felipec
unbelief
No bio...
User ID: 1796
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
But that doesn’t explain anything, I called it fluff for a reason, it adds literally nothing.
It is 100% a fallacy, that's all the explanation that is needed.
You have poor theory of mind if you think bringing up the converse error fallacy addresses some gap in their accusation
If you don't see how an argument being fallacious is a problem, you are not a rational being.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
I was referring to the statement "2+2=/=4 (mod 4)"
Regardless of what X is, you stated that if it's related to mathematics, there was 0% chance of you interpreting it wrong or your conclusion being wrong.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
2+2 (standard arithmetic) is different than 2+2 (mod 4), and 4 (standard arithmetic) is different than 4 (mod 4).
And
Is that an admission that what most people think (4 (standard arithmetic)) is different than (4 (mod 4))?
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
You can train intuition (think, reflexes, like playing tennis) without any analytical thinking at all. Animals do it, no problem.
Reflexes are not intuition to me.
The main point of analytical thinking is to provide a check on intuition for when it goes wrong.
That's what you assume, but you couldn't have done your current level of analytical thinking without having done some analytical thinking in the past. A baby cannot do your level of analytical thinking, even a genius baby.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
You weren't asking about 2+2 (mod 4) though.
No, I was asking about 2+2 (no context), as I have been made it clear countless times.
You were asking "2+2=" without context, and people answer "4", which is correct.
False. 2+2 (standard arithmetic) is different than 2+2 (mod 4), and 4 (standard arithmetic) is different than 4 (mod 4).
After many questions you finally accepted that:
(2+2=4 in standard arithmetic) and (2+2=0 (mod 4)) are not the same statement.
Are you going to backtrack from that claim?
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
You told me:
You're selectively gathering statements that fit your preconceived notion of what you think happened, ignoring evidence to the contrary
Then changed evidence for "the vague statements and perceived motivations of the actors involved", so:
You're selectively gathering statements that fit your preconceived notion of what you think happened, ignoring
evidencethe vague statements and perceived motivations of the actors involved to the contrary
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
You cut out the part where you specified (2+2=4) in standard arithmetic before I answered. That's the misrepresentation.
False. That is understood, since you argued that (2+2=4) is always standard arithmetic, so no context is necessary.
(2+2=4 in standard arithmetic) and (2+2=0 (mod 4)) are not the same statement.
This is precisely what I interpreted, there is zero misrepresentation.
Now that you have repeated what I already said, except making the standard arithmetic explicit, instead of implicit, let's go back to the context that you keeping trying to run away from:
You very clearly said:
Did you just claim less than 0.0001% of people think 2+2=4?
As I pointed out numerous times, by 2+2=4 in this context you meant in standard arithmetic, which is what I interpreted correctly from the start, and I stated to you multiple times already.
You finally accepted that (2+2=4 in standard arithmetic) and (2+2=4 (mod 4)) are not the same statement, therefore even if 99.9999% of people think (2+2=4 in standard arithmetic) that does not equate to 99.9999% people thinking (2+2=4 (mod 4)), because they are different statements (as I already explained).
Therefore when you said "We think 4, 4 is 0", you were wrong.
Your statement expanded is "We (99.9999% people) think 4 (in standard arithmetic), 4 (in standard arithmetic) is 0 (in standard arithmetic)", which is clearly wrong. Period.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
What I was trying to shoot for was a somewhat more meta approach
My essay was also a meta approach. I talked about the intuition necessary in writing, while writing about intuition.
If you're of the opinion that I missed the mark on what I was shooting for, or just didn't care for it, you're certainly entitled to that opinion.
No, my opinion is that your essay didn't touch the topic of intuition much. Which is why I wonder why the voters found it valuable.
But if you recall when I promoted all the participants I specifically said all the participants should be worthy of praise for attempting to write about such a nebulous concept, especially if they had never written about it before.
My feeling is that the people who attempted to write about the topic would have a different valuation of the essays than the people who just just read them. For example, what made you think of Grady Little and Joe Maddon when writing about intuition? I bet it was your intuition.
That's expected because your reactions to criticism here are self-absorbed
Did you actually read my reactions? Because this is what I actually said in reality:
If you want to talk about my style, my tone, or why I wrote that particular sentence, I would gladly discuss that somewhere else.
This clearly shows I am open to criticism (provided the person is open to criticism of their criticism).
You are not entitled to have your stuff liked, or even to have reasons for liking something more than your stuff explained.
Straw man fallacy. I never claimed I'm entitled to that.
This is why criticism itself can and should be criticized: it's often wrong.
It all serves to explain intuition as an imprecise mastery of a domain that is based on talent and experience and sometimes is made obsolete, even net negative with formal methods
But this is obviously false, as my example of chess grand masters clearly show: they rely on intuition.
That's more nuanced than your dismissive summary.
Nuancedly wrong. And it's his essay the one that dismissed intuition without even considering it valuable: it's exactly the other way around.
Your text feels narcissistic
And if it feels narcissistic it has to be narcissistic, right? If it glitters there's no other option: it must be gold. Once again the converse error fallacy.
Put another way, you fail to write for your audience.
If my audience is not interested in the link between intuition and consciousness, that's on them.
Third, people may disagree with your actual argument, or at least find it unpersuasive.
All contestants used variations of the same argument (System-1/2 thinking), which suggests there's some obvious truth to it.
But finally you might be on to something: the reason why this particular essay won is that Mottizens do not like intuition. So any essay giving any value to intuition was immediately dismissed.
Sure, analysis – when possible – might help guide and correct rote learning, but the acquired System-1 «intuitive» judgement is only a product of repetition, trial and error; it both makes predictions the same expert wouldn't necessarily be able to make through explicit reasoning, and fails in a way explicit reasoning does not.
You are ignoring the obvious counterfactual to your notion: what can a person do without System-1 thinking? The answer is nothing. Absolutely nobody is born with all that is necessary to do high-level "explicit reasoning".
Whatever important high-level "explicit reasoning" you have done of late, it would not have been possible without previous training.
You mentioned "mental practice" in this paragraph, why did you think that was related? Pure intuition.
You could have written on any of that
I could not have written about that before thinking about it. I only thought about it after writing my essay.
I could have deleted my essay and wrote a new one as you suggest, and I'll probably write that new essay at some point, but that would be more effort, effort that you yourself did not want to do, as you didn't enter the contest.
I find it rich that you criticize me for not doing something you yourself admitted were unable to do.
Actually now that I think of it, this is a fertile field for investigation.
And you realized that only after thinking about it, didn't you? So you realize it's not possible to think of something before you think of it.
This is one meta conclusion of my essay. And you finally see there's something interesting here, but that wouldn't have been possible without me first sitting down to write about it.
This insight is now going to be part of your future intuitions, whether you accept the value of my essay or not, or even the value of intuition. You cannot unthink what you already thought.
Maybe give up on us, then?
That's obviously the correct decision if you are completely unable to look at arguments objectively, which was the whole selling point of the community, but time and time again isn't realized.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
It was better written and more engaging, for one, and reading it made me think of more interesting questions than your essay.
Really? Questions regarding intuition? For example?
People aren't robots, all things being equal they'll vote for the person who's more sympathetic.
Which is obviously wrong. This is obviously a cognitive bias (halo effect), and it's the exact opposite of what a judge should be doing: be objective.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
You can just say “you’re wrong”
Yes, and you can throw insults as well.
The question is not what one can do, the question is what one should do. And in a rational discussion it's better to explain why the person is wrong, not just assert that he is.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
Judgment of saltiness is in the eye of the beholder, or the hearer.
And judgements can be wrong.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
By X I suppose you refer to the statement "2 + 2 = 4 is not unequivocally true".
No, it's a meta argument. X could be anything. The user argued X is false regardless of any interpretation if it's about math.
Most people in general, when they hear someone say that a person "assumes" something, infer (in the absence of evidence otherwise) that what is most likely meant is that the person's state of mind about that thing lies within a particular set S, and S includes some states of mind where the person still has a bit of doubt about that thing.
I disagree this is the case, but let's run with your notion.
Thus, most people would infer that if someone says a person "doesn't assume" something, they infer that they most likely mean that the person does not harbor any state of mind within S, and consequently, the person does not harbor any of the states of mind that are within S but include a level of doubt.
Are you saying that "doesn't assume" doesn't include any level of doubt? If so, that doesn't fit with what most people think. And if "doesn't assume" includes a level of doubt, then that's contrary to your notion that S includes a level of doubt, because then clearly S' should not include a level of doubt.
Would you say that by "not making assumptions", you specifically mean "not thinking things are true with zero possible doubt"?
The level of doubt is a separate issue. When you wake up do you assume the air is safe to breathe? Clearly close to 100% of the days you wake up you don't even think about that question, if someone were to ask you "are you 100% certain the air is safe to breathe" you might ponder the question and come to the conclusion that you are not 100% sure, but that's only after you have pondered the question.
A rock doesn't have a level of doubt, neither does an unconscious person. This can be considered a failure to adopt any doxastic attitude, but the same applies to a person who has not considered the question, which includes you most days you wake up regarding the question of air safety. Most days you just take for granted that the air is safe, thus most days you assume the air is safe, and don't even consider any level of doubt.
Thus my real claim, that most people "aren't going to learn anything from your claims if you use your terminology without explaining it upfront" (which is an exaggeration: I mean that most people, just looking at your explanations in your post, are unlikely to learn what you apparently want them to learn).
If they don't learn anything it's because they assume (as take for granted) that I'm saying something that I'm not, and they are not willing to consider the possibility that they might be wrong.
(see how my definition of "assume" is actually useful, whereas yours is not as much)
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
No need to be salty.
That's specifically why I mentioned the converse error fallacy. Just because somebody appears to be salty doesn't mean that he is.
I am asking the people who voted for the winner if they could explain why. I am genuinely curious.
To be honest, I do think my post is better than the winner too
I agree as well.
TheMotte like all places has its tastes and our job was to cater to that taste.
No, our job was to write an essay about intuition, the price was the motivation, not the goal. Just like the goal of a newspaper is supposed to be to inform the truth, not to make money. Pandering to a specific audience wasn't supposed to be the goal.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
Can anybody who voted explain to me how the winner entry is superior to mine?
From what I can see this is what it said about intuition:
-
Grady Little may have made a decision based on intuition, Joe Maddon didn't
-
To improve intuition one must train
-
LBJ was intuitive, Obama wasn't
That's basically it.
This is what it didn't say:
-
What is intuition
-
What is the opposite of intuition
-
When is intuition helpful
-
When is intuition unhelpful
-
How complex intuition is
-
What intuition is comprised of
My essay at least attempted to answer these.
To me this is clear evidence of bias in this community.
And because Mottizens are very prone to commit converse error fallacies, I shall point out that this is not something specific to my essay, I also don't see how the winner is superior to this entry: Intuition in a Scientific Age, which also does attempt to answer some of the important questions, such was: what is intuition? I also would be interested in hearing why somebody who voted for the winner considered it superior to that one.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
And you also accepted 2+2=4 (mod 4) is not the same statement as 2+2=4
Can you just fucking stop misrepresenting me? That would be great, thanks.
False. I'm not misrepresenting you, you literally said they are not the same statement right here.
Do you believe that (2+2=4) and (2+2=0 (mod 4)) are "the same statement"?
But just for the record, the answer is no then.
It took you 5 comments where you tried to misdirect, but you finally accepted it, and because now it's clear that admission dismantles your whole argument, you are trying back down from it, but you did accept it.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
I said 2+2=4 in standard arithmetic is not the same statement as 2+2=0 (mod 4).
You keep omitting the context of your own statements, you clearly implied that "more than 0.0001% people think 2+2 is necessarily 4", obviously you meant in standard arithmetic, since very few people know that 2+2=4 (mod 4) even exists. And you also accepted 2+2=4 (mod 4) is not the same statement as 2+2=4, therefore it's entirely possible for more than 0.0001% people to think that 2+2=4, and less than 0.0001% people think that 2+2=4 (mod 4).
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
I specified "in Z/4Z" the first time I made my statement, I referred to modular arithmetic the second time, I clarified my statement to the literal same when you asked.
You are trying to distract from what you said, this is what you said:
But the existence of modular arithmetics doesn't make 2+2=4 incorrect. It merely makes 2+2=0 another representation of the same statement. So "most people" remain correct.
You also said:
Did you just claim less than 0.0001% of people think 2+2=4?
It's very clear what you said:
-
Most people think
2+2=4is true -
The existence of modular arithmetics makes
2+2=0another representation of the same statement -
2+2=0 (mod4)is not the same statement as2+2=0
There are facts. I'm not misrepresenting anything you said.
If by 2+2=0 you didn't mean 2+2=0, but 2+2=0 (mod 4), then that contradicts your initial claim that most people think 2+2=4 is true, because to be the same statement it would need to be 2+2=4 (mod 4).
So either your claim (2) is false becase 2+2=0 (mod 4) is not another representation of 2+2=4, or it's unrelated to claim (1) because 2+2=4 (mod 4) is not the same as 2+2=4.
Either way your argument is invalidated.
But it's pretty clear that you meant 2+2=4, not 2+2=4 (mod 4), because the former is what most people think is true. You are trying to antagonize me to distract from the fact that your argument has been blown up to bits.
You're trying to cut out the context, which makes it a misrepresentation of me. Retract and apologize.
You know what you tried to do, and now you are trying to hide it. Even when one tries to be as charitable as possible, there's only one likely conclusion: you are arguing in bad faith.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
Cognitive biases are not priors. They make you misjudge your priors, and update the probability in a skewed way.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
When did bias become so bad or such a negative word?
Are you serious? What is positive about confirmation bias? Cognitive biases literally pull you away from the truth.
Negativity bias, hallo effect, hindsight bias, anchoring bias, false consensus effect, band wagon effect, do I need to go on?
Biases lead us away from truth.
Being biased against smoking or junk food seems beneficial.
Being correct for the wrong reasons is still a mistake.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
The 'evidence' in this report is a series of claim made by an alleged anonymous source with access.
That is evidence.
contradicted by available evidence (flight data that doesn't match the claimed trigger mechanism).
Prove it.
No, you could certainly identify your age and the depth of your checking to Chomsky's more contentious claims which have been critiqued over time.
I am 40. And you pick a controversial Chomsky "claim".
Misuse of converse fallacy.
No, it's not a misuse. You are literally saying because I appear to have done something, therefore I did it. If it glitters, then it's gold. That's a fallacy.
my viewpoint is that you're abandoning weak positions that your deflections could not resolve.
Your viewpoint is wrong. If you want me to address your "strongest" positions, then only mention those.
True. This is and remains my argument.
Simply saying "true" does nothing, you have to substantiate your claim, which you haven't done so far. Therefore your claim is dismissed.
With access to covert operations planning at the White House level for black operations specifically designed to avoid oversight?
This is a probabilistic fallacy. You are talking about P(X), we are talking about P(X|O). Yet another example of motivated reasoning.
Not surprising in the least.
More options
Context Copy link