Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 212
- 3
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
How do you delineate "statistical" vs. "mechanical" models/arguments (is that even the right term?)? Or just different levels of zoom/abstraction in conversations/discussions?
For example, To lose weight, the mechanical process is calories in vs calories out. There is no sidestepping the laws of thermodynamics. Given that the statement that "diets largely don't work" is ridiculous. Yes, diets might not work statistically in that a majority of people who were put on a diet eventually relapsed and if you carried out a study, you might see a negligible effect size. So if you were to propose some sort of policy to reduce national obesity rates, mandating a diet might be a bad proposal. But for an individual looking to loose weight, a diet is an excellent proposal.
This lack of delineation of statistical/mechanical effects, switching between levels of zoom/abstraction willy nilly, is a major pain point for me when discussing things with others. And I think there ought to be some informal fallacy that describes this pattern.
What are some forms of rhetorical sloppiness that drive you up the wall ?
Central Planner's Fallacy? Non-Agentic Fallacy? Just "Ignorance of Game Theory"? By that, I'm speaking specifically with respect your example, where I think the fundamental driver for the distinction between what happens at what you call the "statistical" versus "mechanical" levels is the presence of agents who make their own choices. Maybe you're getting at something else, but then I'd appreciate an additional example that doesn't have this feature.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link