• Reminder: Do not call, text, or mention harrassing someone in real life. Do not encourage it. Do not talk about killing or using violence against anyone, or engaging in any criminal behavior. If it is not an obvious joke even when taken out of context, don't post it. Please report violators.

    DMCA, complaints, and other inquiries:

    [email protected]

Time for A CHRISTMAS CARNAGE to go out into the wild!

C

CompoundBasement

‎
‎
Forum Clout
43,004
Slackjawed Cow said:
Because he messes up Pats imaginary cope depiction of what his trolls are like. Badger is skinnier, has a prettier and more stacked wife, better home kitchen and counter tops, and custody of his daughter. Badger has him beat in every way and has proven with photos that pat struggles to deal with. Pat hates knowing his trolls are more successful than he is.
Click to expand...
"prettier"

Fatso doesn't have a pretty wife at all. He has a miserable, dopey, masculine Wisconsin 2.
 
Jims_Maroon_Pants

Jims_Maroon_Pants

Joe's Geek Squad Technician
‎
‎
Forum Clout
65,431
Tagine Enthusiast said:
f6f86152752090d9136920e98024bf4e.jpeg


https://nitter.poast.org/stealthygeek/status/1773094331986977028#m
https://archive.ph/5hB9p
Click to expand...
This is awesome! Just in time for the holidays! Interest in all things Christmas will be at an all time high! He can't stop winning
 
Sue Lightning

Sue Lightning

IS SHE TALKING ABOUT ME?
‎
‎
Forum Clout
118,384
You know this book is going to be the worst thing he’s ever fucking written. Not just because he sucks but because his life is so controlled by stalkers theres no way he can have any space in his mind to actually be creative and think about his work. He’s so far gone from the “author” position he held that he can’t even get fucking editors. This thing is going to be hot garbage and FULL of mistakes.
 
PickleRickle

PickleRickle

You are not a glowie. You are just stupid.
‎
‎
Forum Clout
44,715
Sue Lightning said:
You know this book is going to be the worst thing he’s ever fucking written. Not just because he sucks but because his life is so controlled by stalkers theres no way he can have any space in his mind to actually be creative and think about his work. He’s so far gone from the “author” position he held that he can’t even get fucking editors. This thing is going to be hot garbage and FULL of mistakes.
Click to expand...
Im not sure I know what you're getting at. Can you break this down for me?
 
Sue Lightning

Sue Lightning

IS SHE TALKING ABOUT ME?
‎
‎
Forum Clout
118,384
PickleRickle said:
Im not sure I know what you're getting at. Can you break this down for me?
Click to expand...
It's confirmation bias and some post hoc reasoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc) . To get technical the issue is that people don't really understand what evidence is in the scientific sense and why underdetermination is the reason a lot of the scientific method is the way it is. There's a million definitions, but the one i like that makes sense to me is evidence is some data that increases the probably that one hypothesis is true over another. There's also the concept of falsifiability of a hypothesis.

Underdetermination of Scientific Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

At the heart of the underdetermination of scientific theory by evidence is the simple idea that the evidence available to us at a given time may be insufficient to determine what beliefs we should hold in response to it. In a textbook example, if I know that you spent $10 on apples and oranges and that apples cost $1 while oranges cost $2, then I know that you did not buy six oranges, but I do not know whether you bought one orange and eight apples, two oranges and six apples, and so on.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

A simple scientific example can be found in the rationale behind the important methodological adage that “correlation does not imply causation”. If playing violent video games causes children to be more aggressive in their playground behavior, then we should (barring complications) expect to find a correlation between time spent playing such video games and aggressive behavior on the playground. But that is also what we would expect to find if children who are prone to aggressive behavior tend to enjoy and seek out violent video games more than other children, or if propensities for playing violent video games and for aggressive playground behavior are both caused by some third factor (like being bullied or general parental neglect).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So a high correlation between time spent playing violent video games and aggressive playground behavior (by itself) simply underdetermines what we should believe about the causal relationship between the two. But it turns out that this simple and familiar predicament only scratches the surface of the various ways in which problems of underdetermination can arise in the course of scientific investigation.
Click to expand...


In the informal sense that's where the confirmation bias comes in. Any evidence that confirms Jackos wacko Jense hypothesis is kept and dis-confirming evidence is explained away. Lets take this textbook example that Jax did early on which i pointed out at the time. Jackie's hyposis was something like, this sweedish guy is torswats due to the dushatar name. That's actually a fine hypothesis by itself. It turns out that was evidence the fbi used as well. Its from a popular book, but it seems to be a somewhat unique name and isn't used a ton by internet standards.

So what evidence does she have for the hypothesis. She accues a random guy on twitter, Jense, and uses his response as evidence. But the problem is she
  • had no falsification criteria
  • had no predictions before the accusation

Due to the fact that no matter what Jense did, that would have been evidence to her conclusion, it is undertmined and this isn't acutally evidence. by my definition given. Lets run through the scenraios
  • he deletes or privates his twitter - he's guilty he's hiding something
  • he ignores it - he's guilty he thinks ignoring it will make me stop
  • he lashes out - he's overcompensating for his guilt
  • he's confused - he's pretending to be confused classic tactic
  • he makes a joke - he's deflecting his guilt with humor

No matter what you can craft a sort of a just so story (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story) as evidence for the narrative. If you asked jackie , what would have convinced you he was innocent, she would have given some unrealsitic scenraio such that in a pratical sense nothing would have convinced her otherwise. She wanted him to sign something for her lmao.

https://archive.is/UzXr3

342.png




Lets say he did sign that, that still wouldn't have been enough for her anyway. So there's an element of shifting the goalposts here as well. Especially when it comes to human behvior, you can never use that as good evidence. Lets take a witness testimony for example. Scott Peterson takes the stand. They ask him about the seaweed boquet (linger longa). If he breaks down crying, he's faking it for sympathy. He is stoic and doesn't show emotions, he's a pschopath he obviously did it. Hypothectically if he didn't do it (lol we know he did but for example go with me), the same responses are underdetermined here. You could say he was crying because he was obviously upset his wife is dead he didn't have time to grieve and now he's in a trial where he's innocent. If he were innocent and stoic, he may be trying to not be emotional because he thought being emotional would look fake as he's overcompensating.

Now you might be saying, well his crying looked fake, or it seems less likely he'd try to look stoic as a tactic. Which is a valid form of induction, the problem is due to human biases you'd need to asses and document that before hand. That's the prediction part. Because of how our brains process information after we have a conclusion it retroactievly biases our memory. You think OJ did it , so you remember thinking how stupid it was to try the glove on. But at the time you didn't actually think that. This is why something called contemporaneous notes are highly regarded as evidence. But back to he point. The idea that you think him being stoic on the stand is more likely a tactic is due to your priors. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability)

There's a concept of proposition anylsis that is used called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability .
The Bayesian interpretation of probability can be seen as an extension of propositional logic that enables reasoning with hypotheses;[5][6] that is, with propositions whose truth or falsity is unknown. In the Bayesian view, a probability is assigned to a hypothesis, whereas under frequentist inference, a hypothesis is typically tested without being assigned a probability.

Bayesian probability belongs to the category of evidential probabilities; to evaluate the probability of a hypothesis, the Bayesian probabilist specifies a prior probability. This, in turn, is then updated to a posterior probability in the light of new, relevant data (evidence).[7] The Bayesian interpretation provides a standard set of procedures and formulae to perform this calculation.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Personally , I don't really take a bayesian view it doesn't really make sense to me, but it's not bullshit or invalid per se. I take more of a frequentist approach. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequentist_inference.

I can't speak to how the bayesian view would apply the the jacko jense analog, as i don't really understand it. However for a frequentists hypothesis. I could say somethign like this (made up numbers for example). 99% of the time when someone is accused randomly of a series crime and they are guilty they delete their twitter. While 99% of the time when someone is falesly accused they just lock it but don't delete it". If we had good data on that. That's the type of assesment I'd make. So if jackie had predicted what he'd do beforehand citing reasons, then that woudl have been good evidence.

This runs into, of course what a prediction is. There's a lot here so I won't get into it i'll just link another SEP fag article.

Prediction versus Accommodation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary,[2] something is ‘ad hoc’ if it is ‘formed or used for specific or immediate problems or needs’. An ad hoc hypothesis then is one formed to address a specific problem—such as the problem of immunizing a particular theory from falsification by anomalous data (and thereby accommodating that data). Consequently what makes a hypothesis ad hoc, in the ordinary English sense of the term, has nothing to do with the content of the hypothesis but simply with the motivation of the scientist who proposes it—and it is unclear why there would be anything suspicious about such a motivation. Nonetheless, ad hoc hypotheses have long been suspect in discussions of scientific method, a suspicion that resonates with the predictivist’s skepticism about accommodation.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So another thing to look out for that they are doing is ad hoc justifications. I believe some people commented on some voice audio sample from jense saying it was the wrong accent or something. Jackie, because shes too lazy to even be bad faith, just ignored that i think. But if she had said something like "well obviously he was changing his accent to throw me off". That would be an ad hoc justification to force disconfirming or falsifiable evidence into her hypothesis by means of an ad hoc reasoning.




so the tl/dr of your question is the inabililty to try and falsify your own hypothesis. You should be trying desperately to poke holes in it such that it stands up to scrutiny.
 
C

CompoundBasement

‎
‎
Forum Clout
43,004
Sue Lightning said:
It's confirmation bias and some post hoc reasoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc) . To get technical the issue is that people don't really understand what evidence is in the scientific sense and why underdetermination is the reason a lot of the scientific method is the way it is. There's a million definitions, but the one i like that makes sense to me is evidence is some data that increases the probably that one hypothesis is true over another. There's also the concept of falsifiability of a hypothesis.

Underdetermination of Scientific Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)








In the informal sense that's where the confirmation bias comes in. Any evidence that confirms Jackos wacko Jense hypothesis is kept and dis-confirming evidence is explained away. Lets take this textbook example that Jax did early on which i pointed out at the time. Jackie's hyposis was something like, this sweedish guy is torswats due to the dushatar name. That's actually a fine hypothesis by itself. It turns out that was evidence the fbi used as well. Its from a popular book, but it seems to be a somewhat unique name and isn't used a ton by internet standards.

So what evidence does she have for the hypothesis. She accues a random guy on twitter, Jense, and uses his response as evidence. But the problem is she
  • had no falsification criteria
  • had no predictions before the accusation

Due to the fact that no matter what Jense did, that would have been evidence to her conclusion, it is undertmined and this isn't acutally evidence. by my definition given. Lets run through the scenraios
  • he deletes or privates his twitter - he's guilty he's hiding something
  • he ignores it - he's guilty he thinks ignoring it will make me stop
  • he lashes out - he's overcompensating for his guilt
  • he's confused - he's pretending to be confused classic tactic
  • he makes a joke - he's deflecting his guilt with humor

No matter what you can craft a sort of a just so story (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story) as evidence for the narrative. If you asked jackie , what would have convinced you he was innocent, she would have given some unrealsitic scenraio such that in a pratical sense nothing would have convinced her otherwise. She wanted him to sign something for her lmao.

https://archive.is/UzXr3

342.png




Lets say he did sign that, that still wouldn't have been enough for her anyway. So there's an element of shifting the goalposts here as well. Especially when it comes to human behvior, you can never use that as good evidence. Lets take a witness testimony for example. Scott Peterson takes the stand. They ask him about the seaweed boquet (linger longa). If he breaks down crying, he's faking it for sympathy. He is stoic and doesn't show emotions, he's a pschopath he obviously did it. Hypothectically if he didn't do it (lol we know he did but for example go with me), the same responses are underdetermined here. You could say he was crying because he was obviously upset his wife is dead he didn't have time to grieve and now he's in a trial where he's innocent. If he were innocent and stoic, he may be trying to not be emotional because he thought being emotional would look fake as he's overcompensating.

Now you might be saying, well his crying looked fake, or it seems less likely he'd try to look stoic as a tactic. Which is a valid form of induction, the problem is due to human biases you'd need to asses and document that before hand. That's the prediction part. Because of how our brains process information after we have a conclusion it retroactievly biases our memory. You think OJ did it , so you remember thinking how stupid it was to try the glove on. But at the time you didn't actually think that. This is why something called contemporaneous notes are highly regarded as evidence. But back to he point. The idea that you think him being stoic on the stand is more likely a tactic is due to your priors. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability)

There's a concept of proposition anylsis that is used called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability .


Personally , I don't really take a bayesian view it doesn't really make sense to me, but it's not bullshit or invalid per se. I take more of a frequentist approach. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequentist_inference.

I can't speak to how the bayesian view would apply the the jacko jense analog, as i don't really understand it. However for a frequentists hypothesis. I could say somethign like this (made up numbers for example). 99% of the time when someone is accused randomly of a series crime and they are guilty they delete their twitter. While 99% of the time when someone is falesly accused they just lock it but don't delete it". If we had good data on that. That's the type of assesment I'd make. So if jackie had predicted what he'd do beforehand citing reasons, then that woudl have been good evidence.

This runs into, of course what a prediction is. There's a lot here so I won't get into it i'll just link another SEP fag article.

Prediction versus Accommodation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)



So another thing to look out for that they are doing is ad hoc justifications. I believe some people commented on some voice audio sample from jense saying it was the wrong accent or something. Jackie, because shes too lazy to even be bad faith, just ignored that i think. But if she had said something like "well obviously he was changing his accent to throw me off". That would be an ad hoc justification to force disconfirming or falsifiable evidence into her hypothesis by means of an ad hoc reasoning.




so the tl/dr of your question is the inabililty to try and falsify your own hypothesis. You should be trying desperately to poke holes in it such that it stands up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...
3508439399_fab030ceed.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top