of Congressional representatives is: “What is the likelihood that the island of Guam will capsize?”

    • LOL: rebel yell
  70. @Anon
    Could this be the reason for the discrepancy between the two political parties?:

    The first thing I thought was that the answer is 0.50 x 0.50, fifty percent of fifty percent, or 0.25 which in fact is the correct answer.

    But then I thought, Is this a trick question? The most common trick question in probability involves making people think that past results have an effect on future attempts. So to a question like, "If you flip a coin 100 times and get tails each time, what are the odds for the next flip?," many will think that there is a "pent-up" higher probability for a heads -- which there isn't, it's still fifty-fifty.

    But people who think they are too clever to be tricked might be susceptible to favoring the incorrect answer, even though it does not involve past results in this current case.

    This is like "hyperurbanism" in grammar, overcorrection, as in "between you and I." You remember, "There's this thing that rednecks do where they use me instead of I. I won't make that mistake."

    So my theory is that conservatives may just ingenuously and straightforwardly give the answer they think is right. On the other hand liberals may think they are smarter than conservatives and think of the answer beyond the simple answer. And that answer beyond the answer is the wrong answer.

    Liberals may in fact be a little smarter than conservatives, on average, and may thus may be more likely to have run across and vaguely remember the "100 times" thing, but they are not smart enough to really understand it perfectly, and they erroneously apply it to a situation where it isn't relevant, where there are no past flips involved. In other words liberals are too smart for their own good, and their confidence exceeds their intelligence. And politicians may have higher verbal intelligence than math intelligence, exacerbating things.

    Replies: @International Jew, @martin_2, @astrolabe, @Jack D, @John Johnson

    Since the probability that the coin shows the same face 100 times in succession is more than 10 to the power of 29 surely it would be more rational to predict that the next spin would show the same face again since there must be something going on with the coin.

  71. Anonymous[412] • Disclaimer says:

    The ‘job’ of the Member of Parliament is, of course, the biggest and most responsible job in the UK, but strangely enough, has absolutely no educational or IQ accreditation requirements whatsoever.
    This fact doesn’t stop the UK government imposing strict tests and academic qualifications for the positions of the most lowly clerks in the British Home Office, to give on example. Incidentally, one Diane Abbott MP, famously, on air, made the most ridiculously crass basic arithmetical errors when discussing Labour party spending policy – thus showing herself unlikely to pass the math test required for the most humble position in the Home Office.

    Ironically, Diane Abbott was the Labour party contender for the post of Home Secretary.

  72. Anonymous[412] • Disclaimer says:

    Actually, the earth is *furthest* away from the sun at the peak of the northern hemisphere summer.

    • Replies: @Jim
    @Anonymous

    And of course when it’s summer in the Northern Hemisphere it’s winter in the Southern Hemisphere so the seasons can’t be due to the small yearly variation in the Earth’s distance from the Sun.

    Replies: @Charlie

  73. I don’t get it. Is the vaccine failing?

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @JohnnyWalker123

    I would not be the least bit surprised to discover down the road that the Israeli population was actually "vaccinated" with a placebo, in order to con the goyim into taking the deadly jab ("see, we did it, goyim! now you do it, too!"). Then, down the road when the jab's truly gruesome (and intended) effects become known, the Israelis will shrug and say "don't know why we're not dropping like flies the way the rest of you are -- guess we really are Chosen after all!"

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @kaganovitch, @Jack D

    , @Anon
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Well, yes. The Delta seems to favor vaccinated individuals. It probably evolved in the body of a vaccinated individual(s?), pressured to ‘escape’ the antibodies generated by the vaccine.

    Given its high transmissibility, the more vaccinated people you have, the less competition Delta faces from other covid variants, the happier it is. The more people it infects, the more chances of hospitalizations. And then there’s the pass-of-death between the first and the second jab, where many people get infected. The 30 year old brother of an acquaintance (with no comorbidities or so they say), just died in the hospital from covid. He had recently been jabbed with the first Pfizer shot. A coincidence surely.

    However, the common wisdom of virologists pre-Covid was that you didn’t mass vaccinate in a pandemic. It would have been wiser to only protect the frail.

    Replies: @res, @HA

  74. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Okay but I'll bet the Labour MPs believe in Science. Diane Abbott answered 'zero.'

    "You can't get two 'eads from spinnin' a coin now can you?"

    As of the 2019 election, 1 in 5 Labour MPs is non-white. 6% of Tories. https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50808536

    I would very much like to see our Congress take an easy test like this. Results public, names and all.

    Replies: @Yancey Ward, @Pericles

    I would very much like to see our Congress take an easy test like this. Results public, names and all.

    “12% were unable to understand the question or started repeating their campaign speech. 88% of the Persons of Congress slid the coin into their trouser or pant suit pockets and departed laughing.”

  75. Failing this coin-flip question would not surprise me for US elected officials – although I would have thought the Brits’ education system had a bit more on the ball.

    Elites in The West want innumerate voters. That’s the only logical conclusion I can draw looking at the our ‘education system’ and the evil clowns who run it.

  76. @rebel yell
    I disagree - this sort of "gotcha" test doesn't prove anything.
    I'm sure if you explain the correct answer to the failing respondents they would understand the correct answer perfectly well, so they are not as dumb as you think.
    They don't know the answer because they don't need to know it. They don't work with numbers every day and haven't done any math beyond multiplication since they were students decades ago. This is basic knowledge in statistics but is it really supposed to be common knowledge for everyone for life? Will a political leader really vote the wrong way because they didn't know this answer without looking it up? Would Andrew Jackson or Lincoln have answered correctly? Does getting the wrong answer mean the politician won't be able to understand a statistical argument when it is fully presented and explained?

    Okay Unz techies, answer these questions (without Googling the answer):
    How long does it take to milk a cow? (common knowledge for most Americans long ago)
    What is the difference between a paradiddle and a paradiddle-diddle? (common knowledge among concert drummers)
    What is the difference between bourbon and whiskey? (common knowledge on fraternity row)

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @Anon, @Charles, @black sea, @Colin Wright, @JackOH, @Jim Don Bob, @Ganderson, @Anonymous, @Dmon, @AndrewR, @David Davenport

    ‘Okay Unz techies, answer these questions (without Googling the answer):
    How long does it take to milk a cow? (common knowledge for most Americans long ago)
    What is the difference between a paradiddle and a paradiddle-diddle? (common knowledge among concert drummers)
    What is the difference between bourbon and whiskey? (common knowledge on fraternity row)’

    Your questions all require more or less specialized, external knowledge of some sort. A Pakistani would probably simply lack the information necessary to tell you the difference between corn and whiskey; it’s unlikely my daughter has any idea how long it takes to milk a cow.

    The coin flip question doesn’t require any particular background. Given the virtually universal understanding that a coin could equally well come up heads or tails, it’s possible to reason out the answer.

  77. @Buffalo Joe
    I personally don't think most politicians have any concept of numbers. A billion is a thousand million. How many politicians could express that? When my son ran for the school board in his town he was the only candidate, seated or running, who could read a financial statement. The Buffalo Public Schools budget now exceeds one billion dollars. Do the members of the school realize that is one thousand piles of a million dollars. Probably not because there is never enough money in their budget. Don't try to confuse politicians with numbers.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Pericles, @John Johnson

    On the other hand, Swedish PM Göran Persson (Soc-Dem) at one time described a billion SEK as a rounding error in the national budget, and was severely taken to task by the press. He was actually quite correct in this — it’s entirely insignificant compared to the overall pile of money — but I as far as I recall, the press never apologized or changed their minds.

  78. @Badger Down
    They should have been given an easier question:
    If you have just flipped a coin four times, and it came up heads every time, what are the odds that your next coin-flip will also be heads?

    Replies: @epebble, @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY), @Yancey Ward, @El Dato, @znon, @Henry's Cat, @Bardon Kaldian

    50%, of course.

  79. @newrouter
    ""59% of British MPs Flunked Probability of Flipping Two Heads in a Row"

    Seems like a stupid gotcha question. Better question for MPs: What's the public debt to GDP ratio?

    Replies: @Mackerel Sky, @Anon, @Daniel H, @AndrewR

    Seems like a stupid gotcha question. Better question for MPs: What’s the public debt to GDP ratio?

    Actually, no.

    You may assert that reaction time tests are a stupid measure of IQ?

  80. @jimmyriddle
    The class of 2012 were geniuses compared to the current crop of Labour women MPs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH-_wRC8bt4

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Gordo, @astrolabe, @Philip Owen, @Badger Down

    So a half-Jew is cleverer than a half-African. Who would have guessed.

  81. @rebel yell
    I disagree - this sort of "gotcha" test doesn't prove anything.
    I'm sure if you explain the correct answer to the failing respondents they would understand the correct answer perfectly well, so they are not as dumb as you think.
    They don't know the answer because they don't need to know it. They don't work with numbers every day and haven't done any math beyond multiplication since they were students decades ago. This is basic knowledge in statistics but is it really supposed to be common knowledge for everyone for life? Will a political leader really vote the wrong way because they didn't know this answer without looking it up? Would Andrew Jackson or Lincoln have answered correctly? Does getting the wrong answer mean the politician won't be able to understand a statistical argument when it is fully presented and explained?

    Okay Unz techies, answer these questions (without Googling the answer):
    How long does it take to milk a cow? (common knowledge for most Americans long ago)
    What is the difference between a paradiddle and a paradiddle-diddle? (common knowledge among concert drummers)
    What is the difference between bourbon and whiskey? (common knowledge on fraternity row)

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @Anon, @Charles, @black sea, @Colin Wright, @JackOH, @Jim Don Bob, @Ganderson, @Anonymous, @Dmon, @AndrewR, @David Davenport

    rebel, you have a point.

    I see this sort of “gotcha” intellectualism at my local Podunk Tech once in a while, and there seems to me something vicious and pathetic about it. Like “polar bear hunting”/”the knockout game”, Nerd and Geek Division.

    On a bad day, UR sometimes seems to me the Webzine for disgruntled spelling bee champions, angry and embittered that their memory and knack for spelling aren’t getting them the poon, the dough, and the political power to which they’re entitled.

    Okay, there, got it out of my system. Morning coffee’s working . . . .

  82. @International Jew
    Here's a harder one: you've already flipped those two coins. One of them came up heads. What's the probability the other one also came up heads?

    Answer: 1/3

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @JohnnyWalker123, @Kjr, @Deckin, @Odin, @Bill Jones

    Before clicking MORE.. one in three?

    Either it’s A that is heads, or it’s B that is heads, or it’s Both are heads.

  83. @Anon
    Could this be the reason for the discrepancy between the two political parties?:

    The first thing I thought was that the answer is 0.50 x 0.50, fifty percent of fifty percent, or 0.25 which in fact is the correct answer.

    But then I thought, Is this a trick question? The most common trick question in probability involves making people think that past results have an effect on future attempts. So to a question like, "If you flip a coin 100 times and get tails each time, what are the odds for the next flip?," many will think that there is a "pent-up" higher probability for a heads -- which there isn't, it's still fifty-fifty.

    But people who think they are too clever to be tricked might be susceptible to favoring the incorrect answer, even though it does not involve past results in this current case.

    This is like "hyperurbanism" in grammar, overcorrection, as in "between you and I." You remember, "There's this thing that rednecks do where they use me instead of I. I won't make that mistake."

    So my theory is that conservatives may just ingenuously and straightforwardly give the answer they think is right. On the other hand liberals may think they are smarter than conservatives and think of the answer beyond the simple answer. And that answer beyond the answer is the wrong answer.

    Liberals may in fact be a little smarter than conservatives, on average, and may thus may be more likely to have run across and vaguely remember the "100 times" thing, but they are not smart enough to really understand it perfectly, and they erroneously apply it to a situation where it isn't relevant, where there are no past flips involved. In other words liberals are too smart for their own good, and their confidence exceeds their intelligence. And politicians may have higher verbal intelligence than math intelligence, exacerbating things.

    Replies: @International Jew, @martin_2, @astrolabe, @Jack D, @John Johnson

    I don’t think your theory that the incorrect MPs thought that they were being tricked can survive the observation that they (almost) all thought that the probability of two heads was 50%. A shocking number of people think that all probabilities are 50%. They might not express it so boldly, but if you ask them the probability of a thing, they reason that the thing is either true or false, so it must be 50-50.
    Unlikely as it sounds, probability theory is a large part of my job, and we did some work for an insurance company whose technical advisor was of the 50% faith. My colleagues decided to pussy-foot around the issue.

    • Replies: @Philip Neal
    @astrolabe


    A shocking number of people think that all probabilities are 50%. They might not express it so boldly, but if you ask them the probability of a thing, they reason that the thing is either true or false, so it must be 50-50.
     
    Aha! I never knew that. Thanks for the most useful fact in this entire comments thread.

    I suggest that more Conservative MPs knew the right answer than Labour because more of them have a background in finance. It is true that most of the time MPs don't need to know things like this, and then something happens. Covid, for instance.

    Quite early on, false positives and negatives became a real issue and the Health Secretary fell into a common misunderstanding of conditional probabilities covered in first-year textbooks. When challenged in Parliament, he replied (I quote from memory):

    "I shall be delighted to refer the questioner to our Treasury economists and the well-founded Bayesian arithmetic which they employ."

    He kept his job, the sun continued to orbit the earth as if nothing had happened, and a year later he was sacked for having an affair in contravention of the social distancing rules he himself had demanded in Cabinet.

    That is how the world really works.

  84. Delightfully illustrative of the general lack of number sense. I find the problem most acute in trying to discuss such things as Charles Murray’s “Bell Curve” comparisons of groups. Many people are simply incapable of seeing — or at least acknowledging — that (1) different groups can have different averages and that (2) probabilities (about intelligence, behavior etc.) about any individual can be valid based on whatever group(s) he may happen to belong to. John Derbyshire once noticed that most people wouldn’t take a chocolate from a box of 100 if you told them that only one was poisoned. But in my experience few adults are capable of getting his point when it comes to, say, immigration or crime.

  85. @jimmyriddle
    The class of 2012 were geniuses compared to the current crop of Labour women MPs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH-_wRC8bt4

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Gordo, @astrolabe, @Philip Owen, @Badger Down

    It’s a cruel sport, but an amusing one.

  86. Our Shadow Lord Chancellor on Mastermind

  87. Here’s part of the Private Universe video in which the documentary makers asked Harvard grads and blue collar kids at a public high school why it’s hotter in summer than in winter. Both groups said it’s because, you see, that the earth’s orbit around the sun is an ellipse, so that means we are closer to the sun in summer so it’s hotter.

    That’s disappointing, but not surprising. Also, most of these people probably think the “Science Is Settled” on all manner of things they don’t understand in any meaningful way.

  88. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Reg Cæsar

    Sure, but he doesn't get the point.

    Monty Hall picks 2/3 choices after you pick 1/3.

    Switching, therefore, always makes sense, whether he reveals the 1 of his 2/3 that doesn't work, or not. It remains 2/3.

    Replies: @Mr Mox, @International Jew

    Switching, therefore, always makes sense, whether he reveals the 1 of his 2/3 that doesn’t work, or not. It remains 2/3.

    But what if he opens both doors?

    Asking for a friend…

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Mr Mox

    If he opens both doors, there is a 2/3 chance of the prize being behind one of them, as he would be opening 2 out of 3 doors.

    I don't get your question. The answer is too simple.

    Replies: @Mr Mox

  89. @Reg Cæsar

    ...if you spin a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?
     
    100%.

    That is, if the coin is a 2000 New Hampshire quarter:


    https://images.pcgs.com/CoinFacts/37288017_167991566_2200.jpg


    You have the possibility of four heads with either the 2006 or 2013 South Dakota quarter. (We won't count the ring-necked pheasant's. The Chinese ring-necked pheasant.)

    Replies: @David

    Plus, with that quarter, there’s a fifty percent chance of getting heads and tails in a single toss.

  90. @Triteleia Laxa
    @International Jew

    No, it is 1/2.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Reg Cæsar, @blake121666, @David, @res

    I think IJ is correct. There are three scenarios in which at least one coin is heads, and in two of them, the other coin is tails.

  91. Being rather old and grown up in a village and afterwards in a small town, I never learned probability mathematics. And never missed it in practical life. I suppose that a lot of Labour politicians have a similar life history.

  92. However, two-thirds of British MPs can tell you where you can score a gram of coke in Westminster.

  93. This is a legacy of Blair. He increased the number of women and third world MPs.

    Ghost of Bull Moose has mentioned the first black person to enter the House of Commons. She studied History at Cambridge. In 2017 she said the following.

    If we recruit the 10,000 police men and women over a four-year period, we believe it’ll be about £300,000.

    A builder or CEO would be fired over such dodgy figures.

    • Replies: @Briggs
    @Amerimutt Golems

    Wtf is your name lol? Did you make it that to trigger amerimutts?

  94. “Granted, I don’t know how many people got the answer right and got cut out of the video. But still …”

    At 2:15 it says “21 out of the 23 of the randomly selected students , faculty and alumni … revealed misconceptions …”

    I’d say you’re ready for a seat in congress yourself .

  95. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Reg Cæsar

    Sure, but he doesn't get the point.

    Monty Hall picks 2/3 choices after you pick 1/3.

    Switching, therefore, always makes sense, whether he reveals the 1 of his 2/3 that doesn't work, or not. It remains 2/3.

    Replies: @Mr Mox, @International Jew

    This isn’t the Monty Hall problem, it’s easier.
    Consider the possibilities:
    HH
    HT
    TH
    TT

    I’ve told you that in (at least) one of your flips, you got H. That means you can rule out TT; the only possible outcomes are
    HH
    HT
    TH
    And of these three, in only one — HH — is it the case that “one of your flips is an H, and the other one is also an H”. Hence the probability is 1/3.

    • Thanks: Triteleia Laxa
    • Replies: @Jim
    @International Jew

    There is an ambiguity in how the problem is stated. 1/3 is indeed the conditional probability that both outcomes are heads given the condition that at least one of outcomes is heads. But it is not completely unreasonable to interpret the problem as asking - given the condition that a specific one of the outcomes (the first or the second) is heads what is the conditional probability that the other is heads. The answer then is 1/2 . Therefore the question should either be thrown out or both you and Laxa should receive full credit.

  96. @Yancey Ward
    @Badger Down

    And if you just flipped it 100 times in a row and it came up heads.............?

    Replies: @George Weinbaum

    2^100 = 1.267 x E30. Do you believe such a coin is unbiased?
    I don’t.

  97. @rebel yell
    I disagree - this sort of "gotcha" test doesn't prove anything.
    I'm sure if you explain the correct answer to the failing respondents they would understand the correct answer perfectly well, so they are not as dumb as you think.
    They don't know the answer because they don't need to know it. They don't work with numbers every day and haven't done any math beyond multiplication since they were students decades ago. This is basic knowledge in statistics but is it really supposed to be common knowledge for everyone for life? Will a political leader really vote the wrong way because they didn't know this answer without looking it up? Would Andrew Jackson or Lincoln have answered correctly? Does getting the wrong answer mean the politician won't be able to understand a statistical argument when it is fully presented and explained?

    Okay Unz techies, answer these questions (without Googling the answer):
    How long does it take to milk a cow? (common knowledge for most Americans long ago)
    What is the difference between a paradiddle and a paradiddle-diddle? (common knowledge among concert drummers)
    What is the difference between bourbon and whiskey? (common knowledge on fraternity row)

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @Anon, @Charles, @black sea, @Colin Wright, @JackOH, @Jim Don Bob, @Ganderson, @Anonymous, @Dmon, @AndrewR, @David Davenport

    They don’t work with numbers every day and haven’t done any math beyond multiplication since they were students decades ago. This is basic knowledge in statistics but is it really supposed to be common knowledge for everyone for life?

    Agree. Basic knowledge in statistics isn’t generally taught in K-12 classes. The only reason I know about it is that I was curious and read up on it.

    A better more relevant question might be: “If interest rates go to 5%, what will be the interest payment per year on the national debt to the nearest half trillion dollars?”

    • Replies: @Abolish_public_education
    @Jim Don Bob

    If we can’t a_p_e, then a kid’s public (tax funded) education should end as soon as s/he demonstrates passable basic skills, e.g. +-*/ for math, and the names on an election ballot, for reading.

    Of course the schools long ago disavowed teaching the 3Rs, and replaced it with ten+ years of babysitting and indoctrination.

    As for the national debt, I’ve come to conclude that the USG should renounce it. The government will never repay it anyhow, yet it will continue to tax as much as it can get away with in order to carry the debt and maintain its credit rating.

  98. @Kjr
    @ScarletNumber

    I prefer the one who doesn't publicly ridicule random victims.

    That's the thing about "the free speech debate".

    I'm a woman converting to chassidish Judaism and one of the first culture shocks - and I do mean shocks - is how my new friends regard gossiping about people as a shameful thing to do

    It hit me when I made a comment about my sister at a shabbos meal on Friday night and the kids ranging in age from 9 to 18 all looked down blushing on my behalf!

    It turns out that "hurtful speech" is verboten even when the gossip is true and the person isn't in the room.

    What I came to realize is that intelligent Men prefer to talk about Ideas and intelligent Women prefer to talk about People.

    I'm in a women's group that Zooms together every Wednesday evening to study a Jewish book called The Chofetz Chaim which is about a hundred pages of Hebrew laws about the sin of gossiping.

    It bothers me a little that they don't encourage talking about unkosher ideas either (they really believe that the world is 5,781 years old) but it doesn't bother me too much. I like their closeness to God and songs and family life and kindness. So if I have to pretend that dinosaurs were killed in Noah's flood, who cares?

    But the men in my conversion class (pre covid) kept getting into trouble arguing over things like that.

    That's when I came up with my theory that men can talk about ideas more dispassionately than women can. And men also fail to appreciate the perhaps once beneficial mechanism of personal gossip.

    But I'm now convinced that gossip/libel/slander/mockery and other forms of hurting people by referring to NAMED INDIVIDUALS is worse than talking about uncomfortable ideas, including ideas about groups of people.

    I feel like I discovered some kind of scientific principle.

    In the American media and of course social media (and college campuses, etc) it is considered perfectly acceptable to cuttingly hurt individuals - which is the kind of talk we women are more likely to fall prey to - but not acceptable to talk about ideas that might be harmful - which is the kind of talk that men are more likely to engage in.

    I perfectly accept my new position in the chassidish world. I am covering my hair, my collar bone and my calves. I will never lead a Torah or Davening service and no matter how knowledgeable I become I will never lecture to a group that includes men in it.

    And you know what, I'm totally fine with it!

    The biggest change in my life is that the most popular women are the ones who never ever ever ever speak a bad word about individuals. We love being near thise women like we used to love being near the girls who shared the juiciest gossip!

    And it makes most of the internet pretty cringe to me.

    But instead of deplatforming people who make funnof individuals online, we deplatform people who say mean things about groups of people or who doubt the generally accepted opinions about Covid-19.

    That's because women (or little girls who never grew up) were given complete control of the internet and are perfectly happy to curtail the speech of men that could be harmful, while keeping their own harmful speech not only legitimated but celebrated.

    The sad part of this for me is that I really loved the Borat and Bruno movies! But now I see them as cringe and stipped watching the new Borat movie halfway through felt like I was personally hurting the people who were being publicly ridiculed in the movie, by my watching it.

    If it were up to me, the Chofetz Chaim book would become part of the national discourse. Real people commit suicide every single day because of what people say about them in the news or on social media. So far however I have yet to see concrete evidence that either Charles Murray or Bret Weinstein caused any deaths by dispassionately discussing their socially heretical ideas.


    As a woman I am less inclined to run to the front of the battlefield to fight my sisters who are, in my soon-to-be Jewish opinion, causing the most harm to real living individuals.

    I also really don't want to see men fighting women either (even harpies and crazies).

    But you don't have to!

    All you have to do is fight the men who are encouraging these women!

    As far as I can tell, these children are getting away with it because their bad behavior is cheered on by the sillier sort of men. If these men didn't exist, or if everyone had to read the book I mentioned before, then it would be Game Theory publicly known (that I know that you know that I know) that their behavior is cringe and it would happen a lot less.

    So if there must be a conversation about the limits of free speech, I think it should be about the sort of speech that is designed to hurt a specific individual, rather than the sort of speech that may, possibly, who knows, cause harm through some political process get to occur.

    Replies: @SFG, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar, @Jack D, @Paperback Writer

    You’ve certainly chosen an interesting channel to read for a Jewish convert. 😉

    Seriously, this is a good point, and an often-unremarked-on (even on the right) consequence of the feminization of American culture (to quote Ann Douglas). It’s OK to say bad things about people, but no discussion of ideas that might hurt the feelings of left-wing groups. (Kind of an inversion of the old blasphemy laws.)

    Technically, that’s the point of libel laws, but you can’t sue every person on social media who says something nasty about you (which is the point of a twitter mob).

    As for fighting only the men encouraging these women…too many women doing this stuff now. My personal opinion is that, given the conditions in the 21st century, women have forfeited the right to chivalry and should be subject to the same rules as men. Certainly in a war I wouldn’t hold my fire, though I am old and semifat and unlikely to be in one and I doubt the Chinese would be silly enough to send an amazon brigade to fight us.

  99. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    @Badger Down

    "They should have been given an easier question:
    If you have just flipped a coin four times, and it came up heads every time, what are the odds that your next coin-flip will also be heads?"

    How is this an easier question? The premises of the problem are not stated. Is the problem to assess the probability that the coin is biased? Or is it stipulated that the coin is unbiased?

    Replies: @SFG

    Nassim Taleb had a good point about this one (one of his Fat Tony stories).

    If someone gives you a (presumably fair) coin that’s come up heads 99 times, what’s the odds of the coin coming up heads again? Well, the probability theory answer is 1/2, because the coin flip is independent of prior probabilities. But if the coin’s come up heads 99 times…it’s probably not a fair coin!

    There’s a larger point of stepping outside the question and wondering, is the person asking this question telling me everything? Strikes me as the sort of insight that would come naturally to someone with a life in finance.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @SFG

    The term coin flip or coin toss is used both metaphorically and literally to make a determination between two choices that have an equal probability.

    That is the meaning of the phrase.

    Interestingly, in poker the term coin flip or horse race is used to describe a clash between a pair, such as 22 and two unpaired but higher cards such as Ace/King when combined with 5 random shared cards.

    The tragedy is that it is not really a coin flip and that the pocket pair has a great chance of winning, and therefore the chances of Ace/King winning two times in a row is a lot less than 25%.

    However when you are talking about theoretical or metaphorical coin flips and probability, you cannot include items out of a magician's box of tricks, or crooked roulette wheels, or double headed coins.

  100. Private Universe

    Sad.

    Each topic a ten minute lesson including Q&A. Well, maybe 12 for the phases of the moon.

  101. @anon
    Suddenly I intensely desire to engage in a little game of chance with Members of Parliament. So does my friend Bill.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QONG-Djd7R0

    Replies: @Ganderson, @Hypnotoad666

    I dunno if people still think he’s funny, or even know who he is, but he still makes me laugh.

  102. @Anon
    Well, it's a stupid question. There is no way of knowing the probability of a coin flip. It depends on complex variables like how much force the flipper used with his thumb, where his thumb was located on the coin when he flipped it, etc. No coin toss is ever going to be exactly like the other. It's not a precision mechanical certainty like pulling a trigger on a revolver.

    What this reveals is that elite people are intelligent and complex, and answer honestly questions that proles think they "know" because they learned them at rheir shit schools back in the 1900s. The correct question to many answers is often "I don't know" or a standardized "incorrect" answer, because most tests are fucking stupid and most of what we are taught in school is wrong.

    https://phys.org/news/2009-10-tails-key-variables.html


    Using a high-speed camera that photographed people flipping coins, the three researchers determined that a coin is more likely to land facing the same side on which it started. If tails is facing up when the coin is perched on your thumb, it is more likely to land tails up.

    How much more likely? At least 51 percent of the time, the researchers claim, and possibly as much as 55 percent to 60 percent -- depending on the flipping motion of the individual.

    In other words, more than random luck is at work.
     

    Replies: @Anon, @Faraday's Bobcat, @Jonathan Mason, @Bill Jones, @bomag

    The randomness of an outcome depends on how much is known about the process. In the coin-flip question, it’s implied that the observer doesn’t have any of the information you listed. In other words, the coin flip in the question is an everyday coin flip and not a lab experiment.

    For this crowd, an analogy is the randomness in estimating someone’s IQ. If all you know about him is race and sex, then the expectation value is the average IQ of that race and sex, with a large uncertainty. But if you have five minutes to ask the person a few questions like what he does for a living, what the last book he read was, and what the odds of flipping two heads in a row are, you can get a much more accurate estimate.

  103. @rebel yell
    I disagree - this sort of "gotcha" test doesn't prove anything.
    I'm sure if you explain the correct answer to the failing respondents they would understand the correct answer perfectly well, so they are not as dumb as you think.
    They don't know the answer because they don't need to know it. They don't work with numbers every day and haven't done any math beyond multiplication since they were students decades ago. This is basic knowledge in statistics but is it really supposed to be common knowledge for everyone for life? Will a political leader really vote the wrong way because they didn't know this answer without looking it up? Would Andrew Jackson or Lincoln have answered correctly? Does getting the wrong answer mean the politician won't be able to understand a statistical argument when it is fully presented and explained?

    Okay Unz techies, answer these questions (without Googling the answer):
    How long does it take to milk a cow? (common knowledge for most Americans long ago)
    What is the difference between a paradiddle and a paradiddle-diddle? (common knowledge among concert drummers)
    What is the difference between bourbon and whiskey? (common knowledge on fraternity row)

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @Anon, @Charles, @black sea, @Colin Wright, @JackOH, @Jim Don Bob, @Ganderson, @Anonymous, @Dmon, @AndrewR, @David Davenport

    Put me on a Todd County, Minnesota farm in 1890- guaranteed my great grandfather would be astounded by my lack of practical knowledge.

  104. @Charles
    @rebel yell

    American bourbon, by definition, is made in Kentucky. A person may dispute this, but it is nevertheless true.

    Replies: @Ganderson

    Is there a generic name for whisky made in TN, like George Dickel? I had been led to understand that while most bourbon came from KY, the Tennessee whiskies were bourbon too. Happy to be corrected.

  105. @Anonymous
    Our elites, ladies and gentlemen. Basically, morons. I bet the performance in the US Congress would be no better. Heck, chances are good that the % correct will be similar bad for students at our today's universities (provided they are surveyed randomly).

    Replies: @Yancey Ward, @Gamecock, @Corvinus

    Our elites, ladies and gentlemen. Basically, morons.

    Absolutely wrong. They are not the problem.

    I am friends with my state senator. He is a good, honest man. Very smart. A real estate attorney by trade.

    I conversed with him by email this last year over several issues before the senate. Here’s the thing: he knows nothing about boating. He knows nothing about guns and shooting. Nor many other subjects. Yet he participates in selecting what the state’s laws and regulations will be. The process is, he listens to other people, and selects whatever position seems the most rational to him.

    He got one item conspicuously wrong, in spite of my sending him documentation showing him the facts. Someone else convinced him. He knows nothing of the subject. He listened to a storm of opinions. I think he voted by his gut feel, or he was influenced by one other guy, a person in position of authority.

    My state senator is not a moron.

    At the national level, we have similar people. Tasked with making decisions on extremely important matters, of which they have no knowledge. The problem, of course, is Washington’s assumption of power over the people.

    Consider government mandates of breathalysers in cars. You can look at how individual reps voted, and make a good case that they are morons – on that subject – yet the real problem is governments’ power to mandate breathalysers. They should have no such authority.

    Should we strip government down to their just powers only, the intelligence of representatives will go way up.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Gamecock

    If your state senator cannot think logically and conclude that a half of a half is 25% then he is a moron. This has nothing to do with the specific knowledge examples you gave. It's basic thinking. Inability to think is a definition of a moron.

    Replies: @Gamecock

  106. @Anon
    Well, it's a stupid question. There is no way of knowing the probability of a coin flip. It depends on complex variables like how much force the flipper used with his thumb, where his thumb was located on the coin when he flipped it, etc. No coin toss is ever going to be exactly like the other. It's not a precision mechanical certainty like pulling a trigger on a revolver.

    What this reveals is that elite people are intelligent and complex, and answer honestly questions that proles think they "know" because they learned them at rheir shit schools back in the 1900s. The correct question to many answers is often "I don't know" or a standardized "incorrect" answer, because most tests are fucking stupid and most of what we are taught in school is wrong.

    https://phys.org/news/2009-10-tails-key-variables.html


    Using a high-speed camera that photographed people flipping coins, the three researchers determined that a coin is more likely to land facing the same side on which it started. If tails is facing up when the coin is perched on your thumb, it is more likely to land tails up.

    How much more likely? At least 51 percent of the time, the researchers claim, and possibly as much as 55 percent to 60 percent -- depending on the flipping motion of the individual.

    In other words, more than random luck is at work.
     

    Replies: @Anon, @Faraday's Bobcat, @Jonathan Mason, @Bill Jones, @bomag

    You are reading too much into it when you say this is a stupid question.

    Obviously it has to be taken for granted that we are talking about a 50/50 proposition. That is what the expression “a coin flip” means.

    Actually in the UK that expression is not used but the phrase is ” a toss of a coin”.

    In a cricket match a coin is tossed to decide which team gets to choose whether to bat first. This is considered to be a fair and random way of making an important choice. Every single British person, whether member of Parliament or not, knows this.

    The fact that so many members of parliament seem to be innumerate seems quite worrying when these are the people who vote on taxation schemes and national budgets and ultimately our responsible for them being enforced on the whole population.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Jonathan Mason


    That is what the expression “a coin flip” means.

    Actually in the UK that expression is not used but the phrase is ” a toss of a coin”.

     

    Used to be here, too.
  107. This explains a lot actually. I recall a prominent Canadian politician once saying that his party’s policy was to “cut taxes, increase services and balance the budget.” It may be that he actually thought this made sense.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Toronto Mike

    Only if you make the public employees work harder or discover super increased efficiencies and implement them in the public sector. Fat chance and fat chance that such a guy would even try.

  108. @SFG
    @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    Nassim Taleb had a good point about this one (one of his Fat Tony stories).

    If someone gives you a (presumably fair) coin that's come up heads 99 times, what's the odds of the coin coming up heads again? Well, the probability theory answer is 1/2, because the coin flip is independent of prior probabilities. But if the coin's come up heads 99 times...it's probably not a fair coin!

    There's a larger point of stepping outside the question and wondering, is the person asking this question telling me everything? Strikes me as the sort of insight that would come naturally to someone with a life in finance.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    The term coin flip or coin toss is used both metaphorically and literally to make a determination between two choices that have an equal probability.

    That is the meaning of the phrase.

    Interestingly, in poker the term coin flip or horse race is used to describe a clash between a pair, such as 22 and two unpaired but higher cards such as Ace/King when combined with 5 random shared cards.

    The tragedy is that it is not really a coin flip and that the pocket pair has a great chance of winning, and therefore the chances of Ace/King winning two times in a row is a lot less than 25%.

    However when you are talking about theoretical or metaphorical coin flips and probability, you cannot include items out of a magician’s box of tricks, or crooked roulette wheels, or double headed coins.

  109. A possible future Labour Party leader

  110. Anonymous[234] • Disclaimer says:
    @rebel yell
    I disagree - this sort of "gotcha" test doesn't prove anything.
    I'm sure if you explain the correct answer to the failing respondents they would understand the correct answer perfectly well, so they are not as dumb as you think.
    They don't know the answer because they don't need to know it. They don't work with numbers every day and haven't done any math beyond multiplication since they were students decades ago. This is basic knowledge in statistics but is it really supposed to be common knowledge for everyone for life? Will a political leader really vote the wrong way because they didn't know this answer without looking it up? Would Andrew Jackson or Lincoln have answered correctly? Does getting the wrong answer mean the politician won't be able to understand a statistical argument when it is fully presented and explained?

    Okay Unz techies, answer these questions (without Googling the answer):
    How long does it take to milk a cow? (common knowledge for most Americans long ago)
    What is the difference between a paradiddle and a paradiddle-diddle? (common knowledge among concert drummers)
    What is the difference between bourbon and whiskey? (common knowledge on fraternity row)

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @Anon, @Charles, @black sea, @Colin Wright, @JackOH, @Jim Don Bob, @Ganderson, @Anonymous, @Dmon, @AndrewR, @David Davenport

    Okay Unz techies, answer these questions (without Googling the answer):

    Those are practical questions that require concrete experience. As opposed to the coin flip question that only requires a minimal ability to think logically. But heck, let’s try:

    How long does it take to milk a cow? (common knowledge for most Americans long ago)

    I don’t know but I imagine that half an hour is a reasonable estimate.

    What is the difference between a paradiddle and a paradiddle-diddle? (common knowledge among concert drummers)

    Never heard the word, don’t know. How the heck a common knowledge among drummers is relevant here? Are you OK?

    What is the difference between bourbon and whiskey? (common knowledge on fraternity row)

    Bourbon is a disgusting drink made from corn (it must be made from corn, which whiskey is never made from) in the dry Bourbon Co, KY.

  111. @epebble
    @Badger Down

    That is a much harder question and it is somewhat excusable if many more people get it wrong.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Anonymous

    I think this is a great question, EPebble (and Badger Down). I don’t think it’s a harder question, math-wise, though. The difference is that this question gets down to the root of the matter, while the one asked to the Miinisters is just a simple math question, appropriate to find out if these guys/ladies are at all numerate.

    On the 4-heads-first question: “What do the last 4 flips have to do with my flipping a coin right now?” or “How does the coin know how it landed the last 4 time?” Those are real basic questions – more philisophical than anything. I would be glad if more of these people were numerate enough to just go “oh, well, if it’s half a chance and I need 2 half chances, then yeah one quarter” for the question iSteve quoted. I’d call them above and beyond the average politician if they could think “What do the last 4 flips have to do …” etc.

  112. @Triteleia Laxa
    @jimmyriddle

    I've met her. She seems to have made herself quite a few tones paler in her video, which is odd. She also struck me as a very dull bulb.

    Replies: @R.G. Camara, @YetAnotherAnon

    The English expression, as used in the UK is “dim bulb” not “dull bulb”, which is odd.

    The wartime generation had the phrase “as dim as a Toc-H lamp” – Toc-H being a charity which ran social clubs for armed forces staff.

    https://wordhistories.net/2020/08/05/dim-toc-h-lamp/#:~:text=The%20British%2DEnglish%20phrase%20(as,H%20lamp%20means%20dim%2Dwitted.&text=Toc%20H%2C%20born%20out%20of,as%20ever%2C%E2%80%9D%20said%20Mr.

    About 816,000 results for “dim bulb”, mostly about slow-witted people (plus a video game I’ve never heard of, The Binding Of Isaac)

    About 20,100 results for “dull bulb”, mostly about lighting problems.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @YetAnotherAnon

    Thank you.

    This is what happens when you go back to prune a description. Initially, it was "dim bulb" and something like "dull presence." Dim bulbs can be fun, or people with a dull presence can be intelligent, but pointing out that she came across both dull and dim seemed too comprehensive a description for an impression formed from a 10 minute chat.

    The perils of editing quickly on a small screen!

  113. @Anonymous
    There was a study of students at some elite college which asked why the Earth had seasons. Most of the respondents got it wrong. (They thought it was because the orbit of the Earth around the Sun is elliptical, when actually it's a consequence of the tilt of the planet.)

    Replies: @rebel yell, @J.Ross, @fondolo

    Thanks (I was going to say: how is the other hemisphere in opposite season if both are equally removed)? Leaving it this was a clever trick to get more comments.

  114. Anybody ever graph the average intelligence of the legislators over time and the growth of legislative staff. Perhaps the relation is inverse.

    Alas, when it comes to minding the twits, they aren’t making Jeeves like they used to.

  115. @Kjr
    @ScarletNumber

    I prefer the one who doesn't publicly ridicule random victims.

    That's the thing about "the free speech debate".

    I'm a woman converting to chassidish Judaism and one of the first culture shocks - and I do mean shocks - is how my new friends regard gossiping about people as a shameful thing to do

    It hit me when I made a comment about my sister at a shabbos meal on Friday night and the kids ranging in age from 9 to 18 all looked down blushing on my behalf!

    It turns out that "hurtful speech" is verboten even when the gossip is true and the person isn't in the room.

    What I came to realize is that intelligent Men prefer to talk about Ideas and intelligent Women prefer to talk about People.

    I'm in a women's group that Zooms together every Wednesday evening to study a Jewish book called The Chofetz Chaim which is about a hundred pages of Hebrew laws about the sin of gossiping.

    It bothers me a little that they don't encourage talking about unkosher ideas either (they really believe that the world is 5,781 years old) but it doesn't bother me too much. I like their closeness to God and songs and family life and kindness. So if I have to pretend that dinosaurs were killed in Noah's flood, who cares?

    But the men in my conversion class (pre covid) kept getting into trouble arguing over things like that.

    That's when I came up with my theory that men can talk about ideas more dispassionately than women can. And men also fail to appreciate the perhaps once beneficial mechanism of personal gossip.

    But I'm now convinced that gossip/libel/slander/mockery and other forms of hurting people by referring to NAMED INDIVIDUALS is worse than talking about uncomfortable ideas, including ideas about groups of people.

    I feel like I discovered some kind of scientific principle.

    In the American media and of course social media (and college campuses, etc) it is considered perfectly acceptable to cuttingly hurt individuals - which is the kind of talk we women are more likely to fall prey to - but not acceptable to talk about ideas that might be harmful - which is the kind of talk that men are more likely to engage in.

    I perfectly accept my new position in the chassidish world. I am covering my hair, my collar bone and my calves. I will never lead a Torah or Davening service and no matter how knowledgeable I become I will never lecture to a group that includes men in it.

    And you know what, I'm totally fine with it!

    The biggest change in my life is that the most popular women are the ones who never ever ever ever speak a bad word about individuals. We love being near thise women like we used to love being near the girls who shared the juiciest gossip!

    And it makes most of the internet pretty cringe to me.

    But instead of deplatforming people who make funnof individuals online, we deplatform people who say mean things about groups of people or who doubt the generally accepted opinions about Covid-19.

    That's because women (or little girls who never grew up) were given complete control of the internet and are perfectly happy to curtail the speech of men that could be harmful, while keeping their own harmful speech not only legitimated but celebrated.

    The sad part of this for me is that I really loved the Borat and Bruno movies! But now I see them as cringe and stipped watching the new Borat movie halfway through felt like I was personally hurting the people who were being publicly ridiculed in the movie, by my watching it.

    If it were up to me, the Chofetz Chaim book would become part of the national discourse. Real people commit suicide every single day because of what people say about them in the news or on social media. So far however I have yet to see concrete evidence that either Charles Murray or Bret Weinstein caused any deaths by dispassionately discussing their socially heretical ideas.


    As a woman I am less inclined to run to the front of the battlefield to fight my sisters who are, in my soon-to-be Jewish opinion, causing the most harm to real living individuals.

    I also really don't want to see men fighting women either (even harpies and crazies).

    But you don't have to!

    All you have to do is fight the men who are encouraging these women!

    As far as I can tell, these children are getting away with it because their bad behavior is cheered on by the sillier sort of men. If these men didn't exist, or if everyone had to read the book I mentioned before, then it would be Game Theory publicly known (that I know that you know that I know) that their behavior is cringe and it would happen a lot less.

    So if there must be a conversation about the limits of free speech, I think it should be about the sort of speech that is designed to hurt a specific individual, rather than the sort of speech that may, possibly, who knows, cause harm through some political process get to occur.

    Replies: @SFG, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar, @Jack D, @Paperback Writer

    >there exist Jews who think that defamation is wrong and do not engage in it
    I want to believe; the ones I’m worried about dedicate every minute of every waking hour to defaming their perceived enemies, to the point of inspiring or justifying physical violence.
    Maybe it’s the sect, but this commenter doesn’t sound —
    >that’s why we need to eliminate freedom of speech
    Aaaaand there it is.

  116. Didn’t see a breakout by sex, why?

    Couldn’t the pollster tell, as in differentiate, or couldn’t the pollsters tell, as in inform?

    What’s the probability of the second?

  117. Anonymous[234] • Disclaimer says:

    @iSteve

    Granted, I don’t know how many people got the answer right and got cut out of the video. But still …

    The video says “21 out of the 23 randomly selected Harvard students, faculty and alumni revealed misconceptions when asked about either the seasons or the phases of the moon”. So, unless the video maker lies, we do know that an average Harvard person is clueless about the most basic science.

    My experience confirms it (channeling inner Greg Cochran :-))

  118. @AnotherDad
    For all the whizzy-whiz tech, we live in an age of the verbalist bullshitter.

    There have always been leaders who rose to power who weren't particularly mathematical in their thinking--and didn't pay heed to advice from those who did--but there were real constraints--their tribe would starve; they'd lose battles--that kept this in check.

    Now the checks--in the West, in this post-Cold War age--are fewer. And our intellectual life shows it.

    ~~

    The requirement here isn't even being able to produce the correct answer to a simple mathematical problem--though we certainly ought to require that. Rather the key is having a basic mathematical reasoning/understanding of the world.

    Anyone aspiring to political leadership should just have a visceral understanding of concepts like "orders of magnitude" and "exponential growth/decline" and the mathematical/logical orientation to "see" reality in those terms.

    What we see in discussions of critical issues like immigration is a bunch of people who are basically nimrods. Some of that--from intelligent people--is no doubt just ethnic hatred. And for others simple immediate--this generation--self-interest; though even that is not looking down the road to effects on their posterity. But mostly what you see are people whose brains are obviously full of gauzy verbalist pieties. They simply have no model of society/nation that is mathematical--includes even the most basic ideas of scale and growth. In fact calling what's in their brains "a model" is too generous. It's just verbalist mush.

    Basically if people can't or won't do mathematically reasoning, they can't have any accurate picture or reality and ergo have no real understanding of our actual world.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    if people can’t or won’t do mathematically reasoning, they can’t have any accurate picture or reality and ergo have no real understanding of our actual world.

    “You can’t be a polymath without the math.”

    –Aaron Haspel

  119. @JohnnyWalker123
    Check this out.

    https://gflec.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/3313-Finlit_Report_FINAL-5.11.16.pdf?x53868

    https://imgur.com/a/eFXmL6j

    https://imgur.com/a/khqlkcN

    https://gflec.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/percentages.jpg?x53868

    Replies: @Bill Jones, @Colin Wright

    I looked at the link. The questions are so stunningly childish that to call them a financial literacy test is asinine.

  120. @Anon
    Well, it's a stupid question. There is no way of knowing the probability of a coin flip. It depends on complex variables like how much force the flipper used with his thumb, where his thumb was located on the coin when he flipped it, etc. No coin toss is ever going to be exactly like the other. It's not a precision mechanical certainty like pulling a trigger on a revolver.

    What this reveals is that elite people are intelligent and complex, and answer honestly questions that proles think they "know" because they learned them at rheir shit schools back in the 1900s. The correct question to many answers is often "I don't know" or a standardized "incorrect" answer, because most tests are fucking stupid and most of what we are taught in school is wrong.

    https://phys.org/news/2009-10-tails-key-variables.html


    Using a high-speed camera that photographed people flipping coins, the three researchers determined that a coin is more likely to land facing the same side on which it started. If tails is facing up when the coin is perched on your thumb, it is more likely to land tails up.

    How much more likely? At least 51 percent of the time, the researchers claim, and possibly as much as 55 percent to 60 percent -- depending on the flipping motion of the individual.

    In other words, more than random luck is at work.
     

    Replies: @Anon, @Faraday's Bobcat, @Jonathan Mason, @Bill Jones, @bomag

    But your bullshit reply fails to provide any basis for bias in the coin facing heads up or down initially, does it?

    So the correct answer is 50% per flip.

  121. OT – the Guardian discovers the new fronts opening up in the sex wars, as reddit subs like Female Dating Strategy fight back against the PUAs.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/aug/08/sales-funnels-and-high-value-men-the-rise-of-strategic-dating

    Female Dating Strategy (FDS) offers a range of (often brutal, expletive-laden) advice to single women, designed to “[optimise] the female dating experience”. Among the six-point FDS mantras are “ruthlessly evaluate men”, “make him invest before sex” and “don’t split the bill”.

    Its list of no-nos includes asking a man out (FDS believes women should not make the first move) and drink dates (they’re “low effort”; going out for a meal is preferred). FDS advocates dating multiple men simultaneously, cutting suitors off at the first red flag and, as Campbell did, conducting pre-date interviews over the phone. The goal is to filter out anyone who is not, in FDS parlance, a “high-value man”.

    …having sex in the first six weeks is discouraged and FDS comes down hard against pornography, kink and the sex-positive politics of “liberal feminism” – all of which the group’s moderators believe are harmful to women.

    Over at reddit the sisterhood rejoices.

    FDS was just featured in the Guardian! The article is fairly balanced and no mention of f3mcels or other such nonsense. FDS principles are becoming more mainstream 🥂 🥳 from FemaleDatingStrategy

    The fact that males/critics of FDS even venture to compare these differences between our groups/philosophies, and the resorting to those highly manipulative games/practices, is just further testament of the depravity of males” says Kara. Looks as if men are only after one thing (and it’s disgusting).

    I’m not sure how valid this approach is for all women. By definition, there are only a limited number of “high value men” to go round, and we’ve seen from dating sites that on the OK Cupid scale, 8 out of 10 men are below average ;-).

    https://web.archive.org/web/20170316015704if_/https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks-and-your-inbox-8715c0f1561e#.nxyn2exdh

    The 2 out of 10 men who get the right-swipes will have a largeish number of women to choose from, not all of whom will make him wait for six weeks and buy dinner. But perhaps the ladies on FDS have had their fill of non-committing men with options, and are looking for perhaps less alpha types but possessed of “beta bucks”. That’s one definition of high value.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @YetAnotherAnon

    The FDS framework offers potential female adherents many things.

    1. Hope that their situation will change, but that they don't have to.

    2. New forms of validation, like successfully getting men to buy them dinner.

    Of course, most people will pay your bill if you make it awkward enough.

    3. An excuse for their suffering in the past, which removes all responsibility from them by declaring that they were just "too good" and "too kind."

    The chance of this appealing to someone who was actually "too kind", rather than too cruel and too aggressive is small. "Too kind" people rarely engage in such starkly contrasted black and white thinking.

    4. The ability to judge and devalue men who don't cater to their every aggressive whim as "low value," thereby reducing the sting to their egos when they inevitably get rejected.

    This is a rationalisation for "splitting," which tells you a lot that you need to know about which type of women's psychological needs FDS serves.

    5. A defensive extreme pickiness, which means that all potential mates must be above average in every conceivable way, even including penis size, have the non-reactivity of a Saint and that the woman must never compromise from her worst, most childish impulses, if doing so might also be enjoyed by the man. This is self-defeating misandry.

    Overall, it will be a welcome experience for any woman who needs to feel perfect by externalising all of her problems onto men. This saves them from ever having to confront themselves and provides them with a community who will validate their extreme egotism, but never actually connect with them.

    In this way, they can feel safe and protected, by having perfectly distanced themselves from the world, and keep anyone with any self-respect far away, by creating situations which validate their ideological prison and subsequent profound unhappiness, rage and loneliness.

    My advice, if you ever find yourself in the draining situation of talking to a woman like that, is to tell them that you're sorry that they feel they have to be angry/unhappy or lonely all of the time and then, every time they try to blame the world/their ex etc, nudge them back to talking about themselves, rather than their ideology. Or run.

    If this doesn't work just talk to them about their physical ailments and aches and pains, of which they will have endless, and then let them be present and to open up beyond this FDS nonsense from there.

    The women in FDS should stop trying to control their potential mates, first by recognising that this is what they have always been trying to do, even in their "pick-me" stage and this is why they are so fragile. By trying to control someone to shore up your self-image, you are building your self-image on ground which has its own consciousness and narrative and can shift at any time. Like building a leaning tower on the back of a sleeping elephant and then trying to constantly soothe it to stay asleep. Imagine the anxiety!

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    , @J.Ross
    @YetAnotherAnon

    This doesn't make any sense, these are all things a huge number of women already do. This isn't a strategy or a game equivalent, it's standard behavior with self-explanatory motives. Every week there is a media-created fad, intended to be some kind of feminist rejoinder to a male practice, but it doesn't make any sense, and you never hear about it again.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @YetAnotherAnon


    The 2 out of 10 men who get the right-swipes will have a largeish number of women to choose from, not all of whom will make him wait for six weeks and buy dinner.
     
    In her bachelorette days, Mrs C briefly belonged to a club which engaged in sextuple dates for introductory purposes-- six men, six women on a first date or two, none assigned to anyone in particular. It sounded like a good, safe alternative.

    It soon became obvious that on these dates, invariably all six women would be interested in one of the men, and all six men in one of the women.

    FDS advocates dating multiple men...
     
    Yawn. This was once called "playing the field". Archie did it with Betty and Veronica. It wasn't controversial because everybody kept their clothes on. You saved anything further for your "steady". Once you found her.
    , @Jack D
    @YetAnotherAnon

    The FDS thing is laughable unless the female in question is truly a "high-value woman” (and even then it ain't such hot advice). But why would anyone who is truly a "high-value man" put up with such shit from an average (or below) looking overweight female (like the one in the photo) at the outset of a relationship - it's only going to go downhill from there? Maybe someone who is a desperate Beta who enjoys being abused by females would put up with these ridiculous pre-conditions for months on end but most men are going to go along and pay for dinner once or maybe twice and then they are going to RUN, RUN, RUN away from what they will perceive as a crazy bitch.

    Modern women ALREADY have a tendency to overvalue themselves (and undervalue men), but FDS is this on steroids. If women were really capable of honest self evaluation of themselves and could look in the mirror and honestly say "I am a 10 and am deserving of a billionaire" then it would be one thing, but what's really going to happen is that 2s and 3rd look in the mirror and THINK that they see an 8 or a 9 and price themselves accordingly. It's like some guy is trying to sell his 1998 Acura which is his pride and joy and in his eyes it is a "rare collector car" and should go for at least $24k - so few were ordered in bubblegum pink! But everyone else looks at it and sees a 20 year old car with dents and rattles and won't go a nickel above $3,500. The same thing is going to happen to these women unless they find some incredible sucker.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @YetAnotherAnon, @Anonymous

  122. @Jonathan Mason
    @Anon

    You are reading too much into it when you say this is a stupid question.

    Obviously it has to be taken for granted that we are talking about a 50/50 proposition. That is what the expression "a coin flip" means.

    Actually in the UK that expression is not used but the phrase is " a toss of a coin".

    In a cricket match a coin is tossed to decide which team gets to choose whether to bat first. This is considered to be a fair and random way of making an important choice. Every single British person, whether member of Parliament or not, knows this.

    The fact that so many members of parliament seem to be innumerate seems quite worrying when these are the people who vote on taxation schemes and national budgets and ultimately our responsible for them being enforced on the whole population.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    That is what the expression “a coin flip” means.

    Actually in the UK that expression is not used but the phrase is ” a toss of a coin”.

    Used to be here, too.

  123. @International Jew
    @Triteleia Laxa

    This isn't the Monty Hall problem, it's easier.
    Consider the possibilities:
    HH
    HT
    TH
    TT

    I've told you that in (at least) one of your flips, you got H. That means you can rule out TT; the only possible outcomes are
    HH
    HT
    TH
    And of these three, in only one -- HH -- is it the case that "one of your flips is an H, and the other one is also an H". Hence the probability is 1/3.

    Replies: @Jim

    There is an ambiguity in how the problem is stated. 1/3 is indeed the conditional probability that both outcomes are heads given the condition that at least one of outcomes is heads. But it is not completely unreasonable to interpret the problem as asking – given the condition that a specific one of the outcomes (the first or the second) is heads what is the conditional probability that the other is heads. The answer then is 1/2 . Therefore the question should either be thrown out or both you and Laxa should receive full credit.

  124. @rebel yell
    I disagree - this sort of "gotcha" test doesn't prove anything.
    I'm sure if you explain the correct answer to the failing respondents they would understand the correct answer perfectly well, so they are not as dumb as you think.
    They don't know the answer because they don't need to know it. They don't work with numbers every day and haven't done any math beyond multiplication since they were students decades ago. This is basic knowledge in statistics but is it really supposed to be common knowledge for everyone for life? Will a political leader really vote the wrong way because they didn't know this answer without looking it up? Would Andrew Jackson or Lincoln have answered correctly? Does getting the wrong answer mean the politician won't be able to understand a statistical argument when it is fully presented and explained?

    Okay Unz techies, answer these questions (without Googling the answer):
    How long does it take to milk a cow? (common knowledge for most Americans long ago)
    What is the difference between a paradiddle and a paradiddle-diddle? (common knowledge among concert drummers)
    What is the difference between bourbon and whiskey? (common knowledge on fraternity row)

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @Anon, @Charles, @black sea, @Colin Wright, @JackOH, @Jim Don Bob, @Ganderson, @Anonymous, @Dmon, @AndrewR, @David Davenport

    Q. How long does it take to milk a cow? (common knowledge for most Americans long ago)
    A. White fragility

    What is the difference between a paradiddle and a paradiddle-diddle? (common knowledge among concert drummers)
    A. Trump’s border crisis

    Q.What is the difference between bourbon and whiskey? (common knowledge on fraternity row)
    A. Systemic racism

  125. @Kjr
    @ScarletNumber

    I prefer the one who doesn't publicly ridicule random victims.

    That's the thing about "the free speech debate".

    I'm a woman converting to chassidish Judaism and one of the first culture shocks - and I do mean shocks - is how my new friends regard gossiping about people as a shameful thing to do

    It hit me when I made a comment about my sister at a shabbos meal on Friday night and the kids ranging in age from 9 to 18 all looked down blushing on my behalf!

    It turns out that "hurtful speech" is verboten even when the gossip is true and the person isn't in the room.

    What I came to realize is that intelligent Men prefer to talk about Ideas and intelligent Women prefer to talk about People.

    I'm in a women's group that Zooms together every Wednesday evening to study a Jewish book called The Chofetz Chaim which is about a hundred pages of Hebrew laws about the sin of gossiping.

    It bothers me a little that they don't encourage talking about unkosher ideas either (they really believe that the world is 5,781 years old) but it doesn't bother me too much. I like their closeness to God and songs and family life and kindness. So if I have to pretend that dinosaurs were killed in Noah's flood, who cares?

    But the men in my conversion class (pre covid) kept getting into trouble arguing over things like that.

    That's when I came up with my theory that men can talk about ideas more dispassionately than women can. And men also fail to appreciate the perhaps once beneficial mechanism of personal gossip.

    But I'm now convinced that gossip/libel/slander/mockery and other forms of hurting people by referring to NAMED INDIVIDUALS is worse than talking about uncomfortable ideas, including ideas about groups of people.

    I feel like I discovered some kind of scientific principle.

    In the American media and of course social media (and college campuses, etc) it is considered perfectly acceptable to cuttingly hurt individuals - which is the kind of talk we women are more likely to fall prey to - but not acceptable to talk about ideas that might be harmful - which is the kind of talk that men are more likely to engage in.

    I perfectly accept my new position in the chassidish world. I am covering my hair, my collar bone and my calves. I will never lead a Torah or Davening service and no matter how knowledgeable I become I will never lecture to a group that includes men in it.

    And you know what, I'm totally fine with it!

    The biggest change in my life is that the most popular women are the ones who never ever ever ever speak a bad word about individuals. We love being near thise women like we used to love being near the girls who shared the juiciest gossip!

    And it makes most of the internet pretty cringe to me.

    But instead of deplatforming people who make funnof individuals online, we deplatform people who say mean things about groups of people or who doubt the generally accepted opinions about Covid-19.

    That's because women (or little girls who never grew up) were given complete control of the internet and are perfectly happy to curtail the speech of men that could be harmful, while keeping their own harmful speech not only legitimated but celebrated.

    The sad part of this for me is that I really loved the Borat and Bruno movies! But now I see them as cringe and stipped watching the new Borat movie halfway through felt like I was personally hurting the people who were being publicly ridiculed in the movie, by my watching it.

    If it were up to me, the Chofetz Chaim book would become part of the national discourse. Real people commit suicide every single day because of what people say about them in the news or on social media. So far however I have yet to see concrete evidence that either Charles Murray or Bret Weinstein caused any deaths by dispassionately discussing their socially heretical ideas.


    As a woman I am less inclined to run to the front of the battlefield to fight my sisters who are, in my soon-to-be Jewish opinion, causing the most harm to real living individuals.

    I also really don't want to see men fighting women either (even harpies and crazies).

    But you don't have to!

    All you have to do is fight the men who are encouraging these women!

    As far as I can tell, these children are getting away with it because their bad behavior is cheered on by the sillier sort of men. If these men didn't exist, or if everyone had to read the book I mentioned before, then it would be Game Theory publicly known (that I know that you know that I know) that their behavior is cringe and it would happen a lot less.

    So if there must be a conversation about the limits of free speech, I think it should be about the sort of speech that is designed to hurt a specific individual, rather than the sort of speech that may, possibly, who knows, cause harm through some political process get to occur.

    Replies: @SFG, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar, @Jack D, @Paperback Writer

    they really believe that the world is 5,781 years old

    And, in true Darwinian fashion, they have a lot of offspring, correct? Surviving offspring. That’s the case with the Amish around here. A paradox, indeed.

    It’s Galapagos tortoises all the way down.

  126. anonymous[161] • Disclaimer says:

    OT, but distinctive iSteve content

    Rules discriminating against the un-vaxxed, are increasingly denounced as racist, given their disparate impact on the much-more-unvaxxed people of colour … 5 memes:


    [MORE]

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @anonymous

    I thought the bad thing about the Tuskegee syphilis study was that they left 'participants' untreated, which might have been ethical when the project started in 1932, when no syphilis treatments were proven effective, but stopped being ethical when penicillin became widely available in 1947 and the participants weren't offered treatment.

    No one was deliberately infected or injected with syphilis.

    https://www.tuskegee.edu/about-us/centers-of-excellence/bioethics-center/about-the-usphs-syphilis-study

    Replies: @Anon

  127. OT – Throwing yourself a big Birthday Party Bash. Doesn’t this sound like something an Afican Dictator would do?

    Erykah Badu and H.E.R post video and pictures of Obama letting loose at his ‘scaled back’ Martha’s Vineyard 60th birthday bash attended by up to 400 people: Party is labeled ‘hypocrisy at its finest’ amid US Delta surge

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9872643/No-fly-zone-set-Obamas-12M-Marthas-Vineyard-mansion-Alicia-Keys-sing-Happy-Birthday.html

    JFK did something similar, holding a Birthday Party / Party Fund Raiser at Madison Square Garden in 1962. That was pretty tacky too.

  128. Didn’t check this but I thought, in the Northern Hemisphere, summer is when the earth is farther away from the sun but the axis of rotation (and therefore the North Pole) is directed more towards the sun so that light strikes the Earth more directly (light rays are normal to the surface) and at higher latitudes.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Malcolm Y


    in the Northern Hemisphere, summer is when the earth is farther away from the sun
     
    Just FYI: The Earth is farthest from the Sun in January. It's all axis tilt.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Jim
    @Malcolm Y

    The main thing is that the rotational axis of the Earth being tilted toward the Sun means that the Sun is above the horizon longer in the Hemisphere tilted toward the Sun. At latitudes close enough to the Pole in that Hemisphere the Sun will circle around in the sky without going below the horizon.

    At the equinoxes the Earth’s rotational axis is orthogonal to the radius vector from the Sun to the Earth and day and night are equal everywhere.

  129. Here’s part of the Private Universe video in which the documentary makers asked Harvard grads and blue collar kids at a public high school why it’s hotter in summer than in winter. Both groups said it’s because, you see, that the earth’s orbit around the sun is an ellipse, so that means we are closer to the sun in summer so it’s hotter. But the townies sound not very confident when offering this explanation — after all, who is going to believe a townie about science — while the Harvard types display persuasive self-confidence.

    Those same people will also lecture you about CO2 and Climate Change.

    What they think of as science or – more recently – as “The Science” (TM) is nothing but received religion to them. “The Science” is a fashionable cult to which the elect belong and/or a magical talisman to ward off bad ju-ju.

  130. @International Jew
    Here's a harder one: you've already flipped those two coins. One of them came up heads. What's the probability the other one also came up heads?

    Answer: 1/3

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @JohnnyWalker123, @Kjr, @Deckin, @Odin, @Bill Jones

    Bayes’ Theorem nets another victim!

  131. @Anon
    Could this be the reason for the discrepancy between the two political parties?:

    The first thing I thought was that the answer is 0.50 x 0.50, fifty percent of fifty percent, or 0.25 which in fact is the correct answer.

    But then I thought, Is this a trick question? The most common trick question in probability involves making people think that past results have an effect on future attempts. So to a question like, "If you flip a coin 100 times and get tails each time, what are the odds for the next flip?," many will think that there is a "pent-up" higher probability for a heads -- which there isn't, it's still fifty-fifty.

    But people who think they are too clever to be tricked might be susceptible to favoring the incorrect answer, even though it does not involve past results in this current case.

    This is like "hyperurbanism" in grammar, overcorrection, as in "between you and I." You remember, "There's this thing that rednecks do where they use me instead of I. I won't make that mistake."

    So my theory is that conservatives may just ingenuously and straightforwardly give the answer they think is right. On the other hand liberals may think they are smarter than conservatives and think of the answer beyond the simple answer. And that answer beyond the answer is the wrong answer.

    Liberals may in fact be a little smarter than conservatives, on average, and may thus may be more likely to have run across and vaguely remember the "100 times" thing, but they are not smart enough to really understand it perfectly, and they erroneously apply it to a situation where it isn't relevant, where there are no past flips involved. In other words liberals are too smart for their own good, and their confidence exceeds their intelligence. And politicians may have higher verbal intelligence than math intelligence, exacerbating things.

    Replies: @International Jew, @martin_2, @astrolabe, @Jack D, @John Johnson

    You are the one who is overthinking it. The Occam’s Butterknife explanation is that many politicians are innumerate. They are great at making speeches and with empathizing with the poor (or pretending that they are) but they don’t understand simple probabilities. As our political class consists increasing of woman and NAMs (and female NAMs), this is only going to get worse.

    Also keep in mind that Conservative and Labour in the UK are not directly comparable to Republican and Democrat in the US. For example, in the UK, Jews lean Conservative. Jeremy Corbyn, until recently the head of the Labour Party, has only a high school education. The Labour Party has not been completely taken over by college educated elites the way that the US Dem Party has.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Jack D

    Remember that verbal and math ability are correlated. That was Spearman's discovery and the origin of the g factor and the redefinition of intelligence as a statistical distribution.

    There's a folk belief that many people are geniuses in [language/math] but hopeless in [math/language]. This is mostly a myth based on range restriction: within your educational peer group you can seem to be relatively weak in one of the other cognitive ability. But looking at the entire population the two track pretty closely.

    , @J.Ross
    @Jack D

    Quibble: the visible elite will be largely Indians, who have a stellar reputation for numeracy.
    Internal quibble: the type of useless idiot from any race who allows himself to become a politician is probably at the least numerate edge of the chart.

    , @Jonathan Mason
    @Jack D

    Corbyn actually came from a family of intellectuals and his mother was a math teacher.

    So I would imagine he would probably have a good shot at the probability question if his mother was any influence at all.

    He did attend college doing a course in trade union studies, but did not complete his degree as he fell out with his instructors due to a disagreement about the content of the curriculum. Classic!

    He did however spend a couple of years doing overseas service in Jamaica, and then traveled widely in South America, so I guess he picked up a bit of the ways of the world.

    He got into politics at a young age as a party and and trades union activist.

    The last British prime minister who did not have a degree was John Major, but major obtained his education as on the job training in the banking industry, and he was clearly very financially and numerically literate.

    David Cameron was very highly rated for his intellectual capacity at Oxford university, whereas Tony Blair was considered to be somewhat mediocre.

    Boris Johnson, like Cameron, was educated at Eton and Oxford and has always seemed like a witty, but shallow debate club politician rather than a true intellectual, even if he likes to toss around classical quotations to give an air of gravitas to his blathering.

    A college acquaintance of mine named Ian Williams had a similar background to Corbyn, having worked as a ticket collector on the Liverpool buses as a teen, been evicted from university after a political protest, and then in various left wing labor movement groups in England.

    In a recent Facebook chat, he told me that he was thinking of claiming royalties for his work as a speech writer for Joe Biden, since he had written the famous Neil Kinnock speech that was plagiarized by Biden.

    Replies: @Jack D

  132. It would be interesting to know the breakdown of right vs. wrong answers by race and gender but I don’t think we are going to be told that, ever.

  133. @International Jew
    Here's a harder one: you've already flipped those two coins. One of them came up heads. What's the probability the other one also came up heads?

    Answer: 1/3

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @JohnnyWalker123, @Kjr, @Deckin, @Odin, @Bill Jones

    You’ve already flipped those two coins. One of them came up heads. What’s the probability the other one also came up heads?

    Depends what you mean by “one of them”:

    –“At least one of them”: IJ’s usage. Answer 3/4.

    –“One I picked at random”: TL’s usage. Answer 1/2.

    –“Exactly one of them”: Odin’s usage. Answer zero.

    • Thanks: res
  134. Anon[395] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    @Anon

    You are the one who is overthinking it. The Occam's Butterknife explanation is that many politicians are innumerate. They are great at making speeches and with empathizing with the poor (or pretending that they are) but they don't understand simple probabilities. As our political class consists increasing of woman and NAMs (and female NAMs), this is only going to get worse.

    Also keep in mind that Conservative and Labour in the UK are not directly comparable to Republican and Democrat in the US. For example, in the UK, Jews lean Conservative. Jeremy Corbyn, until recently the head of the Labour Party, has only a high school education. The Labour Party has not been completely taken over by college educated elites the way that the US Dem Party has.

    Replies: @Anon, @J.Ross, @Jonathan Mason

    Remember that verbal and math ability are correlated. That was Spearman’s discovery and the origin of the g factor and the redefinition of intelligence as a statistical distribution.

    There’s a folk belief that many people are geniuses in [language/math] but hopeless in [math/language]. This is mostly a myth based on range restriction: within your educational peer group you can seem to be relatively weak in one of the other cognitive ability. But looking at the entire population the two track pretty closely.

  135. @Jack D
    @Anon

    You are the one who is overthinking it. The Occam's Butterknife explanation is that many politicians are innumerate. They are great at making speeches and with empathizing with the poor (or pretending that they are) but they don't understand simple probabilities. As our political class consists increasing of woman and NAMs (and female NAMs), this is only going to get worse.

    Also keep in mind that Conservative and Labour in the UK are not directly comparable to Republican and Democrat in the US. For example, in the UK, Jews lean Conservative. Jeremy Corbyn, until recently the head of the Labour Party, has only a high school education. The Labour Party has not been completely taken over by college educated elites the way that the US Dem Party has.

    Replies: @Anon, @J.Ross, @Jonathan Mason

    Quibble: the visible elite will be largely Indians, who have a stellar reputation for numeracy.
    Internal quibble: the type of useless idiot from any race who allows himself to become a politician is probably at the least numerate edge of the chart.

  136. It’s Official!!!

    Out of 4 Elderly People I personally Know who got the Pfizer Vaccine

    After 2 months from the second Pfizer dose…

    Male, skinny and fit the last time I saw him which was last August, mid/late 60s…super frightened of Covid…. got diagnosed today with an Abdominal Aneurism

    And we’re done here folks.

    Pack it up.

    The vaccine is more dangerous than Covid.

    That’s 1 out of 4.

    • Replies: @Thoughts
    @Thoughts

    Even my spouse, who does not appreciate my conspiracy-theory-mongering was like

    Here's some Bad News, that's in a way Good News because it validates what you've been saying

    (and it's true...I've been watching the people who took the vaccine very closely...most people didn't get vaccinated until May June, as this commentator is not an American and our vaccine rollout was blessedly slow...so we're not at 8 weeks post second shot yet with many friends and family...the 30 somethings just go their first shot 2 weeks ago...)

    Guess I'm never travelling again...I have long veiny legs and one thing that scares the heebjesus out of me is Deep Vein Thrombosis

    As Steve Sailer says, the taller you are, the more area you have where things can go wrong

    And for me...my height means More Blood Clots

    Shove you blood clot vaccines where the sun don't shine

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Gamecock, @YetAnotherAnon

  137. @Thoughts
    It's Official!!!

    Out of 4 Elderly People I personally Know who got the Pfizer Vaccine

    After 2 months from the second Pfizer dose...

    Male, skinny and fit the last time I saw him which was last August, mid/late 60s...super frightened of Covid.... got diagnosed today with an Abdominal Aneurism

    And we're done here folks.

    Pack it up.

    The vaccine is more dangerous than Covid.

    That's 1 out of 4.

    Replies: @Thoughts

    Even my spouse, who does not appreciate my conspiracy-theory-mongering was like

    Here’s some Bad News, that’s in a way Good News because it validates what you’ve been saying

    (and it’s true…I’ve been watching the people who took the vaccine very closely…most people didn’t get vaccinated until May June, as this commentator is not an American and our vaccine rollout was blessedly slow…so we’re not at 8 weeks post second shot yet with many friends and family…the 30 somethings just go their first shot 2 weeks ago…)

    Guess I’m never travelling again…I have long veiny legs and one thing that scares the heebjesus out of me is Deep Vein Thrombosis

    As Steve Sailer says, the taller you are, the more area you have where things can go wrong

    And for me…my height means More Blood Clots

    Shove you blood clot vaccines where the sun don’t shine

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Thoughts

    "Guess I’m never travelling again…I have long veiny legs and one thing that scares the heebjesus out of me is Deep Vein Thrombosis"

    You need a set of knee high or thigh high compression hose aka "surgical stockings". Just wear them on the flight and keep them for whenever you are flying.

    Ideally you go for the best fit, most sites will have fitting guides.

    htpps://www.compressionstockings.com/jobst-for-men-15-20-mmhg-thigh-high-ribbed-compression-stockings-with-silicone-border-p-65.html

    , @Gamecock
    @Thoughts


    Guess I’m never travelling again…I have long veiny legs and one thing that scares the heebjesus out of me is Deep Vein Thrombosis
     
    A radiologist doctor friend of mine told me, after I told him I was taking a long plane flight, to wear compression tights. He said they will increase leg circulation by 500% (!). I followed his advice, and continue to wear compression tights routinely in the winter. I have had no blood clot problems, though it's impossible to know whether I was actually going to have any. I also get up from my plane seat once an hour for a few minutes to clear any places in my legs were circulation has slowed.

    Since you are concerned, I suggest you talk to your doctor about possible benefits of compression tights.

    I have a friend who traveled to China on business annually. On a flight back, he got a blood clot in a leg. He recovered, but it was scary for a few days. The fear was that it would break lose, and give him a heart attack or stroke. He was only ~40 years old.
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @Thoughts

    Like Gamecock, I know a guy who does frequent trips to India and China, and he came back from Calcutta (pre-Covid) with a DVT - he's a tall guy too, fit, and was under 50 at the time. Fortunately it got picked up early and he's fine now.

    You might feel a fool wearing surgical hose, but it's worth the cash to get a proper pair fitted. After that guy had his DVT I got a pair for my next long distance flight.

  138. @Kjr
    @ScarletNumber

    I prefer the one who doesn't publicly ridicule random victims.

    That's the thing about "the free speech debate".

    I'm a woman converting to chassidish Judaism and one of the first culture shocks - and I do mean shocks - is how my new friends regard gossiping about people as a shameful thing to do

    It hit me when I made a comment about my sister at a shabbos meal on Friday night and the kids ranging in age from 9 to 18 all looked down blushing on my behalf!

    It turns out that "hurtful speech" is verboten even when the gossip is true and the person isn't in the room.

    What I came to realize is that intelligent Men prefer to talk about Ideas and intelligent Women prefer to talk about People.

    I'm in a women's group that Zooms together every Wednesday evening to study a Jewish book called The Chofetz Chaim which is about a hundred pages of Hebrew laws about the sin of gossiping.

    It bothers me a little that they don't encourage talking about unkosher ideas either (they really believe that the world is 5,781 years old) but it doesn't bother me too much. I like their closeness to God and songs and family life and kindness. So if I have to pretend that dinosaurs were killed in Noah's flood, who cares?

    But the men in my conversion class (pre covid) kept getting into trouble arguing over things like that.

    That's when I came up with my theory that men can talk about ideas more dispassionately than women can. And men also fail to appreciate the perhaps once beneficial mechanism of personal gossip.

    But I'm now convinced that gossip/libel/slander/mockery and other forms of hurting people by referring to NAMED INDIVIDUALS is worse than talking about uncomfortable ideas, including ideas about groups of people.

    I feel like I discovered some kind of scientific principle.

    In the American media and of course social media (and college campuses, etc) it is considered perfectly acceptable to cuttingly hurt individuals - which is the kind of talk we women are more likely to fall prey to - but not acceptable to talk about ideas that might be harmful - which is the kind of talk that men are more likely to engage in.

    I perfectly accept my new position in the chassidish world. I am covering my hair, my collar bone and my calves. I will never lead a Torah or Davening service and no matter how knowledgeable I become I will never lecture to a group that includes men in it.

    And you know what, I'm totally fine with it!

    The biggest change in my life is that the most popular women are the ones who never ever ever ever speak a bad word about individuals. We love being near thise women like we used to love being near the girls who shared the juiciest gossip!

    And it makes most of the internet pretty cringe to me.

    But instead of deplatforming people who make funnof individuals online, we deplatform people who say mean things about groups of people or who doubt the generally accepted opinions about Covid-19.

    That's because women (or little girls who never grew up) were given complete control of the internet and are perfectly happy to curtail the speech of men that could be harmful, while keeping their own harmful speech not only legitimated but celebrated.

    The sad part of this for me is that I really loved the Borat and Bruno movies! But now I see them as cringe and stipped watching the new Borat movie halfway through felt like I was personally hurting the people who were being publicly ridiculed in the movie, by my watching it.

    If it were up to me, the Chofetz Chaim book would become part of the national discourse. Real people commit suicide every single day because of what people say about them in the news or on social media. So far however I have yet to see concrete evidence that either Charles Murray or Bret Weinstein caused any deaths by dispassionately discussing their socially heretical ideas.


    As a woman I am less inclined to run to the front of the battlefield to fight my sisters who are, in my soon-to-be Jewish opinion, causing the most harm to real living individuals.

    I also really don't want to see men fighting women either (even harpies and crazies).

    But you don't have to!

    All you have to do is fight the men who are encouraging these women!

    As far as I can tell, these children are getting away with it because their bad behavior is cheered on by the sillier sort of men. If these men didn't exist, or if everyone had to read the book I mentioned before, then it would be Game Theory publicly known (that I know that you know that I know) that their behavior is cringe and it would happen a lot less.

    So if there must be a conversation about the limits of free speech, I think it should be about the sort of speech that is designed to hurt a specific individual, rather than the sort of speech that may, possibly, who knows, cause harm through some political process get to occur.

    Replies: @SFG, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar, @Jack D, @Paperback Writer

    The interesting thing about the Jewish prohibition on “lashon hara” (evil tongue) is that it applies to defamatory statement even if they are TRUE (there is a separate prohibition on blackening someone’s name with lies, which is an even more serious offense). Under common law, truth is a defense to defamation.

    However, it is a defense if you are uttering the statement for a constructive purpose. For example, “I hear that Rabbi X has a taste for underage boys” is evil tongue but “you may not want to leave your kid alone with Rabbi X” is ok, assuming the recipient has kids who might be supervised by Rabbi X.

    Not only is it prohibit to utter evil speech but it’s also forbidden to receive to it, again a difference from Western law.

    There is also a distinction between incidentally uttering defamatory statements and someone who has the habit of doing so frequently – a MASTER of evil tongue, with the latter of course being much worse. The advice (which I think is good) is to avoid such people. The logic is that the same people who will talk trash about your mutual friends to you behind their back will also talk trash about YOU to your mutual friends when you are not around.

    There is no real explanation in the holy books themselves as to WHY evil speech is prohibited – there are just examples of incidents where someone did it and really bad things happened to them – for example Moses’s sister Miriam spoke evil of Moses to their brother Aaron and she got leprosy, so don’t do it or bad things will happen to you too.

    There are a LOT of things that are prohibited in Judaism that don’t have a “why” attached to them. God said not to do it and it’s not up to us to question WHY He said so. For this reason, Jewish law doesn’t always make complete sense to people accustomed to Western modes of logic, but it has a logic of its own.

    • Replies: @epebble
    @Jack D

    It is not complicated. Rotary club has been using it for 90 years.

    The Four-Way Test


    The Four-Way Test is a nonpartisan and nonsectarian ethical guide for Rotarians to use for their personal and professional relationships. The test has been translated into more than 100 languages, and Rotarians recite it at club meetings: Of the things we think, say or do

    Is it the TRUTH?
    Is it FAIR to all concerned?
    Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
    Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

    These principles have been developed over the years to provide Rotarians with a strong, common purpose and direction. They serve as a foundation for our relationships with each other and the action we take in the world.
     

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Odin
    @Jack D


    The interesting thing about the Jewish prohibition on “lashon hara” (evil tongue) is that it applies to defamatory statement even if they are TRUE.
     
    There doesn't seem to be a widely accepted definition of "hate speech". But according to many I've heard defending the concept, truth can indeed be "hateful", and thus punishable by the authorities.

    Punishment-for-truth is fraught with peril. Never could figure out where the idea originated, but it seems we've learned it comes from the Talmud. Western legal systems would be well advised to leave it there.

    Replies: @Kjr

    , @Hibernian
    @Jack D


    The interesting thing about the Jewish prohibition on “lashon hara” (evil tongue) is that it applies to defamatory statement even if they are TRUE (there is a separate prohibition on blackening someone’s name with lies, which is an even more serious offense).
     
    The Catholic name for it is detraction, which I only learned later in life. It wasn't covered at my parochial school or (at least formally, using the name) by Dad and Mom .

    Replies: @Jack D, @Kjr, @Colin Wright

    , @Neil Templeton
    @Jack D

    My advice:

    If you don't have a dog in the fight, don't take a side;

    If you do back a dog, don't be surprised when the owners of the other dog don't like you;

    Don't buy dogs that like to fight unless you like dogfights.

  139. @International Jew
    Here's a harder one: you've already flipped those two coins. One of them came up heads. What's the probability the other one also came up heads?

    Answer: 1/3

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @JohnnyWalker123, @Kjr, @Deckin, @Odin, @Bill Jones

    Wrong. You grifters should be better than this.

  140. @Jack D
    @Kjr

    The interesting thing about the Jewish prohibition on "lashon hara" (evil tongue) is that it applies to defamatory statement even if they are TRUE (there is a separate prohibition on blackening someone's name with lies, which is an even more serious offense). Under common law, truth is a defense to defamation.

    However, it is a defense if you are uttering the statement for a constructive purpose. For example, "I hear that Rabbi X has a taste for underage boys" is evil tongue but "you may not want to leave your kid alone with Rabbi X" is ok, assuming the recipient has kids who might be supervised by Rabbi X.

    Not only is it prohibit to utter evil speech but it's also forbidden to receive to it, again a difference from Western law.

    There is also a distinction between incidentally uttering defamatory statements and someone who has the habit of doing so frequently - a MASTER of evil tongue, with the latter of course being much worse. The advice (which I think is good) is to avoid such people. The logic is that the same people who will talk trash about your mutual friends to you behind their back will also talk trash about YOU to your mutual friends when you are not around.

    There is no real explanation in the holy books themselves as to WHY evil speech is prohibited - there are just examples of incidents where someone did it and really bad things happened to them - for example Moses's sister Miriam spoke evil of Moses to their brother Aaron and she got leprosy, so don't do it or bad things will happen to you too.

    There are a LOT of things that are prohibited in Judaism that don't have a "why" attached to them. God said not to do it and it's not up to us to question WHY He said so. For this reason, Jewish law doesn't always make complete sense to people accustomed to Western modes of logic, but it has a logic of its own.

    Replies: @epebble, @Odin, @Hibernian, @Neil Templeton

    It is not complicated. Rotary club has been using it for 90 years.

    The Four-Way Test

    The Four-Way Test is a nonpartisan and nonsectarian ethical guide for Rotarians to use for their personal and professional relationships. The test has been translated into more than 100 languages, and Rotarians recite it at club meetings: Of the things we think, say or do

    Is it the TRUTH?
    Is it FAIR to all concerned?
    Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
    Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

    These principles have been developed over the years to provide Rotarians with a strong, common purpose and direction. They serve as a foundation for our relationships with each other and the action we take in the world.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @epebble


    Is it the TRUTH?
     
    As I explained before, the Jewish prohibition on disclosing damaging information extends EVEN to the truth, with certain exceptions (if the speech has a constructive purpose).

    Just because something is true doesn't mean that person doesn't have a right not to have his private matters outed to the public for no good reason. If the damage caused to the person being discussed is greater than the good that will coming from outing him, then you shouldn't do it. In many cases, NO good will come from outing that person at all, only damages, so there is nothing to balance against even if what you are saying is true. (In the old days, this might have applied to outing someone as gay - nowadays to outing someone as a conservative - let's say you get Steve's donor list (which I hope BTW he keeps in a secure manner). Should you post this list on the internet even if it is true?

    Replies: @epebble, @Triteleia Laxa, @John Johnson, @kaganovitch

  141. @Badger Down
    They should have been given an easier question:
    If you have just flipped a coin four times, and it came up heads every time, what are the odds that your next coin-flip will also be heads?

    Replies: @epebble, @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY), @Yancey Ward, @El Dato, @znon, @Henry's Cat, @Bardon Kaldian

    I don’t know whether you are aware of the profundity of your hypothetical question.

    I know educated people, doctors, lawyers .. regular jackpot junkies, who cannot get away from bizarre ideas. They understand that, with enough data, you’ll get 50/50 (for instance, tossing a coin 5,000 times).

    But they also believe in weird theories of “nets”, or some other term, whereby you can profit in the game. For instance, if you toss a coin 20 times & you get a tail 16 times- they believe there is some, so to speak, “inertia” so you’re more likely to get a tail in the next 1, 2 or 5 times.

    When I tried to explain to them that any tossing of a coin is starting anew, as if nothing had happened in the past- they couldn’t believe it.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @Bardon Kaldian

    You can win free beer for life by demonstrating to a shooter that a bullet fired from a level barrel at a certain height will hit the ground at the same time as a bullet simply dropped from that same height. Not one in a hundred will believe it, even after being shown the proof.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    , @Hypnotoad666
    @Bardon Kaldian


    When I tried to explain to them that any tossing of a coin is starting anew, as if nothing had happened in the past- they couldn’t believe it.
     
    Here's a variation on that phenomenon that stumps the richest and smartest people in the world on a regular basis: "If a stock has outperformed the market for 10 years in a row, what are the odds it will outperform the market again this year?"

    Replies: @Jack D

  142. @Triteleia Laxa
    @International Jew

    No, it is 1/2.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Reg Cæsar, @blake121666, @David, @res

    Reg is right. IJ is (probably) thinking of it like the Monty Hall problem.

    My take is the initial problem statement is underspecified.

    The deal is this. Multiple ways of doing this.

    1. Two coins are flipped and you are simply told 1 came up heads. This is IJ’s version and his 1/3 answer is correct. Once you know one is heads you have HH, HT, TH to choose from.

    2. Two coins are flipped and one is turned over (without knowledge of the results, e.g. first, second, or randomly) to show heads. This is your version of the problem and your 1/2 answer is correct.

    The Monty Hall variation is a subtle combination of those two.

    3. Two coins are flipped and one is turned over to show heads by someone who knows the results (i.e. if only one head was flipped choose that coin). That reduces to IJ’s 1 since you are again looking at HH, HT, and TH as possibilities.

    P.S. FWIW, there is a lesson here. Perhaps make an effort to understand what the other person is saying before “correcting” them. Especially in definitive terms like “No…” Even more especially if you know the other person (here IJ) usually makes astute comments.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @res

    "No, it is 1/2" is just disagreement. It invites him to explain why I was wrong. Reg did that for him, which I thanked Reg for.

    I did understand his problem in the way you describe, you are astute to see both, but I didn't see the alternative interpretation which he intended.

    I might have elaborated on my disagreement, to make it less blunt and more verbose, or said "why do you think that," but I am near the only one here who makes queries in that way, and I therefore found it worthy of reflection that you chose to give me a "FWIW".

    Looking at it, I am complimented to be held to much higher standards than most others, for what it means, and I do benefit by getting some sort of useful advice out of it.

    After all, it is worth something as it is good, general advice, but given that I was in a shop paying at the time, trying to understand the quiet, masked woman behind the counter, with her muffled foreign language, I am OK with my 4 word register of disagreement; especially as it brought me Reg's elaboration, and your implied compliment.

    I hope there are enough words here to communicate as much meaning as is required for the full understanding which my original comment missed 😇

    , @Colin Wright
    @res

    '1. Two coins are flipped and you are simply told 1 came up heads. This is IJ’s version and his 1/3 answer is correct. Once you know one is heads you have HH, HT, TH to choose from.'

    The logic here is flawed. You implicitly assume that the outcome of one toss affects the outcome of the other toss.

    Yes, given two tosses, there are four sets of possible outcomes. However, if you know the outcome of one of the tosses, you're no longer looking at all the possible outcomes of two tosses with unknown outcomes. Since you know one of the outcomes, you're looking at only one toss.

    ...and of course, the chance of heads on that one toss remains at 50% -- whatever occurred on the other toss.

    Put it this way. If heads occurred on the first of the tosses to be considered, you no longer have the three possibilities HH, HT, TH head to choose from. TH can no longer occur. You only have HH, HT left.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @John Johnson, @res

    , @Jack D
    @res


    The initial problem statement is underspecified.
     
    Not really. It was:

    if you flip a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?
     
    It's the unstated assumption of all such problems that you are given all of the information you need to answer the question. So, without having to say so, you can assume that the coin is a fair coin tossed such that H and T each have the same probability, that no one knows or has told you the results of the 1st flip already, and so on.

    Replies: @res

    , @John Johnson
    @res

    You guys are overcomplicating things by bringing doors into a coin flip.

    The lesson should be that the coin doesn't "know" that there is a coin next to it or that a cow just took a dump in China. The coin toss odds for a single flip are always 50/50.

    The Monty Hall scenario is a counter-intuitive math problem that isn't explained well using a coin toss since your initial odds of winning are 1/3.

  143. @newrouter
    ""59% of British MPs Flunked Probability of Flipping Two Heads in a Row"

    Seems like a stupid gotcha question. Better question for MPs: What's the public debt to GDP ratio?

    Replies: @Mackerel Sky, @Anon, @Daniel H, @AndrewR

    While obviously all MPs should know basic economic statistics, the coin question measures basic reasoning ability which is more important than a random economic data point which is meaningless out of context. I could train a three year old to memorize the public debt to GDP ratio. But no three year old could independently explain why this ratio matters.

  144. I bet all of you would flunk the probability of flipping another head after flipping a hundred heads in a row.

  145. @res
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Reg is right. IJ is (probably) thinking of it like the Monty Hall problem.

    My take is the initial problem statement is underspecified.

    The deal is this. Multiple ways of doing this.

    1. Two coins are flipped and you are simply told 1 came up heads. This is IJ's version and his 1/3 answer is correct. Once you know one is heads you have HH, HT, TH to choose from.

    2. Two coins are flipped and one is turned over (without knowledge of the results, e.g. first, second, or randomly) to show heads. This is your version of the problem and your 1/2 answer is correct.

    The Monty Hall variation is a subtle combination of those two.

    3. Two coins are flipped and one is turned over to show heads by someone who knows the results (i.e. if only one head was flipped choose that coin). That reduces to IJ's 1 since you are again looking at HH, HT, and TH as possibilities.

    P.S. FWIW, there is a lesson here. Perhaps make an effort to understand what the other person is saying before "correcting" them. Especially in definitive terms like "No..." Even more especially if you know the other person (here IJ) usually makes astute comments.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Colin Wright, @Jack D, @John Johnson

    “No, it is 1/2” is just disagreement. It invites him to explain why I was wrong. Reg did that for him, which I thanked Reg for.

    I did understand his problem in the way you describe, you are astute to see both, but I didn’t see the alternative interpretation which he intended.

    I might have elaborated on my disagreement, to make it less blunt and more verbose, or said “why do you think that,” but I am near the only one here who makes queries in that way, and I therefore found it worthy of reflection that you chose to give me a “FWIW”.

    Looking at it, I am complimented to be held to much higher standards than most others, for what it means, and I do benefit by getting some sort of useful advice out of it.

    After all, it is worth something as it is good, general advice, but given that I was in a shop paying at the time, trying to understand the quiet, masked woman behind the counter, with her muffled foreign language, I am OK with my 4 word register of disagreement; especially as it brought me Reg’s elaboration, and your implied compliment.

    I hope there are enough words here to communicate as much meaning as is required for the full understanding which my original comment missed 😇

  146. @rebel yell
    I disagree - this sort of "gotcha" test doesn't prove anything.
    I'm sure if you explain the correct answer to the failing respondents they would understand the correct answer perfectly well, so they are not as dumb as you think.
    They don't know the answer because they don't need to know it. They don't work with numbers every day and haven't done any math beyond multiplication since they were students decades ago. This is basic knowledge in statistics but is it really supposed to be common knowledge for everyone for life? Will a political leader really vote the wrong way because they didn't know this answer without looking it up? Would Andrew Jackson or Lincoln have answered correctly? Does getting the wrong answer mean the politician won't be able to understand a statistical argument when it is fully presented and explained?

    Okay Unz techies, answer these questions (without Googling the answer):
    How long does it take to milk a cow? (common knowledge for most Americans long ago)
    What is the difference between a paradiddle and a paradiddle-diddle? (common knowledge among concert drummers)
    What is the difference between bourbon and whiskey? (common knowledge on fraternity row)

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @Anon, @Charles, @black sea, @Colin Wright, @JackOH, @Jim Don Bob, @Ganderson, @Anonymous, @Dmon, @AndrewR, @David Davenport

    A gotcha question is deceptive. This is a simple 4th grade math question. If you forgot 4th grade math then you shouldn’t be in charge of anything beyond collecting garbage or cleaning toilets.

    • Agree: AnotherDad
    • Replies: @rebel yell
    @AndrewR


    If you forgot 4th grade math then you shouldn’t be in charge of anything beyond collecting garbage or cleaning toilets.
     
    Many successful businessmen would fail this question. Their success is the proof that they should in fact be in charge. Many intelligent Presidents would have failed this question. I assume the only Presidents who would have answered correctly are the ones with some technical background - perhaps Washington because he was a surveyor, Carter the engineer, or Presidents who liked to gamble and calculate odds at the poker table. I don't believe Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, or Reagan would have answered this question correctly. However much you may dislike any of these Presidents, they were all smart enough to do the job.
    Most of the executive leadership of my company (a successful company) would likely fail this question. They hire me and others to do the math.
    A better test is whether people can understand a statistical argument when it is presented to them and appreciate its relevance to their decisions. "Gotcha" questions don't do that.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton, @Anonymous, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

  147. @Reg Cæsar
    @Buffalo Joe


    I personally don’t think most politicians have any concept of numbers. A billion is a thousand million.
     
    A thousand seconds is just over a quarter hour.

    A million seconds is just under twelve days.

    A billion seconds is just under thirty-two years.

    A trillion seconds is just under thirty-two thousand years.




    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/11/25/237D9A5F00000578-2848602-image-10_1416915318049.jpg

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Buffalo Joe

    A quadrillion seconds is half as old as yo mama.

  148. @Jack D
    @Anon

    You are the one who is overthinking it. The Occam's Butterknife explanation is that many politicians are innumerate. They are great at making speeches and with empathizing with the poor (or pretending that they are) but they don't understand simple probabilities. As our political class consists increasing of woman and NAMs (and female NAMs), this is only going to get worse.

    Also keep in mind that Conservative and Labour in the UK are not directly comparable to Republican and Democrat in the US. For example, in the UK, Jews lean Conservative. Jeremy Corbyn, until recently the head of the Labour Party, has only a high school education. The Labour Party has not been completely taken over by college educated elites the way that the US Dem Party has.

    Replies: @Anon, @J.Ross, @Jonathan Mason

    Corbyn actually came from a family of intellectuals and his mother was a math teacher.

    So I would imagine he would probably have a good shot at the probability question if his mother was any influence at all.

    He did attend college doing a course in trade union studies, but did not complete his degree as he fell out with his instructors due to a disagreement about the content of the curriculum. Classic!

    He did however spend a couple of years doing overseas service in Jamaica, and then traveled widely in South America, so I guess he picked up a bit of the ways of the world.

    He got into politics at a young age as a party and and trades union activist.

    The last British prime minister who did not have a degree was John Major, but major obtained his education as on the job training in the banking industry, and he was clearly very financially and numerically literate.

    David Cameron was very highly rated for his intellectual capacity at Oxford university, whereas Tony Blair was considered to be somewhat mediocre.

    Boris Johnson, like Cameron, was educated at Eton and Oxford and has always seemed like a witty, but shallow debate club politician rather than a true intellectual, even if he likes to toss around classical quotations to give an air of gravitas to his blathering.

    A college acquaintance of mine named Ian Williams had a similar background to Corbyn, having worked as a ticket collector on the Liverpool buses as a teen, been evicted from university after a political protest, and then in various left wing labor movement groups in England.

    In a recent Facebook chat, he told me that he was thinking of claiming royalties for his work as a speech writer for Joe Biden, since he had written the famous Neil Kinnock speech that was plagiarized by Biden.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Jonathan Mason

    You prove my point that the UK is somewhat different than the US wrt requiring higher education for leaders (and Presidential speech writers). Harry Truman was the last US President without a college degree and he was a sort of accidental President. Before Truman, the next most recent President not to have a degree was Grover Cleveland, born 1837. Even that is deceptive because Cleveland was a lawyer - in those days it was possible to "read the law" and work in a firm as an apprentice without having to attend law school.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

  149. Not at all surprising. Leftists don’t understand math. Remember when they said Michael Bloomberg could afford to give every American a million dollars?

  150. @Jonathan Mason
    @Jack D

    Corbyn actually came from a family of intellectuals and his mother was a math teacher.

    So I would imagine he would probably have a good shot at the probability question if his mother was any influence at all.

    He did attend college doing a course in trade union studies, but did not complete his degree as he fell out with his instructors due to a disagreement about the content of the curriculum. Classic!

    He did however spend a couple of years doing overseas service in Jamaica, and then traveled widely in South America, so I guess he picked up a bit of the ways of the world.

    He got into politics at a young age as a party and and trades union activist.

    The last British prime minister who did not have a degree was John Major, but major obtained his education as on the job training in the banking industry, and he was clearly very financially and numerically literate.

    David Cameron was very highly rated for his intellectual capacity at Oxford university, whereas Tony Blair was considered to be somewhat mediocre.

    Boris Johnson, like Cameron, was educated at Eton and Oxford and has always seemed like a witty, but shallow debate club politician rather than a true intellectual, even if he likes to toss around classical quotations to give an air of gravitas to his blathering.

    A college acquaintance of mine named Ian Williams had a similar background to Corbyn, having worked as a ticket collector on the Liverpool buses as a teen, been evicted from university after a political protest, and then in various left wing labor movement groups in England.

    In a recent Facebook chat, he told me that he was thinking of claiming royalties for his work as a speech writer for Joe Biden, since he had written the famous Neil Kinnock speech that was plagiarized by Biden.

    Replies: @Jack D

    You prove my point that the UK is somewhat different than the US wrt requiring higher education for leaders (and Presidential speech writers). Harry Truman was the last US President without a college degree and he was a sort of accidental President. Before Truman, the next most recent President not to have a degree was Grover Cleveland, born 1837. Even that is deceptive because Cleveland was a lawyer – in those days it was possible to “read the law” and work in a firm as an apprentice without having to attend law school.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @Jack D

    I am sorry. Having done a little more research, I see that Ian Williams was actually awarded his degree at the University of Liverpool several years after having been kicked out for leading a protest against the university holding investments in apartheid South Africa.

    https://www.huffpost.com/author/ian-williams

    At some point the university relented. Another leader of the protest, also kicked out of the university at the same time was Jon Snow, who later became a very well-known news anchor and foreign correspondent, and even had a fictional character on a well-known TV drama named after him.

    Snow was also awarded a degree at the University of Liverpool, albeit 40 years after he left the university.

    https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/newsreader-jon-snow-gets-university-3370536


    Fires across the world - Greece, Turkey, California, Oregon, Siberia -and so mang more in one summer season: Leading climate change authority Professor Michael Mann of Penn State University tells me why: https://t.co/I7jZK5RsPq— Jon Snow (@jonsnowC4) August 6, 2021
     
  151. Boris Johnson, like Cameron, was educated at Eton and Oxford and has always seemed like a witty, but shallow debate club politician rather than a true intellectual, even if he likes to toss around classical quotations to give an air of gravitas to his blathering.

    Boris Johnson may have a certain style of presentation, but is an accomplished writer and was formerly the editor of the Spectator. This makes him more formidably intellectual than 95+% of politicians.

    He did attend college doing a course in trade union studies, but did not complete his degree as he fell out with his instructors due to a disagreement about the content of the curriculum. Classic!

    I won’t look this up in case it is not true as it is too perfect. I really struggle to understand what people saw in Corbyn. He’s like Mrs Jellyby, but with even more priggishness, and the stubborn stupidity of a man who has spent far too long mistaking his ideology for character.

  152. @Buffalo Joe
    I personally don't think most politicians have any concept of numbers. A billion is a thousand million. How many politicians could express that? When my son ran for the school board in his town he was the only candidate, seated or running, who could read a financial statement. The Buffalo Public Schools budget now exceeds one billion dollars. Do the members of the school realize that is one thousand piles of a million dollars. Probably not because there is never enough money in their budget. Don't try to confuse politicians with numbers.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Pericles, @John Johnson

    I personally don’t think most politicians have any concept of numbers. A billion is a thousand million. How many politicians could express that?

    I have wondered the same thing. How many of our current Democrats know about much a trillion is?

    Someone should jump cam AOC and ask her how much 3/4 of a trillion is in billions.

  153. @Anon
    Could this be the reason for the discrepancy between the two political parties?:

    The first thing I thought was that the answer is 0.50 x 0.50, fifty percent of fifty percent, or 0.25 which in fact is the correct answer.

    But then I thought, Is this a trick question? The most common trick question in probability involves making people think that past results have an effect on future attempts. So to a question like, "If you flip a coin 100 times and get tails each time, what are the odds for the next flip?," many will think that there is a "pent-up" higher probability for a heads -- which there isn't, it's still fifty-fifty.

    But people who think they are too clever to be tricked might be susceptible to favoring the incorrect answer, even though it does not involve past results in this current case.

    This is like "hyperurbanism" in grammar, overcorrection, as in "between you and I." You remember, "There's this thing that rednecks do where they use me instead of I. I won't make that mistake."

    So my theory is that conservatives may just ingenuously and straightforwardly give the answer they think is right. On the other hand liberals may think they are smarter than conservatives and think of the answer beyond the simple answer. And that answer beyond the answer is the wrong answer.

    Liberals may in fact be a little smarter than conservatives, on average, and may thus may be more likely to have run across and vaguely remember the "100 times" thing, but they are not smart enough to really understand it perfectly, and they erroneously apply it to a situation where it isn't relevant, where there are no past flips involved. In other words liberals are too smart for their own good, and their confidence exceeds their intelligence. And politicians may have higher verbal intelligence than math intelligence, exacerbating things.

    Replies: @International Jew, @martin_2, @astrolabe, @Jack D, @John Johnson

    But people who think they are too clever to be tricked might be susceptible to favoring the incorrect answer, even though it does not involve past results in this current case.

    You are overthinking it because if they went to college then they should have learned the answer in basic stats. It’s one of the first lessons.

    Liberals may in fact be a little smarter than conservatives, on average

    Liberals on average are probably smarter than most conservatives but the outliers are going to be more conservative even if they identify as independent.

    Typical college educated liberals are basically smarter than average but not smart enough to see their limitations or how prone they are to group think. This is why it can be really frustrating when dealing with them. Most of the time they are just working from the belief that they are correct because they are in the correct group. When you take issue with them they have an unspoken belief that you must be in one of the bad groups.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @John Johnson


    Most of the time they are just working from the belief that they are correct because they are in the correct group.
     
    Very true. Moreover, people care a lot about whether they share the beliefs of smarter people.

    Me, it doesn't bother me at all to know that illiterate premodern people shared my opinion about the desirability of executing highwaymen and displaying their heads on pikes. (Just change highwaymen to guys like this... https://youtu.be/6IrEM2pjBCc ).

  154. @res
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Reg is right. IJ is (probably) thinking of it like the Monty Hall problem.

    My take is the initial problem statement is underspecified.

    The deal is this. Multiple ways of doing this.

    1. Two coins are flipped and you are simply told 1 came up heads. This is IJ's version and his 1/3 answer is correct. Once you know one is heads you have HH, HT, TH to choose from.

    2. Two coins are flipped and one is turned over (without knowledge of the results, e.g. first, second, or randomly) to show heads. This is your version of the problem and your 1/2 answer is correct.

    The Monty Hall variation is a subtle combination of those two.

    3. Two coins are flipped and one is turned over to show heads by someone who knows the results (i.e. if only one head was flipped choose that coin). That reduces to IJ's 1 since you are again looking at HH, HT, and TH as possibilities.

    P.S. FWIW, there is a lesson here. Perhaps make an effort to understand what the other person is saying before "correcting" them. Especially in definitive terms like "No..." Even more especially if you know the other person (here IJ) usually makes astute comments.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Colin Wright, @Jack D, @John Johnson

    ‘1. Two coins are flipped and you are simply told 1 came up heads. This is IJ’s version and his 1/3 answer is correct. Once you know one is heads you have HH, HT, TH to choose from.’

    The logic here is flawed. You implicitly assume that the outcome of one toss affects the outcome of the other toss.

    Yes, given two tosses, there are four sets of possible outcomes. However, if you know the outcome of one of the tosses, you’re no longer looking at all the possible outcomes of two tosses with unknown outcomes. Since you know one of the outcomes, you’re looking at only one toss.

    …and of course, the chance of heads on that one toss remains at 50% — whatever occurred on the other toss.

    Put it this way. If heads occurred on the first of the tosses to be considered, you no longer have the three possibilities HH, HT, TH head to choose from. TH can no longer occur. You only have HH, HT left.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Colin Wright

    'The logic here is flawed. You implicitly assume that the outcome of one toss affects the outcome of the other toss...'

    Strike that paragraph. It's not true. The rest of my post is.

    , @John Johnson
    @Colin Wright

    What he missed from the Monty Hall problem is that dear Monty isn't picking randomly from two doors. That is why it tricks the brain.

    If you pick your 1/3 door he isn't randomly revealing one of the other two doors. He looked at the doors and picked a loser. Now the other door could be a loser but you are still better off moving because your odds become better than 1/3 because he picked between the two. The problem is better understood by adding more doors.

    Replies: @res

    , @res
    @Colin Wright

    That comment reminds me of this quote.
    https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/06/17/good-original/


    Your Manuscript Is Good and Original, But What is Original Is Not Good; What Is Good Is Not Original
     
    As you noted, your first paragraph is simply wrong. And the rest of your comment describes my option 2. which you did not quote.

    I guess I needed to be even clearer and add the bold part below.

    1. Two coins are flipped and you are simply told 1 came up heads (but not which one). This is IJ’s version and his 1/3 answer is correct. Once you know one is heads you have HH, HT, TH to choose from.
     

    Replies: @Colin Wright

  155. the earth’s orbit around the sun is an ellipse, so that means we are closer to the sun in summer so it’s hotter.

    “What do you mean WE, white man?” – an Indigenous Person from Tierra del Fuego.

    BTW, the fact that more of the land mass (68%) is in the northern hemisphere is WHY the earth tilts on its axis. It’s also why “we” assume the Northern summer to be the default summer.

    Not only is the ellipse explanation impossibly wrong (then there would be only 1 summer on earth instead of 2 opposite summers) but it’s also backward – the earth is the closest to the sun in January.

    People are mislead by the schoolbook illustrations of the earth’s orbit, which always look like this:

    Earth’s orbit actually looks like this, to scale (Earth on the left) :

    https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3b7c569b3087517a63bdb797d0cee441-c

    If you draw this ellipse to scale on a piece of paper (1″ = 10 million miles), it’s about 9-1/8″ on the short side and 9-1/2″ on the long axis – it’s visually indistinguishable from a circle. Likewise the seasonal difference resulting from this almost circular orbit is next to nil.

    But, yes, our ruling class is fatally infected with overconfidence. They “know” that there are no genetic differences between the races with the same certainty that they “know” the cause of the seasons.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    @Jack D

    Very good Jack. Were you able to do that without looking it up? I was. Now riddle me this. Looking down upon the Earth from Polaris, which direction does the Earth rotate? Clockwise or counter-clockwise? And does the moon orbit the Earth in a clockwise or counter-clockwise manner? (from the same above-the-North-Pole perspective).

    No lookie.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Triteleia Laxa, @Jack D, @ThreeCranes

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Jack D


    People are mislead by the schoolbook illustrations of the earth’s orbit...
     
    Lemme guess... you got B+s in science, and Ds in spelling.

    We recently visited the 45°/90° point. (There are only four. Good luck getting to the other three.)

    The choice of the parallel is obvious. The choice of meridian is completely arbitrary. It's just that Greenwich won out over Paris and Ferro.

    BTW, the fact that more of the land mass (68%) is in the northern hemisphere is WHY the earth tilts on its axis.
     
    I assume you're joking. The "land pole" is close to Nantes, France. The "water pole" is in the ocean (surprise!) not far from the apocryphal New Zealand.


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Hemisphere_land.png/180px-Hemisphere_land.png

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Hemisphere_water.png/180px-Hemisphere_water.png


    I don't like the way all of Eurasia, and its nearly five billion residents, is pointed at Alaska, as a funnel to North America. Along the Great Circle route, i.e., the shortcut.


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/Hemispheres_land_water1.png/180px-Hemispheres_land_water1.png
    , @res
    @Jack D


    BTW, the fact that more of the land mass (68%) is in the northern hemisphere is WHY the earth tilts on its axis.
     
    That's a decent first order answer (I would say basically true, but not really sufficient).

    Some discussion at
    https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/537/why-does-the-earth-have-a-tilt-of-23

    The second answer mentions both Earth formation history (e.g. collisions) and gravitational perturbations (your point, I believe). It also links to this 1993 paper.
    Stabilization of the Earth's obliquity by the Moon
    https://www.nature.com/articles/361615a0
    Full text available at
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238393739_Stabilization_of_the_Earth's_obliquity_by_the_Moon

    Abstract

    ACCORDING to Milankovitch theory1,2, the ice ages are related to variations of insolation in northern latitudes resulting from changes in the Earth's orbital and orientation parameters (precession, eccentricity and obliquity). Here we investigate the stability of the Earth's orientation for all possible values of the initial obliquity, by integrating the equations of precession of the Earth. We find a large chaotic zone which extends from 60° to 90° in obliquity. In its present state, the Earth avoids this chaotic zone and its obliquity is essentially stable, exhibiting only small variations of ± 1.3° around the mean value of 23.3°. But if the Moon were not present, the torque exerted on the Earth would be smaller, and the chaotic zone would then extend from nearly 0° up to about 85°. Thus, had the planet not acquired the Moon, large variations in obliquity resulting from its chaotic behaviour might have driven dramatic changes in climate. In this sense one might consider the Moon to act as a potential climate regulator for the Earth.
     
    P.S. Any idea why mislead/misled confusion is so common today? (not sure if yours was a simple typo) I actually had trouble finding a clear description of the case applicable to "People are mislead..." Most search results I saw seem to be subtly different, such as this page focusing on the past tense and past participle. Though the be helper verb requiring the participle is probably the best principle to remember.
    https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/25/mislead-misled

    I think your usage matches the present indefinite form given on this page
    https://www.online-translator.com/conjugation%20and%20declination/english/be%20misled
    Contrast that with the conjugations given for mislead
    https://www.online-translator.com/conjugation%20and%20declination/english/mislead

    Anyone have a better explanation for that usage of mislead/misled?
  156. @Colin Wright
    @res

    '1. Two coins are flipped and you are simply told 1 came up heads. This is IJ’s version and his 1/3 answer is correct. Once you know one is heads you have HH, HT, TH to choose from.'

    The logic here is flawed. You implicitly assume that the outcome of one toss affects the outcome of the other toss.

    Yes, given two tosses, there are four sets of possible outcomes. However, if you know the outcome of one of the tosses, you're no longer looking at all the possible outcomes of two tosses with unknown outcomes. Since you know one of the outcomes, you're looking at only one toss.

    ...and of course, the chance of heads on that one toss remains at 50% -- whatever occurred on the other toss.

    Put it this way. If heads occurred on the first of the tosses to be considered, you no longer have the three possibilities HH, HT, TH head to choose from. TH can no longer occur. You only have HH, HT left.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @John Johnson, @res

    ‘The logic here is flawed. You implicitly assume that the outcome of one toss affects the outcome of the other toss…’

    Strike that paragraph. It’s not true. The rest of my post is.

    • Agree: Paperback Writer
  157. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @epebble
    @Badger Down

    That is a much harder question and it is somewhat excusable if many more people get it wrong.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Anonymous

    That is a much harder question and it is somewhat excusable if many more people get it wrong.

    It is in fact a much, much EASIER question. The ORIGINAL question is in fact VERY DIFFICULT.

    We know that the odds of coming up heads on one flip is 50 percent. We know the odds of coming up heads on a second flip is 50 percent. But how do you combine them to get a probability of coming up heads twice in a row?

    I’d wager that less than 5 percent of commenters here can EXPLAIN it. That’s worse than the MPs!

    • Replies: @martin_2
    @Anonymous

    It is not hard at all. You just list the outcomes hh ht th tt

    , @John Johnson
    @Anonymous

    We know that the odds of coming up heads on one flip is 50 percent. We know the odds of coming up heads on a second flip is 50 percent. But how do you combine them to get a probability of coming up heads twice in a row?


    I’d wager that less than 5 percent of commenters here can EXPLAIN it. That’s worse than the MPs!

    Less than 5% can't explain the math? I really doubt that as there seems to be a lot of business and science majors here. The MPs didn't know to combine them which is really unnerving. They aren't random forum posters, in theory (cough) they are supposed to be the top of their class.

    The math works because we are still dealing with ratios.

    However it can be counter-intuitive since we aren't dealing with pizzas or fractional cups of flour.

    If I say "give me a half a pizza and then take half of that" people understand that this would be 1/4.

    The math is 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4.

    Coin flipping isn't any different.

    We are saying "give me half the odds and then take half of that" or "give me half the scenarios and then do it again with the result".

    I think the important thing is that on a liberal or Marxist website the common response would be:
    Who cares about coin flipping?

    Replies: @Anonymous

  158. Confession: I’d have said 50%. I thought that coin flip probability was always 50%, axiomatically.

    https://medium.com/nerd-for-tech/does-coin-flip-really-has-a-50-50-probability-9ac735888613

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Paperback Writer

    Confession: I’d have said 50%. I thought that coin flip probability was always 50%, axiomatically.

    It's nothing to feel bad about but politicians with grad degrees from private schools should have learned this lesson in college, especially if they are supposedly dealing with statistics as part of their jobs.

    A single coin flip is indeed always 50% but that isn't what was asked but people can overthink the question and assume that it is sort of a trick without understanding how probability math works.

    They were asked the probability of flipping two heads in a row.

    Another way of looking at this is would you rather bet $100 on:
    1. Someone flipping heads twice in a row
    2. Someone flipping heads four times in a row

    For each independent coin toss the odds are still 50/50 but that doesn't mean it would be a good idea to bet on the four in a row. #1 has different (and better) probability.

  159. @res
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Reg is right. IJ is (probably) thinking of it like the Monty Hall problem.

    My take is the initial problem statement is underspecified.

    The deal is this. Multiple ways of doing this.

    1. Two coins are flipped and you are simply told 1 came up heads. This is IJ's version and his 1/3 answer is correct. Once you know one is heads you have HH, HT, TH to choose from.

    2. Two coins are flipped and one is turned over (without knowledge of the results, e.g. first, second, or randomly) to show heads. This is your version of the problem and your 1/2 answer is correct.

    The Monty Hall variation is a subtle combination of those two.

    3. Two coins are flipped and one is turned over to show heads by someone who knows the results (i.e. if only one head was flipped choose that coin). That reduces to IJ's 1 since you are again looking at HH, HT, and TH as possibilities.

    P.S. FWIW, there is a lesson here. Perhaps make an effort to understand what the other person is saying before "correcting" them. Especially in definitive terms like "No..." Even more especially if you know the other person (here IJ) usually makes astute comments.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Colin Wright, @Jack D, @John Johnson

    The initial problem statement is underspecified.

    Not really. It was:

    if you flip a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?

    It’s the unstated assumption of all such problems that you are given all of the information you need to answer the question. So, without having to say so, you can assume that the coin is a fair coin tossed such that H and T each have the same probability, that no one knows or has told you the results of the 1st flip already, and so on.

    • Thanks: Triteleia Laxa
    • Replies: @res
    @Jack D

    Here is IJ's comment 44 which caused TL's response which in turn I replied to.


    Here’s a harder one: you’ve already flipped those two coins. One of them came up heads. What’s the probability the other one also came up heads?
     
    It would have been clearer of me to say something like "The problem statement in IJ's comment 44 was underspecified" ("initial" is vague). But I thought it was clear enough given the thread sequence (and comment numbers often change because of moderation).

    What I need to remember is that the thread sequence is not always clear in everyone's heads. As one example, I replied to TL's comment after IJ had already given a response. That was because I usually only look one deep into comment replies to decide whether or not my point has already been covered (then there is moderation which makes it easy for there to be redundant replies).

    Regarding

    It’s the unstated assumption of all such problems that you are given all of the information you need to answer the question.
     
    Generally true, though there is not always agreement on just what those unstated assumptions are. I think people's reactions to this sort of thing are conditioned a bit by how much exposure they have had to "trick questions." Especially those which are somewhat unfair. The legal (or engineering) mind does not always have the same perspective on things like this as most people IMHO (nor are those two always the same).

    By that criteria you could argue IJ's "One of them came up heads" is sufficient (and note I took it the same way as IJ intended), but I think it is at least somewhat reasonable to infer it meant "the first one came up heads."
  160. BTW, the fact that more of the land mass (68%) is in the northern hemisphere is WHY the earth tilts on its axis

    is not correct. See:

    History of the earth’s obliquity
    Williams, George E.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/001282529390004Q

    • Thanks: JMcG
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @epebble

    You've just witnessed the phenomenon I call "Jack D Amnesia." Numerous examples exist of him getting roasted by people who actually know the subjects upon which he opines, yet he blithely continues bloviating about every topic under the sun as if he understood them all.

    Replies: @epebble, @donut

    , @res
    @epebble

    That paper reads to me more like it is presenting an hypothesis than giving a definitive description. In particular, notice the five uses of "may" throughout and "can test the predictions" in the concluding paragraph. Also "is postulated here" in the middle.

    I agree that Jack's reason was incomplete, but I would hesitate to call it incorrect. And you have certainly not disproven it with your link.

    P.S. And ID, if you call that roasted I really wonder whether you even read the paper epebble linked. If not, please do. It is short.

    Replies: @epebble

  161. @Abolish_public_education
    @rebel yell

    30 minutes (if they have milk).
    2 beats.
    Bourbon/whiskey is 30/40%.

    Having poor math skills should not disqualify someone from serving as a legislator. But having a license to practice law should.

    @ Buffalo:

    I once saw a congressman, in a town hall meeting, get a cheap Standing ‘O for admitting that while he wasn’t an actuary, and therefore couldn’t really comment about the strength of the FICA trust fund, he would never do anything to jeopardize it.

    Replies: @rebel yell, @Buffalo Joe

    A_p_e, thank you. When you think about it there are plenty of politicians who would have a low middle class life if they weren’t elected to office. After that it is gravy train forever. Boubon has federal regulations and can only be aged in oak, IIRC, and made in Kentucky? Top of my head answer. I drink Manhattan’s made with George Dickel Sour Mash (8 Years) and Martini and Rossi vermouth. My Rob Roys (Scotch Manhattan) are same vermouth, bitters and Monkey Shoulders scotch. Milked cows by hand in my youth, I think 15 minutes tops and watch for the tail, covered in shit, being swung at your head or a splash manure dump 2 feet from you. But, we used to skim the cream and go to the peach orchard and pick up the drops (ripe peaches that dropped from the tree) skin them, slice them and cover them in fresh cream. Can’t do that today. Stay safe.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @Buffalo Joe

    My cattle milking was done in Ireland many years ago. The cream went on gooseberries at that time and in that place. My Manhattan is made with Old Overholt Rye. Other than that- brothers from another mother! Take good care of yourself, Joe.

    , @Ralph L
    @Buffalo Joe

    Wiki: Bourbon was recognized in 1964 by the United States Congress as a "distinctive product of the United States". Bourbon sold in the United States must be produced in the U.S. from at least 51% corn and stored in a new container of charred oak.
    Jack Daniels of TN meets the criteria for bourbon but they don't market it as such.

  162. Meanwhile, in the real world, a racist boulder at University of Wisconsin has been removed from where it’s been for two billion years.

    Just when you think the US couldn’t get stupider, it does. What next?

    • Agree: VivaLaMigra
    • Replies: @res
    @Paperback Writer

    Great example of Clown World. Thanks.
    https://nypost.com/2021/08/09/university-of-wisconsin-moves-chamberlin-rock-seen-as-symbol-of-racism/

    , @International Jew
    @Paperback Writer

    Stupider no, but funnier yes; the rock could have rolled away and landed in the senior administrators' parking lot.

  163. @JohnnyWalker123
    Check this out.

    https://gflec.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/3313-Finlit_Report_FINAL-5.11.16.pdf?x53868

    https://imgur.com/a/eFXmL6j

    https://imgur.com/a/khqlkcN

    https://gflec.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/percentages.jpg?x53868

    Replies: @Bill Jones, @Colin Wright

    ‘Check this out…’

    Wouldn’t ‘financial literacy’ largely be a function of how closely one’s personal economic experience corresponded to some theoretical economic model?

    I recall noticing when I had my moving business how few of my competitors behaved in an economically rational manner (and I was no exception). We all seemed to be affected by various non-economic considerations. This even though we probably all felt we should be trying to rationally maximize profit.

    So would an Indian peasant be ‘financially literate’ by the standards of a Western economic model? After all, he might be much wiser to borrow a thousand rupees at twenty percent interest from his brother in law than a thousand rupees at ten percent interest from Max Merciless, village moneylender. His brother-in-law is more likely to prove understanding if things go sideways somehow, and if things do work out, Indian peasant has accrued various intangible forms of credit with his brother-in-law and his extended family in general that he wouldn’t have if he’d borrowed from Max.

    Here, note that the Japanese — although perhaps the most intelligent population on the earth — don’t seem to be especially ‘financially literate.’ And of course, if you’re familiar with Japan’s economy, it’s affected by all sorts of non-economic considerations — it’s wildly inefficient, in fact.

    …inefficient according to a Western economic model, that is. For the Japanese, it seems to deliver what they want.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    @Colin Wright

    Ron Unz has done extensive research on China.

    He claimed that poor rural Chinese had to deal with a high level of business complexity in their land usage decisions. He even compared that complexity to what private equity funds would have to deal with in a corporate LBO.

    I have no idea if he's right or not (I'm not an expert on China and haven't done the research myself), but it'd be remarkable if the Chinese peasantry had to make business decisions that complex.

    It'd be interesting to compare the peasants of China, Southeast Asia, Japan, Europe, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and the Subcontinent. Was selective pressure different in various places?

    For example, famine was extremely prevalent in China and the Subcontinent, but not in Africa. What selection effects did that have on the culture and genetics?

    How do pastoralists, agriculturalists, hunter-gatherers, and horticulturalists vary in culture, temperament, IQ, rates of violence, etc.?

    Someone should write an article on this topic at some point. It'd be fascinating.

  164. @Mr Mox
    @Triteleia Laxa


    Switching, therefore, always makes sense, whether he reveals the 1 of his 2/3 that doesn’t work, or not. It remains 2/3.
     
    But what if he opens both doors?

    Asking for a friend...

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    If he opens both doors, there is a 2/3 chance of the prize being behind one of them, as he would be opening 2 out of 3 doors.

    I don’t get your question. The answer is too simple.

    • Replies: @Mr Mox
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Please forgive me, Triteleia, but one of these days, Steve should do a piece on the gender gap in humor. Oh, wait, Christopher Hitchens already did:

    https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2007/01/hitchens200701

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  165. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malcolm Y
    Didn't check this but I thought, in the Northern Hemisphere, summer is when the earth is farther away from the sun but the axis of rotation (and therefore the North Pole) is directed more towards the sun so that light strikes the Earth more directly (light rays are normal to the surface) and at higher latitudes.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Jim

    in the Northern Hemisphere, summer is when the earth is farther away from the sun

    Just FYI: The Earth is farthest from the Sun in January. It’s all axis tilt.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Anonymous

    Umm, "closest", of course. Farthest in July.

  166. @Jack D
    @Kjr

    The interesting thing about the Jewish prohibition on "lashon hara" (evil tongue) is that it applies to defamatory statement even if they are TRUE (there is a separate prohibition on blackening someone's name with lies, which is an even more serious offense). Under common law, truth is a defense to defamation.

    However, it is a defense if you are uttering the statement for a constructive purpose. For example, "I hear that Rabbi X has a taste for underage boys" is evil tongue but "you may not want to leave your kid alone with Rabbi X" is ok, assuming the recipient has kids who might be supervised by Rabbi X.

    Not only is it prohibit to utter evil speech but it's also forbidden to receive to it, again a difference from Western law.

    There is also a distinction between incidentally uttering defamatory statements and someone who has the habit of doing so frequently - a MASTER of evil tongue, with the latter of course being much worse. The advice (which I think is good) is to avoid such people. The logic is that the same people who will talk trash about your mutual friends to you behind their back will also talk trash about YOU to your mutual friends when you are not around.

    There is no real explanation in the holy books themselves as to WHY evil speech is prohibited - there are just examples of incidents where someone did it and really bad things happened to them - for example Moses's sister Miriam spoke evil of Moses to their brother Aaron and she got leprosy, so don't do it or bad things will happen to you too.

    There are a LOT of things that are prohibited in Judaism that don't have a "why" attached to them. God said not to do it and it's not up to us to question WHY He said so. For this reason, Jewish law doesn't always make complete sense to people accustomed to Western modes of logic, but it has a logic of its own.

    Replies: @epebble, @Odin, @Hibernian, @Neil Templeton

    The interesting thing about the Jewish prohibition on “lashon hara” (evil tongue) is that it applies to defamatory statement even if they are TRUE.

    There doesn’t seem to be a widely accepted definition of “hate speech”. But according to many I’ve heard defending the concept, truth can indeed be “hateful”, and thus punishable by the authorities.

    Punishment-for-truth is fraught with peril. Never could figure out where the idea originated, but it seems we’ve learned it comes from the Talmud. Western legal systems would be well advised to leave it there.

    • Replies: @Kjr
    @Odin

    Hi, I'm sorry that you feel this way but I can definitely understand your sentiments.

    As far as I can tell from the studies I mentioned earlier, "the bad tongue" that is forbidden even when true refers to saying that a person is stupid or fat or mean. It doesn't refer (as far as I know) to what is usually called "hate speech" in our current culture.

    And even that sort of talk (that someone is unintelligent or did something immoral) is forbidden in circumstances where it isn't "litoeles" - for an important purpose.

    In other words, if you happen to know for certain that someone lacks empathy or has bulimia you are only allowed to share that with the man whonis going out with her if you are sure that he doesn't already know it and that he needs to know it and that it will protect him from a bad situation.

    And even in situations like this you need to check your purity of motives versus any biases you may have.

    Where it gets complicated, as someone named Jack wrote, is whether you are allowed to BELIEVE a negative bit of news about someone.

    For me this has had the positive effect of finally being able to get over Gell-Mann Amnesia.

    Psychologically I can get over the cultural demand to believe "the news" (or the negative interpretation of someone's actions on a video) by saying, "well, God told me not to believe that!"

    What's really cool is how many times it tirns out weeks later that "God" was right. The media or social media got it wrong and the individual is not actually the monster that he or she was made out to be.

    It turns out that I am actually more right about what's what, than I was before when, like everyone else, I believed the worst that was reported about my ideological opponents.

    The cool thing is that this extends to people who say nasty things about Jews too - even though I'm soon going to be one.

    Zee, you're not even allowed to say Lashon Hara about yourself, so I simply disbelieve that people who are Naziing this and Hitlering that are people who actually want to murder me and my (also converting) husband. I sssume that they are writing things out of frustration or because they are poking sacred cows or for some other reason. Sure, this wouldn't apply to how I would have reacted to reading Mein Kampf. There is a difference between not accepting Lashon Hara and being a Chossid Shoteh - a pseudorighteous imbecile. But with powerless fellow humans on the internet or even in real life I have found that assuming "not the worst" has not only made me happier and more friendly but also made me more accurate in my assessments than before.

    Besides, the laws against using or believing "the bad tongue" is a personal religious law. I have never heard any Chassidish Rabbi try and legislate it, LOL.

    But Odin, I do know where you're coming from because I was coming from there too. Well, my husband more than myself. He really disliked "Judaism" until he started looking into it. And that's how we both came to become Jews ourselves.

    I'm not saying that everyone should be Jewish or even that Judaism is always interpreted correctly by any of its practitioners or myself. Only that I'm really glad that my husband was Semite-Suspicious because it brought me to a whole new world. One that is far from perfect but which is generally beautiful.

    I just showed my Rabbi message and he thinks I should mention that regardless of your feelings about Jews you are still a child of Hashem and that He loves you.

    Replies: @Dumbo

  167. @res
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Reg is right. IJ is (probably) thinking of it like the Monty Hall problem.

    My take is the initial problem statement is underspecified.

    The deal is this. Multiple ways of doing this.

    1. Two coins are flipped and you are simply told 1 came up heads. This is IJ's version and his 1/3 answer is correct. Once you know one is heads you have HH, HT, TH to choose from.

    2. Two coins are flipped and one is turned over (without knowledge of the results, e.g. first, second, or randomly) to show heads. This is your version of the problem and your 1/2 answer is correct.

    The Monty Hall variation is a subtle combination of those two.

    3. Two coins are flipped and one is turned over to show heads by someone who knows the results (i.e. if only one head was flipped choose that coin). That reduces to IJ's 1 since you are again looking at HH, HT, and TH as possibilities.

    P.S. FWIW, there is a lesson here. Perhaps make an effort to understand what the other person is saying before "correcting" them. Especially in definitive terms like "No..." Even more especially if you know the other person (here IJ) usually makes astute comments.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Colin Wright, @Jack D, @John Johnson

    You guys are overcomplicating things by bringing doors into a coin flip.

    The lesson should be that the coin doesn’t “know” that there is a coin next to it or that a cow just took a dump in China. The coin toss odds for a single flip are always 50/50.

    The Monty Hall scenario is a counter-intuitive math problem that isn’t explained well using a coin toss since your initial odds of winning are 1/3.

  168. @Bardon Kaldian
    @Badger Down

    I don't know whether you are aware of the profundity of your hypothetical question.

    I know educated people, doctors, lawyers .. regular jackpot junkies, who cannot get away from bizarre ideas. They understand that, with enough data, you'll get 50/50 (for instance, tossing a coin 5,000 times).

    But they also believe in weird theories of "nets", or some other term, whereby you can profit in the game. For instance, if you toss a coin 20 times & you get a tail 16 times- they believe there is some, so to speak, "inertia" so you're more likely to get a tail in the next 1, 2 or 5 times.

    When I tried to explain to them that any tossing of a coin is starting anew, as if nothing had happened in the past- they couldn't believe it.

    Replies: @JMcG, @Hypnotoad666

    You can win free beer for life by demonstrating to a shooter that a bullet fired from a level barrel at a certain height will hit the ground at the same time as a bullet simply dropped from that same height. Not one in a hundred will believe it, even after being shown the proof.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @JMcG

    I didn't learn that until physics class as a senior in high school.

    Same is true for a baseball thrown by a pitcher, which is why it's practically impossible to make fastball rise no matter how much Spider Tack you use.

  169. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Triteleia Laxa

    The English expression, as used in the UK is "dim bulb" not "dull bulb", which is odd.

    The wartime generation had the phrase "as dim as a Toc-H lamp" - Toc-H being a charity which ran social clubs for armed forces staff.

    https://wordhistories.net/2020/08/05/dim-toc-h-lamp/#:~:text=The%20British%2DEnglish%20phrase%20(as,H%20lamp%20means%20dim%2Dwitted.&text=Toc%20H%2C%20born%20out%20of,as%20ever%2C%E2%80%9D%20said%20Mr.

    About 816,000 results for "dim bulb", mostly about slow-witted people (plus a video game I've never heard of, The Binding Of Isaac)

    About 20,100 results for "dull bulb", mostly about lighting problems.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Thank you.

    This is what happens when you go back to prune a description. Initially, it was “dim bulb” and something like “dull presence.” Dim bulbs can be fun, or people with a dull presence can be intelligent, but pointing out that she came across both dull and dim seemed too comprehensive a description for an impression formed from a 10 minute chat.

    The perils of editing quickly on a small screen!

  170. @Reg Cæsar
    @Buffalo Joe


    I personally don’t think most politicians have any concept of numbers. A billion is a thousand million.
     
    A thousand seconds is just over a quarter hour.

    A million seconds is just under twelve days.

    A billion seconds is just under thirty-two years.

    A trillion seconds is just under thirty-two thousand years.




    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/11/25/237D9A5F00000578-2848602-image-10_1416915318049.jpg

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Buffalo Joe

    Reg, when the ultra libs want to give away other peoples’ money you can say this…take a billion from this guy and give a million to a thousand people, or half a million to two thousand people or a quarter of a million to four thousand people, a zero sum game and pretty soon that billion doesn’t go far enough. But hey, it’s not their money.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Buffalo Joe

    https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-a-billion-here-a-billion-there-and-pretty-soon-you-re-talking-about-real-money-everett-dirksen-7-91-44.jpg

    Replies: @Clyde

  171. @Buffalo Joe
    @Abolish_public_education

    A_p_e, thank you. When you think about it there are plenty of politicians who would have a low middle class life if they weren't elected to office. After that it is gravy train forever. Boubon has federal regulations and can only be aged in oak, IIRC, and made in Kentucky? Top of my head answer. I drink Manhattan's made with George Dickel Sour Mash (8 Years) and Martini and Rossi vermouth. My Rob Roys (Scotch Manhattan) are same vermouth, bitters and Monkey Shoulders scotch. Milked cows by hand in my youth, I think 15 minutes tops and watch for the tail, covered in shit, being swung at your head or a splash manure dump 2 feet from you. But, we used to skim the cream and go to the peach orchard and pick up the drops (ripe peaches that dropped from the tree) skin them, slice them and cover them in fresh cream. Can't do that today. Stay safe.

    Replies: @JMcG, @Ralph L

    My cattle milking was done in Ireland many years ago. The cream went on gooseberries at that time and in that place. My Manhattan is made with Old Overholt Rye. Other than that- brothers from another mother! Take good care of yourself, Joe.

  172. @Jim Don Bob
    @rebel yell


    They don’t work with numbers every day and haven’t done any math beyond multiplication since they were students decades ago. This is basic knowledge in statistics but is it really supposed to be common knowledge for everyone for life?
     
    Agree. Basic knowledge in statistics isn't generally taught in K-12 classes. The only reason I know about it is that I was curious and read up on it.

    A better more relevant question might be: "If interest rates go to 5%, what will be the interest payment per year on the national debt to the nearest half trillion dollars?"

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education

    If we can’t a_p_e, then a kid’s public (tax funded) education should end as soon as s/he demonstrates passable basic skills, e.g. +-*/ for math, and the names on an election ballot, for reading.

    Of course the schools long ago disavowed teaching the 3Rs, and replaced it with ten+ years of babysitting and indoctrination.

    As for the national debt, I’ve come to conclude that the USG should renounce it. The government will never repay it anyhow, yet it will continue to tax as much as it can get away with in order to carry the debt and maintain its credit rating.

  173. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Gamecock
    @Anonymous


    Our elites, ladies and gentlemen. Basically, morons.
     
    Absolutely wrong. They are not the problem.

    I am friends with my state senator. He is a good, honest man. Very smart. A real estate attorney by trade.

    I conversed with him by email this last year over several issues before the senate. Here's the thing: he knows nothing about boating. He knows nothing about guns and shooting. Nor many other subjects. Yet he participates in selecting what the state's laws and regulations will be. The process is, he listens to other people, and selects whatever position seems the most rational to him.

    He got one item conspicuously wrong, in spite of my sending him documentation showing him the facts. Someone else convinced him. He knows nothing of the subject. He listened to a storm of opinions. I think he voted by his gut feel, or he was influenced by one other guy, a person in position of authority.

    My state senator is not a moron.

    At the national level, we have similar people. Tasked with making decisions on extremely important matters, of which they have no knowledge. The problem, of course, is Washington's assumption of power over the people.

    Consider government mandates of breathalysers in cars. You can look at how individual reps voted, and make a good case that they are morons - on that subject - yet the real problem is governments' power to mandate breathalysers. They should have no such authority.

    Should we strip government down to their just powers only, the intelligence of representatives will go way up.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    If your state senator cannot think logically and conclude that a half of a half is 25% then he is a moron. This has nothing to do with the specific knowledge examples you gave. It’s basic thinking. Inability to think is a definition of a moron.

    • Replies: @Gamecock
    @Anonymous

    Some stranger calls me up asks me odds on a coin flip, ***click***

  174. @Anonymous
    @epebble


    That is a much harder question and it is somewhat excusable if many more people get it wrong.
     
    It is in fact a much, much EASIER question. The ORIGINAL question is in fact VERY DIFFICULT.

    We know that the odds of coming up heads on one flip is 50 percent. We know the odds of coming up heads on a second flip is 50 percent. But how do you combine them to get a probability of coming up heads twice in a row?

    I’d wager that less than 5 percent of commenters here can EXPLAIN it. That’s worse than the MPs!

    Replies: @martin_2, @John Johnson

    It is not hard at all. You just list the outcomes hh ht th tt

    • Agree: Ben tillman
  175. @JohnnyWalker123
    I don't get it. Is the vaccine failing?

    https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1424111796860956672

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Anon

    I would not be the least bit surprised to discover down the road that the Israeli population was actually “vaccinated” with a placebo, in order to con the goyim into taking the deadly jab (“see, we did it, goyim! now you do it, too!”). Then, down the road when the jab’s truly gruesome (and intended) effects become known, the Israelis will shrug and say “don’t know why we’re not dropping like flies the way the rest of you are — guess we really are Chosen after all!”

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Good thinking.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    , @kaganovitch
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    I would not be the least bit surprised to discover down the road that the Israeli population was actually “vaccinated” with a placebo, in order to con the goyim into taking the deadly jab (“see, we did it, goyim! now you do it, too!”). Then, down the road when the jab’s truly gruesome (and intended) effects become known, the Israelis will shrug and say “don’t know why we’re not dropping like flies the way the rest of you are — guess we really are Chosen after all!”

    It's good to see your subscription to the Völkischer Beobachter wasn't wasted. Jud Suss would have to get up pretty early in the predawn to get the jump on you, eh?

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease

    , @Jack D
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Jews also limit their alcohol intake in order to fool the goyim into imitating them. But Germ Theory is wise to our Jew tricknology.

    Replies: @Anon

  176. @Colin Wright
    @JohnnyWalker123

    'Check this out...'

    Wouldn't 'financial literacy' largely be a function of how closely one's personal economic experience corresponded to some theoretical economic model?

    I recall noticing when I had my moving business how few of my competitors behaved in an economically rational manner (and I was no exception). We all seemed to be affected by various non-economic considerations. This even though we probably all felt we should be trying to rationally maximize profit.

    So would an Indian peasant be 'financially literate' by the standards of a Western economic model? After all, he might be much wiser to borrow a thousand rupees at twenty percent interest from his brother in law than a thousand rupees at ten percent interest from Max Merciless, village moneylender. His brother-in-law is more likely to prove understanding if things go sideways somehow, and if things do work out, Indian peasant has accrued various intangible forms of credit with his brother-in-law and his extended family in general that he wouldn't have if he'd borrowed from Max.

    Here, note that the Japanese -- although perhaps the most intelligent population on the earth -- don't seem to be especially 'financially literate.' And of course, if you're familiar with Japan's economy, it's affected by all sorts of non-economic considerations -- it's wildly inefficient, in fact.

    ...inefficient according to a Western economic model, that is. For the Japanese, it seems to deliver what they want.

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    Ron Unz has done extensive research on China.

    He claimed that poor rural Chinese had to deal with a high level of business complexity in their land usage decisions. He even compared that complexity to what private equity funds would have to deal with in a corporate LBO.

    I have no idea if he’s right or not (I’m not an expert on China and haven’t done the research myself), but it’d be remarkable if the Chinese peasantry had to make business decisions that complex.

    It’d be interesting to compare the peasants of China, Southeast Asia, Japan, Europe, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and the Subcontinent. Was selective pressure different in various places?

    For example, famine was extremely prevalent in China and the Subcontinent, but not in Africa. What selection effects did that have on the culture and genetics?

    How do pastoralists, agriculturalists, hunter-gatherers, and horticulturalists vary in culture, temperament, IQ, rates of violence, etc.?

    Someone should write an article on this topic at some point. It’d be fascinating.

  177. @Paperback Writer
    Confession: I'd have said 50%. I thought that coin flip probability was always 50%, axiomatically.

    https://medium.com/nerd-for-tech/does-coin-flip-really-has-a-50-50-probability-9ac735888613

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Confession: I’d have said 50%. I thought that coin flip probability was always 50%, axiomatically.

    It’s nothing to feel bad about but politicians with grad degrees from private schools should have learned this lesson in college, especially if they are supposedly dealing with statistics as part of their jobs.

    A single coin flip is indeed always 50% but that isn’t what was asked but people can overthink the question and assume that it is sort of a trick without understanding how probability math works.

    They were asked the probability of flipping two heads in a row.

    Another way of looking at this is would you rather bet \$100 on:
    1. Someone flipping heads twice in a row
    2. Someone flipping heads four times in a row

    For each independent coin toss the odds are still 50/50 but that doesn’t mean it would be a good idea to bet on the four in a row. #1 has different (and better) probability.

    • Thanks: Paperback Writer
  178. @Anonymous
    Our elites, ladies and gentlemen. Basically, morons. I bet the performance in the US Congress would be no better. Heck, chances are good that the % correct will be similar bad for students at our today's universities (provided they are surveyed randomly).

    Replies: @Yancey Ward, @Gamecock, @Corvinus

    “Our elites, ladies and gentlemen. Basically, morons,”

    What does that say about the white people who elect them?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Corvinus

    That there weren't enough of them anymore to overcome black bloc voting?

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @J.Ross
    @Corvinus

    The very underwhelming, logical, and under-predicted yet predictable point of Fritz Springmeier's big conspiracy book was that the unelected elect are essentially a validation of eugenics. Not only are they the muckity-mucks, but all their ancestors were the muckity-mucks of their respective eras. Insofar as they attack freedom and interfere in peoples' lives they earn hatred, but elements of their success are actually meritocratic.

    , @anon
    @Corvinus

    What does that say about the white people who elect them?

    What does it say about the choices that the voters were given?

  179. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Mr Mox

    If he opens both doors, there is a 2/3 chance of the prize being behind one of them, as he would be opening 2 out of 3 doors.

    I don't get your question. The answer is too simple.

    Replies: @Mr Mox

    Please forgive me, Triteleia, but one of these days, Steve should do a piece on the gender gap in humor. Oh, wait, Christopher Hitchens already did:

    https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2007/01/hitchens200701

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Mr Mox

    Sharing that article about how funny men are after making that "joke" is like a black guy pointing to the 100 metres at the Olympics after tripping over his own shoelaces.

  180. @Anonymous
    There was a study of students at some elite college which asked why the Earth had seasons. Most of the respondents got it wrong. (They thought it was because the orbit of the Earth around the Sun is elliptical, when actually it's a consequence of the tilt of the planet.)

    Replies: @rebel yell, @J.Ross, @fondolo

    I had to roll through a lot of comments to get this observation.

  181. @Colin Wright
    @res

    '1. Two coins are flipped and you are simply told 1 came up heads. This is IJ’s version and his 1/3 answer is correct. Once you know one is heads you have HH, HT, TH to choose from.'

    The logic here is flawed. You implicitly assume that the outcome of one toss affects the outcome of the other toss.

    Yes, given two tosses, there are four sets of possible outcomes. However, if you know the outcome of one of the tosses, you're no longer looking at all the possible outcomes of two tosses with unknown outcomes. Since you know one of the outcomes, you're looking at only one toss.

    ...and of course, the chance of heads on that one toss remains at 50% -- whatever occurred on the other toss.

    Put it this way. If heads occurred on the first of the tosses to be considered, you no longer have the three possibilities HH, HT, TH head to choose from. TH can no longer occur. You only have HH, HT left.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @John Johnson, @res

    What he missed from the Monty Hall problem is that dear Monty isn’t picking randomly from two doors. That is why it tricks the brain.

    If you pick your 1/3 door he isn’t randomly revealing one of the other two doors. He looked at the doors and picked a loser. Now the other door could be a loser but you are still better off moving because your odds become better than 1/3 because he picked between the two. The problem is better understood by adding more doors.

    • Replies: @res
    @John Johnson

    If you think I missed that, try rereading my comment. Emphasis added.


    The Monty Hall variation is a subtle combination of those two.

    3. Two coins are flipped and one is turned over to show heads by someone who knows the results (i.e. if only one head was flipped choose that coin). That reduces to IJ’s 1 since you are again looking at HH, HT, and TH as possibilities.
     
  182. @epebble
    BTW, the fact that more of the land mass (68%) is in the northern hemisphere is WHY the earth tilts on its axis

    is not correct. See:

    History of the earth's obliquity
    Williams, George E.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/001282529390004Q

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @res

    You’ve just witnessed the phenomenon I call “Jack D Amnesia.” Numerous examples exist of him getting roasted by people who actually know the subjects upon which he opines, yet he blithely continues bloviating about every topic under the sun as if he understood them all.

    • Replies: @epebble
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Well, I am not a geologist (did a course in Engineering geology in 1978). But that the distribution of continents is the reason for earths 23.5 degree tilt sounds unlikely using basic science. Earth's radius is 4,000 miles. The tallest point on earth (29,000 feet) is about 5+ miles. So the average may be a mile or two. That a difference of less that 1/2,000th will matter (or if you account for land being denser than water, say 1/1,000 or even 1/500) in tilting earth more than a quarter off the ecliptic sounds unlikely.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @donut
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Jack D's transmitter is always keyed .

  183. @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    “Our elites, ladies and gentlemen. Basically, morons,”

    What does that say about the white people who elect them?

    Replies: @Jack D, @J.Ross, @anon

    That there weren’t enough of them anymore to overcome black bloc voting?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Jack D

    "That there weren’t enough of them anymore to overcome black bloc voting?"

    Nice effort at deflection. There are millions of white Americans who vote. If they are voting for elites who are "morons". what does it say for this particular group? I thought white people have high IQs and high time preferences.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

  184. @Anon
    Well, it's a stupid question. There is no way of knowing the probability of a coin flip. It depends on complex variables like how much force the flipper used with his thumb, where his thumb was located on the coin when he flipped it, etc. No coin toss is ever going to be exactly like the other. It's not a precision mechanical certainty like pulling a trigger on a revolver.

    What this reveals is that elite people are intelligent and complex, and answer honestly questions that proles think they "know" because they learned them at rheir shit schools back in the 1900s. The correct question to many answers is often "I don't know" or a standardized "incorrect" answer, because most tests are fucking stupid and most of what we are taught in school is wrong.

    https://phys.org/news/2009-10-tails-key-variables.html


    Using a high-speed camera that photographed people flipping coins, the three researchers determined that a coin is more likely to land facing the same side on which it started. If tails is facing up when the coin is perched on your thumb, it is more likely to land tails up.

    How much more likely? At least 51 percent of the time, the researchers claim, and possibly as much as 55 percent to 60 percent -- depending on the flipping motion of the individual.

    In other words, more than random luck is at work.
     

    Replies: @Anon, @Faraday's Bobcat, @Jonathan Mason, @Bill Jones, @bomag

    I bet you were a big hit in math class.

  185. @Kjr
    @ScarletNumber

    I prefer the one who doesn't publicly ridicule random victims.

    That's the thing about "the free speech debate".

    I'm a woman converting to chassidish Judaism and one of the first culture shocks - and I do mean shocks - is how my new friends regard gossiping about people as a shameful thing to do

    It hit me when I made a comment about my sister at a shabbos meal on Friday night and the kids ranging in age from 9 to 18 all looked down blushing on my behalf!

    It turns out that "hurtful speech" is verboten even when the gossip is true and the person isn't in the room.

    What I came to realize is that intelligent Men prefer to talk about Ideas and intelligent Women prefer to talk about People.

    I'm in a women's group that Zooms together every Wednesday evening to study a Jewish book called The Chofetz Chaim which is about a hundred pages of Hebrew laws about the sin of gossiping.

    It bothers me a little that they don't encourage talking about unkosher ideas either (they really believe that the world is 5,781 years old) but it doesn't bother me too much. I like their closeness to God and songs and family life and kindness. So if I have to pretend that dinosaurs were killed in Noah's flood, who cares?

    But the men in my conversion class (pre covid) kept getting into trouble arguing over things like that.

    That's when I came up with my theory that men can talk about ideas more dispassionately than women can. And men also fail to appreciate the perhaps once beneficial mechanism of personal gossip.

    But I'm now convinced that gossip/libel/slander/mockery and other forms of hurting people by referring to NAMED INDIVIDUALS is worse than talking about uncomfortable ideas, including ideas about groups of people.

    I feel like I discovered some kind of scientific principle.

    In the American media and of course social media (and college campuses, etc) it is considered perfectly acceptable to cuttingly hurt individuals - which is the kind of talk we women are more likely to fall prey to - but not acceptable to talk about ideas that might be harmful - which is the kind of talk that men are more likely to engage in.

    I perfectly accept my new position in the chassidish world. I am covering my hair, my collar bone and my calves. I will never lead a Torah or Davening service and no matter how knowledgeable I become I will never lecture to a group that includes men in it.

    And you know what, I'm totally fine with it!

    The biggest change in my life is that the most popular women are the ones who never ever ever ever speak a bad word about individuals. We love being near thise women like we used to love being near the girls who shared the juiciest gossip!

    And it makes most of the internet pretty cringe to me.

    But instead of deplatforming people who make funnof individuals online, we deplatform people who say mean things about groups of people or who doubt the generally accepted opinions about Covid-19.

    That's because women (or little girls who never grew up) were given complete control of the internet and are perfectly happy to curtail the speech of men that could be harmful, while keeping their own harmful speech not only legitimated but celebrated.

    The sad part of this for me is that I really loved the Borat and Bruno movies! But now I see them as cringe and stipped watching the new Borat movie halfway through felt like I was personally hurting the people who were being publicly ridiculed in the movie, by my watching it.

    If it were up to me, the Chofetz Chaim book would become part of the national discourse. Real people commit suicide every single day because of what people say about them in the news or on social media. So far however I have yet to see concrete evidence that either Charles Murray or Bret Weinstein caused any deaths by dispassionately discussing their socially heretical ideas.


    As a woman I am less inclined to run to the front of the battlefield to fight my sisters who are, in my soon-to-be Jewish opinion, causing the most harm to real living individuals.

    I also really don't want to see men fighting women either (even harpies and crazies).

    But you don't have to!

    All you have to do is fight the men who are encouraging these women!

    As far as I can tell, these children are getting away with it because their bad behavior is cheered on by the sillier sort of men. If these men didn't exist, or if everyone had to read the book I mentioned before, then it would be Game Theory publicly known (that I know that you know that I know) that their behavior is cringe and it would happen a lot less.

    So if there must be a conversation about the limits of free speech, I think it should be about the sort of speech that is designed to hurt a specific individual, rather than the sort of speech that may, possibly, who knows, cause harm through some political process get to occur.

    Replies: @SFG, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar, @Jack D, @Paperback Writer

    I think it should be about the sort of speech that is designed to hurt a specific individual, rather than the sort of speech that may, possibly, who knows, cause harm through some political process get to occur.

    Actually, that is exactly what the courts say about the First Amendment.

  186. Meanwhile, in the real world:

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Paperback Writer


    If she had a shred of respect for the force she would resign tonight.
     
    If she had a shred of respect for anything, other than power, she wouldn't be mayoress of that city.
    , @Mike Tre
    @Paperback Writer

    Ella French shouldn't have been a police officer to begin with. Her murder is a tragedy, but what kind of society sends it young women into harm's way like this? A sick society.

    Replies: @Anon

  187. @epebble
    @Jack D

    It is not complicated. Rotary club has been using it for 90 years.

    The Four-Way Test


    The Four-Way Test is a nonpartisan and nonsectarian ethical guide for Rotarians to use for their personal and professional relationships. The test has been translated into more than 100 languages, and Rotarians recite it at club meetings: Of the things we think, say or do

    Is it the TRUTH?
    Is it FAIR to all concerned?
    Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
    Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

    These principles have been developed over the years to provide Rotarians with a strong, common purpose and direction. They serve as a foundation for our relationships with each other and the action we take in the world.
     

    Replies: @Jack D

    Is it the TRUTH?

    As I explained before, the Jewish prohibition on disclosing damaging information extends EVEN to the truth, with certain exceptions (if the speech has a constructive purpose).

    Just because something is true doesn’t mean that person doesn’t have a right not to have his private matters outed to the public for no good reason. If the damage caused to the person being discussed is greater than the good that will coming from outing him, then you shouldn’t do it. In many cases, NO good will come from outing that person at all, only damages, so there is nothing to balance against even if what you are saying is true. (In the old days, this might have applied to outing someone as gay – nowadays to outing someone as a conservative – let’s say you get Steve’s donor list (which I hope BTW he keeps in a secure manner). Should you post this list on the internet even if it is true?

    • Replies: @epebble
    @Jack D

    The Four Way Test questions are Conjunctive and not Disjunctive, thus giving the same meaning as the Jewish prohibition.

    BTW, the Jewish prohibition is not uniquely Jewish. In Hindu and Buddhist philosophies, there is this well known rule:


    The Manusmiriti (4.138) says:

    “Satyam bruyat – priyam bruyat- na bruyat satyam apriyam
    priyam cha nanrutam bruyat – esha dharmah sanatanah”

    Speak the Truth, speak pleasantly,

    Do not speak the Truth in an unpleasant manner

    Even if pleasant, do not speak untruth,

    This is the path of eternal righteousness.
     
    https://truthultimate.com/satyam-bruyat-priyam-bruyat/

    Replies: @Kjr

    , @Triteleia Laxa
    @Jack D

    If someone talks badly about other people, with little understanding, for no reason, avoid them like a leper, for they will talk about you in exactly the same way. They will also be prone to doing a lot worse.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @John Johnson
    @Jack D

    As I explained before, the Jewish prohibition on disclosing damaging information extends EVEN to the truth, with certain exceptions (if the speech has a constructive purpose).

    How are Anglo leaders any different?

    The civil war wouldn't have happened if Lincoln's private beliefs on race were made public.

    DC is filled with Republicans and Democrats that believe race should be a noble lie.

    Anglo billionaires are the same way. I guarantee that if racial realism made headway with the public then Anglo billionaires would start dropping money into left-wing and egalitarian organizations. They just aren't as paranoid as Soros yet.

    Even what people believe are tech libertarians would drop hundreds of millions overnight. I guarantee it. At this point they believe that enough of the masses are fooled and don't need to waste their money.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    , @kaganovitch
    @Jack D

    If the damage caused to the person being discussed is greater than the good that will coming from outing him, then you shouldn’t do it.

    This is not precisely true. Generally when Lashon Hora is permitted, it is actually obligatory as the countervailing force of the stricture of "neither shalt thou stand aside while thy neighbor’s blood is shed" (Leviticus 19-16)is operative. Thus if it is necessary to protect his prospective partner/mark from even modest financial loss, it is permitted/obligatory to reveal a person's past swindles even if he will lose his job and his wife will leave him etc. We would effectively say "Fiat justitia ruat cælum". That being said it would only be permissible to reveal the minimum that could achieve the desired goal. I.e. if you can get the potential investor to change his mind by saying 'this guy has an unlucky track record so you might want to reconsider' or the like, then no further revelation would be permissible.

  188. https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2021/8/8/22615487/chicago-police-officer-killed-ella-french-wounded-suspects-arrested-west-englewood-david-brown
    Chicago cop murdered during routine traffic stop; Ella French was a new mom, and had just that day returned from maternity leave. Arrests have already been made.
    Here with Biden doing so spectacularly horribly we’ve taken our eyes off Chicongo.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @J.Ross

    Correction she wan't a mom everything else stands if God existed Groot would encounter natural amperage.

  189. @anonymous
    OT, but distinctive iSteve content

    Rules discriminating against the un-vaxxed, are increasingly denounced as racist, given their disparate impact on the much-more-unvaxxed people of colour ... 5 memes:

    https://i.ibb.co/pytNf0X/racist-unvaxd-discrim-01.jpg
    https://i.ibb.co/8P151KD/racist-unvaxd-discrim-02.jpg
    https://i.ibb.co/dK04ymP/racist-unvaxd-discrim-04.jpg

    https://i.ibb.co/bJFrBrc/racist-unvaxd-discrim-03.png
    https://i.ibb.co/tHCCkQC/racist-unvaxd-discrim-05.jpg

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    I thought the bad thing about the Tuskegee syphilis study was that they left ‘participants’ untreated, which might have been ethical when the project started in 1932, when no syphilis treatments were proven effective, but stopped being ethical when penicillin became widely available in 1947 and the participants weren’t offered treatment.

    No one was deliberately infected or injected with syphilis.

    https://www.tuskegee.edu/about-us/centers-of-excellence/bioethics-center/about-the-usphs-syphilis-study

    • Replies: @Anon
    @YetAnotherAnon


    I thought the bad thing about the Tuskegee syphilis study was that they left ‘participants’ untreated, which might have been ethical when the project started in 1932, when no syphilis treatments were proven effective, but stopped being ethical when penicillin became widely available in 1947 and the participants weren’t offered treatment.
     
    Why were they left untreated?

    Replies: @nokangaroos, @Colin Wright

  190. @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    “Our elites, ladies and gentlemen. Basically, morons,”

    What does that say about the white people who elect them?

    Replies: @Jack D, @J.Ross, @anon

    The very underwhelming, logical, and under-predicted yet predictable point of Fritz Springmeier’s big conspiracy book was that the unelected elect are essentially a validation of eugenics. Not only are they the muckity-mucks, but all their ancestors were the muckity-mucks of their respective eras. Insofar as they attack freedom and interfere in peoples’ lives they earn hatred, but elements of their success are actually meritocratic.

  191. @Thoughts
    @Thoughts

    Even my spouse, who does not appreciate my conspiracy-theory-mongering was like

    Here's some Bad News, that's in a way Good News because it validates what you've been saying

    (and it's true...I've been watching the people who took the vaccine very closely...most people didn't get vaccinated until May June, as this commentator is not an American and our vaccine rollout was blessedly slow...so we're not at 8 weeks post second shot yet with many friends and family...the 30 somethings just go their first shot 2 weeks ago...)

    Guess I'm never travelling again...I have long veiny legs and one thing that scares the heebjesus out of me is Deep Vein Thrombosis

    As Steve Sailer says, the taller you are, the more area you have where things can go wrong

    And for me...my height means More Blood Clots

    Shove you blood clot vaccines where the sun don't shine

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Gamecock, @YetAnotherAnon

    “Guess I’m never travelling again…I have long veiny legs and one thing that scares the heebjesus out of me is Deep Vein Thrombosis”

    You need a set of knee high or thigh high compression hose aka “surgical stockings”. Just wear them on the flight and keep them for whenever you are flying.

    Ideally you go for the best fit, most sites will have fitting guides.

    htpps://www.compressionstockings.com/jobst-for-men-15-20-mmhg-thigh-high-ribbed-compression-stockings-with-silicone-border-p-65.html

  192. Um, yes, Earth’s orbit is slightly elliptical, but we’re closer to the sun when it’s summer in the Southern Hemisphere. That’s why it’s Hot as Blazes down in Oz. Seriously, Harvard grads didn’t know that it’s actually “summer” somewhere on the planet for a total of six months out of the year, and that Aussies and Kiwi’s go to the beach on Christmas Day ?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @VivaLaMigra

    I'm sure some Harvard grads do, but the ones who don't or who haven't thought about why it's relevant, sure seem self-confident, unlike the poor townie kids who can sense that their explanation must be BS that everybody will laugh at them for saying.

    Actually, that sounds like a good buddy detective move premise: "Townie." A townie and a Joe College have to team up to solve a murder mystery even though they can't stand each other.

  193. @YetAnotherAnon
    OT - the Guardian discovers the new fronts opening up in the sex wars, as reddit subs like Female Dating Strategy fight back against the PUAs.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/aug/08/sales-funnels-and-high-value-men-the-rise-of-strategic-dating

    Female Dating Strategy (FDS) offers a range of (often brutal, expletive-laden) advice to single women, designed to “[optimise] the female dating experience”. Among the six-point FDS mantras are “ruthlessly evaluate men”, “make him invest before sex” and “don’t split the bill”.

    Its list of no-nos includes asking a man out (FDS believes women should not make the first move) and drink dates (they’re “low effort”; going out for a meal is preferred). FDS advocates dating multiple men simultaneously, cutting suitors off at the first red flag and, as Campbell did, conducting pre-date interviews over the phone. The goal is to filter out anyone who is not, in FDS parlance, a “high-value man”.

    ...having sex in the first six weeks is discouraged and FDS comes down hard against pornography, kink and the sex-positive politics of “liberal feminism” – all of which the group’s moderators believe are harmful to women.

     

    Over at reddit the sisterhood rejoices.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleDatingStrategy/comments/p066c5/fds_was_just_featured_in_the_guardian_the_article/

    "The fact that males/critics of FDS even venture to compare these differences between our groups/philosophies, and the resorting to those highly manipulative games/practices, is just further testament of the depravity of males" says Kara. Looks as if men are only after one thing (and it's disgusting).

    https://styles.redditmedia.com/t5_31ai6y/styles/profileIcon_94s1peu6rp071.jpg

    I'm not sure how valid this approach is for all women. By definition, there are only a limited number of "high value men" to go round, and we've seen from dating sites that on the OK Cupid scale, 8 out of 10 men are below average ;-).

    https://web.archive.org/web/20170316015704if_/https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks-and-your-inbox-8715c0f1561e#.nxyn2exdh

    The 2 out of 10 men who get the right-swipes will have a largeish number of women to choose from, not all of whom will make him wait for six weeks and buy dinner. But perhaps the ladies on FDS have had their fill of non-committing men with options, and are looking for perhaps less alpha types but possessed of "beta bucks". That's one definition of high value.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar, @Jack D

    The FDS framework offers potential female adherents many things.

    1. Hope that their situation will change, but that they don’t have to.

    2. New forms of validation, like successfully getting men to buy them dinner.

    Of course, most people will pay your bill if you make it awkward enough.

    3. An excuse for their suffering in the past, which removes all responsibility from them by declaring that they were just “too good” and “too kind.”

    The chance of this appealing to someone who was actually “too kind”, rather than too cruel and too aggressive is small. “Too kind” people rarely engage in such starkly contrasted black and white thinking.

    4. The ability to judge and devalue men who don’t cater to their every aggressive whim as “low value,” thereby reducing the sting to their egos when they inevitably get rejected.

    This is a rationalisation for “splitting,” which tells you a lot that you need to know about which type of women’s psychological needs FDS serves.

    5. A defensive extreme pickiness, which means that all potential mates must be above average in every conceivable way, even including penis size, have the non-reactivity of a Saint and that the woman must never compromise from her worst, most childish impulses, if doing so might also be enjoyed by the man. This is self-defeating misandry.

    Overall, it will be a welcome experience for any woman who needs to feel perfect by externalising all of her problems onto men. This saves them from ever having to confront themselves and provides them with a community who will validate their extreme egotism, but never actually connect with them.

    In this way, they can feel safe and protected, by having perfectly distanced themselves from the world, and keep anyone with any self-respect far away, by creating situations which validate their ideological prison and subsequent profound unhappiness, rage and loneliness.

    My advice, if you ever find yourself in the draining situation of talking to a woman like that, is to tell them that you’re sorry that they feel they have to be angry/unhappy or lonely all of the time and then, every time they try to blame the world/their ex etc, nudge them back to talking about themselves, rather than their ideology. Or run.

    If this doesn’t work just talk to them about their physical ailments and aches and pains, of which they will have endless, and then let them be present and to open up beyond this FDS nonsense from there.

    The women in FDS should stop trying to control their potential mates, first by recognising that this is what they have always been trying to do, even in their “pick-me” stage and this is why they are so fragile. By trying to control someone to shore up your self-image, you are building your self-image on ground which has its own consciousness and narrative and can shift at any time. Like building a leaning tower on the back of a sleeping elephant and then trying to constantly soothe it to stay asleep. Imagine the anxiety!

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I just think it's a matter of numbers. By definition, not every woman can have a high value man, unless your society has a huge surplus of males (or you are willing to share).

    The nearest you can come to this female paradise is if you're in somewhere like an oil boom town, where there's been a huge influx of well paid men, and all of a sudden you are a scarce and valuable resource.

    Big cities like London and NYC are full of ambitious, young, and pretty women, and ambitious young men. But not all of them are going to be successful. "Get On Or Get Out".

    As Joan Didion put it about NYC, "it is distinctly possible to stay too long at the Fair" - to not get on and not get out - and then you end up like this intelligent, attractive, poor and foolish woman child.


    It was February 2009 and, at 44-and-a-half, she had left a bad long-term relationship and moved into a grotty London flat. “I was standing by the window, watching the rain make dusty tracks down the glass, when the traffic in the street below seemed to go silent, as if I’d put it on ‘mute’. In that moment, I became acutely aware of myself, almost as if I were an observer of the scene from outside my body. And then it came to me: it’s over. I’m never going to have a baby.
     

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  194. @YetAnotherAnon
    OT - the Guardian discovers the new fronts opening up in the sex wars, as reddit subs like Female Dating Strategy fight back against the PUAs.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/aug/08/sales-funnels-and-high-value-men-the-rise-of-strategic-dating

    Female Dating Strategy (FDS) offers a range of (often brutal, expletive-laden) advice to single women, designed to “[optimise] the female dating experience”. Among the six-point FDS mantras are “ruthlessly evaluate men”, “make him invest before sex” and “don’t split the bill”.

    Its list of no-nos includes asking a man out (FDS believes women should not make the first move) and drink dates (they’re “low effort”; going out for a meal is preferred). FDS advocates dating multiple men simultaneously, cutting suitors off at the first red flag and, as Campbell did, conducting pre-date interviews over the phone. The goal is to filter out anyone who is not, in FDS parlance, a “high-value man”.

    ...having sex in the first six weeks is discouraged and FDS comes down hard against pornography, kink and the sex-positive politics of “liberal feminism” – all of which the group’s moderators believe are harmful to women.

     

    Over at reddit the sisterhood rejoices.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleDatingStrategy/comments/p066c5/fds_was_just_featured_in_the_guardian_the_article/

    "The fact that males/critics of FDS even venture to compare these differences between our groups/philosophies, and the resorting to those highly manipulative games/practices, is just further testament of the depravity of males" says Kara. Looks as if men are only after one thing (and it's disgusting).

    https://styles.redditmedia.com/t5_31ai6y/styles/profileIcon_94s1peu6rp071.jpg

    I'm not sure how valid this approach is for all women. By definition, there are only a limited number of "high value men" to go round, and we've seen from dating sites that on the OK Cupid scale, 8 out of 10 men are below average ;-).

    https://web.archive.org/web/20170316015704if_/https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks-and-your-inbox-8715c0f1561e#.nxyn2exdh

    The 2 out of 10 men who get the right-swipes will have a largeish number of women to choose from, not all of whom will make him wait for six weeks and buy dinner. But perhaps the ladies on FDS have had their fill of non-committing men with options, and are looking for perhaps less alpha types but possessed of "beta bucks". That's one definition of high value.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar, @Jack D

    This doesn’t make any sense, these are all things a huge number of women already do. This isn’t a strategy or a game equivalent, it’s standard behavior with self-explanatory motives. Every week there is a media-created fad, intended to be some kind of feminist rejoinder to a male practice, but it doesn’t make any sense, and you never hear about it again.

  195. @Buffalo Joe
    @Reg Cæsar

    Reg, when the ultra libs want to give away other peoples' money you can say this...take a billion from this guy and give a million to a thousand people, or half a million to two thousand people or a quarter of a million to four thousand people, a zero sum game and pretty soon that billion doesn't go far enough. But hey, it's not their money.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    • Replies: @Clyde
    @Reg Cæsar

    "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money."
    Everett McKinley Dirksen, and I remember when he said it. Though he pretty much went along with Democrap's hare brained spending and governing. Just so long as Republicans and their wealthy donors got their cut of the action in Washingtoon DC. Mitch McConnell is his updated clone.

  196. @Paperback Writer
    Meanwhile, in the real world:

    https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1424417159887925265?s=20

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Mike Tre

    If she had a shred of respect for the force she would resign tonight.

    If she had a shred of respect for anything, other than power, she wouldn’t be mayoress of that city.

  197. @Jack D
    @epebble


    Is it the TRUTH?
     
    As I explained before, the Jewish prohibition on disclosing damaging information extends EVEN to the truth, with certain exceptions (if the speech has a constructive purpose).

    Just because something is true doesn't mean that person doesn't have a right not to have his private matters outed to the public for no good reason. If the damage caused to the person being discussed is greater than the good that will coming from outing him, then you shouldn't do it. In many cases, NO good will come from outing that person at all, only damages, so there is nothing to balance against even if what you are saying is true. (In the old days, this might have applied to outing someone as gay - nowadays to outing someone as a conservative - let's say you get Steve's donor list (which I hope BTW he keeps in a secure manner). Should you post this list on the internet even if it is true?

    Replies: @epebble, @Triteleia Laxa, @John Johnson, @kaganovitch

    The Four Way Test questions are Conjunctive and not Disjunctive, thus giving the same meaning as the Jewish prohibition.

    BTW, the Jewish prohibition is not uniquely Jewish. In Hindu and Buddhist philosophies, there is this well known rule:

    The Manusmiriti (4.138) says:

    “Satyam bruyat – priyam bruyat- na bruyat satyam apriyam
    priyam cha nanrutam bruyat – esha dharmah sanatanah”

    Speak the Truth, speak pleasantly,

    Do not speak the Truth in an unpleasant manner

    Even if pleasant, do not speak untruth,

    This is the path of eternal righteousness.

    https://truthultimate.com/satyam-bruyat-priyam-bruyat/

    • Replies: @Kjr
    @epebble

    Thank you for both of your beautiful comments on this subject!

    I'm sure Judaism is not unique in its understanding of what kind of speech is best unspoken, it's simply the lens that I myself happen to relate to best.

    Also, I personally don't care for all of the numerous legalisms in Chassidish Judaism (which is not a problem because that's my husband's department anyway) but having to study and think about all of the laws relating to this particular subject of Chofetz Chaim* keeps it fresh in the mind so that as inevitable opportunities arise to speak or believe Lashon Hara I'm prepped for it.


    * The name of the book is Chofetz Chaim which is from Psalms 34. It approximately means: "Eager For Life" and the verse as I see it translated in Sefaria is:


    Come, my sons, listen to me; I will teach you what it is to fear the Lord. Who is the man who is eager for life, who desires years of good fortune? Guard your tongue from evil, your lips from deceitful speech. Shun evil and do good, seek amity and pursue it.

     

    Anyway, I would love to learn about communities of people involved in the wider world who employ such morals/strategies and find not only their own lives bettered but the lives of others as well.

    Personally, I see this all around me every single day but almost never online. And like everyone else these days, I spend too much time online.

    I would like to be able to interact with the online conversation without feeling either like I'm violating my religion to do so or that I'm ignoring essential subjects because "if you have nothing nice to say then say nothing at all".

    Any recommendations?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @The Germ Theory of Disease

  198. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Trelane

    Baron-Cohen's work is profound as 10,000 hours. The only people who think it is good are those who want to.

    Anyone who isn't rigid or prone to panic can work out:

    TT
    TH
    HT
    HH

    1/4

    Conservative MPs are just often smarter because there aren't so many randomers from sub-par University student unions and token individuals.

    Replies: @ThreeCranes

    Here’s Ron Unz flipping the coin using your method of keeping track…..

    If I do get vaccinated (H) and Covid is not a threat (H)……then I survive.

    If I do get vaccinated (H) and Covid is a real threat to me (T)……then I am protected and will survive.

    If I don’t get vaccinated (T) and Covid is not a threat (H)……then I survive.

    If I don’t get vaccinated (T) and Covid is a real threat to me (T)…..then I’m screwed.

    It’s the 21st century version of Pascal’s wager.

  199. @International Jew
    @Anon

    You forgot to mention crippling test-taking anxiety, among the BIPOC members of Parliament.

    Replies: @vhrm

    You forgot to mention crippling test-taking anxiety, among the BIPOC members of Parliament.

    They’re BAME over there, you insensitive clod.

    as an aside (related to “insensitive clod”) could this comic strip even be published today?

    https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1986/02/14/

    sexual harassment, physical violence, the implication that “no” doesn’t mean “no” , glorification of domestic violence… cis het relationship among two white people..

  200. Right. I like the tweeter (Posobiec) but the time for statements like that is long past. It’s obvious we’re ruled by maniacal monsters.

    Meanwhile, in the real world the Washington Post runs an article alleging with no proof that eight black male suicides in the last few years were lynchings. Yeah, right.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Paperback Writer


    Meanwhile, in the real world the Washington Post runs an article alleging with no proof that eight black male suicides in the last few years were lynchings.
     
    As with Anthony Bourdain, Kate Spade, Robin Williams, and half of Badfinger. It's not just a black thing.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Bardon Kaldian

  201. @Jack D

    the earth’s orbit around the sun is an ellipse, so that means we are closer to the sun in summer so it’s hotter.
     
    "What do you mean WE, white man?" - an Indigenous Person from Tierra del Fuego.

    BTW, the fact that more of the land mass (68%) is in the northern hemisphere is WHY the earth tilts on its axis. It's also why "we" assume the Northern summer to be the default summer.

    Not only is the ellipse explanation impossibly wrong (then there would be only 1 summer on earth instead of 2 opposite summers) but it's also backward - the earth is the closest to the sun in January.

    People are mislead by the schoolbook illustrations of the earth's orbit, which always look like this:

    https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/orbit-3.jpg

    Earth's orbit actually looks like this, to scale (Earth on the left) :

    https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3b7c569b3087517a63bdb797d0cee441-c

    If you draw this ellipse to scale on a piece of paper (1" = 10 million miles), it's about 9-1/8" on the short side and 9-1/2" on the long axis - it's visually indistinguishable from a circle. Likewise the seasonal difference resulting from this almost circular orbit is next to nil.

    But, yes, our ruling class is fatally infected with overconfidence. They "know" that there are no genetic differences between the races with the same certainty that they "know" the cause of the seasons.

    Replies: @ThreeCranes, @Reg Cæsar, @res

    Very good Jack. Were you able to do that without looking it up? I was. Now riddle me this. Looking down upon the Earth from Polaris, which direction does the Earth rotate? Clockwise or counter-clockwise? And does the moon orbit the Earth in a clockwise or counter-clockwise manner? (from the same above-the-North-Pole perspective).

    No lookie.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @ThreeCranes

    Why do you sound like you think that you are asking trick questions? The fact that Sun rises in the East unequivocally means that Earth rotates anti-clockwise. A smart third-grader would answer.

    Now the moon is trickier for a third-grader because because he does not yet know that a satellite moves around planet because of gravity. But an observant third-grader who was explained the reasons for moon phases might remember how moon's crescent looks during waxing ")" or waning "(" phases. One you know that, it should be obvious that the direction is also anti-clockwise.

    , @Triteleia Laxa
    @ThreeCranes

    Counter-clockwise for the earth.

    Counter-clockwise for the moon.

    It feels right.

    ...

    Having now looked it up, this is a small win for educated guesswork. I can explain how I might have know the earth, but not the moon, which may well have been a coin flip.

    , @Jack D
    @ThreeCranes

    Since the shadow of a sundial moves "clockwise" (and since what we are actually seeing is the sun standing relatively still while the sundial is turning in the opposite direction), the earth must be turning "counterclockwise" on its axis. The reason "clockwise" is clockwise to begin with is because the earth is turning in the opposite direction. If the earth turned clockwise then clocks (which are imitation sundials) would run counterclockwise.

    I honestly didn't remember which way the moon turns but I assume that's counterclockwise too. I do know that the orbit of moon around the earth and the rotation of the moon around its axis are gravitationally locked so we always see the same side of the moon but that would work equally well if the moon was orbiting 'backwards"

    Replies: @Neil Templeton, @Anonymous, @Inquiring Mind

    , @ThreeCranes
    @ThreeCranes

    As every sailor knows from his tide charts, the moon rises 50 minutes later each day, This means it must be outrunning us. If we are rotating counter clockwise (from the point of view of Polaris) then so too must the moon orbit around the Earth.

  202. @Jack D
    @epebble


    Is it the TRUTH?
     
    As I explained before, the Jewish prohibition on disclosing damaging information extends EVEN to the truth, with certain exceptions (if the speech has a constructive purpose).

    Just because something is true doesn't mean that person doesn't have a right not to have his private matters outed to the public for no good reason. If the damage caused to the person being discussed is greater than the good that will coming from outing him, then you shouldn't do it. In many cases, NO good will come from outing that person at all, only damages, so there is nothing to balance against even if what you are saying is true. (In the old days, this might have applied to outing someone as gay - nowadays to outing someone as a conservative - let's say you get Steve's donor list (which I hope BTW he keeps in a secure manner). Should you post this list on the internet even if it is true?

    Replies: @epebble, @Triteleia Laxa, @John Johnson, @kaganovitch

    If someone talks badly about other people, with little understanding, for no reason, avoid them like a leper, for they will talk about you in exactly the same way. They will also be prone to doing a lot worse.

    • Agree: Jack D
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Triteleia Laxa


    If someone talks badly about other people, with little understanding, for no reason, avoid them like a leper, for they will talk about you in exactly the same way.
     
    https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-if-you-haven-t-got-anything-nice-to-say-about-anybody-come-sit-next-to-me-alice-roosevelt-longworth-17-86-74.jpg

    They will also be prone to doing a lot worse.
     
    https://rochellewisofffields.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/roosevelt-quote-about-alice.jpg

    https://quotefancy.com/media/wallpaper/thumb/1378064-Alice-Roosevelt-Longworth-Quote-My-specialty-is-detached.jpg


    (BTW, has anyone learned the nature of the "accident" that killed Trevor Moore? It wasn't autoerotic asphyxiation, was it?)

    Replies: @reactionry

  203. @YetAnotherAnon
    OT - the Guardian discovers the new fronts opening up in the sex wars, as reddit subs like Female Dating Strategy fight back against the PUAs.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/aug/08/sales-funnels-and-high-value-men-the-rise-of-strategic-dating

    Female Dating Strategy (FDS) offers a range of (often brutal, expletive-laden) advice to single women, designed to “[optimise] the female dating experience”. Among the six-point FDS mantras are “ruthlessly evaluate men”, “make him invest before sex” and “don’t split the bill”.

    Its list of no-nos includes asking a man out (FDS believes women should not make the first move) and drink dates (they’re “low effort”; going out for a meal is preferred). FDS advocates dating multiple men simultaneously, cutting suitors off at the first red flag and, as Campbell did, conducting pre-date interviews over the phone. The goal is to filter out anyone who is not, in FDS parlance, a “high-value man”.

    ...having sex in the first six weeks is discouraged and FDS comes down hard against pornography, kink and the sex-positive politics of “liberal feminism” – all of which the group’s moderators believe are harmful to women.

     

    Over at reddit the sisterhood rejoices.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleDatingStrategy/comments/p066c5/fds_was_just_featured_in_the_guardian_the_article/

    "The fact that males/critics of FDS even venture to compare these differences between our groups/philosophies, and the resorting to those highly manipulative games/practices, is just further testament of the depravity of males" says Kara. Looks as if men are only after one thing (and it's disgusting).

    https://styles.redditmedia.com/t5_31ai6y/styles/profileIcon_94s1peu6rp071.jpg

    I'm not sure how valid this approach is for all women. By definition, there are only a limited number of "high value men" to go round, and we've seen from dating sites that on the OK Cupid scale, 8 out of 10 men are below average ;-).

    https://web.archive.org/web/20170316015704if_/https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks-and-your-inbox-8715c0f1561e#.nxyn2exdh

    The 2 out of 10 men who get the right-swipes will have a largeish number of women to choose from, not all of whom will make him wait for six weeks and buy dinner. But perhaps the ladies on FDS have had their fill of non-committing men with options, and are looking for perhaps less alpha types but possessed of "beta bucks". That's one definition of high value.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar, @Jack D

    The 2 out of 10 men who get the right-swipes will have a largeish number of women to choose from, not all of whom will make him wait for six weeks and buy dinner.

    In her bachelorette days, Mrs C briefly belonged to a club which engaged in sextuple dates for introductory purposes– six men, six women on a first date or two, none assigned to anyone in particular. It sounded like a good, safe alternative.

    It soon became obvious that on these dates, invariably all six women would be interested in one of the men, and all six men in one of the women.

    FDS advocates dating multiple men…

    Yawn. This was once called “playing the field”. Archie did it with Betty and Veronica. It wasn’t controversial because everybody kept their clothes on. You saved anything further for your “steady”. Once you found her.

  204. @Paperback Writer
    Meanwhile, in the real world:

    https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1424417159887925265?s=20

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Mike Tre

    Ella French shouldn’t have been a police officer to begin with. Her murder is a tragedy, but what kind of society sends it young women into harm’s way like this? A sick society.

    • Agree: Paperback Writer
    • Replies: @Anon
    @Mike Tre


    Ella French shouldn’t have been a police officer to begin with. Her murder is a tragedy, but what kind of society sends it young women into harm’s way like this? A sick society.
     
    Especially young mothers of two young children. She had just returned from maternity leave.

    Replies: @Goddard

  205. @Reg Cæsar

    A total of 97 MPs were asked this probability problem: if you spin a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?*
     
    But what were the stakes? What did they have on the line? Certainly not their seats.

    Much more care will be taken when you have an *.

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    As Steve has pointed out before, when people fail seemingly simple logic questions it’s usually because they failed at the reading comprehension half of the “word problem” format.

    Here, the question was “if you spin a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?” (I guess Brits “spin” coins instead of flipping them)

    45 of the 57 who answered wrong (80% of the wrong answers) were wrong in the same way — they answered 50%. They know that a coin has a 50% chance of being heads. So you have to believe that they simply misread/assumed the question to be asking: “if you get heads on the first flip, what are the odds of getting two heads in a row.”

    So I’d say this doesn’t necessarily show that they are innumerate, but just that they lack reading comprehension regarding very basic logic issues. This may be equally alarming, but it’s still a different problem.

    Now, as the 12 MPs that answered 15%, 40%, 75% or “I don’t know,” they can be officially certified as morons.

  206. @YetAnotherAnon
    OT - the Guardian discovers the new fronts opening up in the sex wars, as reddit subs like Female Dating Strategy fight back against the PUAs.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/aug/08/sales-funnels-and-high-value-men-the-rise-of-strategic-dating

    Female Dating Strategy (FDS) offers a range of (often brutal, expletive-laden) advice to single women, designed to “[optimise] the female dating experience”. Among the six-point FDS mantras are “ruthlessly evaluate men”, “make him invest before sex” and “don’t split the bill”.

    Its list of no-nos includes asking a man out (FDS believes women should not make the first move) and drink dates (they’re “low effort”; going out for a meal is preferred). FDS advocates dating multiple men simultaneously, cutting suitors off at the first red flag and, as Campbell did, conducting pre-date interviews over the phone. The goal is to filter out anyone who is not, in FDS parlance, a “high-value man”.

    ...having sex in the first six weeks is discouraged and FDS comes down hard against pornography, kink and the sex-positive politics of “liberal feminism” – all of which the group’s moderators believe are harmful to women.

     

    Over at reddit the sisterhood rejoices.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleDatingStrategy/comments/p066c5/fds_was_just_featured_in_the_guardian_the_article/

    "The fact that males/critics of FDS even venture to compare these differences between our groups/philosophies, and the resorting to those highly manipulative games/practices, is just further testament of the depravity of males" says Kara. Looks as if men are only after one thing (and it's disgusting).

    https://styles.redditmedia.com/t5_31ai6y/styles/profileIcon_94s1peu6rp071.jpg

    I'm not sure how valid this approach is for all women. By definition, there are only a limited number of "high value men" to go round, and we've seen from dating sites that on the OK Cupid scale, 8 out of 10 men are below average ;-).

    https://web.archive.org/web/20170316015704if_/https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks-and-your-inbox-8715c0f1561e#.nxyn2exdh

    The 2 out of 10 men who get the right-swipes will have a largeish number of women to choose from, not all of whom will make him wait for six weeks and buy dinner. But perhaps the ladies on FDS have had their fill of non-committing men with options, and are looking for perhaps less alpha types but possessed of "beta bucks". That's one definition of high value.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @J.Ross, @Reg Cæsar, @Jack D

    The FDS thing is laughable unless the female in question is truly a “high-value woman” (and even then it ain’t such hot advice). But why would anyone who is truly a “high-value man” put up with such shit from an average (or below) looking overweight female (like the one in the photo) at the outset of a relationship – it’s only going to go downhill from there? Maybe someone who is a desperate Beta who enjoys being abused by females would put up with these ridiculous pre-conditions for months on end but most men are going to go along and pay for dinner once or maybe twice and then they are going to RUN, RUN, RUN away from what they will perceive as a crazy bitch.

    Modern women ALREADY have a tendency to overvalue themselves (and undervalue men), but FDS is this on steroids. If women were really capable of honest self evaluation of themselves and could look in the mirror and honestly say “I am a 10 and am deserving of a billionaire” then it would be one thing, but what’s really going to happen is that 2s and 3rd look in the mirror and THINK that they see an 8 or a 9 and price themselves accordingly. It’s like some guy is trying to sell his 1998 Acura which is his pride and joy and in his eyes it is a “rare collector car” and should go for at least \$24k – so few were ordered in bubblegum pink! But everyone else looks at it and sees a 20 year old car with dents and rattles and won’t go a nickel above \$3,500. The same thing is going to happen to these women unless they find some incredible sucker.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Jack D

    If women were really capable of honest self evaluation of themselves and could look in the mirror and honestly say “I am a 10 and am deserving of a billionaire” then it would be one thing, but what’s really going to happen is that 2s and 3rd look in the mirror and THINK that they see an 8 or a 9 and price themselves accordingly.

    I think most women view themselves as 6s or 7s but have had so many men bow to them that they feel they should hold out a bit longer.

    The real problem is that TEEVEE convinces them that mr. better is just one more date away.

    Most men shouldn't bother at all with these dating apps. There are plenty of places in rural America where "mr.right" is a man with a job and no drug problem. I was at Wally world the other day and saw a guy that looked like a skinny homeless pirate but had kids with good looking woman.

    The women in cities are messed up beyond belief. I do pretty well with women and could not believe the sh-t they expect in the cities. A lot of these women end up marrying professionals they aren't at all attracted to just so they can get the tiny 700k house that was built in 1950. Get out and move to the country.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @Jack D

    "But why would anyone who is truly a “high-value man” put up with such shit from an average (or below) looking overweight female (like the one in the photo)"

    We must try to be fair. I think that forum is split between the women who are really looking for a mate and those who have either given up or were never in the running at all. Like the overweight student-age girl pictured, posting about " further testament of the depravity of males". Does that sound to you like someone looking for a long-term relationship with a man?

    (It would be different if she were posting "further testament of the depravity of males - which I absolutely love".)

    , @Anonymous
    @Jack D


    If women were really capable of honest self evaluation of themselves and could look in the mirror and honestly say “I am a 10 and am deserving of a billionaire” then it would be one thing, but what’s really going to happen is that 2s and 3rd look in the mirror and THINK that they see an 8 or a 9 and price themselves accordingly.
     
    “Deserving of a billionaire”?? “Price themselves”??

    You insinuate that women are after money.
  207. @Jack D
    @Corvinus

    That there weren't enough of them anymore to overcome black bloc voting?

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “That there weren’t enough of them anymore to overcome black bloc voting?”

    Nice effort at deflection. There are millions of white Americans who vote. If they are voting for elites who are “morons”. what does it say for this particular group? I thought white people have high IQs and high time preferences.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @Corvinus

    Well, yeah.

    Not to mention that there are millions of whites who don't vote. And millions of whites who vote for anti-white POS's.

    And that the biggest defector group in the Trump coalition was white men.

  208. Anonymous[144] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    @Malcolm Y


    in the Northern Hemisphere, summer is when the earth is farther away from the sun
     
    Just FYI: The Earth is farthest from the Sun in January. It's all axis tilt.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Umm, “closest”, of course. Farthest in July.

  209. @Bardon Kaldian
    @Badger Down

    I don't know whether you are aware of the profundity of your hypothetical question.

    I know educated people, doctors, lawyers .. regular jackpot junkies, who cannot get away from bizarre ideas. They understand that, with enough data, you'll get 50/50 (for instance, tossing a coin 5,000 times).

    But they also believe in weird theories of "nets", or some other term, whereby you can profit in the game. For instance, if you toss a coin 20 times & you get a tail 16 times- they believe there is some, so to speak, "inertia" so you're more likely to get a tail in the next 1, 2 or 5 times.

    When I tried to explain to them that any tossing of a coin is starting anew, as if nothing had happened in the past- they couldn't believe it.

    Replies: @JMcG, @Hypnotoad666

    When I tried to explain to them that any tossing of a coin is starting anew, as if nothing had happened in the past- they couldn’t believe it.

    Here’s a variation on that phenomenon that stumps the richest and smartest people in the world on a regular basis: “If a stock has outperformed the market for 10 years in a row, what are the odds it will outperform the market again this year?”

    • Agree: Bardon Kaldian
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Hypnotoad666

    That's not the same thing because the price of a particular stock is not completely random like a coin toss.

    "Past performance is no guarantee of future results" is a standard warning but in stocks past performance is at least somewhat CORRELATED with future results - they are not completely independent variables in the statistical sense.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Hypnotoad666

  210. @Anonymous
    @epebble


    That is a much harder question and it is somewhat excusable if many more people get it wrong.
     
    It is in fact a much, much EASIER question. The ORIGINAL question is in fact VERY DIFFICULT.

    We know that the odds of coming up heads on one flip is 50 percent. We know the odds of coming up heads on a second flip is 50 percent. But how do you combine them to get a probability of coming up heads twice in a row?

    I’d wager that less than 5 percent of commenters here can EXPLAIN it. That’s worse than the MPs!

    Replies: @martin_2, @John Johnson

    We know that the odds of coming up heads on one flip is 50 percent. We know the odds of coming up heads on a second flip is 50 percent. But how do you combine them to get a probability of coming up heads twice in a row?

    I’d wager that less than 5 percent of commenters here can EXPLAIN it. That’s worse than the MPs!

    Less than 5% can’t explain the math? I really doubt that as there seems to be a lot of business and science majors here. The MPs didn’t know to combine them which is really unnerving. They aren’t random forum posters, in theory (cough) they are supposed to be the top of their class.

    The math works because we are still dealing with ratios.

    However it can be counter-intuitive since we aren’t dealing with pizzas or fractional cups of flour.

    If I say “give me a half a pizza and then take half of that” people understand that this would be 1/4.

    The math is 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4.

    Coin flipping isn’t any different.

    We are saying “give me half the odds and then take half of that” or “give me half the scenarios and then do it again with the result”.

    I think the important thing is that on a liberal or Marxist website the common response would be:
    Who cares about coin flipping?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @John Johnson


    The math is 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4.
     
    That isn’t an explanation. It’s just a mechanical rule, one that almost anyone can memorize.

    If I say “give me a half a pizza and then take half of that” people understand that this would be 1/4.

    Coin flipping isn’t any different.

    We are saying “give me half the odds and then take half of that” or “give me half the scenarios and then do it again with the result”.
     
    I don’t think your analogy fits. We aren’t taking half of the first coin with the second flip. There are two discrete events involving a whole coin. How do we merge them?

    As far as I can tell, IJ is the only one in this thread who has proffered a comprehensible explanation for the answer.

    But no one has explained why multiplying 1/2 by 1/2 should work. And generally, no one has given an explanation for merger.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Anon

  211. @John Johnson
    Wow. Just wow.

    Replies: @Bartleby the Scrivner

    Hey

    Math is hard.

    • LOL: John Johnson
  212. @Hypnotoad666
    @Bardon Kaldian


    When I tried to explain to them that any tossing of a coin is starting anew, as if nothing had happened in the past- they couldn’t believe it.
     
    Here's a variation on that phenomenon that stumps the richest and smartest people in the world on a regular basis: "If a stock has outperformed the market for 10 years in a row, what are the odds it will outperform the market again this year?"

    Replies: @Jack D

    That’s not the same thing because the price of a particular stock is not completely random like a coin toss.

    “Past performance is no guarantee of future results” is a standard warning but in stocks past performance is at least somewhat CORRELATED with future results – they are not completely independent variables in the statistical sense.

    • Agree: Triteleia Laxa
    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Jack D

    The countervailing force is that the stock's overperformance gets priced in, but you're right that this is a silly comparison.

    , @Hypnotoad666
    @Jack D

    I'll admit my scenario required knowing extraneous facts, so it's not totally fair.

    But it is basically stating the efficient market theory of stock prices which is empirically validated over and over again. Basically, all of the anticipated odds of the stock price going up or down are baked into the current market price of the stock. So, like coin flips, "stock prices don't have memories." https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/efficientmarkethypothesis.asp

    Stock prices are thus independent variables that do a "random walk" around the current market price at any given time. So the people who are trying to do "momentum" investing or looking for magic patterns in past price charts are the equivalent of the guy at the craps table who thinks his dice are "hot" or "cold."

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason, @John Johnson

  213. @Jack D
    @YetAnotherAnon

    The FDS thing is laughable unless the female in question is truly a "high-value woman” (and even then it ain't such hot advice). But why would anyone who is truly a "high-value man" put up with such shit from an average (or below) looking overweight female (like the one in the photo) at the outset of a relationship - it's only going to go downhill from there? Maybe someone who is a desperate Beta who enjoys being abused by females would put up with these ridiculous pre-conditions for months on end but most men are going to go along and pay for dinner once or maybe twice and then they are going to RUN, RUN, RUN away from what they will perceive as a crazy bitch.

    Modern women ALREADY have a tendency to overvalue themselves (and undervalue men), but FDS is this on steroids. If women were really capable of honest self evaluation of themselves and could look in the mirror and honestly say "I am a 10 and am deserving of a billionaire" then it would be one thing, but what's really going to happen is that 2s and 3rd look in the mirror and THINK that they see an 8 or a 9 and price themselves accordingly. It's like some guy is trying to sell his 1998 Acura which is his pride and joy and in his eyes it is a "rare collector car" and should go for at least $24k - so few were ordered in bubblegum pink! But everyone else looks at it and sees a 20 year old car with dents and rattles and won't go a nickel above $3,500. The same thing is going to happen to these women unless they find some incredible sucker.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @YetAnotherAnon, @Anonymous

    If women were really capable of honest self evaluation of themselves and could look in the mirror and honestly say “I am a 10 and am deserving of a billionaire” then it would be one thing, but what’s really going to happen is that 2s and 3rd look in the mirror and THINK that they see an 8 or a 9 and price themselves accordingly.

    I think most women view themselves as 6s or 7s but have had so many men bow to them that they feel they should hold out a bit longer.

    The real problem is that TEEVEE convinces them that mr. better is just one more date away.

    Most men shouldn’t bother at all with these dating apps. There are plenty of places in rural America where “mr.right” is a man with a job and no drug problem. I was at Wally world the other day and saw a guy that looked like a skinny homeless pirate but had kids with good looking woman.

    The women in cities are messed up beyond belief. I do pretty well with women and could not believe the sh-t they expect in the cities. A lot of these women end up marrying professionals they aren’t at all attracted to just so they can get the tiny 700k house that was built in 1950. Get out and move to the country.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @John Johnson


    Blanche DuBois:
    Oh, in my youth I excited some admiration. But look at me now! Would you think it possible that I was once considered to be attractive?

    Stanley Kowalski:
    Your looks are okay.

    Blanche DuBois:
    I was fishing for a compliment Stanley.

    Stanley Kowalski:
    I don't go in for that stuff.

    Blanche DuBois:
    What stuff?

    Stanley Kowalski:
    Compliments to women about their looks. I never met a dame yet that didn't know if she was good-looking or not without being told*, and some of them give themselves credit for more than they've got. I once went out with a dame who told me, " I'm the glamorous type," she says, "I am the glamorous type!" I say, "So What?"

    Blanche DuBois:
    And what did she say then?

    Stanley Kowalski:
    She didn't say nothing. That shut her up like a clam.

    Blanche DuBois:
    Did it end the romance?

    Stanley Kowalski:
    It ended the conversation that was all. You know that some men are taken in by all this Hollywood glamour and some just aren't.
     

    Stanley Kowalski, the original negger and game player.

    Actually, no, he was just honest and simple. I think that's what men need to be: themselves.

    But - and this is true for everyone, man, woman, or child: BOUNDARIES.

    And do unto others.

    *I think this is true of really pretty women. They really don't need to be told that they're pretty, they know it, and calling attention to it is embarrassing.

    The others are in a whirlpool of crazy brought on by Instagram, although, as Stanley tells us, it didn't start with Instagram.

    Instagram chicks with their outlandish eyebrows and duck lips are ugly AF and we're told that they are the height of glamor. At least Hollywood gave us some real beauties.

  214. @Paperback Writer
    Right. I like the tweeter (Posobiec) but the time for statements like that is long past. It's obvious we're ruled by maniacal monsters.

    Meanwhile, in the real world the Washington Post runs an article alleging with no proof that eight black male suicides in the last few years were lynchings. Yeah, right.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Meanwhile, in the real world the Washington Post runs an article alleging with no proof that eight black male suicides in the last few years were lynchings.

    As with Anthony Bourdain, Kate Spade, Robin Williams, and half of Badfinger. It’s not just a black thing.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @Reg Cæsar

    About 48K people per year commit suicide in the US. These eight in Mississippi merited civil rights investigations, a cost to the taxpayer.

    But in case you were wondering, the removal of the magic rock that has a magical ability to hurt black people's feelz was financed by private donations. What next? Magic breasts?

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    @Reg Cæsar

    People try, and sometimes succeed, to kill their bodies for various reasons. In many cases- they don't even know why.

    I know two failed suicidees, a male and a female (hanging & jumping from a high from a corporate building). They didn't plan it; they were not obsessed with it.

    Just, when it came, they were unmistakably led by an irresistible inner impulse.

  215. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Jack D

    If someone talks badly about other people, with little understanding, for no reason, avoid them like a leper, for they will talk about you in exactly the same way. They will also be prone to doing a lot worse.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    If someone talks badly about other people, with little understanding, for no reason, avoid them like a leper, for they will talk about you in exactly the same way.

    They will also be prone to doing a lot worse.

    (BTW, has anyone learned the nature of the “accident” that killed Trevor Moore? It wasn’t autoerotic asphyxiation, was it?)

    • Replies: @reactionry
    @Reg Cæsar

    I too, had thought of that "nice" quote of Ms Roosevelt, perhaps on account of having posted something elsewhere some years prior to 2015. Try to imagine an "Alice Roosevelt Longworthless" invited to a posh dinner party with prominent Brits and Dot Subcontinentals about a hundred years ago -

    She declares, "If you haven't anything good to say about the British Raj, come have a suttee next to me."
    - And then turns to face an elderly Indian woman - "Mind if you smoke?"

  216. @VivaLaMigra
    Um, yes, Earth's orbit is slightly elliptical, but we're closer to the sun when it's summer in the Southern Hemisphere. That's why it's Hot as Blazes down in Oz. Seriously, Harvard grads didn't know that it's actually "summer" somewhere on the planet for a total of six months out of the year, and that Aussies and Kiwi's go to the beach on Christmas Day ?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    I’m sure some Harvard grads do, but the ones who don’t or who haven’t thought about why it’s relevant, sure seem self-confident, unlike the poor townie kids who can sense that their explanation must be BS that everybody will laugh at them for saying.

    Actually, that sounds like a good buddy detective move premise: “Townie.” A townie and a Joe College have to team up to solve a murder mystery even though they can’t stand each other.

  217. @Triteleia Laxa
    @YetAnotherAnon

    The FDS framework offers potential female adherents many things.

    1. Hope that their situation will change, but that they don't have to.

    2. New forms of validation, like successfully getting men to buy them dinner.

    Of course, most people will pay your bill if you make it awkward enough.

    3. An excuse for their suffering in the past, which removes all responsibility from them by declaring that they were just "too good" and "too kind."

    The chance of this appealing to someone who was actually "too kind", rather than too cruel and too aggressive is small. "Too kind" people rarely engage in such starkly contrasted black and white thinking.

    4. The ability to judge and devalue men who don't cater to their every aggressive whim as "low value," thereby reducing the sting to their egos when they inevitably get rejected.

    This is a rationalisation for "splitting," which tells you a lot that you need to know about which type of women's psychological needs FDS serves.

    5. A defensive extreme pickiness, which means that all potential mates must be above average in every conceivable way, even including penis size, have the non-reactivity of a Saint and that the woman must never compromise from her worst, most childish impulses, if doing so might also be enjoyed by the man. This is self-defeating misandry.

    Overall, it will be a welcome experience for any woman who needs to feel perfect by externalising all of her problems onto men. This saves them from ever having to confront themselves and provides them with a community who will validate their extreme egotism, but never actually connect with them.

    In this way, they can feel safe and protected, by having perfectly distanced themselves from the world, and keep anyone with any self-respect far away, by creating situations which validate their ideological prison and subsequent profound unhappiness, rage and loneliness.

    My advice, if you ever find yourself in the draining situation of talking to a woman like that, is to tell them that you're sorry that they feel they have to be angry/unhappy or lonely all of the time and then, every time they try to blame the world/their ex etc, nudge them back to talking about themselves, rather than their ideology. Or run.

    If this doesn't work just talk to them about their physical ailments and aches and pains, of which they will have endless, and then let them be present and to open up beyond this FDS nonsense from there.

    The women in FDS should stop trying to control their potential mates, first by recognising that this is what they have always been trying to do, even in their "pick-me" stage and this is why they are so fragile. By trying to control someone to shore up your self-image, you are building your self-image on ground which has its own consciousness and narrative and can shift at any time. Like building a leaning tower on the back of a sleeping elephant and then trying to constantly soothe it to stay asleep. Imagine the anxiety!

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    I just think it’s a matter of numbers. By definition, not every woman can have a high value man, unless your society has a huge surplus of males (or you are willing to share).

    The nearest you can come to this female paradise is if you’re in somewhere like an oil boom town, where there’s been a huge influx of well paid men, and all of a sudden you are a scarce and valuable resource.

    Big cities like London and NYC are full of ambitious, young, and pretty women, and ambitious young men. But not all of them are going to be successful. “Get On Or Get Out”.

    As Joan Didion put it about NYC, “it is distinctly possible to stay too long at the Fair” – to not get on and not get out – and then you end up like this intelligent, attractive, poor and foolish woman child.

    It was February 2009 and, at 44-and-a-half, she had left a bad long-term relationship and moved into a grotty London flat. “I was standing by the window, watching the rain make dusty tracks down the glass, when the traffic in the street below seemed to go silent, as if I’d put it on ‘mute’. In that moment, I became acutely aware of myself, almost as if I were an observer of the scene from outside my body. And then it came to me: it’s over. I’m never going to have a baby.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @YetAnotherAnon


    The nearest you can come to this female paradise is if you’re in somewhere like an oil boom town
     
    Women don't experience these as paradise.

    I just think it’s a matter of numbers. By definition, not every woman can have a high value man
     
    Value is far more subjective than either you or the FDS idiots convince yourselves.

    Yes, there are averaged out values, but your worldviews are both shockingly materialistic. They think they are progressive. You think you are traditional. Neither is true.

    and then you end up like this intelligent, attractive, poor and foolish woman child.
     
    Plenty of stories which could be told with the exact opposite lesson.

    I'm not going to lie, I feel like you took my interesting comment and gave a very boring and predictable reply.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

  218. @Jack D
    @Hypnotoad666

    That's not the same thing because the price of a particular stock is not completely random like a coin toss.

    "Past performance is no guarantee of future results" is a standard warning but in stocks past performance is at least somewhat CORRELATED with future results - they are not completely independent variables in the statistical sense.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Hypnotoad666

    The countervailing force is that the stock’s overperformance gets priced in, but you’re right that this is a silly comparison.

  219. If there is a problem with British MPs & 25% it goes beyond ordinary abstractions. Simply, many people don’t understand various abstractions, be it numbers or words.

    But, the point is: MPs should know perfectly well about probabilities, percentages & similar stuff. It’s their business to know it. They live for it & from it.

    It’s like being a hitman who is clueless about various types of handgun.

  220. @Anonymous
    Actually, the earth is *furthest* away from the sun at the peak of the northern hemisphere summer.

    Replies: @Jim

    And of course when it’s summer in the Northern Hemisphere it’s winter in the Southern Hemisphere so the seasons can’t be due to the small yearly variation in the Earth’s distance from the Sun.

    • Replies: @Charlie
    @Jim

    These respondents, with enough education to speak about the earth's elliptical orbit, can't make use of a simple fact most of us learned in grade school: when it's summer in America and Europe, it's winter in Australia. Faced with this contradiction, the correct answer for anyone with half a brain should be "I don't know."

  221. @Reg Cæsar
    @Paperback Writer


    Meanwhile, in the real world the Washington Post runs an article alleging with no proof that eight black male suicides in the last few years were lynchings.
     
    As with Anthony Bourdain, Kate Spade, Robin Williams, and half of Badfinger. It's not just a black thing.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Bardon Kaldian

    About 48K people per year commit suicide in the US. These eight in Mississippi merited civil rights investigations, a cost to the taxpayer.

    But in case you were wondering, the removal of the magic rock that has a magical ability to hurt black people’s feelz was financed by private donations. What next? Magic breasts?

  222. @Mr Mox
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Please forgive me, Triteleia, but one of these days, Steve should do a piece on the gender gap in humor. Oh, wait, Christopher Hitchens already did:

    https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2007/01/hitchens200701

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Sharing that article about how funny men are after making that “joke” is like a black guy pointing to the 100 metres at the Olympics after tripping over his own shoelaces.

  223. @Jack D
    @YetAnotherAnon

    The FDS thing is laughable unless the female in question is truly a "high-value woman” (and even then it ain't such hot advice). But why would anyone who is truly a "high-value man" put up with such shit from an average (or below) looking overweight female (like the one in the photo) at the outset of a relationship - it's only going to go downhill from there? Maybe someone who is a desperate Beta who enjoys being abused by females would put up with these ridiculous pre-conditions for months on end but most men are going to go along and pay for dinner once or maybe twice and then they are going to RUN, RUN, RUN away from what they will perceive as a crazy bitch.

    Modern women ALREADY have a tendency to overvalue themselves (and undervalue men), but FDS is this on steroids. If women were really capable of honest self evaluation of themselves and could look in the mirror and honestly say "I am a 10 and am deserving of a billionaire" then it would be one thing, but what's really going to happen is that 2s and 3rd look in the mirror and THINK that they see an 8 or a 9 and price themselves accordingly. It's like some guy is trying to sell his 1998 Acura which is his pride and joy and in his eyes it is a "rare collector car" and should go for at least $24k - so few were ordered in bubblegum pink! But everyone else looks at it and sees a 20 year old car with dents and rattles and won't go a nickel above $3,500. The same thing is going to happen to these women unless they find some incredible sucker.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @YetAnotherAnon, @Anonymous

    “But why would anyone who is truly a “high-value man” put up with such shit from an average (or below) looking overweight female (like the one in the photo)”

    We must try to be fair. I think that forum is split between the women who are really looking for a mate and those who have either given up or were never in the running at all. Like the overweight student-age girl pictured, posting about ” further testament of the depravity of males“. Does that sound to you like someone looking for a long-term relationship with a man?

    (It would be different if she were posting “further testament of the depravity of males – which I absolutely love“.)

  224. Anon[159] • Disclaimer says:
    @YetAnotherAnon
    @anonymous

    I thought the bad thing about the Tuskegee syphilis study was that they left 'participants' untreated, which might have been ethical when the project started in 1932, when no syphilis treatments were proven effective, but stopped being ethical when penicillin became widely available in 1947 and the participants weren't offered treatment.

    No one was deliberately infected or injected with syphilis.

    https://www.tuskegee.edu/about-us/centers-of-excellence/bioethics-center/about-the-usphs-syphilis-study

    Replies: @Anon

    I thought the bad thing about the Tuskegee syphilis study was that they left ‘participants’ untreated, which might have been ethical when the project started in 1932, when no syphilis treatments were proven effective, but stopped being ethical when penicillin became widely available in 1947 and the participants weren’t offered treatment.

    Why were they left untreated?

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    @Anon

    (As it is with crime, you wanna study the syph you go where the syph be -
    forget the Norwegian grandmothers)

    They were specifically interested in the development of untreated syphilis
    (spoiler: over 80% heal spontaneously and never go into late stage)
    as they already knew treated syph (then involving mercury and arsenic)
    was exceedingly unhealthy.
    The study only involved second- and third-stage cases where even penicillin would have been of dubious value (it is theorized the third-stage damage is autoimmune).
    Indeed the study participants showed higher life-expectancy than the control
    (general public) due to better health care.
    No one was purposely infected (the same team did purposely infect soldiers and prisoners in Guatemala to test penicillin for early stage, but they used prostitutes and not syringes which would have grossly altered the progress of the infection).

    , @Colin Wright
    @Anon

    'Why were they left untreated?'

    My impression is that blacks were in charge of the study.

  225. @Reg Cæsar
    @Paperback Writer


    Meanwhile, in the real world the Washington Post runs an article alleging with no proof that eight black male suicides in the last few years were lynchings.
     
    As with Anthony Bourdain, Kate Spade, Robin Williams, and half of Badfinger. It's not just a black thing.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Bardon Kaldian

    People try, and sometimes succeed, to kill their bodies for various reasons. In many cases- they don’t even know why.

    I know two failed suicidees, a male and a female (hanging & jumping from a high from a corporate building). They didn’t plan it; they were not obsessed with it.

    Just, when it came, they were unmistakably led by an irresistible inner impulse.

  226. @Mike Tre
    @Paperback Writer

    Ella French shouldn't have been a police officer to begin with. Her murder is a tragedy, but what kind of society sends it young women into harm's way like this? A sick society.

    Replies: @Anon

    Ella French shouldn’t have been a police officer to begin with. Her murder is a tragedy, but what kind of society sends it young women into harm’s way like this? A sick society.

    Especially young mothers of two young children. She had just returned from maternity leave.

    • Replies: @Goddard
    @Anon

    Men need to get into the habit of opposing the idiocy we see on display here. Imagine the husband of this woman. He was either on board with her decision, in which case he is a hapless cuck, or he opposed it to some degree, but was too weak to do anything about it. Men, we have right on our side! Develop the habit of saying, "No woman should be out on the streets hunting down criminals," or start off with "No woman with two young kids should be out doing what this unfortunate cop was doing." Wear these sayings into a groove.

  227. From my personal experience of the political class trying to deal with actual data and outcomes, I am astonished that the proportion that gave the right answer was 41%! The Tories are mostly privately educated so they have had this kind of thing drilled into them. Hence their lead.

    For a politician perception and emotional feel beats reality every time. Hence Brexit. Actuality doesn’t enter into it. Emotions=votes not facts.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Philip Owen


    For a politician perception and emotional feel beats reality every time. Hence Brexit.
     
    Brexit was absolutely the right call.
  228. @Jack D

    the earth’s orbit around the sun is an ellipse, so that means we are closer to the sun in summer so it’s hotter.
     
    "What do you mean WE, white man?" - an Indigenous Person from Tierra del Fuego.

    BTW, the fact that more of the land mass (68%) is in the northern hemisphere is WHY the earth tilts on its axis. It's also why "we" assume the Northern summer to be the default summer.

    Not only is the ellipse explanation impossibly wrong (then there would be only 1 summer on earth instead of 2 opposite summers) but it's also backward - the earth is the closest to the sun in January.

    People are mislead by the schoolbook illustrations of the earth's orbit, which always look like this:

    https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/orbit-3.jpg

    Earth's orbit actually looks like this, to scale (Earth on the left) :

    https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3b7c569b3087517a63bdb797d0cee441-c

    If you draw this ellipse to scale on a piece of paper (1" = 10 million miles), it's about 9-1/8" on the short side and 9-1/2" on the long axis - it's visually indistinguishable from a circle. Likewise the seasonal difference resulting from this almost circular orbit is next to nil.

    But, yes, our ruling class is fatally infected with overconfidence. They "know" that there are no genetic differences between the races with the same certainty that they "know" the cause of the seasons.

    Replies: @ThreeCranes, @Reg Cæsar, @res

    People are mislead by the schoolbook illustrations of the earth’s orbit…

    Lemme guess… you got B+s in science, and Ds in spelling.

    We recently visited the 45°/90° point. (There are only four. Good luck getting to the other three.)

    The choice of the parallel is obvious. The choice of meridian is completely arbitrary. It’s just that Greenwich won out over Paris and Ferro.

    BTW, the fact that more of the land mass (68%) is in the northern hemisphere is WHY the earth tilts on its axis.

    I assume you’re joking. The “land pole” is close to Nantes, France. The “water pole” is in the ocean (surprise!) not far from the apocryphal New Zealand.

    I don’t like the way all of Eurasia, and its nearly five billion residents, is pointed at Alaska, as a funnel to North America. Along the Great Circle route, i.e., the shortcut.

  229. Anonymous[272] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    @YetAnotherAnon

    The FDS thing is laughable unless the female in question is truly a "high-value woman” (and even then it ain't such hot advice). But why would anyone who is truly a "high-value man" put up with such shit from an average (or below) looking overweight female (like the one in the photo) at the outset of a relationship - it's only going to go downhill from there? Maybe someone who is a desperate Beta who enjoys being abused by females would put up with these ridiculous pre-conditions for months on end but most men are going to go along and pay for dinner once or maybe twice and then they are going to RUN, RUN, RUN away from what they will perceive as a crazy bitch.

    Modern women ALREADY have a tendency to overvalue themselves (and undervalue men), but FDS is this on steroids. If women were really capable of honest self evaluation of themselves and could look in the mirror and honestly say "I am a 10 and am deserving of a billionaire" then it would be one thing, but what's really going to happen is that 2s and 3rd look in the mirror and THINK that they see an 8 or a 9 and price themselves accordingly. It's like some guy is trying to sell his 1998 Acura which is his pride and joy and in his eyes it is a "rare collector car" and should go for at least $24k - so few were ordered in bubblegum pink! But everyone else looks at it and sees a 20 year old car with dents and rattles and won't go a nickel above $3,500. The same thing is going to happen to these women unless they find some incredible sucker.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @YetAnotherAnon, @Anonymous

    If women were really capable of honest self evaluation of themselves and could look in the mirror and honestly say “I am a 10 and am deserving of a billionaire” then it would be one thing, but what’s really going to happen is that 2s and 3rd look in the mirror and THINK that they see an 8 or a 9 and price themselves accordingly.

    “Deserving of a billionaire”?? “Price themselves”??

    You insinuate that women are after money.

  230. @Malcolm Y
    Didn't check this but I thought, in the Northern Hemisphere, summer is when the earth is farther away from the sun but the axis of rotation (and therefore the North Pole) is directed more towards the sun so that light strikes the Earth more directly (light rays are normal to the surface) and at higher latitudes.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Jim

    The main thing is that the rotational axis of the Earth being tilted toward the Sun means that the Sun is above the horizon longer in the Hemisphere tilted toward the Sun. At latitudes close enough to the Pole in that Hemisphere the Sun will circle around in the sky without going below the horizon.

    At the equinoxes the Earth’s rotational axis is orthogonal to the radius vector from the Sun to the Earth and day and night are equal everywhere.

  231. @Intelligent Dasein
    @epebble

    You've just witnessed the phenomenon I call "Jack D Amnesia." Numerous examples exist of him getting roasted by people who actually know the subjects upon which he opines, yet he blithely continues bloviating about every topic under the sun as if he understood them all.

    Replies: @epebble, @donut

    Well, I am not a geologist (did a course in Engineering geology in 1978). But that the distribution of continents is the reason for earths 23.5 degree tilt sounds unlikely using basic science. Earth’s radius is 4,000 miles. The tallest point on earth (29,000 feet) is about 5+ miles. So the average may be a mile or two. That a difference of less that 1/2,000th will matter (or if you account for land being denser than water, say 1/1,000 or even 1/500) in tilting earth more than a quarter off the ecliptic sounds unlikely.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @epebble

    There is also the fact that the continents are made up of lighter (less dense) rocks than the rest of the crust. In effect, they 'float' on top of the denser rock below.

    Replies: @epebble

  232. @jimmyriddle
    The class of 2012 were geniuses compared to the current crop of Labour women MPs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH-_wRC8bt4

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Gordo, @astrolabe, @Philip Owen, @Badger Down

    Raab is not exactly well rounded bright himself. Hard working and verbal. Thuss trainable in his subject, law if given the best teachers.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Philip Owen


    Raab is not exactly well rounded bright himself. Hard working and verbal. Thuss trainable in his subject, law if given the best teachers.
     
    Isn’t Raab jewish? How could he not be good at law?
  233. Anonymous[272] • Disclaimer says:
    @John Johnson
    @Anonymous

    We know that the odds of coming up heads on one flip is 50 percent. We know the odds of coming up heads on a second flip is 50 percent. But how do you combine them to get a probability of coming up heads twice in a row?


    I’d wager that less than 5 percent of commenters here can EXPLAIN it. That’s worse than the MPs!

    Less than 5% can't explain the math? I really doubt that as there seems to be a lot of business and science majors here. The MPs didn't know to combine them which is really unnerving. They aren't random forum posters, in theory (cough) they are supposed to be the top of their class.

    The math works because we are still dealing with ratios.

    However it can be counter-intuitive since we aren't dealing with pizzas or fractional cups of flour.

    If I say "give me a half a pizza and then take half of that" people understand that this would be 1/4.

    The math is 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4.

    Coin flipping isn't any different.

    We are saying "give me half the odds and then take half of that" or "give me half the scenarios and then do it again with the result".

    I think the important thing is that on a liberal or Marxist website the common response would be:
    Who cares about coin flipping?

    Replies: @Anonymous

    The math is 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4.

    That isn’t an explanation. It’s just a mechanical rule, one that almost anyone can memorize.

    If I say “give me a half a pizza and then take half of that” people understand that this would be 1/4.

    Coin flipping isn’t any different.

    We are saying “give me half the odds and then take half of that” or “give me half the scenarios and then do it again with the result”.

    I don’t think your analogy fits. We aren’t taking half of the first coin with the second flip. There are two discrete events involving a whole coin. How do we merge them?

    As far as I can tell, IJ is the only one in this thread who has proffered a comprehensible explanation for the answer.

    But no one has explained why multiplying 1/2 by 1/2 should work. And generally, no one has given an explanation for merger.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Anonymous

    That isn’t an explanation. It’s just a mechanical rule, one that almost anyone can memorize.

    I started with the basic math which is what the MPs didn't know.

    I don’t think your analogy fits. We aren’t taking half of the first coin with the second flip. There are two discrete events involving a whole coin. How do we merge them?

    But no one has explained why multiplying 1/2 by 1/2 should work. And generally, no one has given an explanation for merger.

    Think of them as branched scenarios.

    I flip and I get head or tails. From there I flip again and get heads or tails. 1/4 of the scenarios give me what I want. It's not possible to get to heads/heads or tails/tails unless I flip twice.

    It might be easier to explain in a scenario where you are working with different odds.

    Let's say I have a single die but I want to make a betting game with 1:12 odds.

    Well I can cut the odds in half with a coin flip first.

    So to win you have to flip the coin and get heads and then you have to roll the die and get the right number.

    This starts out with two possible scenarios with the coin (heads / tails) and then from there you roll the die for a total of twelve possible scenarios (heads1, heads2, heads3, heads4, heads5, heads6, tails1, tails2, tails3, tails4, tails5, tails6). But only one scenario will win.

    So first flip the coin (1/2) then the dice ( 1/6). So I cut the odds of the die in half by using the coin (1/2)x(1/6)=1/12.

    I took the die and cut the odds by half by multiplying as you would by taking half of anything else. Like I said it is really no different than any other ratio, we are just used to cutting pizzas or cups of flour which makes it seems strange at first.

    , @Anon
    @Anonymous

    Indeed. Not being math-oriented, I got to 25% by listing all possible outcomes in the double coin toss:
    1) two heads
    2) two tails
    3) head + tails
    4) tails + heads

    So I thought 25%.

    I went and checked with husband (who’s disturbingly numerical) and he said to multiply .5 x .5. I asked how come he knew to multiply the two outcomes and he said that’s the way you learn it. So I still don’t know why.

    Replies: @res

  234. @Jack D
    @Hypnotoad666

    That's not the same thing because the price of a particular stock is not completely random like a coin toss.

    "Past performance is no guarantee of future results" is a standard warning but in stocks past performance is at least somewhat CORRELATED with future results - they are not completely independent variables in the statistical sense.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Hypnotoad666

    I’ll admit my scenario required knowing extraneous facts, so it’s not totally fair.

    But it is basically stating the efficient market theory of stock prices which is empirically validated over and over again. Basically, all of the anticipated odds of the stock price going up or down are baked into the current market price of the stock. So, like coin flips, “stock prices don’t have memories.” https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/efficientmarkethypothesis.asp

    Stock prices are thus independent variables that do a “random walk” around the current market price at any given time. So the people who are trying to do “momentum” investing or looking for magic patterns in past price charts are the equivalent of the guy at the craps table who thinks his dice are “hot” or “cold.”

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @Hypnotoad666

    Not sure I totally agree.

    Over the long run it is a truism that the market is efficient, but in the short term it overshoots and undershoots all the time and so a person who is familiar with the behavior of a particular stock can often take advantage of certain movements.

    For example on the receipts a good news pre-market a stock will usually open higher and then fall back once buy orders have been filled and the implications of the news better analyzed.

    Also the market makers have a tendency to manipulate the prices of stocks so as to stimulate market activity and maximize churning, so the bid and offer prices of a stock will constantly be changing all day in spite of not much buying and selling.

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    , @John Johnson
    @Hypnotoad666

    Stock prices are thus independent variables that do a “random walk” around the current market price at any given time. So the people who are trying to do “momentum” investing or looking for magic patterns in past price charts are the equivalent of the guy at the craps table who thinks his dice are “hot” or “cold.

    But they aren't random number generators like a casino wheel.

    A company has a good quarter and the price goes up. That wasn't random. You can play the stock market like a gambler or you can play it like an investor.

    Momentum investing can work because of hype. You aren't betting on a high that you feel is due. You can bet on everyone else buying into a stock based on hype but you get to it before them. In a sense you can bet on human nature. The stock market isn't a rational system and you can bet on irrationality. In a casino all your bets are very straightforward and fixed. You can bet that other people will lose but you are still at the mercy of house odds.

  235. @astrolabe
    @Anon

    I don't think your theory that the incorrect MPs thought that they were being tricked can survive the observation that they (almost) all thought that the probability of two heads was 50%. A shocking number of people think that all probabilities are 50%. They might not express it so boldly, but if you ask them the probability of a thing, they reason that the thing is either true or false, so it must be 50-50.
    Unlikely as it sounds, probability theory is a large part of my job, and we did some work for an insurance company whose technical advisor was of the 50% faith. My colleagues decided to pussy-foot around the issue.

    Replies: @Philip Neal

    A shocking number of people think that all probabilities are 50%. They might not express it so boldly, but if you ask them the probability of a thing, they reason that the thing is either true or false, so it must be 50-50.

    Aha! I never knew that. Thanks for the most useful fact in this entire comments thread.

    I suggest that more Conservative MPs knew the right answer than Labour because more of them have a background in finance. It is true that most of the time MPs don’t need to know things like this, and then something happens. Covid, for instance.

    Quite early on, false positives and negatives became a real issue and the Health Secretary fell into a common misunderstanding of conditional probabilities covered in first-year textbooks. When challenged in Parliament, he replied (I quote from memory):

    “I shall be delighted to refer the questioner to our Treasury economists and the well-founded Bayesian arithmetic which they employ.”

    He kept his job, the sun continued to orbit the earth as if nothing had happened, and a year later he was sacked for having an affair in contravention of the social distancing rules he himself had demanded in Cabinet.

    That is how the world really works.

  236. @anon
    Suddenly I intensely desire to engage in a little game of chance with Members of Parliament. So does my friend Bill.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QONG-Djd7R0

    Replies: @Ganderson, @Hypnotoad666

    Two tens for a five?

  237. Actually, that sounds like a good buddy detective move premise: “Townie.” A townie and a Joe College have to team up to solve a murder mystery even though they can’t stand each other.

    Is Breaking Away the best townie movie ever? I ask as a former townie myself.

  238. @Jack D
    @epebble


    Is it the TRUTH?
     
    As I explained before, the Jewish prohibition on disclosing damaging information extends EVEN to the truth, with certain exceptions (if the speech has a constructive purpose).

    Just because something is true doesn't mean that person doesn't have a right not to have his private matters outed to the public for no good reason. If the damage caused to the person being discussed is greater than the good that will coming from outing him, then you shouldn't do it. In many cases, NO good will come from outing that person at all, only damages, so there is nothing to balance against even if what you are saying is true. (In the old days, this might have applied to outing someone as gay - nowadays to outing someone as a conservative - let's say you get Steve's donor list (which I hope BTW he keeps in a secure manner). Should you post this list on the internet even if it is true?

    Replies: @epebble, @Triteleia Laxa, @John Johnson, @kaganovitch

    As I explained before, the Jewish prohibition on disclosing damaging information extends EVEN to the truth, with certain exceptions (if the speech has a constructive purpose).

    How are Anglo leaders any different?

    The civil war wouldn’t have happened if Lincoln’s private beliefs on race were made public.

    DC is filled with Republicans and Democrats that believe race should be a noble lie.

    Anglo billionaires are the same way. I guarantee that if racial realism made headway with the public then Anglo billionaires would start dropping money into left-wing and egalitarian organizations. They just aren’t as paranoid as Soros yet.

    Even what people believe are tech libertarians would drop hundreds of millions overnight. I guarantee it. At this point they believe that enough of the masses are fooled and don’t need to waste their money.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @John Johnson


    DC is filled with Republicans and Democrats that believe race should be a noble lie.
     
    Yes. The elites' expressed opinions about race relations are rooted in their belief that the peons (us) have no reason or capacity for private preferences. We should just like what they tell us to like, do what they tell us to do, and get along among ourselves. If we show any preferences at all, that's when we become problematic and "racist." They don't conceive of us having lives of our own.

    To be really meta about it, their desire is to hammer us into a mass of deracinated NPCs an then make an offering of us to their gods.

    Perhaps more on that it another post.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  239. @Thoughts
    @Thoughts

    Even my spouse, who does not appreciate my conspiracy-theory-mongering was like

    Here's some Bad News, that's in a way Good News because it validates what you've been saying

    (and it's true...I've been watching the people who took the vaccine very closely...most people didn't get vaccinated until May June, as this commentator is not an American and our vaccine rollout was blessedly slow...so we're not at 8 weeks post second shot yet with many friends and family...the 30 somethings just go their first shot 2 weeks ago...)

    Guess I'm never travelling again...I have long veiny legs and one thing that scares the heebjesus out of me is Deep Vein Thrombosis

    As Steve Sailer says, the taller you are, the more area you have where things can go wrong

    And for me...my height means More Blood Clots

    Shove you blood clot vaccines where the sun don't shine

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Gamecock, @YetAnotherAnon

    Guess I’m never travelling again…I have long veiny legs and one thing that scares the heebjesus out of me is Deep Vein Thrombosis

    A radiologist doctor friend of mine told me, after I told him I was taking a long plane flight, to wear compression tights. He said they will increase leg circulation by 500% (!). I followed his advice, and continue to wear compression tights routinely in the winter. I have had no blood clot problems, though it’s impossible to know whether I was actually going to have any. I also get up from my plane seat once an hour for a few minutes to clear any places in my legs were circulation has slowed.

    Since you are concerned, I suggest you talk to your doctor about possible benefits of compression tights.

    I have a friend who traveled to China on business annually. On a flight back, he got a blood clot in a leg. He recovered, but it was scary for a few days. The fear was that it would break lose, and give him a heart attack or stroke. He was only ~40 years old.

  240. Anonymous[179] • Disclaimer says:
    @ThreeCranes
    @Jack D

    Very good Jack. Were you able to do that without looking it up? I was. Now riddle me this. Looking down upon the Earth from Polaris, which direction does the Earth rotate? Clockwise or counter-clockwise? And does the moon orbit the Earth in a clockwise or counter-clockwise manner? (from the same above-the-North-Pole perspective).

    No lookie.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Triteleia Laxa, @Jack D, @ThreeCranes

    Why do you sound like you think that you are asking trick questions? The fact that Sun rises in the East unequivocally means that Earth rotates anti-clockwise. A smart third-grader would answer.

    Now the moon is trickier for a third-grader because because he does not yet know that a satellite moves around planet because of gravity. But an observant third-grader who was explained the reasons for moon phases might remember how moon’s crescent looks during waxing “)” or waning “(” phases. One you know that, it should be obvious that the direction is also anti-clockwise.

  241. Don’t get hung up on maths. MPs are ignorant of broad swaths of knowledge.

    It is a systemic problem. You have barristers making decisions on agriculture.

  242. @ThreeCranes
    @Jack D

    Very good Jack. Were you able to do that without looking it up? I was. Now riddle me this. Looking down upon the Earth from Polaris, which direction does the Earth rotate? Clockwise or counter-clockwise? And does the moon orbit the Earth in a clockwise or counter-clockwise manner? (from the same above-the-North-Pole perspective).

    No lookie.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Triteleia Laxa, @Jack D, @ThreeCranes

    Counter-clockwise for the earth.

    Counter-clockwise for the moon.

    It feels right.

    Having now looked it up, this is a small win for educated guesswork. I can explain how I might have know the earth, but not the moon, which may well have been a coin flip.

  243. @epebble
    I am guessing this is is same with our Congressfolks too. If some one were to do research on all the bills and executive decisions done in the last 75 years, we may find that they were done by largely innumerate people - The ones who start a a response to any "difficult" question with - "I am not good at math".

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Marquis

    Bills are written by one of two groups: the lobbyists or the federal bureaucracy service branch dorks.

  244. • Replies: @JMcG
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Amen

  245. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @JohnnyWalker123

    I would not be the least bit surprised to discover down the road that the Israeli population was actually "vaccinated" with a placebo, in order to con the goyim into taking the deadly jab ("see, we did it, goyim! now you do it, too!"). Then, down the road when the jab's truly gruesome (and intended) effects become known, the Israelis will shrug and say "don't know why we're not dropping like flies the way the rest of you are -- guess we really are Chosen after all!"

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @kaganovitch, @Jack D

    Good thinking.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Steve Sailer

    He's an Israeli spreading the lie that they have been vaccinated with a placebo so that the anti-Semtites refuse to get jabbed and an increased proportion of them die of Covid.

    Replies: @Kjr

  246. @JMcG
    @Bardon Kaldian

    You can win free beer for life by demonstrating to a shooter that a bullet fired from a level barrel at a certain height will hit the ground at the same time as a bullet simply dropped from that same height. Not one in a hundred will believe it, even after being shown the proof.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    I didn’t learn that until physics class as a senior in high school.

    Same is true for a baseball thrown by a pitcher, which is why it’s practically impossible to make fastball rise no matter how much Spider Tack you use.

  247. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I just think it's a matter of numbers. By definition, not every woman can have a high value man, unless your society has a huge surplus of males (or you are willing to share).

    The nearest you can come to this female paradise is if you're in somewhere like an oil boom town, where there's been a huge influx of well paid men, and all of a sudden you are a scarce and valuable resource.

    Big cities like London and NYC are full of ambitious, young, and pretty women, and ambitious young men. But not all of them are going to be successful. "Get On Or Get Out".

    As Joan Didion put it about NYC, "it is distinctly possible to stay too long at the Fair" - to not get on and not get out - and then you end up like this intelligent, attractive, poor and foolish woman child.


    It was February 2009 and, at 44-and-a-half, she had left a bad long-term relationship and moved into a grotty London flat. “I was standing by the window, watching the rain make dusty tracks down the glass, when the traffic in the street below seemed to go silent, as if I’d put it on ‘mute’. In that moment, I became acutely aware of myself, almost as if I were an observer of the scene from outside my body. And then it came to me: it’s over. I’m never going to have a baby.
     

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    The nearest you can come to this female paradise is if you’re in somewhere like an oil boom town

    Women don’t experience these as paradise.

    I just think it’s a matter of numbers. By definition, not every woman can have a high value man

    Value is far more subjective than either you or the FDS idiots convince yourselves.

    Yes, there are averaged out values, but your worldviews are both shockingly materialistic. They think they are progressive. You think you are traditional. Neither is true.

    and then you end up like this intelligent, attractive, poor and foolish woman child.

    Plenty of stories which could be told with the exact opposite lesson.

    I’m not going to lie, I feel like you took my interesting comment and gave a very boring and predictable reply.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Triteleia Laxa

    "I feel like you took my interesting comment"

    We all think our comments are interesting! My issue wasn't with what you said about FDS (which seemed pretty accurate, but I don't lurk there), I just found it tangential to the point of my post.

    "and gave a very boring and predictable reply"

    Maths may be boring, but it's a fact that not all women can have a high-value man, any more than all men can have a high-value woman.

    Young men should be aware of what FDS advises, just as women should be aware of Game/PUA.

    I'd never read FDS before, although I was aware it existed. Do you think its target market (or the majority of users) are 20somethings looking (quite sensibly) to bag that HVM while there are still plenty on the market, or 30somethings who "enjoyed their 20s" but are aware that the clock is ticking?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  248. @Steve Sailer
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Good thinking.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    He’s an Israeli spreading the lie that they have been vaccinated with a placebo so that the anti-Semtites refuse to get jabbed and an increased proportion of them die of Covid.

    • Replies: @Kjr
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Or maybe You are the Semite spreading the lie that he is spreading a lie that Jews were vaccinated by a placebo so that...

    Okay, that's enough play for today 😂
    LOL

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Triteleia Laxa

  249. Anonymous[272] • Disclaimer says:
    @Philip Owen
    From my personal experience of the political class trying to deal with actual data and outcomes, I am astonished that the proportion that gave the right answer was 41%! The Tories are mostly privately educated so they have had this kind of thing drilled into them. Hence their lead.

    For a politician perception and emotional feel beats reality every time. Hence Brexit. Actuality doesn't enter into it. Emotions=votes not facts.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    For a politician perception and emotional feel beats reality every time. Hence Brexit.

    Brexit was absolutely the right call.

  250. @Philip Owen
    @jimmyriddle

    Raab is not exactly well rounded bright himself. Hard working and verbal. Thuss trainable in his subject, law if given the best teachers.

    Replies: @Anon

    Raab is not exactly well rounded bright himself. Hard working and verbal. Thuss trainable in his subject, law if given the best teachers.

    Isn’t Raab jewish? How could he not be good at law?

  251. @Toronto Mike
    This explains a lot actually. I recall a prominent Canadian politician once saying that his party's policy was to "cut taxes, increase services and balance the budget." It may be that he actually thought this made sense.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    Only if you make the public employees work harder or discover super increased efficiencies and implement them in the public sector. Fat chance and fat chance that such a guy would even try.

  252. @John Johnson
    @Jack D

    As I explained before, the Jewish prohibition on disclosing damaging information extends EVEN to the truth, with certain exceptions (if the speech has a constructive purpose).

    How are Anglo leaders any different?

    The civil war wouldn't have happened if Lincoln's private beliefs on race were made public.

    DC is filled with Republicans and Democrats that believe race should be a noble lie.

    Anglo billionaires are the same way. I guarantee that if racial realism made headway with the public then Anglo billionaires would start dropping money into left-wing and egalitarian organizations. They just aren't as paranoid as Soros yet.

    Even what people believe are tech libertarians would drop hundreds of millions overnight. I guarantee it. At this point they believe that enough of the masses are fooled and don't need to waste their money.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    DC is filled with Republicans and Democrats that believe race should be a noble lie.

    Yes. The elites’ expressed opinions about race relations are rooted in their belief that the peons (us) have no reason or capacity for private preferences. We should just like what they tell us to like, do what they tell us to do, and get along among ourselves. If we show any preferences at all, that’s when we become problematic and “racist.” They don’t conceive of us having lives of our own.

    To be really meta about it, their desire is to hammer us into a mass of deracinated NPCs an then make an offering of us to their gods.

    Perhaps more on that it another post.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Yes. The elites’ expressed opinions about race relations are rooted in their belief that the peons (us) have no reason or capacity for private preferences. We should just like what they tell us to like, do what they tell us to do, and get along among ourselves. If we show any preferences at all, that’s when we become problematic and “racist.” They don’t conceive of us having lives of our own.

    Agreed and they view allowing the truth as an unnecessary risk.

    It's not merely Democrats that are afraid of what could happen if the lie is revealed.

    Much of what Republicans believe is deeply threatened by race.

    If societal progression isn't merely the result of an amoral multi-ethnic market competition then much of the "free market" agenda becomes questioned. In fact a lot of it ends up looking really stupid. You end up exploiting your own ethnic group so a small group of extremely wealthy individuals can further prosper. Eventually you end up favoring a competing ethnic group or country that thinks you are foolish for allowing such exploitation.

    Germans actually discussed this problem in the early 1900s. Maybe our conservatives will figure it out in 10 or 20 years.

  253. @Jack D
    @Kjr

    The interesting thing about the Jewish prohibition on "lashon hara" (evil tongue) is that it applies to defamatory statement even if they are TRUE (there is a separate prohibition on blackening someone's name with lies, which is an even more serious offense). Under common law, truth is a defense to defamation.

    However, it is a defense if you are uttering the statement for a constructive purpose. For example, "I hear that Rabbi X has a taste for underage boys" is evil tongue but "you may not want to leave your kid alone with Rabbi X" is ok, assuming the recipient has kids who might be supervised by Rabbi X.

    Not only is it prohibit to utter evil speech but it's also forbidden to receive to it, again a difference from Western law.

    There is also a distinction between incidentally uttering defamatory statements and someone who has the habit of doing so frequently - a MASTER of evil tongue, with the latter of course being much worse. The advice (which I think is good) is to avoid such people. The logic is that the same people who will talk trash about your mutual friends to you behind their back will also talk trash about YOU to your mutual friends when you are not around.

    There is no real explanation in the holy books themselves as to WHY evil speech is prohibited - there are just examples of incidents where someone did it and really bad things happened to them - for example Moses's sister Miriam spoke evil of Moses to their brother Aaron and she got leprosy, so don't do it or bad things will happen to you too.

    There are a LOT of things that are prohibited in Judaism that don't have a "why" attached to them. God said not to do it and it's not up to us to question WHY He said so. For this reason, Jewish law doesn't always make complete sense to people accustomed to Western modes of logic, but it has a logic of its own.

    Replies: @epebble, @Odin, @Hibernian, @Neil Templeton

    The interesting thing about the Jewish prohibition on “lashon hara” (evil tongue) is that it applies to defamatory statement even if they are TRUE (there is a separate prohibition on blackening someone’s name with lies, which is an even more serious offense).

    The Catholic name for it is detraction, which I only learned later in life. It wasn’t covered at my parochial school or (at least formally, using the name) by Dad and Mom .

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Hibernian

    I have to say that I wasn't taught this at my (not very good) Hebrew school either (an after school program a couple of times per week). Maybe if they had taught stuff like this instead of fairy tales I would have stuck around longer.

    What seems to be missing from our system of Western law is the concept that just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. The Western ideal is that you call up your lawyer and you ask him, how close can I get to the edge of the law without actually wandering over the line. Can I put immigration reform in the budget reconciliation to get around the filibuster because immigration has an impact on the budget? In Jewish law there is a concept called "building a fence around the law" - the idea is that no only should you not come up to the edge of the law but you should build guard rails that are well back of the edge so that you can never wander over.

    There are some Christians who understand this - for example Pence who said (in 2002 - there is no statute of limitations when the Leftist press wants to blacken your name) that he would never dine alone with a woman who was not his wife. Instead of being praised for this, all he got for it was shit - "what an idiot", "what could the harm be in just having a meal in a public place?", "this is illegal sex discrimination," etc. These people think they know everything and they know nothing (of human nature, which has not changed since Biblical times).

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Kjr, @Jonathan Mason, @Anon

    , @Kjr
    @Hibernian

    Thank you for this.

    I looked it up and landed here: https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/detraction

    I like it a lot.

    I also found it very surprising. I know A LOT of Catholics and was unaware that "works" encompassed this level of seriousness and relevance to daily life.

    In your experience, is this level of consideration regarding Catholic Virtues something that is taken seriously by the laity? A few of the old school catholics I know are wonderful people who credit their morals to following Jesus' instructions in The Gospels (and Acts) but I have never joined them in the confession booth.

    This is all very interesting.

    I have come across small christian communities in out of the way places that take such considerations seriously but they don't interact with the wider world the way that Catholics do

    Replies: @Tracy

    , @Colin Wright
    @Hibernian

    'The Catholic name for it is detraction, which I only learned later in life. It wasn’t covered at my parochial school or (at least formally, using the name) by Dad and Mom .'

    Isn't this 'if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all?'

    Replies: @Hibernian

  254. No one was around when the earth began to tilt so no one knows the reason for sure. Like many scientific matters (“global warming”), there is no “right answer”, only a variety of theories. You gave one of them and here is another:

    https://earthsky.org/earth/can-you-explain-why-earth-has-four-seasons/#:~:text=The%20tilt%20in%20Earth’s%20axis,gum%20stuck%20near%20the%20top.

    Which is correct? I really don’t know enough to say. People who do this for a living don’t really know, so how should I?

  255. @Anonymous
    @John Johnson


    The math is 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4.
     
    That isn’t an explanation. It’s just a mechanical rule, one that almost anyone can memorize.

    If I say “give me a half a pizza and then take half of that” people understand that this would be 1/4.

    Coin flipping isn’t any different.

    We are saying “give me half the odds and then take half of that” or “give me half the scenarios and then do it again with the result”.
     
    I don’t think your analogy fits. We aren’t taking half of the first coin with the second flip. There are two discrete events involving a whole coin. How do we merge them?

    As far as I can tell, IJ is the only one in this thread who has proffered a comprehensible explanation for the answer.

    But no one has explained why multiplying 1/2 by 1/2 should work. And generally, no one has given an explanation for merger.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Anon

    That isn’t an explanation. It’s just a mechanical rule, one that almost anyone can memorize.

    I started with the basic math which is what the MPs didn’t know.

    I don’t think your analogy fits. We aren’t taking half of the first coin with the second flip. There are two discrete events involving a whole coin. How do we merge them?

    But no one has explained why multiplying 1/2 by 1/2 should work. And generally, no one has given an explanation for merger.

    Think of them as branched scenarios.

    I flip and I get head or tails. From there I flip again and get heads or tails. 1/4 of the scenarios give me what I want. It’s not possible to get to heads/heads or tails/tails unless I flip twice.

    It might be easier to explain in a scenario where you are working with different odds.

    Let’s say I have a single die but I want to make a betting game with 1:12 odds.

    Well I can cut the odds in half with a coin flip first.

    So to win you have to flip the coin and get heads and then you have to roll the die and get the right number.

    This starts out with two possible scenarios with the coin (heads / tails) and then from there you roll the die for a total of twelve possible scenarios (heads1, heads2, heads3, heads4, heads5, heads6, tails1, tails2, tails3, tails4, tails5, tails6). But only one scenario will win.

    So first flip the coin (1/2) then the dice ( 1/6). So I cut the odds of the die in half by using the coin (1/2)x(1/6)=1/12.

    I took the die and cut the odds by half by multiplying as you would by taking half of anything else. Like I said it is really no different than any other ratio, we are just used to cutting pizzas or cups of flour which makes it seems strange at first.

  256. @Anonymous
    @Gamecock

    If your state senator cannot think logically and conclude that a half of a half is 25% then he is a moron. This has nothing to do with the specific knowledge examples you gave. It's basic thinking. Inability to think is a definition of a moron.

    Replies: @Gamecock

    Some stranger calls me up asks me odds on a coin flip, ***click***

  257. @rebel yell
    @Abolish_public_education



    30 minutes (if they have milk).
    2 beats.
    Bourbon/whiskey is 30/40%.
     
    While my grandparents were farmers and knew how long it takes to milk a cow, I do not know. Google tells me 5-7 minutes, not 30. I suppose the size and condition of the teats could be a factor, as it is in other activities.
    Paradiddle vs Paradiddle-diddle: yes, two beats. But you weren't supposed to look it up!
    Bourbon vs whiskey: don't know where you got 30/40%. All bourbon is whiskey but not all whiskey is bourbon. Bourbon is made in Kentucky, and if it ain't made from corn mash it doesn't count.

    Replies: @Inquiring Mind

    Your farmer grandparents must have had a practical knowledge of the astronomical cause of the seasons?

    Do you suppose the ignorance of the apparent motion of the Sun in the sky is because the number of people who work sunup to sundown, outside and depending on natural lighting for their outdoor tasks, is dwindling?

    If your family farm was in the Northern Hemisphere, your grandparents must have been aware that the days were particularly long in June and July? This was either a blessing as this long day allowed a lot of the necessary work to be completed, even though they were dead tired at the end of such a work day? And that during that long day, the best working hours were in the very early morning or the late evening because, especially if your family members are light-skinned, the hours around noon when the Sun is high in the sky are perhaps better spent on indoor chores, both on account of the the heat from the Sun beating down on a person working outdoors and also giving them a severe sunburn unless properly attired?

    And towards harvest time, when bringing in a crop could take an enormous amount of work, that work had to be conducted in ever-shortening days where one had to rush before “losing one’s light”? And winter has even shorter days, where even a sunny day provides little warmth because the Sun makes a pathetic little circle in the southern sky?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Inquiring Mind

    I knew a lot about sunset times during different months because I was obsessed with finding discount twilight tee times on fancy golf courses that I couldn't afford to play in the morning but were early enough that I could finish 18 holes.

    A lot of people don't pay much attention to that, though.

    Replies: @donut

    , @rebel yell
    @Inquiring Mind

    Of course farmers have practical knowledge of the seasons, long and short days, the sun being higher or lower in the sky through the year. They would not know that the changing tilt of the earth is the cause. Not sure what your point is.
    My point was that lots of knowledge that seems obvious or basic to science practitioners should not be expected to be common knowledge for people outside the science world, including business and political leaders. Voters, and business and political leaders, don't need to know what causes the seasons (though it's great if they do) and don't need to know how to calculate the probability of two heads. They need to have the capacity to understand these explanations when they are presented to them and when it is relevant to their decisions, and to place a high value on having correct reasoning underlying their judgements. Lots of successful CEOs do this every day even though they would fail the "gotcha" quiz.

  258. @Hibernian
    @Jack D


    The interesting thing about the Jewish prohibition on “lashon hara” (evil tongue) is that it applies to defamatory statement even if they are TRUE (there is a separate prohibition on blackening someone’s name with lies, which is an even more serious offense).
     
    The Catholic name for it is detraction, which I only learned later in life. It wasn't covered at my parochial school or (at least formally, using the name) by Dad and Mom .

    Replies: @Jack D, @Kjr, @Colin Wright

    I have to say that I wasn’t taught this at my (not very good) Hebrew school either (an after school program a couple of times per week). Maybe if they had taught stuff like this instead of fairy tales I would have stuck around longer.

    What seems to be missing from our system of Western law is the concept that just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD do it. The Western ideal is that you call up your lawyer and you ask him, how close can I get to the edge of the law without actually wandering over the line. Can I put immigration reform in the budget reconciliation to get around the filibuster because immigration has an impact on the budget? In Jewish law there is a concept called “building a fence around the law” – the idea is that no only should you not come up to the edge of the law but you should build guard rails that are well back of the edge so that you can never wander over.

    There are some Christians who understand this – for example Pence who said (in 2002 – there is no statute of limitations when the Leftist press wants to blacken your name) that he would never dine alone with a woman who was not his wife. Instead of being praised for this, all he got for it was shit – “what an idiot”, “what could the harm be in just having a meal in a public place?”, “this is illegal sex discrimination,” etc. These people think they know everything and they know nothing (of human nature, which has not changed since Biblical times).

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Jack D


    In Jewish law there is a concept called “building a fence around the law” – the idea is that no only should you not come up to the edge of the law but you should build guard rails that are well back of the edge so that you can never wander over.
     
    Can you provide an illustration of this, from Jewish law?

    Replies: @HA

    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Jack D


    In Jewish law there is a concept called “building a fence around the law” – the idea is that no only should you not come up to the edge of the law but you should build guard rails that are well back of the edge so that you can never wander over.
     
    Oy! If only the “extremely shrewd judge of human character as it really is”, Roman Polanski, had known of this Jewish law. The trouble he could have avoided!

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/white-sailor-charged-in-the-bon-homme-richard-arson/#comment-4822602 (#219)
    , @Kjr
    @Jack D

    What seems to be missing from our system of Western law is the concept that just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD do it. The Western ideal is that you call up your lawyer and you ask him, how close can I get to the edge of the law without actually wandering over the line.


    That's why religion is useful. Certain "laws" should be of the divine sort which are only adjudicated by your god.

    I'm not saying mankind necessarily needs religion/s, only that so far they seem to be useful for smoothing over some of the rougher elements of interpersonal relationships.

    , @Jonathan Mason
    @Jack D


    What seems to be missing from our system of Western law is the concept that just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD do it. The Western ideal is that you call up your lawyer and you ask him, how close can I get to the edge of the law without actually wandering over the line.
     
    A perfect example of this is the Sackler family, which became immensely rich by deliberately getting people addicted to narcotics and selling them the narcotics, and ultimately killing tens of thousands of people in their own family-run holocaust and now wants to avoid doing hard prison time for its crimes by coming up with all kinds of strategies to pay reparations that will not really affect their personal wealth at all.

    This is all being facilitated for them by slimy lawyers who are also getting rich themselves on the proceeds of the crimes of the Sacklers.

    It would be nice if the Jewish religion would excommunicate the Sacklers and their lawyers and if the Jewish legal community would speak out against them and their lawyers and demand that all their slimy asses be thrown in prison and their lawyers stripped of their licenses to practice law--if necessary by enacting specific retrospective anti-Sackler legislation if the current legal system is inadequate to deal with their crimes. Perhaps there could be a special tribunal like Nuremberg set up specifically to deal with the Sacklers.
    , @Anon
    @Jack D


    What seems to be missing from our system of Western law is the concept that just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD do it”

    Thanks for an interesting post. No doubt you are right about Western law, but to me it seems like the prudent line between what pertains to political authority (potestas) and what pertains to moral authority (autoritas). What “one should do” is more the domain of the moral authority figures (church, parents, elders).
    Thus the origin of many popular refrains: “don’t do anything good that looks bad” would apply to the Pence scenario, or “that you can does not mean that you should” or “if you don’t want to fall, don’t walk near the precipice”. The purpose is to teach to the conscience of the person, while allowing some measure of freedom for individual discernment.
    The sayings come from the Spanish language, but I’ve heard similar in several others.

  259. @rebel yell
    I disagree - this sort of "gotcha" test doesn't prove anything.
    I'm sure if you explain the correct answer to the failing respondents they would understand the correct answer perfectly well, so they are not as dumb as you think.
    They don't know the answer because they don't need to know it. They don't work with numbers every day and haven't done any math beyond multiplication since they were students decades ago. This is basic knowledge in statistics but is it really supposed to be common knowledge for everyone for life? Will a political leader really vote the wrong way because they didn't know this answer without looking it up? Would Andrew Jackson or Lincoln have answered correctly? Does getting the wrong answer mean the politician won't be able to understand a statistical argument when it is fully presented and explained?

    Okay Unz techies, answer these questions (without Googling the answer):
    How long does it take to milk a cow? (common knowledge for most Americans long ago)
    What is the difference between a paradiddle and a paradiddle-diddle? (common knowledge among concert drummers)
    What is the difference between bourbon and whiskey? (common knowledge on fraternity row)

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @Anon, @Charles, @black sea, @Colin Wright, @JackOH, @Jim Don Bob, @Ganderson, @Anonymous, @Dmon, @AndrewR, @David Davenport

    I disagree – this sort of “gotcha” test doesn’t prove anything….

    In other words, you don’t understand the answer to the coin tossing question.

  260. @Inquiring Mind
    @rebel yell

    Your farmer grandparents must have had a practical knowledge of the astronomical cause of the seasons?

    Do you suppose the ignorance of the apparent motion of the Sun in the sky is because the number of people who work sunup to sundown, outside and depending on natural lighting for their outdoor tasks, is dwindling?

    If your family farm was in the Northern Hemisphere, your grandparents must have been aware that the days were particularly long in June and July? This was either a blessing as this long day allowed a lot of the necessary work to be completed, even though they were dead tired at the end of such a work day? And that during that long day, the best working hours were in the very early morning or the late evening because, especially if your family members are light-skinned, the hours around noon when the Sun is high in the sky are perhaps better spent on indoor chores, both on account of the the heat from the Sun beating down on a person working outdoors and also giving them a severe sunburn unless properly attired?

    And towards harvest time, when bringing in a crop could take an enormous amount of work, that work had to be conducted in ever-shortening days where one had to rush before "losing one's light"? And winter has even shorter days, where even a sunny day provides little warmth because the Sun makes a pathetic little circle in the southern sky?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @rebel yell

    I knew a lot about sunset times during different months because I was obsessed with finding discount twilight tee times on fancy golf courses that I couldn’t afford to play in the morning but were early enough that I could finish 18 holes.

    A lot of people don’t pay much attention to that, though.

    • Replies: @donut
    @Steve Sailer

    That's funny . I check this site a lot especially in early Spring and late fall . You may already have one you use but here is a link :

    https://sunrise-sunset.org/search?location=la+%2C+ca

    I switched the location to La.

  261. @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    “Our elites, ladies and gentlemen. Basically, morons,”

    What does that say about the white people who elect them?

    Replies: @Jack D, @J.Ross, @anon

    What does that say about the white people who elect them?

    What does it say about the choices that the voters were given?

  262. @Hypnotoad666
    @Jack D

    I'll admit my scenario required knowing extraneous facts, so it's not totally fair.

    But it is basically stating the efficient market theory of stock prices which is empirically validated over and over again. Basically, all of the anticipated odds of the stock price going up or down are baked into the current market price of the stock. So, like coin flips, "stock prices don't have memories." https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/efficientmarkethypothesis.asp

    Stock prices are thus independent variables that do a "random walk" around the current market price at any given time. So the people who are trying to do "momentum" investing or looking for magic patterns in past price charts are the equivalent of the guy at the craps table who thinks his dice are "hot" or "cold."

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason, @John Johnson

    Not sure I totally agree.

    Over the long run it is a truism that the market is efficient, but in the short term it overshoots and undershoots all the time and so a person who is familiar with the behavior of a particular stock can often take advantage of certain movements.

    For example on the receipts a good news pre-market a stock will usually open higher and then fall back once buy orders have been filled and the implications of the news better analyzed.

    Also the market makers have a tendency to manipulate the prices of stocks so as to stimulate market activity and maximize churning, so the bid and offer prices of a stock will constantly be changing all day in spite of not much buying and selling.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    @Jonathan Mason

    Well, there is a lot of debate about how "strong" the efficient market theory really is, so it's not etched in stone. But as far as reacting to publicly available news and figuring out its exact effects on particular stocks it's pretty nearly impossible to beat the rest of the market by figuring it out first and best.

    As to inside information and market-manipulation, that's another story. The theory always presupposed that the only way to consistently beat the market was with inside information. That's one reason I'm always super-suspicious when I hear about how fantastically well the trading desks at various investment banks supposedly do when they are trading their own accounts. Their customers of course never seem to get the same returns by following the bank's advice somehow -- funny how that works.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

  263. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @JohnnyWalker123

    I would not be the least bit surprised to discover down the road that the Israeli population was actually "vaccinated" with a placebo, in order to con the goyim into taking the deadly jab ("see, we did it, goyim! now you do it, too!"). Then, down the road when the jab's truly gruesome (and intended) effects become known, the Israelis will shrug and say "don't know why we're not dropping like flies the way the rest of you are -- guess we really are Chosen after all!"

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @kaganovitch, @Jack D

    I would not be the least bit surprised to discover down the road that the Israeli population was actually “vaccinated” with a placebo, in order to con the goyim into taking the deadly jab (“see, we did it, goyim! now you do it, too!”). Then, down the road when the jab’s truly gruesome (and intended) effects become known, the Israelis will shrug and say “don’t know why we’re not dropping like flies the way the rest of you are — guess we really are Chosen after all!”

    It’s good to see your subscription to the Völkischer Beobachter wasn’t wasted. Jud Suss would have to get up pretty early in the predawn to get the jump on you, eh?

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @kaganovitch

    Come come, tovarich. A little spoonful of Dean Swift never hurt anyone. After all, 30 million dead Russians and Ukrainians can't be wrong!

    What I find fascinating in these endlessly tiresome and unimaginative knee-jerk responses (really! Jud Suss! when there's such a wealth of other cliches to mine!) is the absolute lack of even a second's pause for reflection. Never once do you stop and think, Hmm. Reasonably thoughtful and well-educated people have been provoked to think and say things like this. Could there be any other possible reason, other than that the full moon reliably turns everyone except us into Himmler?

    Naah, Himmler it is! Bela Kun? Nevah hearda the guy!

    Replies: @kaganovitch

  264. @ThreeCranes
    @Jack D

    Very good Jack. Were you able to do that without looking it up? I was. Now riddle me this. Looking down upon the Earth from Polaris, which direction does the Earth rotate? Clockwise or counter-clockwise? And does the moon orbit the Earth in a clockwise or counter-clockwise manner? (from the same above-the-North-Pole perspective).

    No lookie.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Triteleia Laxa, @Jack D, @ThreeCranes

    Since the shadow of a sundial moves “clockwise” (and since what we are actually seeing is the sun standing relatively still while the sundial is turning in the opposite direction), the earth must be turning “counterclockwise” on its axis. The reason “clockwise” is clockwise to begin with is because the earth is turning in the opposite direction. If the earth turned clockwise then clocks (which are imitation sundials) would run counterclockwise.

    I honestly didn’t remember which way the moon turns but I assume that’s counterclockwise too. I do know that the orbit of moon around the earth and the rotation of the moon around its axis are gravitationally locked so we always see the same side of the moon but that would work equally well if the moon was orbiting ‘backwards”

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    @Jack D

    The Earth rotates counter-clock or we wouldn't see the Sun rise in the East and move to the West. The Moon orbits counter-clock because when waxing the right side of the Moon progressively luminates. At the full moon the Sun is "behind" the Earth. The light is the reflected light of the Sun. The next night, at the same time, the observer will see a slightly waned Moon, with the reflected light biased to the left side. Thus although the Sun is approximately in the same position relative to Earth, the Moon has orbited 12-13 degrees counter-clock. The key is reflection and perspective. If you were sitting on the Sun, the Moon would always be full.

    , @Anonymous
    @Jack D

    Pretty much everything in the solar system rotates counterclockwise (from our northern hemisphere perspective).

    The exceptions to this are usually the result of catastrophic collisions, or extra-solar objects that have been captured by the sun.

    , @Inquiring Mind
    @Jack D

    https://www.amusingplanet.com/2019/02/the-bolivian-clock-that-runs-backwards.html

    Claiming the sundial rotates "clockwise" is an above-tropical-latitude Northern Hemisphere conceit.

    Geographist!

  265. Anonymous[367] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    @Hibernian

    I have to say that I wasn't taught this at my (not very good) Hebrew school either (an after school program a couple of times per week). Maybe if they had taught stuff like this instead of fairy tales I would have stuck around longer.

    What seems to be missing from our system of Western law is the concept that just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. The Western ideal is that you call up your lawyer and you ask him, how close can I get to the edge of the law without actually wandering over the line. Can I put immigration reform in the budget reconciliation to get around the filibuster because immigration has an impact on the budget? In Jewish law there is a concept called "building a fence around the law" - the idea is that no only should you not come up to the edge of the law but you should build guard rails that are well back of the edge so that you can never wander over.

    There are some Christians who understand this - for example Pence who said (in 2002 - there is no statute of limitations when the Leftist press wants to blacken your name) that he would never dine alone with a woman who was not his wife. Instead of being praised for this, all he got for it was shit - "what an idiot", "what could the harm be in just having a meal in a public place?", "this is illegal sex discrimination," etc. These people think they know everything and they know nothing (of human nature, which has not changed since Biblical times).

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Kjr, @Jonathan Mason, @Anon

    In Jewish law there is a concept called “building a fence around the law” – the idea is that no only should you not come up to the edge of the law but you should build guard rails that are well back of the edge so that you can never wander over.

    Can you provide an illustration of this, from Jewish law?

    • Replies: @HA
    @Anonymous

    "Can you provide an illustration of this, from Jewish law?"


    The rationale for a khumra comes from Deuteronomy 22:8, which states that when one builds a house, he must build a fence around the roof in order to avoid guilt should someone fall off the roof...[As another example], universal halakhic practice today is to wait at least one hour (and even as much as six hours) after eating meat, before consuming milk [to safely avoid violating the ban against mixing milchig and fleishig]
     

    Since the Patriarchs and Kings of Judah and Israel had practiced polygamy, Rabbenu Gershom (960-1040) did not feel it appropriate to forbid it—and thus disrespect the Tradition. So, working with the fence around the Torah concept, he merely constructed a “fence” around the Biblically allowed practice of polygamy by enacting a temporary ban (for 1000 years). This temporary ban seemed permanent, but it so happens that it expired around the year 2000. So, is it still in force? Some continue to follow it as a universally accepted custom. Others say that 1000 years is not limited to 1000 actual years—that the term implies permanence.
     

    Replies: @Kjr

  266. @Jonathan Mason
    @Hypnotoad666

    Not sure I totally agree.

    Over the long run it is a truism that the market is efficient, but in the short term it overshoots and undershoots all the time and so a person who is familiar with the behavior of a particular stock can often take advantage of certain movements.

    For example on the receipts a good news pre-market a stock will usually open higher and then fall back once buy orders have been filled and the implications of the news better analyzed.

    Also the market makers have a tendency to manipulate the prices of stocks so as to stimulate market activity and maximize churning, so the bid and offer prices of a stock will constantly be changing all day in spite of not much buying and selling.

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    Well, there is a lot of debate about how “strong” the efficient market theory really is, so it’s not etched in stone. But as far as reacting to publicly available news and figuring out its exact effects on particular stocks it’s pretty nearly impossible to beat the rest of the market by figuring it out first and best.

    As to inside information and market-manipulation, that’s another story. The theory always presupposed that the only way to consistently beat the market was with inside information. That’s one reason I’m always super-suspicious when I hear about how fantastically well the trading desks at various investment banks supposedly do when they are trading their own accounts. Their customers of course never seem to get the same returns by following the bank’s advice somehow — funny how that works.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @Hypnotoad666

    No you can't beat the market by reacting quicker to news, because the market always instantly overreacts at the speed of light.

    The only way to beat the market is to make longer term guesses and try to buy assets when they are undervalued and sell them when they are overvalued.

    I have made quite a lot on NOK stock and options over the last year or so by going long at the height of the Covid-19 panic, and on the assumption that the Western hostility to Huawei would help NOK in the 5G market and that it may return to paying a dividend.

    I also think that T at the current price should show a healthy return over the next 3-5 years, taking into account the upcoming spin-off which the market seems to be perceiving as a negative.

  267. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @JohnnyWalker123

    I would not be the least bit surprised to discover down the road that the Israeli population was actually "vaccinated" with a placebo, in order to con the goyim into taking the deadly jab ("see, we did it, goyim! now you do it, too!"). Then, down the road when the jab's truly gruesome (and intended) effects become known, the Israelis will shrug and say "don't know why we're not dropping like flies the way the rest of you are -- guess we really are Chosen after all!"

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @kaganovitch, @Jack D

    Jews also limit their alcohol intake in order to fool the goyim into imitating them. But Germ Theory is wise to our Jew tricknology.

    • LOL: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Anon
    @Jack D


    Jews also limit their alcohol intake
     
    What does Jewish law say about alcohol intake?

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease

  268. @Inquiring Mind
    @rebel yell

    Your farmer grandparents must have had a practical knowledge of the astronomical cause of the seasons?

    Do you suppose the ignorance of the apparent motion of the Sun in the sky is because the number of people who work sunup to sundown, outside and depending on natural lighting for their outdoor tasks, is dwindling?

    If your family farm was in the Northern Hemisphere, your grandparents must have been aware that the days were particularly long in June and July? This was either a blessing as this long day allowed a lot of the necessary work to be completed, even though they were dead tired at the end of such a work day? And that during that long day, the best working hours were in the very early morning or the late evening because, especially if your family members are light-skinned, the hours around noon when the Sun is high in the sky are perhaps better spent on indoor chores, both on account of the the heat from the Sun beating down on a person working outdoors and also giving them a severe sunburn unless properly attired?

    And towards harvest time, when bringing in a crop could take an enormous amount of work, that work had to be conducted in ever-shortening days where one had to rush before "losing one's light"? And winter has even shorter days, where even a sunny day provides little warmth because the Sun makes a pathetic little circle in the southern sky?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @rebel yell

    Of course farmers have practical knowledge of the seasons, long and short days, the sun being higher or lower in the sky through the year. They would not know that the changing tilt of the earth is the cause. Not sure what your point is.
    My point was that lots of knowledge that seems obvious or basic to science practitioners should not be expected to be common knowledge for people outside the science world, including business and political leaders. Voters, and business and political leaders, don’t need to know what causes the seasons (though it’s great if they do) and don’t need to know how to calculate the probability of two heads. They need to have the capacity to understand these explanations when they are presented to them and when it is relevant to their decisions, and to place a high value on having correct reasoning underlying their judgements. Lots of successful CEOs do this every day even though they would fail the “gotcha” quiz.

  269. @Jack D
    @epebble


    Is it the TRUTH?
     
    As I explained before, the Jewish prohibition on disclosing damaging information extends EVEN to the truth, with certain exceptions (if the speech has a constructive purpose).

    Just because something is true doesn't mean that person doesn't have a right not to have his private matters outed to the public for no good reason. If the damage caused to the person being discussed is greater than the good that will coming from outing him, then you shouldn't do it. In many cases, NO good will come from outing that person at all, only damages, so there is nothing to balance against even if what you are saying is true. (In the old days, this might have applied to outing someone as gay - nowadays to outing someone as a conservative - let's say you get Steve's donor list (which I hope BTW he keeps in a secure manner). Should you post this list on the internet even if it is true?

    Replies: @epebble, @Triteleia Laxa, @John Johnson, @kaganovitch

    If the damage caused to the person being discussed is greater than the good that will coming from outing him, then you shouldn’t do it.

    This is not precisely true. Generally when Lashon Hora is permitted, it is actually obligatory as the countervailing force of the stricture of “neither shalt thou stand aside while thy neighbor’s blood is shed” (Leviticus 19-16)is operative. Thus if it is necessary to protect his prospective partner/mark from even modest financial loss, it is permitted/obligatory to reveal a person’s past swindles even if he will lose his job and his wife will leave him etc. We would effectively say “Fiat justitia ruat cælum”. That being said it would only be permissible to reveal the minimum that could achieve the desired goal. I.e. if you can get the potential investor to change his mind by saying ‘this guy has an unlucky track record so you might want to reconsider’ or the like, then no further revelation would be permissible.

  270. @Jack D
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Jews also limit their alcohol intake in order to fool the goyim into imitating them. But Germ Theory is wise to our Jew tricknology.

    Replies: @Anon

    Jews also limit their alcohol intake

    What does Jewish law say about alcohol intake?

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @Anon

    No, you don't understand: it's his elliptical way of calling me a drunk. Actually pretty witty for a change.

  271. @Jack D
    @Kjr

    The interesting thing about the Jewish prohibition on "lashon hara" (evil tongue) is that it applies to defamatory statement even if they are TRUE (there is a separate prohibition on blackening someone's name with lies, which is an even more serious offense). Under common law, truth is a defense to defamation.

    However, it is a defense if you are uttering the statement for a constructive purpose. For example, "I hear that Rabbi X has a taste for underage boys" is evil tongue but "you may not want to leave your kid alone with Rabbi X" is ok, assuming the recipient has kids who might be supervised by Rabbi X.

    Not only is it prohibit to utter evil speech but it's also forbidden to receive to it, again a difference from Western law.

    There is also a distinction between incidentally uttering defamatory statements and someone who has the habit of doing so frequently - a MASTER of evil tongue, with the latter of course being much worse. The advice (which I think is good) is to avoid such people. The logic is that the same people who will talk trash about your mutual friends to you behind their back will also talk trash about YOU to your mutual friends when you are not around.

    There is no real explanation in the holy books themselves as to WHY evil speech is prohibited - there are just examples of incidents where someone did it and really bad things happened to them - for example Moses's sister Miriam spoke evil of Moses to their brother Aaron and she got leprosy, so don't do it or bad things will happen to you too.

    There are a LOT of things that are prohibited in Judaism that don't have a "why" attached to them. God said not to do it and it's not up to us to question WHY He said so. For this reason, Jewish law doesn't always make complete sense to people accustomed to Western modes of logic, but it has a logic of its own.

    Replies: @epebble, @Odin, @Hibernian, @Neil Templeton

    My advice:

    If you don’t have a dog in the fight, don’t take a side;

    If you do back a dog, don’t be surprised when the owners of the other dog don’t like you;

    Don’t buy dogs that like to fight unless you like dogfights.

  272. @Intelligent Dasein
    @John Johnson


    DC is filled with Republicans and Democrats that believe race should be a noble lie.
     
    Yes. The elites' expressed opinions about race relations are rooted in their belief that the peons (us) have no reason or capacity for private preferences. We should just like what they tell us to like, do what they tell us to do, and get along among ourselves. If we show any preferences at all, that's when we become problematic and "racist." They don't conceive of us having lives of our own.

    To be really meta about it, their desire is to hammer us into a mass of deracinated NPCs an then make an offering of us to their gods.

    Perhaps more on that it another post.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Yes. The elites’ expressed opinions about race relations are rooted in their belief that the peons (us) have no reason or capacity for private preferences. We should just like what they tell us to like, do what they tell us to do, and get along among ourselves. If we show any preferences at all, that’s when we become problematic and “racist.” They don’t conceive of us having lives of our own.

    Agreed and they view allowing the truth as an unnecessary risk.

    It’s not merely Democrats that are afraid of what could happen if the lie is revealed.

    Much of what Republicans believe is deeply threatened by race.

    If societal progression isn’t merely the result of an amoral multi-ethnic market competition then much of the “free market” agenda becomes questioned. In fact a lot of it ends up looking really stupid. You end up exploiting your own ethnic group so a small group of extremely wealthy individuals can further prosper. Eventually you end up favoring a competing ethnic group or country that thinks you are foolish for allowing such exploitation.

    Germans actually discussed this problem in the early 1900s. Maybe our conservatives will figure it out in 10 or 20 years.

  273. @Hypnotoad666
    @Jonathan Mason

    Well, there is a lot of debate about how "strong" the efficient market theory really is, so it's not etched in stone. But as far as reacting to publicly available news and figuring out its exact effects on particular stocks it's pretty nearly impossible to beat the rest of the market by figuring it out first and best.

    As to inside information and market-manipulation, that's another story. The theory always presupposed that the only way to consistently beat the market was with inside information. That's one reason I'm always super-suspicious when I hear about how fantastically well the trading desks at various investment banks supposedly do when they are trading their own accounts. Their customers of course never seem to get the same returns by following the bank's advice somehow -- funny how that works.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    No you can’t beat the market by reacting quicker to news, because the market always instantly overreacts at the speed of light.

    The only way to beat the market is to make longer term guesses and try to buy assets when they are undervalued and sell them when they are overvalued.

    I have made quite a lot on NOK stock and options over the last year or so by going long at the height of the Covid-19 panic, and on the assumption that the Western hostility to Huawei would help NOK in the 5G market and that it may return to paying a dividend.

    I also think that T at the current price should show a healthy return over the next 3-5 years, taking into account the upcoming spin-off which the market seems to be perceiving as a negative.

  274. @kaganovitch
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    I would not be the least bit surprised to discover down the road that the Israeli population was actually “vaccinated” with a placebo, in order to con the goyim into taking the deadly jab (“see, we did it, goyim! now you do it, too!”). Then, down the road when the jab’s truly gruesome (and intended) effects become known, the Israelis will shrug and say “don’t know why we’re not dropping like flies the way the rest of you are — guess we really are Chosen after all!”

    It's good to see your subscription to the Völkischer Beobachter wasn't wasted. Jud Suss would have to get up pretty early in the predawn to get the jump on you, eh?

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Come come, tovarich. A little spoonful of Dean Swift never hurt anyone. After all, 30 million dead Russians and Ukrainians can’t be wrong!

    What I find fascinating in these endlessly tiresome and unimaginative knee-jerk responses (really! Jud Suss! when there’s such a wealth of other cliches to mine!) is the absolute lack of even a second’s pause for reflection. Never once do you stop and think, Hmm. Reasonably thoughtful and well-educated people have been provoked to think and say things like this. Could there be any other possible reason, other than that the full moon reliably turns everyone except us into Himmler?

    Naah, Himmler it is! Bela Kun? Nevah hearda the guy!

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    What I find fascinating in these endlessly tiresome and unimaginative knee-jerk responses (really! Jud Suss! when there’s such a wealth of other cliches to mine!) is the absolute lack of even a second’s pause for reflection. Never once do you stop and think, Hmm. Reasonably thoughtful and well-educated people have been provoked to think and say things like this. Could there be any other possible reason, other than that the full moon reliably turns everyone except us into Himmler?

    Well if you think it likely that Israel/World Jewry is trying to poison all the rest of humanity with a "vaccine" out of sheer malevolence, then yes, Himmler is the first thing that comes to mind. Should I have read it as satire, as you now claim it was? Perhaps, but I see our host didn't read it that way either.

  275. @Anon
    @Jack D


    Jews also limit their alcohol intake
     
    What does Jewish law say about alcohol intake?

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease

    No, you don’t understand: it’s his elliptical way of calling me a drunk. Actually pretty witty for a change.

  276. @AndrewR
    @rebel yell

    A gotcha question is deceptive. This is a simple 4th grade math question. If you forgot 4th grade math then you shouldn't be in charge of anything beyond collecting garbage or cleaning toilets.

    Replies: @rebel yell

    If you forgot 4th grade math then you shouldn’t be in charge of anything beyond collecting garbage or cleaning toilets.

    Many successful businessmen would fail this question. Their success is the proof that they should in fact be in charge. Many intelligent Presidents would have failed this question. I assume the only Presidents who would have answered correctly are the ones with some technical background – perhaps Washington because he was a surveyor, Carter the engineer, or Presidents who liked to gamble and calculate odds at the poker table. I don’t believe Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, or Reagan would have answered this question correctly. However much you may dislike any of these Presidents, they were all smart enough to do the job.
    Most of the executive leadership of my company (a successful company) would likely fail this question. They hire me and others to do the math.
    A better test is whether people can understand a statistical argument when it is presented to them and appreciate its relevance to their decisions. “Gotcha” questions don’t do that.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    @rebel yell

    Yes. A better questions for Presidents - paging Donald Trump - might be: How many of your Cabinet orbit retrograde?

    , @Anonymous
    @rebel yell

    Richard Nixon was supposed to have been a very successful poker player
    https://www.history.com/.amp/news/richard-nixon-campaign-funds-wwii-poker

    , @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms
    @rebel yell

    Intuition as leader always takes precedence over number crunching ability. So it happens a rule in Bayesian probability is named for a British executive that illustrates this


    Cromwell's rule, named by statistician Dennis Lindley,[1] states that the use of prior probabilities of 1 ("the event will definitely occur") or 0 ("the event will definitely not occur") should be avoided, except when applied to statements that are logically true or false, such as 2+2 equaling 4 or 5.

     

    After the English deposed of Charles I in 1649, the Scots invited Charles II to become king. The English regards this as a hostile act, and Cromwell leads an army north. Prior to outbreak of hostilities, he writes to the synod of Church of Scotland

    I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwell%27s_rule

    The intuition here? Unless you have absolute logical reason to believe so, you should not exclude the possibility that you will be decisively defeated by Cromwell at Dunbar 😉 (and Wars of Three Kingdoms)

  277. @Buffalo Joe
    @Abolish_public_education

    A_p_e, thank you. When you think about it there are plenty of politicians who would have a low middle class life if they weren't elected to office. After that it is gravy train forever. Boubon has federal regulations and can only be aged in oak, IIRC, and made in Kentucky? Top of my head answer. I drink Manhattan's made with George Dickel Sour Mash (8 Years) and Martini and Rossi vermouth. My Rob Roys (Scotch Manhattan) are same vermouth, bitters and Monkey Shoulders scotch. Milked cows by hand in my youth, I think 15 minutes tops and watch for the tail, covered in shit, being swung at your head or a splash manure dump 2 feet from you. But, we used to skim the cream and go to the peach orchard and pick up the drops (ripe peaches that dropped from the tree) skin them, slice them and cover them in fresh cream. Can't do that today. Stay safe.

    Replies: @JMcG, @Ralph L

    Wiki: Bourbon was recognized in 1964 by the United States Congress as a “distinctive product of the United States”. Bourbon sold in the United States must be produced in the U.S. from at least 51% corn and stored in a new container of charred oak.
    Jack Daniels of TN meets the criteria for bourbon but they don’t market it as such.

  278. @Hypnotoad666
    @Jack D

    I'll admit my scenario required knowing extraneous facts, so it's not totally fair.

    But it is basically stating the efficient market theory of stock prices which is empirically validated over and over again. Basically, all of the anticipated odds of the stock price going up or down are baked into the current market price of the stock. So, like coin flips, "stock prices don't have memories." https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/efficientmarkethypothesis.asp

    Stock prices are thus independent variables that do a "random walk" around the current market price at any given time. So the people who are trying to do "momentum" investing or looking for magic patterns in past price charts are the equivalent of the guy at the craps table who thinks his dice are "hot" or "cold."

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason, @John Johnson

    Stock prices are thus independent variables that do a “random walk” around the current market price at any given time. So the people who are trying to do “momentum” investing or looking for magic patterns in past price charts are the equivalent of the guy at the craps table who thinks his dice are “hot” or “cold.

    But they aren’t random number generators like a casino wheel.

    A company has a good quarter and the price goes up. That wasn’t random. You can play the stock market like a gambler or you can play it like an investor.

    Momentum investing can work because of hype. You aren’t betting on a high that you feel is due. You can bet on everyone else buying into a stock based on hype but you get to it before them. In a sense you can bet on human nature. The stock market isn’t a rational system and you can bet on irrationality. In a casino all your bets are very straightforward and fixed. You can bet that other people will lose but you are still at the mercy of house odds.

  279. @ThreeCranes
    @Jack D

    Very good Jack. Were you able to do that without looking it up? I was. Now riddle me this. Looking down upon the Earth from Polaris, which direction does the Earth rotate? Clockwise or counter-clockwise? And does the moon orbit the Earth in a clockwise or counter-clockwise manner? (from the same above-the-North-Pole perspective).

    No lookie.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Triteleia Laxa, @Jack D, @ThreeCranes

    As every sailor knows from his tide charts, the moon rises 50 minutes later each day, This means it must be outrunning us. If we are rotating counter clockwise (from the point of view of Polaris) then so too must the moon orbit around the Earth.

  280. Anonymous[428] • Disclaimer says:
    @epebble
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Well, I am not a geologist (did a course in Engineering geology in 1978). But that the distribution of continents is the reason for earths 23.5 degree tilt sounds unlikely using basic science. Earth's radius is 4,000 miles. The tallest point on earth (29,000 feet) is about 5+ miles. So the average may be a mile or two. That a difference of less that 1/2,000th will matter (or if you account for land being denser than water, say 1/1,000 or even 1/500) in tilting earth more than a quarter off the ecliptic sounds unlikely.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    There is also the fact that the continents are made up of lighter (less dense) rocks than the rest of the crust. In effect, they ‘float’ on top of the denser rock below.

    • Replies: @epebble
    @Anonymous

    Yes, that (denser mantle and core) has a much larger impact on the distribution of mass. In fact, the distribution of earth's mass is very unintuitive. North Atlantic Ocean (near Iceland) has positive mass undulation; Indian ocean has negative undulation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid#Undulation

  281. @Reg Cæsar
    @Buffalo Joe

    https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-a-billion-here-a-billion-there-and-pretty-soon-you-re-talking-about-real-money-everett-dirksen-7-91-44.jpg

    Replies: @Clyde

    “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”
    Everett McKinley Dirksen, and I remember when he said it. Though he pretty much went along with Democrap’s hare brained spending and governing. Just so long as Republicans and their wealthy donors got their cut of the action in Washingtoon DC. Mitch McConnell is his updated clone.

  282. @Jack D
    @ThreeCranes

    Since the shadow of a sundial moves "clockwise" (and since what we are actually seeing is the sun standing relatively still while the sundial is turning in the opposite direction), the earth must be turning "counterclockwise" on its axis. The reason "clockwise" is clockwise to begin with is because the earth is turning in the opposite direction. If the earth turned clockwise then clocks (which are imitation sundials) would run counterclockwise.

    I honestly didn't remember which way the moon turns but I assume that's counterclockwise too. I do know that the orbit of moon around the earth and the rotation of the moon around its axis are gravitationally locked so we always see the same side of the moon but that would work equally well if the moon was orbiting 'backwards"

    Replies: @Neil Templeton, @Anonymous, @Inquiring Mind

    The Earth rotates counter-clock or we wouldn’t see the Sun rise in the East and move to the West. The Moon orbits counter-clock because when waxing the right side of the Moon progressively luminates. At the full moon the Sun is “behind” the Earth. The light is the reflected light of the Sun. The next night, at the same time, the observer will see a slightly waned Moon, with the reflected light biased to the left side. Thus although the Sun is approximately in the same position relative to Earth, the Moon has orbited 12-13 degrees counter-clock. The key is reflection and perspective. If you were sitting on the Sun, the Moon would always be full.

  283. @rebel yell
    @AndrewR


    If you forgot 4th grade math then you shouldn’t be in charge of anything beyond collecting garbage or cleaning toilets.
     
    Many successful businessmen would fail this question. Their success is the proof that they should in fact be in charge. Many intelligent Presidents would have failed this question. I assume the only Presidents who would have answered correctly are the ones with some technical background - perhaps Washington because he was a surveyor, Carter the engineer, or Presidents who liked to gamble and calculate odds at the poker table. I don't believe Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, or Reagan would have answered this question correctly. However much you may dislike any of these Presidents, they were all smart enough to do the job.
    Most of the executive leadership of my company (a successful company) would likely fail this question. They hire me and others to do the math.
    A better test is whether people can understand a statistical argument when it is presented to them and appreciate its relevance to their decisions. "Gotcha" questions don't do that.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton, @Anonymous, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    Yes. A better questions for Presidents – paging Donald Trump – might be: How many of your Cabinet orbit retrograde?

  284. @Anonymous
    @epebble

    There is also the fact that the continents are made up of lighter (less dense) rocks than the rest of the crust. In effect, they 'float' on top of the denser rock below.

    Replies: @epebble

    Yes, that (denser mantle and core) has a much larger impact on the distribution of mass. In fact, the distribution of earth’s mass is very unintuitive. North Atlantic Ocean (near Iceland) has positive mass undulation; Indian ocean has negative undulation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid#Undulation

  285. @JohnnyWalker123
    https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1424206970047893510

    https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1424214905952030722

    What the hell is even the purpose of Anti-Fa? What exactly are Anti-Fa's financiers trying to accomplish?

    Replies: @Rob

    Here’s a guess. I have no idea whether this is right. I’m not even saying that I believe it.

    The purpose of antifa is to get some antifa NPCs shot. The financier(s) lose something that has no value to them, just some gutter punks. In exchange? They then use the media, which will not mention that the shooter was being brutalized by a group hitting him with bike locks. Or will do their “A fascist shot 3 counter-protestors, who according to some witnesses, were groupstoming him. These eyewitness accounts are disputed.” Like with Makakaffie the Knife, when the they said “shot black teen. The police claim the video shows her attacking someone with what the police spokesman said is a knife.” The advantages of having the media on your side (the disadvantage? When the media has so clearly chosen a side, everyone, on both sides, knows the media is propaganda, and they cannot get people to wear masks or get vaccines) At the low, low price of some goy gutter punk, they get normies to support a house to house gun grab. To prevent political violence from escalating. Shooting some antifa will make Americans look like villains.

    Pretty obviously, the powers that be support antifa, or we’d hear about how it is a shadowy organization with leadership and sponsors unwilling to own up to what they are doing in public. Instead, we get “it’s a hobby. Like knitting, you might be part of a knitting club, but there’s no one running a national Network of Knitting Clubs,” unlike White Supremacists, where everyone is head of of a two person International Terrorist Network of Hate. We would definitely hear about how about “ Of course we’ll have it [fascism]. We’ll have it under the guise of anti-fascism.”

    Also, with antifa, someone, who may have an agenda that differs from those who abet him, gets his own private army. Of course, it is a junk private army, but the Serbian militias weren’t a bunch of Nicolai Teslas. They still broke a country. The funders think “we’ll build back better.”

    • Thanks: JohnnyWalker123
  286. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Steve Sailer

    He's an Israeli spreading the lie that they have been vaccinated with a placebo so that the anti-Semtites refuse to get jabbed and an increased proportion of them die of Covid.

    Replies: @Kjr

    Or maybe You are the Semite spreading the lie that he is spreading a lie that Jews were vaccinated by a placebo so that…

    Okay, that’s enough play for today 😂
    LOL

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @Kjr

    Or maybe there's just a Swift-er explanation....

    , @Triteleia Laxa
    @Kjr

    I'll accept no explanation less complicated than this:

    https://youtu.be/3EkBuKQEkio

  287. Anonymous[297] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    @ThreeCranes

    Since the shadow of a sundial moves "clockwise" (and since what we are actually seeing is the sun standing relatively still while the sundial is turning in the opposite direction), the earth must be turning "counterclockwise" on its axis. The reason "clockwise" is clockwise to begin with is because the earth is turning in the opposite direction. If the earth turned clockwise then clocks (which are imitation sundials) would run counterclockwise.

    I honestly didn't remember which way the moon turns but I assume that's counterclockwise too. I do know that the orbit of moon around the earth and the rotation of the moon around its axis are gravitationally locked so we always see the same side of the moon but that would work equally well if the moon was orbiting 'backwards"

    Replies: @Neil Templeton, @Anonymous, @Inquiring Mind

    Pretty much everything in the solar system rotates counterclockwise (from our northern hemisphere perspective).

    The exceptions to this are usually the result of catastrophic collisions, or extra-solar objects that have been captured by the sun.

  288. @Intelligent Dasein
    @epebble

    You've just witnessed the phenomenon I call "Jack D Amnesia." Numerous examples exist of him getting roasted by people who actually know the subjects upon which he opines, yet he blithely continues bloviating about every topic under the sun as if he understood them all.

    Replies: @epebble, @donut

    Jack D’s transmitter is always keyed .

  289. @Steve Sailer
    @Inquiring Mind

    I knew a lot about sunset times during different months because I was obsessed with finding discount twilight tee times on fancy golf courses that I couldn't afford to play in the morning but were early enough that I could finish 18 holes.

    A lot of people don't pay much attention to that, though.

    Replies: @donut

    That’s funny . I check this site a lot especially in early Spring and late fall . You may already have one you use but here is a link :

    https://sunrise-sunset.org/search?location=la+%2C+ca

    I switched the location to La.

  290. @Odin
    @Jack D


    The interesting thing about the Jewish prohibition on “lashon hara” (evil tongue) is that it applies to defamatory statement even if they are TRUE.
     
    There doesn't seem to be a widely accepted definition of "hate speech". But according to many I've heard defending the concept, truth can indeed be "hateful", and thus punishable by the authorities.

    Punishment-for-truth is fraught with peril. Never could figure out where the idea originated, but it seems we've learned it comes from the Talmud. Western legal systems would be well advised to leave it there.

    Replies: @Kjr

    Hi, I’m sorry that you feel this way but I can definitely understand your sentiments.

    As far as I can tell from the studies I mentioned earlier, “the bad tongue” that is forbidden even when true refers to saying that a person is stupid or fat or mean. It doesn’t refer (as far as I know) to what is usually called “hate speech” in our current culture.

    And even that sort of talk (that someone is unintelligent or did something immoral) is forbidden in circumstances where it isn’t “litoeles” – for an important purpose.

    In other words, if you happen to know for certain that someone lacks empathy or has bulimia you are only allowed to share that with the man whonis going out with her if you are sure that he doesn’t already know it and that he needs to know it and that it will protect him from a bad situation.

    And even in situations like this you need to check your purity of motives versus any biases you may have.

    Where it gets complicated, as someone named Jack wrote, is whether you are allowed to BELIEVE a negative bit of news about someone.

    For me this has had the positive effect of finally being able to get over Gell-Mann Amnesia.

    Psychologically I can get over the cultural demand to believe “the news” (or the negative interpretation of someone’s actions on a video) by saying, “well, God told me not to believe that!”

    What’s really cool is how many times it tirns out weeks later that “God” was right. The media or social media got it wrong and the individual is not actually the monster that he or she was made out to be.

    It turns out that I am actually more right about what’s what, than I was before when, like everyone else, I believed the worst that was reported about my ideological opponents.

    The cool thing is that this extends to people who say nasty things about Jews too – even though I’m soon going to be one.

    Zee, you’re not even allowed to say Lashon Hara about yourself, so I simply disbelieve that people who are Naziing this and Hitlering that are people who actually want to murder me and my (also converting) husband. I sssume that they are writing things out of frustration or because they are poking sacred cows or for some other reason. Sure, this wouldn’t apply to how I would have reacted to reading Mein Kampf. There is a difference between not accepting Lashon Hara and being a Chossid Shoteh – a pseudorighteous imbecile. But with powerless fellow humans on the internet or even in real life I have found that assuming “not the worst” has not only made me happier and more friendly but also made me more accurate in my assessments than before.

    Besides, the laws against using or believing “the bad tongue” is a personal religious law. I have never heard any Chassidish Rabbi try and legislate it, LOL.

    But Odin, I do know where you’re coming from because I was coming from there too. Well, my husband more than myself. He really disliked “Judaism” until he started looking into it. And that’s how we both came to become Jews ourselves.

    I’m not saying that everyone should be Jewish or even that Judaism is always interpreted correctly by any of its practitioners or myself. Only that I’m really glad that my husband was Semite-Suspicious because it brought me to a whole new world. One that is far from perfect but which is generally beautiful.

    I just showed my Rabbi message and he thinks I should mention that regardless of your feelings about Jews you are still a child of Hashem and that He loves you.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    @Kjr


    He really disliked “Judaism” until he started looking into it. And that’s how we both came to become Jews ourselves
     
    So, neither you nor your husband are ethnically Jewish? And the haredim rabbis accepted your conversion? Really? They tend to be quite strict in such matters.

    And, if you don't mind my asking, why did you convert then, if not for marriage? Were you nominally Protestant or something else before?

    Sorry, just curious. I have nothing against personal choices, if that's what it is.

    I also have not much against the haredim, except that they tend to be a bit obnoxious in their dealings with goys, coming across as arrogant or unpleasant, and that I find their religion with all those crazy rules encompassing everything and their dresses and wigs etc quite strange. But to each his own.
  291. @Reg Cæsar
    @Triteleia Laxa


    If someone talks badly about other people, with little understanding, for no reason, avoid them like a leper, for they will talk about you in exactly the same way.
     
    https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-if-you-haven-t-got-anything-nice-to-say-about-anybody-come-sit-next-to-me-alice-roosevelt-longworth-17-86-74.jpg

    They will also be prone to doing a lot worse.
     
    https://rochellewisofffields.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/roosevelt-quote-about-alice.jpg

    https://quotefancy.com/media/wallpaper/thumb/1378064-Alice-Roosevelt-Longworth-Quote-My-specialty-is-detached.jpg


    (BTW, has anyone learned the nature of the "accident" that killed Trevor Moore? It wasn't autoerotic asphyxiation, was it?)

    Replies: @reactionry

    I too, had thought of that “nice” quote of Ms Roosevelt, perhaps on account of having posted something elsewhere some years prior to 2015. Try to imagine an “Alice Roosevelt Longworthless” invited to a posh dinner party with prominent Brits and Dot Subcontinentals about a hundred years ago –

    She declares, “If you haven’t anything good to say about the British Raj, come have a suttee next to me.”
    – And then turns to face an elderly Indian woman – “Mind if you smoke?”

  292. @JohnnyWalker123
    https://twitter.com/Sociopathlete/status/1424482723280740354

    Replies: @JMcG

    Amen

  293. Has anyone considered the culprit might be decimal coinage?

  294. @Jack D
    @Hibernian

    I have to say that I wasn't taught this at my (not very good) Hebrew school either (an after school program a couple of times per week). Maybe if they had taught stuff like this instead of fairy tales I would have stuck around longer.

    What seems to be missing from our system of Western law is the concept that just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. The Western ideal is that you call up your lawyer and you ask him, how close can I get to the edge of the law without actually wandering over the line. Can I put immigration reform in the budget reconciliation to get around the filibuster because immigration has an impact on the budget? In Jewish law there is a concept called "building a fence around the law" - the idea is that no only should you not come up to the edge of the law but you should build guard rails that are well back of the edge so that you can never wander over.

    There are some Christians who understand this - for example Pence who said (in 2002 - there is no statute of limitations when the Leftist press wants to blacken your name) that he would never dine alone with a woman who was not his wife. Instead of being praised for this, all he got for it was shit - "what an idiot", "what could the harm be in just having a meal in a public place?", "this is illegal sex discrimination," etc. These people think they know everything and they know nothing (of human nature, which has not changed since Biblical times).

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Kjr, @Jonathan Mason, @Anon

    In Jewish law there is a concept called “building a fence around the law” – the idea is that no only should you not come up to the edge of the law but you should build guard rails that are well back of the edge so that you can never wander over.

    Oy! If only the “extremely shrewd judge of human character as it really is”, Roman Polanski, had known of this Jewish law. The trouble he could have avoided!

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/white-sailor-charged-in-the-bon-homme-richard-arson/#comment-4822602 (#219)

  295. @epebble
    @Jack D

    The Four Way Test questions are Conjunctive and not Disjunctive, thus giving the same meaning as the Jewish prohibition.

    BTW, the Jewish prohibition is not uniquely Jewish. In Hindu and Buddhist philosophies, there is this well known rule:


    The Manusmiriti (4.138) says:

    “Satyam bruyat – priyam bruyat- na bruyat satyam apriyam
    priyam cha nanrutam bruyat – esha dharmah sanatanah”

    Speak the Truth, speak pleasantly,

    Do not speak the Truth in an unpleasant manner

    Even if pleasant, do not speak untruth,

    This is the path of eternal righteousness.
     
    https://truthultimate.com/satyam-bruyat-priyam-bruyat/

    Replies: @Kjr

    Thank you for both of your beautiful comments on this subject!

    I’m sure Judaism is not unique in its understanding of what kind of speech is best unspoken, it’s simply the lens that I myself happen to relate to best.

    Also, I personally don’t care for all of the numerous legalisms in Chassidish Judaism (which is not a problem because that’s my husband’s department anyway) but having to study and think about all of the laws relating to this particular subject of Chofetz Chaim* keeps it fresh in the mind so that as inevitable opportunities arise to speak or believe Lashon Hara I’m prepped for it.

    * The name of the book is Chofetz Chaim which is from Psalms 34. It approximately means: “Eager For Life” and the verse as I see it translated in Sefaria is:

    Come, my sons, listen to me; I will teach you what it is to fear the Lord. Who is the man who is eager for life, who desires years of good fortune? Guard your tongue from evil, your lips from deceitful speech. Shun evil and do good, seek amity and pursue it.

    Anyway, I would love to learn about communities of people involved in the wider world who employ such morals/strategies and find not only their own lives bettered but the lives of others as well.

    Personally, I see this all around me every single day but almost never online. And like everyone else these days, I spend too much time online.

    I would like to be able to interact with the online conversation without feeling either like I’m violating my religion to do so or that I’m ignoring essential subjects because “if you have nothing nice to say then say nothing at all”.

    Any recommendations?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Kjr


    I’m sure Judaism is not unique in its understanding of what kind of speech is best unspoken, it’s simply the lens that I myself happen to relate to best.
     
    How would you even know this? What other lenses have you genuinely invested in trying on?
    , @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @Kjr

    "Anyway, I would love to learn about communities of people involved in the wider world who employ such morals/strategies and find not only their own lives bettered but the lives of others as well.

    ...Any recommendations?"


    https://www.pearmentor.org/



    https://sistersoftheroad.org/


    "Whack the ral-de-ra:
    Hunt the hare and chase 'er
    Down the rocky road
    And all the way to Dublin,
    One, two three, four five."

  296. Anonymous[100] • Disclaimer says:
    @rebel yell
    @AndrewR


    If you forgot 4th grade math then you shouldn’t be in charge of anything beyond collecting garbage or cleaning toilets.
     
    Many successful businessmen would fail this question. Their success is the proof that they should in fact be in charge. Many intelligent Presidents would have failed this question. I assume the only Presidents who would have answered correctly are the ones with some technical background - perhaps Washington because he was a surveyor, Carter the engineer, or Presidents who liked to gamble and calculate odds at the poker table. I don't believe Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, or Reagan would have answered this question correctly. However much you may dislike any of these Presidents, they were all smart enough to do the job.
    Most of the executive leadership of my company (a successful company) would likely fail this question. They hire me and others to do the math.
    A better test is whether people can understand a statistical argument when it is presented to them and appreciate its relevance to their decisions. "Gotcha" questions don't do that.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton, @Anonymous, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    Richard Nixon was supposed to have been a very successful poker player
    https://www.history.com/.amp/news/richard-nixon-campaign-funds-wwii-poker

  297. @Kjr
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Or maybe You are the Semite spreading the lie that he is spreading a lie that Jews were vaccinated by a placebo so that...

    Okay, that's enough play for today 😂
    LOL

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Triteleia Laxa

    Or maybe there’s just a Swift-er explanation….

  298. @Hibernian
    @Jack D


    The interesting thing about the Jewish prohibition on “lashon hara” (evil tongue) is that it applies to defamatory statement even if they are TRUE (there is a separate prohibition on blackening someone’s name with lies, which is an even more serious offense).
     
    The Catholic name for it is detraction, which I only learned later in life. It wasn't covered at my parochial school or (at least formally, using the name) by Dad and Mom .

    Replies: @Jack D, @Kjr, @Colin Wright

    Thank you for this.

    I looked it up and landed here: https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/detraction

    I like it a lot.

    I also found it very surprising. I know A LOT of Catholics and was unaware that “works” encompassed this level of seriousness and relevance to daily life.

    In your experience, is this level of consideration regarding Catholic Virtues something that is taken seriously by the laity? A few of the old school catholics I know are wonderful people who credit their morals to following Jesus’ instructions in The Gospels (and Acts) but I have never joined them in the confession booth.

    This is all very interesting.

    I have come across small christian communities in out of the way places that take such considerations seriously but they don’t interact with the wider world the way that Catholics do

    • Thanks: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Tracy
    @Kjr


    In your experience, is this level of consideration regarding Catholic Virtues something that is taken seriously by the laity?
     
    Depends on the Catholic -- how well he's catechized, his personal holiness, etc. Speaking generally, Catholics who consider themselves "traditionalists" take the old school view of virtue extremely seriously. You can find these sorts of Catholics at the traditional Latin Mass on Sundays. See FishEaters.com for more information about traditional Catholicism.
  299. @Jack D
    @Hibernian

    I have to say that I wasn't taught this at my (not very good) Hebrew school either (an after school program a couple of times per week). Maybe if they had taught stuff like this instead of fairy tales I would have stuck around longer.

    What seems to be missing from our system of Western law is the concept that just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. The Western ideal is that you call up your lawyer and you ask him, how close can I get to the edge of the law without actually wandering over the line. Can I put immigration reform in the budget reconciliation to get around the filibuster because immigration has an impact on the budget? In Jewish law there is a concept called "building a fence around the law" - the idea is that no only should you not come up to the edge of the law but you should build guard rails that are well back of the edge so that you can never wander over.

    There are some Christians who understand this - for example Pence who said (in 2002 - there is no statute of limitations when the Leftist press wants to blacken your name) that he would never dine alone with a woman who was not his wife. Instead of being praised for this, all he got for it was shit - "what an idiot", "what could the harm be in just having a meal in a public place?", "this is illegal sex discrimination," etc. These people think they know everything and they know nothing (of human nature, which has not changed since Biblical times).

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Kjr, @Jonathan Mason, @Anon

    What seems to be missing from our system of Western law is the concept that just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD do it. The Western ideal is that you call up your lawyer and you ask him, how close can I get to the edge of the law without actually wandering over the line.

    That’s why religion is useful. Certain “laws” should be of the divine sort which are only adjudicated by your god.

    I’m not saying mankind necessarily needs religion/s, only that so far they seem to be useful for smoothing over some of the rougher elements of interpersonal relationships.

  300. @Kjr
    @Odin

    Hi, I'm sorry that you feel this way but I can definitely understand your sentiments.

    As far as I can tell from the studies I mentioned earlier, "the bad tongue" that is forbidden even when true refers to saying that a person is stupid or fat or mean. It doesn't refer (as far as I know) to what is usually called "hate speech" in our current culture.

    And even that sort of talk (that someone is unintelligent or did something immoral) is forbidden in circumstances where it isn't "litoeles" - for an important purpose.

    In other words, if you happen to know for certain that someone lacks empathy or has bulimia you are only allowed to share that with the man whonis going out with her if you are sure that he doesn't already know it and that he needs to know it and that it will protect him from a bad situation.

    And even in situations like this you need to check your purity of motives versus any biases you may have.

    Where it gets complicated, as someone named Jack wrote, is whether you are allowed to BELIEVE a negative bit of news about someone.

    For me this has had the positive effect of finally being able to get over Gell-Mann Amnesia.

    Psychologically I can get over the cultural demand to believe "the news" (or the negative interpretation of someone's actions on a video) by saying, "well, God told me not to believe that!"

    What's really cool is how many times it tirns out weeks later that "God" was right. The media or social media got it wrong and the individual is not actually the monster that he or she was made out to be.

    It turns out that I am actually more right about what's what, than I was before when, like everyone else, I believed the worst that was reported about my ideological opponents.

    The cool thing is that this extends to people who say nasty things about Jews too - even though I'm soon going to be one.

    Zee, you're not even allowed to say Lashon Hara about yourself, so I simply disbelieve that people who are Naziing this and Hitlering that are people who actually want to murder me and my (also converting) husband. I sssume that they are writing things out of frustration or because they are poking sacred cows or for some other reason. Sure, this wouldn't apply to how I would have reacted to reading Mein Kampf. There is a difference between not accepting Lashon Hara and being a Chossid Shoteh - a pseudorighteous imbecile. But with powerless fellow humans on the internet or even in real life I have found that assuming "not the worst" has not only made me happier and more friendly but also made me more accurate in my assessments than before.

    Besides, the laws against using or believing "the bad tongue" is a personal religious law. I have never heard any Chassidish Rabbi try and legislate it, LOL.

    But Odin, I do know where you're coming from because I was coming from there too. Well, my husband more than myself. He really disliked "Judaism" until he started looking into it. And that's how we both came to become Jews ourselves.

    I'm not saying that everyone should be Jewish or even that Judaism is always interpreted correctly by any of its practitioners or myself. Only that I'm really glad that my husband was Semite-Suspicious because it brought me to a whole new world. One that is far from perfect but which is generally beautiful.

    I just showed my Rabbi message and he thinks I should mention that regardless of your feelings about Jews you are still a child of Hashem and that He loves you.

    Replies: @Dumbo

    He really disliked “Judaism” until he started looking into it. And that’s how we both came to become Jews ourselves

    So, neither you nor your husband are ethnically Jewish? And the haredim rabbis accepted your conversion? Really? They tend to be quite strict in such matters.

    And, if you don’t mind my asking, why did you convert then, if not for marriage? Were you nominally Protestant or something else before?

    Sorry, just curious. I have nothing against personal choices, if that’s what it is.

    I also have not much against the haredim, except that they tend to be a bit obnoxious in their dealings with goys, coming across as arrogant or unpleasant, and that I find their religion with all those crazy rules encompassing everything and their dresses and wigs etc quite strange. But to each his own.

  301. @Triteleia Laxa
    @YetAnotherAnon


    The nearest you can come to this female paradise is if you’re in somewhere like an oil boom town
     
    Women don't experience these as paradise.

    I just think it’s a matter of numbers. By definition, not every woman can have a high value man
     
    Value is far more subjective than either you or the FDS idiots convince yourselves.

    Yes, there are averaged out values, but your worldviews are both shockingly materialistic. They think they are progressive. You think you are traditional. Neither is true.

    and then you end up like this intelligent, attractive, poor and foolish woman child.
     
    Plenty of stories which could be told with the exact opposite lesson.

    I'm not going to lie, I feel like you took my interesting comment and gave a very boring and predictable reply.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    “I feel like you took my interesting comment”

    We all think our comments are interesting! My issue wasn’t with what you said about FDS (which seemed pretty accurate, but I don’t lurk there), I just found it tangential to the point of my post.

    “and gave a very boring and predictable reply”

    Maths may be boring, but it’s a fact that not all women can have a high-value man, any more than all men can have a high-value woman.

    Young men should be aware of what FDS advises, just as women should be aware of Game/PUA.

    I’d never read FDS before, although I was aware it existed. Do you think its target market (or the majority of users) are 20somethings looking (quite sensibly) to bag that HVM while there are still plenty on the market, or 30somethings who “enjoyed their 20s” but are aware that the clock is ticking?

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @YetAnotherAnon


    Do you think its target market (or the majority of users) are 20somethings looking (quite sensibly) to bag that HVM while there are still plenty on the market, or 30somethings who “enjoyed their 20s” but are aware that the clock is ticking?
     
    It doesn't fit into your framework.

    The target market is women who want to abuse and manipulate men, for whatever reason, but also need to view themselves as perfect saints while doing so.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

  302. @Anon
    @YetAnotherAnon


    I thought the bad thing about the Tuskegee syphilis study was that they left ‘participants’ untreated, which might have been ethical when the project started in 1932, when no syphilis treatments were proven effective, but stopped being ethical when penicillin became widely available in 1947 and the participants weren’t offered treatment.
     
    Why were they left untreated?

    Replies: @nokangaroos, @Colin Wright

    (As it is with crime, you wanna study the syph you go where the syph be –
    forget the Norwegian grandmothers)

    They were specifically interested in the development of untreated syphilis
    (spoiler: over 80% heal spontaneously and never go into late stage)
    as they already knew treated syph (then involving mercury and arsenic)
    was exceedingly unhealthy.
    The study only involved second- and third-stage cases where even penicillin would have been of dubious value (it is theorized the third-stage damage is autoimmune).
    Indeed the study participants showed higher life-expectancy than the control
    (general public) due to better health care.
    No one was purposely infected (the same team did purposely infect soldiers and prisoners in Guatemala to test penicillin for early stage, but they used prostitutes and not syringes which would have grossly altered the progress of the infection).

  303. @Corvinus
    @Jack D

    "That there weren’t enough of them anymore to overcome black bloc voting?"

    Nice effort at deflection. There are millions of white Americans who vote. If they are voting for elites who are "morons". what does it say for this particular group? I thought white people have high IQs and high time preferences.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    Well, yeah.

    Not to mention that there are millions of whites who don’t vote. And millions of whites who vote for anti-white POS’s.

    And that the biggest defector group in the Trump coalition was white men.

  304. @John Johnson
    @Jack D

    If women were really capable of honest self evaluation of themselves and could look in the mirror and honestly say “I am a 10 and am deserving of a billionaire” then it would be one thing, but what’s really going to happen is that 2s and 3rd look in the mirror and THINK that they see an 8 or a 9 and price themselves accordingly.

    I think most women view themselves as 6s or 7s but have had so many men bow to them that they feel they should hold out a bit longer.

    The real problem is that TEEVEE convinces them that mr. better is just one more date away.

    Most men shouldn't bother at all with these dating apps. There are plenty of places in rural America where "mr.right" is a man with a job and no drug problem. I was at Wally world the other day and saw a guy that looked like a skinny homeless pirate but had kids with good looking woman.

    The women in cities are messed up beyond belief. I do pretty well with women and could not believe the sh-t they expect in the cities. A lot of these women end up marrying professionals they aren't at all attracted to just so they can get the tiny 700k house that was built in 1950. Get out and move to the country.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    Blanche DuBois:
    Oh, in my youth I excited some admiration. But look at me now! Would you think it possible that I was once considered to be attractive?

    Stanley Kowalski:
    Your looks are okay.

    Blanche DuBois:
    I was fishing for a compliment Stanley.

    Stanley Kowalski:
    I don’t go in for that stuff.

    Blanche DuBois:
    What stuff?

    Stanley Kowalski:
    Compliments to women about their looks. I never met a dame yet that didn’t know if she was good-looking or not without being told*, and some of them give themselves credit for more than they’ve got. I once went out with a dame who told me, ” I’m the glamorous type,” she says, “I am the glamorous type!” I say, “So What?”

    Blanche DuBois:
    And what did she say then?

    Stanley Kowalski:
    She didn’t say nothing. That shut her up like a clam.

    Blanche DuBois:
    Did it end the romance?

    Stanley Kowalski:
    It ended the conversation that was all. You know that some men are taken in by all this Hollywood glamour and some just aren’t.

    Stanley Kowalski, the original negger and game player.

    Actually, no, he was just honest and simple. I think that’s what men need to be: themselves.

    But – and this is true for everyone, man, woman, or child: BOUNDARIES.

    And do unto others.

    *I think this is true of really pretty women. They really don’t need to be told that they’re pretty, they know it, and calling attention to it is embarrassing.

    The others are in a whirlpool of crazy brought on by Instagram, although, as Stanley tells us, it didn’t start with Instagram.

    Instagram chicks with their outlandish eyebrows and duck lips are ugly AF and we’re told that they are the height of glamor. At least Hollywood gave us some real beauties.

  305. @Jack D
    @Hibernian

    I have to say that I wasn't taught this at my (not very good) Hebrew school either (an after school program a couple of times per week). Maybe if they had taught stuff like this instead of fairy tales I would have stuck around longer.

    What seems to be missing from our system of Western law is the concept that just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. The Western ideal is that you call up your lawyer and you ask him, how close can I get to the edge of the law without actually wandering over the line. Can I put immigration reform in the budget reconciliation to get around the filibuster because immigration has an impact on the budget? In Jewish law there is a concept called "building a fence around the law" - the idea is that no only should you not come up to the edge of the law but you should build guard rails that are well back of the edge so that you can never wander over.

    There are some Christians who understand this - for example Pence who said (in 2002 - there is no statute of limitations when the Leftist press wants to blacken your name) that he would never dine alone with a woman who was not his wife. Instead of being praised for this, all he got for it was shit - "what an idiot", "what could the harm be in just having a meal in a public place?", "this is illegal sex discrimination," etc. These people think they know everything and they know nothing (of human nature, which has not changed since Biblical times).

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Kjr, @Jonathan Mason, @Anon

    What seems to be missing from our system of Western law is the concept that just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD do it. The Western ideal is that you call up your lawyer and you ask him, how close can I get to the edge of the law without actually wandering over the line.

    A perfect example of this is the Sackler family, which became immensely rich by deliberately getting people addicted to narcotics and selling them the narcotics, and ultimately killing tens of thousands of people in their own family-run holocaust and now wants to avoid doing hard prison time for its crimes by coming up with all kinds of strategies to pay reparations that will not really affect their personal wealth at all.

    This is all being facilitated for them by slimy lawyers who are also getting rich themselves on the proceeds of the crimes of the Sacklers.

    It would be nice if the Jewish religion would excommunicate the Sacklers and their lawyers and if the Jewish legal community would speak out against them and their lawyers and demand that all their slimy asses be thrown in prison and their lawyers stripped of their licenses to practice law–if necessary by enacting specific retrospective anti-Sackler legislation if the current legal system is inadequate to deal with their crimes. Perhaps there could be a special tribunal like Nuremberg set up specifically to deal with the Sacklers.

    • Agree: JMcG
  306. @JimB
    @Trelane


    Women and children and leftists aren’t very good at statistics and probability due to the “empathizing-systemizing theory” first identified by Simon Baron-Cohen.
     
    They also aren’t very good with finance. Which is why every liberal government thinks there is infinite money in the future to tax for spending today.

    Replies: @Anon, @slumber_j

    They also aren’t very good with finance. Which is why every liberal government thinks there is infinite money in the future to tax for spending today.

    Well, when they also basically print the money they sort of have a point.

  307. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @Anon

    No, you were right the first time.

    See Hexagram 2.

    Replies: @slumber_j

    The question to everyone’s answer
    Is usually asked from within

    –Wallace Stevens

  308. @Jack D
    @Jonathan Mason

    You prove my point that the UK is somewhat different than the US wrt requiring higher education for leaders (and Presidential speech writers). Harry Truman was the last US President without a college degree and he was a sort of accidental President. Before Truman, the next most recent President not to have a degree was Grover Cleveland, born 1837. Even that is deceptive because Cleveland was a lawyer - in those days it was possible to "read the law" and work in a firm as an apprentice without having to attend law school.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    I am sorry. Having done a little more research, I see that Ian Williams was actually awarded his degree at the University of Liverpool several years after having been kicked out for leading a protest against the university holding investments in apartheid South Africa.

    https://www.huffpost.com/author/ian-williams

    At some point the university relented. Another leader of the protest, also kicked out of the university at the same time was Jon Snow, who later became a very well-known news anchor and foreign correspondent, and even had a fictional character on a well-known TV drama named after him.

    Snow was also awarded a degree at the University of Liverpool, albeit 40 years after he left the university.

    https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/newsreader-jon-snow-gets-university-3370536

    Fires across the world – Greece, Turkey, California, Oregon, Siberia -and so mang more in one summer season: Leading climate change authority Professor Michael Mann of Penn State University tells me why: https://t.co/I7jZK5RsPq— Jon Snow (@jonsnowC4) August 6, 2021

  309. @Thoughts
    @Thoughts

    Even my spouse, who does not appreciate my conspiracy-theory-mongering was like

    Here's some Bad News, that's in a way Good News because it validates what you've been saying

    (and it's true...I've been watching the people who took the vaccine very closely...most people didn't get vaccinated until May June, as this commentator is not an American and our vaccine rollout was blessedly slow...so we're not at 8 weeks post second shot yet with many friends and family...the 30 somethings just go their first shot 2 weeks ago...)

    Guess I'm never travelling again...I have long veiny legs and one thing that scares the heebjesus out of me is Deep Vein Thrombosis

    As Steve Sailer says, the taller you are, the more area you have where things can go wrong

    And for me...my height means More Blood Clots

    Shove you blood clot vaccines where the sun don't shine

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Gamecock, @YetAnotherAnon

    Like Gamecock, I know a guy who does frequent trips to India and China, and he came back from Calcutta (pre-Covid) with a DVT – he’s a tall guy too, fit, and was under 50 at the time. Fortunately it got picked up early and he’s fine now.

    You might feel a fool wearing surgical hose, but it’s worth the cash to get a proper pair fitted. After that guy had his DVT I got a pair for my next long distance flight.

  310. @Kjr
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Or maybe You are the Semite spreading the lie that he is spreading a lie that Jews were vaccinated by a placebo so that...

    Okay, that's enough play for today 😂
    LOL

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Triteleia Laxa

    I’ll accept no explanation less complicated than this:

  311. @Yancey Ward
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    Well, you couldn't do this exact test now- they will all hear about their British counterparts' failure and what the right answer is, so they will have to find a new question. I suggest, "What is your favorite color?"

    Replies: @Ian M.

    Correct answer: “Rainbow”.

  312. @Jim
    @Anonymous

    And of course when it’s summer in the Northern Hemisphere it’s winter in the Southern Hemisphere so the seasons can’t be due to the small yearly variation in the Earth’s distance from the Sun.

    Replies: @Charlie

    These respondents, with enough education to speak about the earth’s elliptical orbit, can’t make use of a simple fact most of us learned in grade school: when it’s summer in America and Europe, it’s winter in Australia. Faced with this contradiction, the correct answer for anyone with half a brain should be “I don’t know.”

  313. @Jack D
    @res


    The initial problem statement is underspecified.
     
    Not really. It was:

    if you flip a coin twice, what is the probability of getting two heads?
     
    It's the unstated assumption of all such problems that you are given all of the information you need to answer the question. So, without having to say so, you can assume that the coin is a fair coin tossed such that H and T each have the same probability, that no one knows or has told you the results of the 1st flip already, and so on.

    Replies: @res

    Here is IJ’s comment 44 which caused TL’s response which in turn I replied to.

    Here’s a harder one: you’ve already flipped those two coins. One of them came up heads. What’s the probability the other one also came up heads?

    It would have been clearer of me to say something like “The problem statement in IJ’s comment 44 was underspecified” (“initial” is vague). But I thought it was clear enough given the thread sequence (and comment numbers often change because of moderation).

    What I need to remember is that the thread sequence is not always clear in everyone’s heads. As one example, I replied to TL’s comment after IJ had already given a response. That was because I usually only look one deep into comment replies to decide whether or not my point has already been covered (then there is moderation which makes it easy for there to be redundant replies).

    Regarding

    It’s the unstated assumption of all such problems that you are given all of the information you need to answer the question.

    Generally true, though there is not always agreement on just what those unstated assumptions are. I think people’s reactions to this sort of thing are conditioned a bit by how much exposure they have had to “trick questions.” Especially those which are somewhat unfair. The legal (or engineering) mind does not always have the same perspective on things like this as most people IMHO (nor are those two always the same).

    By that criteria you could argue IJ’s “One of them came up heads” is sufficient (and note I took it the same way as IJ intended), but I think it is at least somewhat reasonable to infer it meant “the first one came up heads.”

  314. Anonymous[148] • Disclaimer says:
    @Kjr
    @epebble

    Thank you for both of your beautiful comments on this subject!

    I'm sure Judaism is not unique in its understanding of what kind of speech is best unspoken, it's simply the lens that I myself happen to relate to best.

    Also, I personally don't care for all of the numerous legalisms in Chassidish Judaism (which is not a problem because that's my husband's department anyway) but having to study and think about all of the laws relating to this particular subject of Chofetz Chaim* keeps it fresh in the mind so that as inevitable opportunities arise to speak or believe Lashon Hara I'm prepped for it.


    * The name of the book is Chofetz Chaim which is from Psalms 34. It approximately means: "Eager For Life" and the verse as I see it translated in Sefaria is:


    Come, my sons, listen to me; I will teach you what it is to fear the Lord. Who is the man who is eager for life, who desires years of good fortune? Guard your tongue from evil, your lips from deceitful speech. Shun evil and do good, seek amity and pursue it.

     

    Anyway, I would love to learn about communities of people involved in the wider world who employ such morals/strategies and find not only their own lives bettered but the lives of others as well.

    Personally, I see this all around me every single day but almost never online. And like everyone else these days, I spend too much time online.

    I would like to be able to interact with the online conversation without feeling either like I'm violating my religion to do so or that I'm ignoring essential subjects because "if you have nothing nice to say then say nothing at all".

    Any recommendations?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @The Germ Theory of Disease

    I’m sure Judaism is not unique in its understanding of what kind of speech is best unspoken, it’s simply the lens that I myself happen to relate to best.

    How would you even know this? What other lenses have you genuinely invested in trying on?

  315. @Jack D
    @ThreeCranes

    Since the shadow of a sundial moves "clockwise" (and since what we are actually seeing is the sun standing relatively still while the sundial is turning in the opposite direction), the earth must be turning "counterclockwise" on its axis. The reason "clockwise" is clockwise to begin with is because the earth is turning in the opposite direction. If the earth turned clockwise then clocks (which are imitation sundials) would run counterclockwise.

    I honestly didn't remember which way the moon turns but I assume that's counterclockwise too. I do know that the orbit of moon around the earth and the rotation of the moon around its axis are gravitationally locked so we always see the same side of the moon but that would work equally well if the moon was orbiting 'backwards"

    Replies: @Neil Templeton, @Anonymous, @Inquiring Mind

    https://www.amusingplanet.com/2019/02/the-bolivian-clock-that-runs-backwards.html

    Claiming the sundial rotates “clockwise” is an above-tropical-latitude Northern Hemisphere conceit.

    Geographist!

  316. @John Johnson
    @Colin Wright

    What he missed from the Monty Hall problem is that dear Monty isn't picking randomly from two doors. That is why it tricks the brain.

    If you pick your 1/3 door he isn't randomly revealing one of the other two doors. He looked at the doors and picked a loser. Now the other door could be a loser but you are still better off moving because your odds become better than 1/3 because he picked between the two. The problem is better understood by adding more doors.

    Replies: @res

    If you think I missed that, try rereading my comment. Emphasis added.

    The Monty Hall variation is a subtle combination of those two.

    3. Two coins are flipped and one is turned over to show heads by someone who knows the results (i.e. if only one head was flipped choose that coin). That reduces to IJ’s 1 since you are again looking at HH, HT, and TH as possibilities.

  317. @Colin Wright
    @res

    '1. Two coins are flipped and you are simply told 1 came up heads. This is IJ’s version and his 1/3 answer is correct. Once you know one is heads you have HH, HT, TH to choose from.'

    The logic here is flawed. You implicitly assume that the outcome of one toss affects the outcome of the other toss.

    Yes, given two tosses, there are four sets of possible outcomes. However, if you know the outcome of one of the tosses, you're no longer looking at all the possible outcomes of two tosses with unknown outcomes. Since you know one of the outcomes, you're looking at only one toss.

    ...and of course, the chance of heads on that one toss remains at 50% -- whatever occurred on the other toss.

    Put it this way. If heads occurred on the first of the tosses to be considered, you no longer have the three possibilities HH, HT, TH head to choose from. TH can no longer occur. You only have HH, HT left.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @John Johnson, @res

    That comment reminds me of this quote.
    https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/06/17/good-original/

    Your Manuscript Is Good and Original, But What is Original Is Not Good; What Is Good Is Not Original

    As you noted, your first paragraph is simply wrong. And the rest of your comment describes my option 2. which you did not quote.

    I guess I needed to be even clearer and add the bold part below.

    1. Two coins are flipped and you are simply told 1 came up heads (but not which one). This is IJ’s version and his 1/3 answer is correct. Once you know one is heads you have HH, HT, TH to choose from.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @res

    'I guess I needed to be even clearer and add the bold part below.

    1. Two coins are flipped and you are simply told 1 came up heads (but not which one). This is IJ’s version and his 1/3 answer is correct. Once you know one is heads you have HH, HT, TH to choose from.'

    No, you don't know that. You either have HT or TH. Either way, that's fifty percent. Knowing one came out heads simply reduces the question to the odds of the outcome in one unknown toss. Whether it came before or after the known toss is immaterial.

    As I see it, you must be asking, 'if two coins are tossed, and one comes up heads, what are the odds the other one will as well?

    Fifty percent. I don't see how a question can be framed so that one third is the correct answer. Either you know nothing: twenty five percent are the odds that both will be heads, or you know something: in that case, either fifty percent , zero percent, or one hundred percent.

    The whole game show angle is a red herring. In that situation, what is or isn't behind one of the doors affects the odds it could be behind one of the others. That's not the case with coin tosses. You can toss all the heads you please. The odds of the next toss coming up heads remains fifty percent. There can be a new car behind all three doors. There might not be any new car at all.

    Replies: @res

  318. @rebel yell
    @AndrewR


    If you forgot 4th grade math then you shouldn’t be in charge of anything beyond collecting garbage or cleaning toilets.
     
    Many successful businessmen would fail this question. Their success is the proof that they should in fact be in charge. Many intelligent Presidents would have failed this question. I assume the only Presidents who would have answered correctly are the ones with some technical background - perhaps Washington because he was a surveyor, Carter the engineer, or Presidents who liked to gamble and calculate odds at the poker table. I don't believe Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, or Reagan would have answered this question correctly. However much you may dislike any of these Presidents, they were all smart enough to do the job.
    Most of the executive leadership of my company (a successful company) would likely fail this question. They hire me and others to do the math.
    A better test is whether people can understand a statistical argument when it is presented to them and appreciate its relevance to their decisions. "Gotcha" questions don't do that.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton, @Anonymous, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    Intuition as leader always takes precedence over number crunching ability. So it happens a rule in Bayesian probability is named for a British executive that illustrates this

    Cromwell‘s rule, named by statistician Dennis Lindley,[1] states that the use of prior probabilities of 1 (“the event will definitely occur”) or 0 (“the event will definitely not occur”) should be avoided, except when applied to statements that are logically true or false, such as 2+2 equaling 4 or 5.

    After the English deposed of Charles I in 1649, the Scots invited Charles II to become king. The English regards this as a hostile act, and Cromwell leads an army north. Prior to outbreak of hostilities, he writes to the synod of Church of Scotland

    I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwell%27s_rule

    The intuition here? Unless you have absolute logical reason to believe so, you should not exclude the possibility that you will be decisively defeated by Cromwell at Dunbar 😉 (and Wars of Three Kingdoms)

  319. @Kjr
    @epebble

    Thank you for both of your beautiful comments on this subject!

    I'm sure Judaism is not unique in its understanding of what kind of speech is best unspoken, it's simply the lens that I myself happen to relate to best.

    Also, I personally don't care for all of the numerous legalisms in Chassidish Judaism (which is not a problem because that's my husband's department anyway) but having to study and think about all of the laws relating to this particular subject of Chofetz Chaim* keeps it fresh in the mind so that as inevitable opportunities arise to speak or believe Lashon Hara I'm prepped for it.


    * The name of the book is Chofetz Chaim which is from Psalms 34. It approximately means: "Eager For Life" and the verse as I see it translated in Sefaria is:


    Come, my sons, listen to me; I will teach you what it is to fear the Lord. Who is the man who is eager for life, who desires years of good fortune? Guard your tongue from evil, your lips from deceitful speech. Shun evil and do good, seek amity and pursue it.

     

    Anyway, I would love to learn about communities of people involved in the wider world who employ such morals/strategies and find not only their own lives bettered but the lives of others as well.

    Personally, I see this all around me every single day but almost never online. And like everyone else these days, I spend too much time online.

    I would like to be able to interact with the online conversation without feeling either like I'm violating my religion to do so or that I'm ignoring essential subjects because "if you have nothing nice to say then say nothing at all".

    Any recommendations?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @The Germ Theory of Disease

    “Anyway, I would love to learn about communities of people involved in the wider world who employ such morals/strategies and find not only their own lives bettered but the lives of others as well.

    …Any recommendations?”

    https://www.pearmentor.org/

    https://sistersoftheroad.org/

    “Whack the ral-de-ra:
    Hunt the hare and chase ‘er
    Down the rocky road
    And all the way to Dublin,
    One, two three, four five.”

    • Thanks: Kjr
  320. @Jack D

    the earth’s orbit around the sun is an ellipse, so that means we are closer to the sun in summer so it’s hotter.
     
    "What do you mean WE, white man?" - an Indigenous Person from Tierra del Fuego.

    BTW, the fact that more of the land mass (68%) is in the northern hemisphere is WHY the earth tilts on its axis. It's also why "we" assume the Northern summer to be the default summer.

    Not only is the ellipse explanation impossibly wrong (then there would be only 1 summer on earth instead of 2 opposite summers) but it's also backward - the earth is the closest to the sun in January.

    People are mislead by the schoolbook illustrations of the earth's orbit, which always look like this:

    https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/orbit-3.jpg

    Earth's orbit actually looks like this, to scale (Earth on the left) :

    https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3b7c569b3087517a63bdb797d0cee441-c

    If you draw this ellipse to scale on a piece of paper (1" = 10 million miles), it's about 9-1/8" on the short side and 9-1/2" on the long axis - it's visually indistinguishable from a circle. Likewise the seasonal difference resulting from this almost circular orbit is next to nil.

    But, yes, our ruling class is fatally infected with overconfidence. They "know" that there are no genetic differences between the races with the same certainty that they "know" the cause of the seasons.

    Replies: @ThreeCranes, @Reg Cæsar, @res

    BTW, the fact that more of the land mass (68%) is in the northern hemisphere is WHY the earth tilts on its axis.

    That’s a decent first order answer (I would say basically true, but not really sufficient).

    Some discussion at
    https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/537/why-does-the-earth-have-a-tilt-of-23

    The second answer mentions both Earth formation history (e.g. collisions) and gravitational perturbations (your point, I believe). It also links to this 1993 paper.
    Stabilization of the Earth’s obliquity by the Moon
    https://www.nature.com/articles/361615a0
    Full text available at
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238393739_Stabilization_of_the_Earth’s_obliquity_by_the_Moon

    Abstract

    ACCORDING to Milankovitch theory1,2, the ice ages are related to variations of insolation in northern latitudes resulting from changes in the Earth’s orbital and orientation parameters (precession, eccentricity and obliquity). Here we investigate the stability of the Earth’s orientation for all possible values of the initial obliquity, by integrating the equations of precession of the Earth. We find a large chaotic zone which extends from 60° to 90° in obliquity. In its present state, the Earth avoids this chaotic zone and its obliquity is essentially stable, exhibiting only small variations of ± 1.3° around the mean value of 23.3°. But if the Moon were not present, the torque exerted on the Earth would be smaller, and the chaotic zone would then extend from nearly 0° up to about 85°. Thus, had the planet not acquired the Moon, large variations in obliquity resulting from its chaotic behaviour might have driven dramatic changes in climate. In this sense one might consider the Moon to act as a potential climate regulator for the Earth.

    P.S. Any idea why mislead/misled confusion is so common today? (not sure if yours was a simple typo) I actually had trouble finding a clear description of the case applicable to “People are mislead…” Most search results I saw seem to be subtly different, such as this page focusing on the past tense and past participle. Though the be helper verb requiring the participle is probably the best principle to remember.
    https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/25/mislead-misled

    I think your usage matches the present indefinite form given on this page
    https://www.online-translator.com/conjugation%20and%20declination/english/be%20misled
    Contrast that with the conjugations given for mislead
    https://www.online-translator.com/conjugation%20and%20declination/english/mislead

    Anyone have a better explanation for that usage of mislead/misled?

  321. @epebble
    BTW, the fact that more of the land mass (68%) is in the northern hemisphere is WHY the earth tilts on its axis

    is not correct. See:

    History of the earth's obliquity
    Williams, George E.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/001282529390004Q

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @res

    That paper reads to me more like it is presenting an hypothesis than giving a definitive description. In particular, notice the five uses of “may” throughout and “can test the predictions” in the concluding paragraph. Also “is postulated here” in the middle.

    I agree that Jack’s reason was incomplete, but I would hesitate to call it incorrect. And you have certainly not disproven it with your link.

    P.S. And ID, if you call that roasted I really wonder whether you even read the paper epebble linked. If not, please do. It is short.

    • Replies: @epebble
    @res

    I agree Williams paper is more of a hypothesis than theory. I am especially not a fan of the Giant impact Hypothesis for the origin of moon - since it doesn't tell us about how dozens of satellites within our solar system and thousands detected outside can all be results of Giant impacts. But if you see my comment on Geodesic undulations, it is obvious that the surface distribution of continental mass does not represent true distribution of earth's mass (as measured by gravity) - proving that the more interesting stuff is inside the crust (Mantle and Core). My personal belief is that the tilt is the result of (Magneto-)Hydrodynamic forces in the mantle and core. If you imagine a ball with lighter skin but heavier but liquid core and try to spin it, it will feel "weird" due to the eddys that will be generated inside and cause viscous drag on the skin.

    Replies: @res

  322. @Paperback Writer
    Meanwhile, in the real world, a racist boulder at University of Wisconsin has been removed from where it's been for two billion years.

    Just when you think the US couldn't get stupider, it does. What next?

    Replies: @res, @International Jew

  323. @res
    @epebble

    That paper reads to me more like it is presenting an hypothesis than giving a definitive description. In particular, notice the five uses of "may" throughout and "can test the predictions" in the concluding paragraph. Also "is postulated here" in the middle.

    I agree that Jack's reason was incomplete, but I would hesitate to call it incorrect. And you have certainly not disproven it with your link.

    P.S. And ID, if you call that roasted I really wonder whether you even read the paper epebble linked. If not, please do. It is short.

    Replies: @epebble

    I agree Williams paper is more of a hypothesis than theory. I am especially not a fan of the Giant impact Hypothesis for the origin of moon – since it doesn’t tell us about how dozens of satellites within our solar system and thousands detected outside can all be results of Giant impacts. But if you see my comment on Geodesic undulations, it is obvious that the surface distribution of continental mass does not represent true distribution of earth’s mass (as measured by gravity) – proving that the more interesting stuff is inside the crust (Mantle and Core). My personal belief is that the tilt is the result of (Magneto-)Hydrodynamic forces in the mantle and core. If you imagine a ball with lighter skin but heavier but liquid core and try to spin it, it will feel “weird” due to the eddys that will be generated inside and cause viscous drag on the skin.

    • Replies: @res
    @epebble


    But if you see my comment on Geodesic undulations, it is obvious that the surface distribution of continental mass does not represent true distribution of earth’s mass (as measured by gravity) – proving that the more interesting stuff is inside the crust (Mantle and Core).
     
    I noticed that one after I wrote my other comment. Thanks. I found it much more persuasive.

    My personal belief is that the tilt is the result of (Magneto-)Hydrodynamic forces in the mantle and core. If you imagine a ball with lighter skin but heavier but liquid core and try to spin it, it will feel “weird” due to the eddys that will be generated inside and cause viscous drag on the skin.

     

    That's a good point I did not see mentioned in my searching around while writing my other comment. Do you know of any papers looking at that? Sounds plausible to me as a major contributor. An analogy others might find useful (not you, it sounds like you know more about this than I do ; ) is spinning an uncooked egg vs. a hard boiled egg.

    It seems to me there are at least two points which need to be considered.

    1. What forces act to create an axial tilt? Alternatively, cause it to increase. Collisions, differing mass distributions, and magneto-hydrodynamics all seem reasonable to me as possible contributors, but I don't know how to evaluate relative importance.

    2. What forces act to stabilize an axial tilt? Alternatively, cause it to decrease. The only one I see (other than simply the opposite of the effects in 1, e.g. an offsetting collision) is the angular momentum of the moon discussed in the paper I referenced earlier.

    If you have any further thoughts on this I would be interested in hearing them. When I searched earlier I was surprised how little real understanding there seems to be of the source of the axial tilt.

    P.S. Regarding impact and the moon, I haven't looked into that recently, but my sense was that there were some specific observations of the moon which made an impact explanation seem more likely (i.e. which might not apply to those other satellites).

    Replies: @epebble

  324. HA says:
    @Anonymous
    @Jack D


    In Jewish law there is a concept called “building a fence around the law” – the idea is that no only should you not come up to the edge of the law but you should build guard rails that are well back of the edge so that you can never wander over.
     
    Can you provide an illustration of this, from Jewish law?

    Replies: @HA

    “Can you provide an illustration of this, from Jewish law?”

    The rationale for a khumra comes from Deuteronomy 22:8, which states that when one builds a house, he must build a fence around the roof in order to avoid guilt should someone fall off the roof…[As another example], universal halakhic practice today is to wait at least one hour (and even as much as six hours) after eating meat, before consuming milk [to safely avoid violating the ban against mixing milchig and fleishig]

    Since the Patriarchs and Kings of Judah and Israel had practiced polygamy, Rabbenu Gershom (960-1040) did not feel it appropriate to forbid it—and thus disrespect the Tradition. So, working with the fence around the Torah concept, he merely constructed a “fence” around the Biblically allowed practice of polygamy by enacting a temporary ban (for 1000 years). This temporary ban seemed permanent, but it so happens that it expired around the year 2000. So, is it still in force? Some continue to follow it as a universally accepted custom. Others say that 1000 years is not limited to 1000 actual years—that the term implies permanence.

    • Replies: @Kjr
    @HA

    The whole thing is a delicate dance.

    The first paragraph in Pirkei Avos advises the future Jewish Legal Leadership to:

    1. Deputize many disciples
    2. Judge Moderately
    3. Erect legal perimeters around the law that afford people a buffer zone

    And the very first paragraph in the Talmud relates to the fact that the religious leadership did this with regard to limiting how late one may say certain prayers.

    As far as I can tell, the way it worked during the time of the early Pharisees (say, from 500 - 100 BC) was that "fences around the law" were taught as such once somebody was sufficiently educationally advanced. Children might be taught, "don't talk to strangers" but as they grew up they came to understand that this referred mainly to strangers handing candy out of vans. Fences were known not to be the law itself by those whose education continued beyond the age of 20 or so.

    After that, and perhaps intermittently throughout Jewish history even before that, even the legal/religious leadership began to associate the protective perimeter of the law with the law itself.

    This is a matter of woe however. Extra strictures aren't celebrated but lamented. Some of the ancient said that people who take on the nazarite vows are in some ways holy sinners for their extra levels of abstinence. After all, "lo dahy licha ma sheasra torah?", God's prohibitions don't suffice for you?

    After the Divine Revelation at Mount Sinai, God specifically told the Jews to not remain celebate like Moses but to return to their marital beds or "tents".

    In fact the human drive to be self sacrificially uber holy is one that Moses himself cautions against.

    לֹ֣א תֹסִ֗פוּ עַל־הַדָּבָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֤ר אָנֹכִי֙ מְצַוֶּ֣ה אֶתְכֶ֔ם וְלֹ֥א תִגְרְע֖וּ מִמֶּ֑נּוּ לִשְׁמֹ֗ר אֶת־מִצְוֺת֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָנֹכִ֖י מְצַוֶּ֥ה אֶתְכֶֽם׃

    You shall not add anything to what I command you or take anything away from it, but keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I enjoin upon you.

    Deuteronomy 4:2

    Replies: @HA

  325. Anon[147] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    @John Johnson


    The math is 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4.
     
    That isn’t an explanation. It’s just a mechanical rule, one that almost anyone can memorize.

    If I say “give me a half a pizza and then take half of that” people understand that this would be 1/4.

    Coin flipping isn’t any different.

    We are saying “give me half the odds and then take half of that” or “give me half the scenarios and then do it again with the result”.
     
    I don’t think your analogy fits. We aren’t taking half of the first coin with the second flip. There are two discrete events involving a whole coin. How do we merge them?

    As far as I can tell, IJ is the only one in this thread who has proffered a comprehensible explanation for the answer.

    But no one has explained why multiplying 1/2 by 1/2 should work. And generally, no one has given an explanation for merger.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Anon

    Indeed. Not being math-oriented, I got to 25% by listing all possible outcomes in the double coin toss:
    1) two heads
    2) two tails
    3) head + tails
    4) tails + heads

    So I thought 25%.

    I went and checked with husband (who’s disturbingly numerical) and he said to multiply .5 x .5. I asked how come he knew to multiply the two outcomes and he said that’s the way you learn it. So I still don’t know why.

    • Replies: @res
    @Anon


    I asked how come he knew to multiply the two outcomes and he said that’s the way you learn it. So I still don’t know why.
     
    From my POV that is something so fundamental it is hard to answer why (I find it intuitive, but not sure if that's just because I learned it that way). I don't know if there is some deeply meaningful explanation taught in higher level statistics programs--if someone here does, please comment.

    A key point is that P(A, B) = P(A) x P(B) only if A and B are independent.
    The more general form is P(A, B) = P(B) * P(A|B)
    Where P(A|B) is the probability of A given B.

    The numerical approach is needed once you move beyond equally likely alternatives.

    P.S. And your solution is why it so deeply disappointing how many MPs got it wrong.

    Replies: @Anon

  326. Anon[147] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    @Hibernian

    I have to say that I wasn't taught this at my (not very good) Hebrew school either (an after school program a couple of times per week). Maybe if they had taught stuff like this instead of fairy tales I would have stuck around longer.

    What seems to be missing from our system of Western law is the concept that just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. The Western ideal is that you call up your lawyer and you ask him, how close can I get to the edge of the law without actually wandering over the line. Can I put immigration reform in the budget reconciliation to get around the filibuster because immigration has an impact on the budget? In Jewish law there is a concept called "building a fence around the law" - the idea is that no only should you not come up to the edge of the law but you should build guard rails that are well back of the edge so that you can never wander over.

    There are some Christians who understand this - for example Pence who said (in 2002 - there is no statute of limitations when the Leftist press wants to blacken your name) that he would never dine alone with a woman who was not his wife. Instead of being praised for this, all he got for it was shit - "what an idiot", "what could the harm be in just having a meal in a public place?", "this is illegal sex discrimination," etc. These people think they know everything and they know nothing (of human nature, which has not changed since Biblical times).

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @Kjr, @Jonathan Mason, @Anon


    What seems to be missing from our system of Western law is the concept that just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD do it”

    Thanks for an interesting post. No doubt you are right about Western law, but to me it seems like the prudent line between what pertains to political authority (potestas) and what pertains to moral authority (autoritas). What “one should do” is more the domain of the moral authority figures (church, parents, elders).
    Thus the origin of many popular refrains: “don’t do anything good that looks bad” would apply to the Pence scenario, or “that you can does not mean that you should” or “if you don’t want to fall, don’t walk near the precipice”. The purpose is to teach to the conscience of the person, while allowing some measure of freedom for individual discernment.
    The sayings come from the Spanish language, but I’ve heard similar in several others.

  327. Anon[147] • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    I don't get it. Is the vaccine failing?

    https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1424111796860956672

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Anon

    Well, yes. The Delta seems to favor vaccinated individuals. It probably evolved in the body of a vaccinated individual(s?), pressured to ‘escape’ the antibodies generated by the vaccine.

    Given its high transmissibility, the more vaccinated people you have, the less competition Delta faces from other covid variants, the happier it is. The more people it infects, the more chances of hospitalizations. And then there’s the pass-of-death between the first and the second jab, where many people get infected. The 30 year old brother of an acquaintance (with no comorbidities or so they say), just died in the hospital from covid. He had recently been jabbed with the first Pfizer shot. A coincidence surely.

    However, the common wisdom of virologists pre-Covid was that you didn’t mass vaccinate in a pandemic. It would have been wiser to only protect the frail.

    • Thanks: JohnnyWalker123
    • Replies: @res
    @Anon


    However, the common wisdom of virologists pre-Covid was that you didn’t mass vaccinate in a pandemic.
     
    Can you elaborate on this, please? Are there any references which discuss this view?

    Replies: @HA, @Anon

    , @HA
    @Anon

    "It probably evolved in the body of a vaccinated individual(s?)"

    The Delta variant was first identified in India in December 2020 where vaccines were nonexistent, and happily spread there, but you're telling us it "seems to favor vaccinated individuals" and probably evolved in someone who was already vaccinated.

    If this is how you use the word "probably", then you might just have what it takes, mentally speaking, to be a British MP.

    It may indeed be the case that one is more vulnerable to catching any variant of COVID right after a vaccine shot, given that how antibodies are concentrated at the vaccine injection site, which might help explain your friend's death, but that doesn't make your overall comment any less bizarre.

    Replies: @HA

  328. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @kaganovitch

    Come come, tovarich. A little spoonful of Dean Swift never hurt anyone. After all, 30 million dead Russians and Ukrainians can't be wrong!

    What I find fascinating in these endlessly tiresome and unimaginative knee-jerk responses (really! Jud Suss! when there's such a wealth of other cliches to mine!) is the absolute lack of even a second's pause for reflection. Never once do you stop and think, Hmm. Reasonably thoughtful and well-educated people have been provoked to think and say things like this. Could there be any other possible reason, other than that the full moon reliably turns everyone except us into Himmler?

    Naah, Himmler it is! Bela Kun? Nevah hearda the guy!

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    What I find fascinating in these endlessly tiresome and unimaginative knee-jerk responses (really! Jud Suss! when there’s such a wealth of other cliches to mine!) is the absolute lack of even a second’s pause for reflection. Never once do you stop and think, Hmm. Reasonably thoughtful and well-educated people have been provoked to think and say things like this. Could there be any other possible reason, other than that the full moon reliably turns everyone except us into Himmler?

    Well if you think it likely that Israel/World Jewry is trying to poison all the rest of humanity with a “vaccine” out of sheer malevolence, then yes, Himmler is the first thing that comes to mind. Should I have read it as satire, as you now claim it was? Perhaps, but I see our host didn’t read it that way either.

  329. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Triteleia Laxa

    "I feel like you took my interesting comment"

    We all think our comments are interesting! My issue wasn't with what you said about FDS (which seemed pretty accurate, but I don't lurk there), I just found it tangential to the point of my post.

    "and gave a very boring and predictable reply"

    Maths may be boring, but it's a fact that not all women can have a high-value man, any more than all men can have a high-value woman.

    Young men should be aware of what FDS advises, just as women should be aware of Game/PUA.

    I'd never read FDS before, although I was aware it existed. Do you think its target market (or the majority of users) are 20somethings looking (quite sensibly) to bag that HVM while there are still plenty on the market, or 30somethings who "enjoyed their 20s" but are aware that the clock is ticking?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Do you think its target market (or the majority of users) are 20somethings looking (quite sensibly) to bag that HVM while there are still plenty on the market, or 30somethings who “enjoyed their 20s” but are aware that the clock is ticking?

    It doesn’t fit into your framework.

    The target market is women who want to abuse and manipulate men, for whatever reason, but also need to view themselves as perfect saints while doing so.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Triteleia Laxa

    "The target market is women who want to abuse and manipulate men, for whatever reason, but also need to view themselves as perfect saints while doing so."

    I had a look at the site last night (having only read the Guardian-related thread) and I noted

    a) very little actual dating advice of any kind, and what there was was pretty poor ("beware of a guy who talks fondly about his grandparents" - FFS!)

    b) a lot of "hey look at this loser get chucked/flamed/shamed" type posts and accompanying you-go-girl comments

    c) "scrote" seems to be the abuse of choice. Haven't heard that for maybe 15-20 years, used in the UK to describe teenage male smackheads/thieves, the kind who'll do £500 of damage to your car to get a £100 stereo that they'll sell for £15. One grade lower than 'chav'.

    d) some frequent commenters really seem to dislike men, I don't get the impression they are looking for advice on getting a mate. They're just there to stop the crabs who actually want to get out of the bucket.

  330. @epebble
    @res

    I agree Williams paper is more of a hypothesis than theory. I am especially not a fan of the Giant impact Hypothesis for the origin of moon - since it doesn't tell us about how dozens of satellites within our solar system and thousands detected outside can all be results of Giant impacts. But if you see my comment on Geodesic undulations, it is obvious that the surface distribution of continental mass does not represent true distribution of earth's mass (as measured by gravity) - proving that the more interesting stuff is inside the crust (Mantle and Core). My personal belief is that the tilt is the result of (Magneto-)Hydrodynamic forces in the mantle and core. If you imagine a ball with lighter skin but heavier but liquid core and try to spin it, it will feel "weird" due to the eddys that will be generated inside and cause viscous drag on the skin.

    Replies: @res

    But if you see my comment on Geodesic undulations, it is obvious that the surface distribution of continental mass does not represent true distribution of earth’s mass (as measured by gravity) – proving that the more interesting stuff is inside the crust (Mantle and Core).

    I noticed that one after I wrote my other comment. Thanks. I found it much more persuasive.

    My personal belief is that the tilt is the result of (Magneto-)Hydrodynamic forces in the mantle and core. If you imagine a ball with lighter skin but heavier but liquid core and try to spin it, it will feel “weird” due to the eddys that will be generated inside and cause viscous drag on the skin.

    That’s a good point I did not see mentioned in my searching around while writing my other comment. Do you know of any papers looking at that? Sounds plausible to me as a major contributor. An analogy others might find useful (not you, it sounds like you know more about this than I do ; ) is spinning an uncooked egg vs. a hard boiled egg.

    It seems to me there are at least two points which need to be considered.

    1. What forces act to create an axial tilt? Alternatively, cause it to increase. Collisions, differing mass distributions, and magneto-hydrodynamics all seem reasonable to me as possible contributors, but I don’t know how to evaluate relative importance.

    2. What forces act to stabilize an axial tilt? Alternatively, cause it to decrease. The only one I see (other than simply the opposite of the effects in 1, e.g. an offsetting collision) is the angular momentum of the moon discussed in the paper I referenced earlier.

    If you have any further thoughts on this I would be interested in hearing them. When I searched earlier I was surprised how little real understanding there seems to be of the source of the axial tilt.

    P.S. Regarding impact and the moon, I haven’t looked into that recently, but my sense was that there were some specific observations of the moon which made an impact explanation seem more likely (i.e. which might not apply to those other satellites).

    • Replies: @epebble
    @res

    I am not a professional in the field, just a curious reader. The problem with MHD is, after reading the basics, it quickly gets into advanced math (differential equations, vector calculus) and won't be fun anymore.

    I picked a few that may be interesting.

    MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMICS OF THE EARTH’S CORE
    Paul Roberts, Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of California, Los Angeles,

    https://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C01/E6-16-04-04.pdf

    https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.fl.04.010172.001001

    https://igppweb.ucsd.edu/~parker/SIO229/geomag38-55.pdf

    https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/59444.pdf

  331. @Anon
    @Anonymous

    Indeed. Not being math-oriented, I got to 25% by listing all possible outcomes in the double coin toss:
    1) two heads
    2) two tails
    3) head + tails
    4) tails + heads

    So I thought 25%.

    I went and checked with husband (who’s disturbingly numerical) and he said to multiply .5 x .5. I asked how come he knew to multiply the two outcomes and he said that’s the way you learn it. So I still don’t know why.

    Replies: @res

    I asked how come he knew to multiply the two outcomes and he said that’s the way you learn it. So I still don’t know why.

    From my POV that is something so fundamental it is hard to answer why (I find it intuitive, but not sure if that’s just because I learned it that way). I don’t know if there is some deeply meaningful explanation taught in higher level statistics programs–if someone here does, please comment.

    A key point is that P(A, B) = P(A) x P(B) only if A and B are independent.
    The more general form is P(A, B) = P(B) * P(A|B)
    Where P(A|B) is the probability of A given B.

    The numerical approach is needed once you move beyond equally likely alternatives.

    P.S. And your solution is why it so deeply disappointing how many MPs got it wrong.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @res

    I forgot in my other reply, thank you kindly, I will remember the little formula.

  332. @Anon
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Well, yes. The Delta seems to favor vaccinated individuals. It probably evolved in the body of a vaccinated individual(s?), pressured to ‘escape’ the antibodies generated by the vaccine.

    Given its high transmissibility, the more vaccinated people you have, the less competition Delta faces from other covid variants, the happier it is. The more people it infects, the more chances of hospitalizations. And then there’s the pass-of-death between the first and the second jab, where many people get infected. The 30 year old brother of an acquaintance (with no comorbidities or so they say), just died in the hospital from covid. He had recently been jabbed with the first Pfizer shot. A coincidence surely.

    However, the common wisdom of virologists pre-Covid was that you didn’t mass vaccinate in a pandemic. It would have been wiser to only protect the frail.

    Replies: @res, @HA

    However, the common wisdom of virologists pre-Covid was that you didn’t mass vaccinate in a pandemic.

    Can you elaborate on this, please? Are there any references which discuss this view?

    • Replies: @HA
    @res


    However, the common wisdom of virologists pre-Covid was that you didn’t mass vaccinate in a pandemic.
     
    "Can you elaborate on this, please? Are there any references which discuss this view?"

    Apparently, those involved with stopping the Asian flu never bothered to get schooled in that common wisdom either.


    In October [of 1957], after schools and colleges had opened, the number of [Asian] influenza outbreaks increased greatly, afflicting largely young children and teenagers—111 per 1,000 people per week in the age group 5 to 19 years and 28 per 1,000 under 5 years.

    “It didn’t let me down, the pandemic of 1957, it began on time,” Hilleman said in his interview years later. But by then, doctors were ready with the remedy—the factories had produced 40 million doses of the vaccine. Despite the outbreaks, the much-feared pandemic was largely avoided, Hilleman later recalled. “That’s the only time we ever averted a pandemic with a vaccine.”
     

    Replies: @Anon

    , @Anon
    @res

    I should have been more precise in my terms. Virologists do not counsel mass vaccination in time of epidemic. They counsel targeted vaccination. I don’t have sources in English handy. My sources are mostly French specialists: Didier Raoult, Christian Perrone, Luc Montaigner, Christian Velot. These last two have spoken about not vaccinating during an epidemic, and even our local That Would Be Trolling has mentioned it without linking, saying it’s a concept found in first-year medical textbooks.

    In the case of Montaigner and Velot, they both speak of virus as part of an ecosystem in competition, in a harmonious competition if you will. Raoult pointed out around February that the current crop of vaccines are a very audacious bet, a reductionist approach, centered on the spike and not the whole virus. So if you win, you win everything but it is easier for the virus to mutate a part and not the whole, more so with mass vaccination.

    Contra Ron Unz, I find videos of this particular covid19 medical issue very helpful. One can read papers, and should, but for me at least the learning curve is too steep to be confident about a nuanced grasp of the concepts and the whole of their implications. When scientists do a divulgation video, they take this fact into account. Also, one gets gold nuggets here and there when by nuance or by subtle repetition these scientists address a radioactive issue.

    Here’s my hurried translation, with minimal cleaning for the sake of clarity, of an interview with Christian Velot about mutation pressures with mass vaccination:
    https://www.francesoir.fr/societe-sante/5-minutes-pour-comprendre-pourquoi-vacciner-les-jeunes-est-une-mauvaise-idee-christien-velot


    CV: Today, we are in a policy of systematic vaccination of everyone, we started with the more frail ones, which is OK, and now we want to vaccinate the younger ones, from 12 years old. It is a huge mistake, a strategic mistake.

    Q: Strategic from medical or individual perspective?

    CV: Both. Medical without doubt. But here, the medical act is the consequence of a political decision.

    Q: Could the “medical” mistake be from the point of view of the individual, the “strategic” one from the point of view of public health?

    CV: Both, the medical mistake contains both (individual health+ public health). It is a strategic mistake because there was a political decision; we had a War Counsel or whatever it’s called, where everything is decided behind closed doors, decisions which are huge mistakes. This morning I heard on the TV everyone talking blindly that vaccination was the solution. Let’s admit that it is.. and let’s admit that the vaccines are sufficiently safe..let’s put that hypothesis on the table. But to the contrary, mass vaccination in times of a pandemic is a mistake. Why? Because during a pandemic, the virus is in circulation. If the virus is in circulation, variants will arise, whether they are recombinants or mutations. This variants are not a problem except if they escape the immunity (of the vaccine). If we are doing mass vaccination, the original strain is going to be halted, because the vaccine will block it, since the vaccine is effective against the original strain. So, this original strain cannot compete anymore against the variants. And the variants have free rain. I was telling you this example at the beginning.. (..) we are in an ecosystem, like the bacterias in our digestive system.. if we eliminate those bacteria, or we have an upheaval in our digestive flora, or vaginal flora, then often little bacterias or fungus take over, and you get infections.

    So, competition is necessary. For example, in hospitals where we use many antibiotics, which is understandable, BUT there are bacterias that have become resistant to antibiotics, like gold staphylococcus or streptococcus. These are resistant to the majority of antibiotics currently in use. Suddenly, these bacteria have free rein, they don’t have other bacteria overshadowing them, they can proliferate and be responsible for nosocomial disease. So, what are we doing vaccinating massively during a pandemic? We are blocking the original strain that cannot overshadow (compete) with the variants. It means that what we are doing with the vaccines, as regards Covid19, what we have done with the bacteria in the hospital. We must not vaccinate massively.

    If, if everybody was the victim of this virus (Covid19), and this virus was truly deadly, that killed people rapidly, well then it would be understandable to try and vaccinate everyone. But here it is not the case. Young people are mostly asymptomatic, they don’t get sick. We should profit from that! It’s a godsend! We should let the original virus circulate in the young, and overshadow the variants.

    Imagine a variant arises, more deadly than Delta. It’s possible, I don’t want to be a bird of bad omen, but it’s possible to fear that. Imagine that it is so deadly, that it attacks everyone, including young people. Well since the young are also vaccinated, that virus can also attack them and everyone.

    Once the pandemic is over, yes indeed why not vaccinate everyone if the vaccine was shown to be effective. But not in a period of pandemic, where it is necessary to leave the original virus circulate, through people who are not at risk.”

    I confess a bias as regards whether the “Delta prefers the vaccinated or the unvaccinated”. A reading of the PHE data suggests that the vaccinated do suffer hospitalization more than the unvaccinated. And knowledge of a particular family where a vaccinated mother/daughter got a bad case of (presumably) Delta, whereas the unvaccinated daughter did not added to that (Of course “a swallow does not a spring make” and all that). However, last night in this video from IHU Marseille they state that with their current number of cases they cannot say yes or no, and suggest looking into what’s happening in Israel. For Israel, I only have journalism articles. Interestingly, I found out that in France they only count symptomatic infections as “vaccine failures”, yet they tested and concluded, like the CDC, that the asymptomatic vaccinated transmit the Delta as much as the symptomatic. Towards the end, there’s a presenter shows the slides, which even if in French are schematic and fairly easy to grasp.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCqqbP6Oe_Q

  333. @res
    @epebble


    But if you see my comment on Geodesic undulations, it is obvious that the surface distribution of continental mass does not represent true distribution of earth’s mass (as measured by gravity) – proving that the more interesting stuff is inside the crust (Mantle and Core).
     
    I noticed that one after I wrote my other comment. Thanks. I found it much more persuasive.

    My personal belief is that the tilt is the result of (Magneto-)Hydrodynamic forces in the mantle and core. If you imagine a ball with lighter skin but heavier but liquid core and try to spin it, it will feel “weird” due to the eddys that will be generated inside and cause viscous drag on the skin.

     

    That's a good point I did not see mentioned in my searching around while writing my other comment. Do you know of any papers looking at that? Sounds plausible to me as a major contributor. An analogy others might find useful (not you, it sounds like you know more about this than I do ; ) is spinning an uncooked egg vs. a hard boiled egg.

    It seems to me there are at least two points which need to be considered.

    1. What forces act to create an axial tilt? Alternatively, cause it to increase. Collisions, differing mass distributions, and magneto-hydrodynamics all seem reasonable to me as possible contributors, but I don't know how to evaluate relative importance.

    2. What forces act to stabilize an axial tilt? Alternatively, cause it to decrease. The only one I see (other than simply the opposite of the effects in 1, e.g. an offsetting collision) is the angular momentum of the moon discussed in the paper I referenced earlier.

    If you have any further thoughts on this I would be interested in hearing them. When I searched earlier I was surprised how little real understanding there seems to be of the source of the axial tilt.

    P.S. Regarding impact and the moon, I haven't looked into that recently, but my sense was that there were some specific observations of the moon which made an impact explanation seem more likely (i.e. which might not apply to those other satellites).

    Replies: @epebble

    I am not a professional in the field, just a curious reader. The problem with MHD is, after reading the basics, it quickly gets into advanced math (differential equations, vector calculus) and won’t be fun anymore.

    I picked a few that may be interesting.

    MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMICS OF THE EARTH’S CORE
    Paul Roberts, Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of California, Los Angeles,

    https://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C01/E6-16-04-04.pdf

    https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.fl.04.010172.001001

    https://igppweb.ucsd.edu/~parker/SIO229/geomag38-55.pdf

    https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/59444.pdf

    • Thanks: res
  334. @Anon
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Well, yes. The Delta seems to favor vaccinated individuals. It probably evolved in the body of a vaccinated individual(s?), pressured to ‘escape’ the antibodies generated by the vaccine.

    Given its high transmissibility, the more vaccinated people you have, the less competition Delta faces from other covid variants, the happier it is. The more people it infects, the more chances of hospitalizations. And then there’s the pass-of-death between the first and the second jab, where many people get infected. The 30 year old brother of an acquaintance (with no comorbidities or so they say), just died in the hospital from covid. He had recently been jabbed with the first Pfizer shot. A coincidence surely.

    However, the common wisdom of virologists pre-Covid was that you didn’t mass vaccinate in a pandemic. It would have been wiser to only protect the frail.

    Replies: @res, @HA

    “It probably evolved in the body of a vaccinated individual(s?)”

    The Delta variant was first identified in India in December 2020 where vaccines were nonexistent, and happily spread there, but you’re telling us it “seems to favor vaccinated individuals” and probably evolved in someone who was already vaccinated.

    If this is how you use the word “probably”, then you might just have what it takes, mentally speaking, to be a British MP.

    It may indeed be the case that one is more vulnerable to catching any variant of COVID right after a vaccine shot, given that how antibodies are concentrated at the vaccine injection site, which might help explain your friend’s death, but that doesn’t make your overall comment any less bizarre.

    • Replies: @HA
    @HA

    ...how antibodies are concentrated...

    Sorry, I should have said white blood cells, not antibodies.

  335. @HA
    @Anon

    "It probably evolved in the body of a vaccinated individual(s?)"

    The Delta variant was first identified in India in December 2020 where vaccines were nonexistent, and happily spread there, but you're telling us it "seems to favor vaccinated individuals" and probably evolved in someone who was already vaccinated.

    If this is how you use the word "probably", then you might just have what it takes, mentally speaking, to be a British MP.

    It may indeed be the case that one is more vulnerable to catching any variant of COVID right after a vaccine shot, given that how antibodies are concentrated at the vaccine injection site, which might help explain your friend's death, but that doesn't make your overall comment any less bizarre.

    Replies: @HA

    …how antibodies are concentrated…

    Sorry, I should have said white blood cells, not antibodies.

  336. @res
    @Anon


    However, the common wisdom of virologists pre-Covid was that you didn’t mass vaccinate in a pandemic.
     
    Can you elaborate on this, please? Are there any references which discuss this view?

    Replies: @HA, @Anon

    However, the common wisdom of virologists pre-Covid was that you didn’t mass vaccinate in a pandemic.

    “Can you elaborate on this, please? Are there any references which discuss this view?”

    Apparently, those involved with stopping the Asian flu never bothered to get schooled in that common wisdom either.

    In October [of 1957], after schools and colleges had opened, the number of [Asian] influenza outbreaks increased greatly, afflicting largely young children and teenagers—111 per 1,000 people per week in the age group 5 to 19 years and 28 per 1,000 under 5 years.

    “It didn’t let me down, the pandemic of 1957, it began on time,” Hilleman said in his interview years later. But by then, doctors were ready with the remedy—the factories had produced 40 million doses of the vaccine. Despite the outbreaks, the much-feared pandemic was largely avoided, Hilleman later recalled. “That’s the only time we ever averted a pandemic with a vaccine.”

    • Replies: @Anon
    @HA

    @ I hope that you are at least a doctor, because otherwise you are a victim of the meme “pandemic of the unvaccinated” and its related talking points, in all likelihood generated in some consultant’s office. Whether those talking points are true or false, in whole or in part, is very much a debate.

    One does not have to be super smart to understand that a variant that escaped vaccinal immunity with Delta’s ease was gestated in the body of a vaccinated person, or as Montaigner put it, such a variant would be created by antibody-dependent selection due to vaccination.

    It is easy to find out that variants do not stay the exactly the same. For example, an individual can be sick with the UK variant, and upon in-depth study, that virus in that individual is really made up of 70% UK and 30% Marseille4. So while the Delta LINEAGE was identified in 2020, it had evolved by April 2021 when it became a VOC. Per Wiki:

    “The Delta variant, also known as B.1.617.2, G/452R.V3, 21A[22] or 21A/S:478K,[80] was first discovered in India. Descendant of lineage B.1.617, which also includes the Kappa variant under investigation, it was first discovered in October 2020 and has since spread internationally.[117][118][119][120][121] On 6 May 2021, British scientists declared B.1.617.2 (which notably lacks mutation at E484Q) as a "variant of concern", labelling it VOC-21APR-02, after they flagged evidence that it spreads more quickly than the original version of the virus and could spread as quickly as Alpha.[15][122][123] It carries L452R and P681R mutations in Spike;[37] unlike Kappa it carries T478K but not E484Q.
    On 3 June 2021, Public Health England reported that twelve of the 42 deaths from the Delta variant in England were among the fully vaccinated, and that it was spreading almost twice as fast as the Alpha variant.[124] Also on 11 June, Foothills Medical Centre in Calgary, Canada reported that half of their 22 cases of the Delta variant occurred among the fully vaccinated.[125]
    In June 2021, reports began to appear of a variant of Delta with the K417N mutation.[126] The mutation, also present in the Beta and Gamma variants, raised concerns about the possibility of reduced effectiveness of vaccines and antibody treatments and increased risk of reinfection.[127] The variant, called "Delta with K417N" by Public Health England, includes two clades corresponding to the Pango lineages AY.1 and AY.2.[128] It has been nicknamed "Delta plus"[129] from "Delta plus K417N".[130]””

    By April, mass vaccination was well underway, in England and other countries. Bizarre, I know. But smart of the British not to attempt renaming that locally found “indian variant” something like, say "Delta Kent variant". "Delta plus" rings nastier anyway.

    Replies: @HA

  337. @res
    @Colin Wright

    That comment reminds me of this quote.
    https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/06/17/good-original/


    Your Manuscript Is Good and Original, But What is Original Is Not Good; What Is Good Is Not Original
     
    As you noted, your first paragraph is simply wrong. And the rest of your comment describes my option 2. which you did not quote.

    I guess I needed to be even clearer and add the bold part below.

    1. Two coins are flipped and you are simply told 1 came up heads (but not which one). This is IJ’s version and his 1/3 answer is correct. Once you know one is heads you have HH, HT, TH to choose from.
     

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘I guess I needed to be even clearer and add the bold part below.

    1. Two coins are flipped and you are simply told 1 came up heads (but not which one). This is IJ’s version and his 1/3 answer is correct. Once you know one is heads you have HH, HT, TH to choose from.’

    No, you don’t know that. You either have HT or TH. Either way, that’s fifty percent. Knowing one came out heads simply reduces the question to the odds of the outcome in one unknown toss. Whether it came before or after the known toss is immaterial.

    As I see it, you must be asking, ‘if two coins are tossed, and one comes up heads, what are the odds the other one will as well?

    Fifty percent. I don’t see how a question can be framed so that one third is the correct answer. Either you know nothing: twenty five percent are the odds that both will be heads, or you know something: in that case, either fifty percent , zero percent, or one hundred percent.

    The whole game show angle is a red herring. In that situation, what is or isn’t behind one of the doors affects the odds it could be behind one of the others. That’s not the case with coin tosses. You can toss all the heads you please. The odds of the next toss coming up heads remains fifty percent. There can be a new car behind all three doors. There might not be any new car at all.

    • Replies: @res
    @Colin Wright

    Please reread my comment 143 until you understand it. If you don't understand how it is that given the initial possibilities TT, TH, HT, and HH and then told that at least one of the coins is heads (see next paragraph) the remaining possibilities are TH, HT, and HH then I am not sure how to make things clearer.

    I will note I left out one interpretation which Odin supplied in comment 134. That IJ's words could be interpreted as exactly one coin was heads. In that case the probability that the other coin is heads is zero as he said.

    Agreed the game show angle is a red herring at this point. I thought it was an interesting and useful analogy, but it has turned out to be more confusing than enlightening here.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

  338. @jimmyriddle
    The class of 2012 were geniuses compared to the current crop of Labour women MPs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH-_wRC8bt4

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Gordo, @astrolabe, @Philip Owen, @Badger Down

    Raab is not being cruel or humiliating Webbe. He tries to clarify her question. But she’s not able to say it clearly.

  339. @Anon
    @Anon


    The correct question to many answers
     
    Whoops, obviously that was meant to read "the correct answer to many questions".

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Badger Down

    The correct question is What?

  340. @Amerimutt Golems
    This is a legacy of Blair. He increased the number of women and third world MPs.

    Ghost of Bull Moose has mentioned the first black person to enter the House of Commons. She studied History at Cambridge. In 2017 she said the following.


    If we recruit the 10,000 police men and women over a four-year period, we believe it’ll be about £300,000.

     

    A builder or CEO would be fired over such dodgy figures.

    Replies: @Briggs

    Wtf is your name lol? Did you make it that to trigger amerimutts?

  341. @HA
    @Anonymous

    "Can you provide an illustration of this, from Jewish law?"


    The rationale for a khumra comes from Deuteronomy 22:8, which states that when one builds a house, he must build a fence around the roof in order to avoid guilt should someone fall off the roof...[As another example], universal halakhic practice today is to wait at least one hour (and even as much as six hours) after eating meat, before consuming milk [to safely avoid violating the ban against mixing milchig and fleishig]
     

    Since the Patriarchs and Kings of Judah and Israel had practiced polygamy, Rabbenu Gershom (960-1040) did not feel it appropriate to forbid it—and thus disrespect the Tradition. So, working with the fence around the Torah concept, he merely constructed a “fence” around the Biblically allowed practice of polygamy by enacting a temporary ban (for 1000 years). This temporary ban seemed permanent, but it so happens that it expired around the year 2000. So, is it still in force? Some continue to follow it as a universally accepted custom. Others say that 1000 years is not limited to 1000 actual years—that the term implies permanence.
     

    Replies: @Kjr

    The whole thing is a delicate dance.

    The first paragraph in Pirkei Avos advises the future Jewish Legal Leadership to:

    1. Deputize many disciples
    2. Judge Moderately
    3. Erect legal perimeters around the law that afford people a buffer zone

    And the very first paragraph in the Talmud relates to the fact that the religious leadership did this with regard to limiting how late one may say certain prayers.

    As far as I can tell, the way it worked during the time of the early Pharisees (say, from 500 – 100 BC) was that “fences around the law” were taught as such once somebody was sufficiently educationally advanced. Children might be taught, “don’t talk to strangers” but as they grew up they came to understand that this referred mainly to strangers handing candy out of vans. Fences were known not to be the law itself by those whose education continued beyond the age of 20 or so.

    After that, and perhaps intermittently throughout Jewish history even before that, even the legal/religious leadership began to associate the protective perimeter of the law with the law itself.

    This is a matter of woe however. Extra strictures aren’t celebrated but lamented. Some of the ancient said that people who take on the nazarite vows are in some ways holy sinners for their extra levels of abstinence. After all, “lo dahy licha ma sheasra torah?”, God’s prohibitions don’t suffice for you?

    After the Divine Revelation at Mount Sinai, God specifically told the Jews to not remain celebate like Moses but to return to their marital beds or “tents”.

    In fact the human drive to be self sacrificially uber holy is one that Moses himself cautions against.

    לֹ֣א תֹסִ֗פוּ עַל־הַדָּבָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֤ר אָנֹכִי֙ מְצַוֶּ֣ה אֶתְכֶ֔ם וְלֹ֥א תִגְרְע֖וּ מִמֶּ֑נּוּ לִשְׁמֹ֗ר אֶת־מִצְוֺת֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָנֹכִ֖י מְצַוֶּ֥ה אֶתְכֶֽם׃

    You shall not add anything to what I command you or take anything away from it, but keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I enjoin upon you.

    Deuteronomy 4:2

    • Replies: @HA
    @Kjr

    "The whole thing is a delicate dance."

    To my eyes, there's nothing all that dancingly delicate about making people install two separate sinks, and commanding someone to pulverize and bury the shards of a dish he used to reach for when making a cheese sandwich, all because a spattering drop of gravy came to rest there.

    As busybody intrusions go, I'd say that's more like a herd of stampeding buffalo than some delicate dance, but everyone's got an opinion.

  342. @John Johnson
    @Anon

    But people who think they are too clever to be tricked might be susceptible to favoring the incorrect answer, even though it does not involve past results in this current case.

    You are overthinking it because if they went to college then they should have learned the answer in basic stats. It's one of the first lessons.

    Liberals may in fact be a little smarter than conservatives, on average

    Liberals on average are probably smarter than most conservatives but the outliers are going to be more conservative even if they identify as independent.

    Typical college educated liberals are basically smarter than average but not smart enough to see their limitations or how prone they are to group think. This is why it can be really frustrating when dealing with them. Most of the time they are just working from the belief that they are correct because they are in the correct group. When you take issue with them they have an unspoken belief that you must be in one of the bad groups.

    Replies: @International Jew

    Most of the time they are just working from the belief that they are correct because they are in the correct group.

    Very true. Moreover, people care a lot about whether they share the beliefs of smarter people.

    Me, it doesn’t bother me at all to know that illiterate premodern people shared my opinion about the desirability of executing highwaymen and displaying their heads on pikes. (Just change highwaymen to guys like this…

    ).

  343. @Paperback Writer
    Meanwhile, in the real world, a racist boulder at University of Wisconsin has been removed from where it's been for two billion years.

    Just when you think the US couldn't get stupider, it does. What next?

    Replies: @res, @International Jew

    Stupider no, but funnier yes; the rock could have rolled away and landed in the senior administrators’ parking lot.

  344. @Triteleia Laxa
    @YetAnotherAnon


    Do you think its target market (or the majority of users) are 20somethings looking (quite sensibly) to bag that HVM while there are still plenty on the market, or 30somethings who “enjoyed their 20s” but are aware that the clock is ticking?
     
    It doesn't fit into your framework.

    The target market is women who want to abuse and manipulate men, for whatever reason, but also need to view themselves as perfect saints while doing so.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    “The target market is women who want to abuse and manipulate men, for whatever reason, but also need to view themselves as perfect saints while doing so.”

    I had a look at the site last night (having only read the Guardian-related thread) and I noted

    a) very little actual dating advice of any kind, and what there was was pretty poor (“beware of a guy who talks fondly about his grandparents” – FFS!)

    b) a lot of “hey look at this loser get chucked/flamed/shamed” type posts and accompanying you-go-girl comments

    c) “scrote” seems to be the abuse of choice. Haven’t heard that for maybe 15-20 years, used in the UK to describe teenage male smackheads/thieves, the kind who’ll do £500 of damage to your car to get a £100 stereo that they’ll sell for £15. One grade lower than ‘chav’.

    d) some frequent commenters really seem to dislike men, I don’t get the impression they are looking for advice on getting a mate. They’re just there to stop the crabs who actually want to get out of the bucket.

  345. @Anon
    @Mike Tre


    Ella French shouldn’t have been a police officer to begin with. Her murder is a tragedy, but what kind of society sends it young women into harm’s way like this? A sick society.
     
    Especially young mothers of two young children. She had just returned from maternity leave.

    Replies: @Goddard

    Men need to get into the habit of opposing the idiocy we see on display here. Imagine the husband of this woman. He was either on board with her decision, in which case he is a hapless cuck, or he opposed it to some degree, but was too weak to do anything about it. Men, we have right on our side! Develop the habit of saying, “No woman should be out on the streets hunting down criminals,” or start off with “No woman with two young kids should be out doing what this unfortunate cop was doing.” Wear these sayings into a groove.

  346. @Colin Wright
    @res

    'I guess I needed to be even clearer and add the bold part below.

    1. Two coins are flipped and you are simply told 1 came up heads (but not which one). This is IJ’s version and his 1/3 answer is correct. Once you know one is heads you have HH, HT, TH to choose from.'

    No, you don't know that. You either have HT or TH. Either way, that's fifty percent. Knowing one came out heads simply reduces the question to the odds of the outcome in one unknown toss. Whether it came before or after the known toss is immaterial.

    As I see it, you must be asking, 'if two coins are tossed, and one comes up heads, what are the odds the other one will as well?

    Fifty percent. I don't see how a question can be framed so that one third is the correct answer. Either you know nothing: twenty five percent are the odds that both will be heads, or you know something: in that case, either fifty percent , zero percent, or one hundred percent.

    The whole game show angle is a red herring. In that situation, what is or isn't behind one of the doors affects the odds it could be behind one of the others. That's not the case with coin tosses. You can toss all the heads you please. The odds of the next toss coming up heads remains fifty percent. There can be a new car behind all three doors. There might not be any new car at all.

    Replies: @res

    Please reread my comment 143 until you understand it. If you don’t understand how it is that given the initial possibilities TT, TH, HT, and HH and then told that at least one of the coins is heads (see next paragraph) the remaining possibilities are TH, HT, and HH then I am not sure how to make things clearer.

    I will note I left out one interpretation which Odin supplied in comment 134. That IJ’s words could be interpreted as exactly one coin was heads. In that case the probability that the other coin is heads is zero as he said.

    Agreed the game show angle is a red herring at this point. I thought it was an interesting and useful analogy, but it has turned out to be more confusing than enlightening here.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @res

    '...the initial possibilities TT, TH, HT, and HH and then told that at least one of the coins is heads (see next paragraph) the remaining possibilities are TH, HT, and HH...'

    One coin is heads. So what's the question?

    What is the chance that the other coin is heads as well? Fifty percent.

    What is the chance that the other coin will be tails? Fifty percent.

    What is the chance that, given one coin is heads, both coins will be heads? Fifty percent.

    What is the chance that, given one coin is heads, only one of the coins will be heads? Fifty percent.

    What is the chance that, given one coin is heads, either one or both of the coins will be heads? One hundred percent.

    What is the chance neither coin will be heads? Zero percent.

    I don't see how a relevant question can be posed to which the answer is 'one third.'

    Replies: @res

  347. @Kjr
    @HA

    The whole thing is a delicate dance.

    The first paragraph in Pirkei Avos advises the future Jewish Legal Leadership to:

    1. Deputize many disciples
    2. Judge Moderately
    3. Erect legal perimeters around the law that afford people a buffer zone

    And the very first paragraph in the Talmud relates to the fact that the religious leadership did this with regard to limiting how late one may say certain prayers.

    As far as I can tell, the way it worked during the time of the early Pharisees (say, from 500 - 100 BC) was that "fences around the law" were taught as such once somebody was sufficiently educationally advanced. Children might be taught, "don't talk to strangers" but as they grew up they came to understand that this referred mainly to strangers handing candy out of vans. Fences were known not to be the law itself by those whose education continued beyond the age of 20 or so.

    After that, and perhaps intermittently throughout Jewish history eve