5 ms·

I'll ignore your ad-hominem and your strange attempts to change the topic to your uncommon definition of sexism (as opposed to the original definition used by b

I'll ignore your ad-hominem and your strange attempts to change the topic to your uncommon definition of sexism (as opposed to the original definition used by blowski, Pauline Leet, Caroline Bird, and everyone else here). You are correct that it is possible that by giving people snacks they prefer, I'm affecting their future preferences in some way. So what? All actions might possibly influence people's future preferences in some (probably unpredictable) manner. Why would I trade actual predictable present-day happiness for unpredictable changes in future behavior that might theoretically be somewhat better? (If you disagree with me that influence on future preferences is unpredictable, and think you can predict social dynamics better than random chance, offer me a basket of bets at favorable odds.)

pron 11y ago
> your uncommon definition of sexism My definition of sexism really is the common academic definition (although by "definition" I mean "definition plus corollaries", but it's a good enough approximation for people unfamiliar with research). > Why would I trade actual predictable present-day happiness for unpredictable changes in future behavior that might theoretically be somewhat better? Why wouldn't you? The question of what you should do is a philosophical question (perhaps the ultimate philosophical question) and depends largely on your values. I am not trying to dictate what you should or shouldn't do, simply show that your "optimal" decisions are not neutral ones based on "data" but ultimately a result of your assumptions and your (valued) goals. Achieving similar power distribution between men and women is a value of mine and it may not be yours, but you cannot justify your actions by anything other than another value. > If you disagree with me that influence on future preferences is unpredictable, and think you can predict social dynamics better than random chance, offer me a basket of bets at favorable odds. Well, my views of social dynamics are a result of years of study. I cannot say that my predictions are better than random because historians don't even try to make predictions (and I wouldn't dare call myself a historian), but we do know one thing for a fact: social action does indeed create social change. When it comes to complex systems, a familiarity with the dynamics does not translate to good predictions -- I'm sorry, but that's a direct result of the math. Non-linear, multivariate differential equations are very hard to predict (and we don't even have the right coefficients). But I know enough to recognize terrible reasoning that ignores what we do know, and denies its own assumptions.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  I think I was pretty clear that my goal was to "make everyone happier". Obviously if you want to maximize paperclips you'll come to different conclusions. I can't figure out what point you are trying to make. Best I can tell is that we should stop talking about bias against people due to gender and talk about your preferred topics instead? Achieving similar power distribution between men and women is a value of mine... It's an irrelevant one, however, since you can't actually predict whether any action will change this distribution. As for your "years of study" that result in no testable predictions, I'm sorry for you. Perhaps it might have been a better use of time to spend a semester studying complex systems instead. I think I know what you are trying to claim (positive liapunov exponent + error m in measurement of x(0) -> error m e^Lt in prediction of x(t)), but the nonexistence of good predictions does not follow this - it merely changes the character of the predictions. Typically the predictions concern probability distributions on x, regions exhibiting certain behavior, phase transitions, etc. While I could simply argue by authority, based on getting a Ph.D. in nonlinear multivariate differential equations, I'm making claims that can actually be intellectually defended. So feel free to exhibit some actual math and I'll carefully illustrate why you are wrong.
  - pron 11y ago
    > I think I was pretty clear that my goal was to "make everyone happier" How does your behavior achieve your goal, then? How do you know what would make people happy if all of your information about what makes them happy is snapshots of the past? Maybe a better study of the model would yield that the best way to make people happy is to offer them the exact opposite of what they had in the past? I don't understand how you can draw conclusions from data without understanding the model the data is a snapshot of. > It's an irrelevant one, however, since you can't actually predict whether any action will change this distribution. I didn't say that. I said that we can't predict with certainty and we're not trying to make predictions at all, but we do know from history that political and social action does work. That's how women were allowed to vote, go to universities, and become doctors and lawyers. > that result in no testable predictions, I'm sorry for you As I have spent even more years studying mathematics, I can tell you that neither subject was a waste of time, testable predictions or no. I feel sorry for you if testable predictions are the only measure of worth you know, but I hope that you are at least aware that much of the progress humankind has made wasn't due to any scientifically-predictable actions (and some of it was). Nevertheless, I never said I can't make any testable predictions, only that we can't predict the course of history. > Perhaps it might have been a better use of time to spend a semester studying complex systems instead. Well, I did both. > but the nonexistence of good predictions does not follow this - it merely changes the character of the predictions. Really? If your measurement time (of initial conditions) significantly exceeds the time the predicted trajectory is within usable error, then yes -- nonexistence of predictions does follow. That doesn't mean, however, that we've seen that societies where social action was taken changed faster than those that didn't have social action. If nonlinear equations is your field then you know that, sadly, sometimes we are reduced to making qualitative predictions only.

pron 11y ago

> your uncommon definition of sexism My definition of sexism really is the common academic definition (although by "definition" I mean "definition plus corollaries", but it's a good enough approximation for people unfamiliar with research). > Why would I trade actual predictable present-day happiness for unpredictable changes in future behavior that might theoretically be somewhat better? Why wouldn't you? The question of what you should do is a philosophical question (perhaps the ultimate philosophical question) and depends largely on your values. I am not trying to dictate what you should or shouldn't do, simply show that your "optimal" decisions are not neutral ones based on "data" but ultimately a result of your assumptions and your (valued) goals. Achieving similar power distribution between men and women is a value of mine and it may not be yours, but you cannot justify your actions by anything other than another value. > If you disagree with me that influence on future preferences is unpredictable, and think you can predict social dynamics better than random chance, offer me a basket of bets at favorable odds. Well, my views of social dynamics are a result of years of study. I cannot say that my predictions are better than random because historians don't even try to make predictions (and I wouldn't dare call myself a historian), but we do know one thing for a fact: social action does indeed create social change. When it comes to complex systems, a familiarity with the dynamics does not translate to good predictions -- I'm sorry, but that's a direct result of the math. Non-linear, multivariate differential equations are very hard to predict (and we don't even have the right coefficients). But I know enough to recognize terrible reasoning that ignores what we do know, and denies its own assumptions.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
I think I was pretty clear that my goal was to "make everyone happier". Obviously if you want to maximize paperclips you'll come to different conclusions. I can't figure out what point you are trying to make. Best I can tell is that we should stop talking about bias against people due to gender and talk about your preferred topics instead? Achieving similar power distribution between men and women is a value of mine... It's an irrelevant one, however, since you can't actually predict whether any action will change this distribution. As for your "years of study" that result in no testable predictions, I'm sorry for you. Perhaps it might have been a better use of time to spend a semester studying complex systems instead. I think I know what you are trying to claim (positive liapunov exponent + error m in measurement of x(0) -> error m e^Lt in prediction of x(t)), but the nonexistence of good predictions does not follow this - it merely changes the character of the predictions. Typically the predictions concern probability distributions on x, regions exhibiting certain behavior, phase transitions, etc. While I could simply argue by authority, based on getting a Ph.D. in nonlinear multivariate differential equations, I'm making claims that can actually be intellectually defended. So feel free to exhibit some actual math and I'll carefully illustrate why you are wrong.
- pron 11y ago
  > I think I was pretty clear that my goal was to "make everyone happier" How does your behavior achieve your goal, then? How do you know what would make people happy if all of your information about what makes them happy is snapshots of the past? Maybe a better study of the model would yield that the best way to make people happy is to offer them the exact opposite of what they had in the past? I don't understand how you can draw conclusions from data without understanding the model the data is a snapshot of. > It's an irrelevant one, however, since you can't actually predict whether any action will change this distribution. I didn't say that. I said that we can't predict with certainty and we're not trying to make predictions at all, but we do know from history that political and social action does work. That's how women were allowed to vote, go to universities, and become doctors and lawyers. > that result in no testable predictions, I'm sorry for you As I have spent even more years studying mathematics, I can tell you that neither subject was a waste of time, testable predictions or no. I feel sorry for you if testable predictions are the only measure of worth you know, but I hope that you are at least aware that much of the progress humankind has made wasn't due to any scientifically-predictable actions (and some of it was). Nevertheless, I never said I can't make any testable predictions, only that we can't predict the course of history. > Perhaps it might have been a better use of time to spend a semester studying complex systems instead. Well, I did both. > but the nonexistence of good predictions does not follow this - it merely changes the character of the predictions. Really? If your measurement time (of initial conditions) significantly exceeds the time the predicted trajectory is within usable error, then yes -- nonexistence of predictions does follow. That doesn't mean, however, that we've seen that societies where social action was taken changed faster than those that didn't have social action. If nonlinear equations is your field then you know that, sadly, sometimes we are reduced to making qualitative predictions only.