6 ms·

Last time someone claimed they had powers I simply asked what colour is the carpet inside my cabin in northern Ontario. Since there is no pictures of the insid

Last time someone claimed they had powers I simply asked what colour is the carpet inside my cabin in northern Ontario. Since there is no pictures of the inside after I bought the carpet they had to guess and I was not telling. It is funny how everyone who I question suddenly starting ghosting me right after.

teachingassist 5y ago
Nobody claims to know what colour your carpet is. Even in a universe where I did 100% know the colour of your carpet via some form of clairvoyance (which is hardly an economically useful service), I've now understood that you will continue to react with confrontational scepticism. By asking this question, you have disqualified yourself as a client - not only of services which have no supernatural powers, but also of hypothetical "true" fortune tellers. Expect to be ghosted. Since I would expect the outcome to be the same in both cases, this doesn't prove or disprove anything to me.
- tedunangst 5y ago
  What's the overlap between "economically useful clairvoyance" and "true fortune tellers"?
  - teachingassist 5y ago
    apologies for lack of clarity - I meant telling you the colour of your carpet, that you already know, is unlikely to be economically useful.
- rcoveson 5y ago
  Three people claim to be able to predict when and where a solar eclipse will occur. You ask them for their predictions. The first provides a haiku which they claim encapsulates the point in time and space where an eclipse or other significant astronomical event will occur, insofar as your heart is open to it. The second replies that they are perfectly capable of doing it, but they believe your request constitutes "confrontational skepticism" and ghosts you. The other provides a latitude, longitude, and UTC timestamp. The idea that skepticism is somehow "confrontational" and warrants "ghosting" is a lie propagated for the purpose of blurring the line between real and fake predictive ability. This third type of person does exist; they're not even uncommon. When you encounter types one or two, it's not your fault. They're just the "noise floor" ever present in the search for a good prediction, or a product that does what it says it does. Work around them. Find the third type.
  - teachingassist 5y ago
    > The idea that skepticism is somehow "confrontational" Your example of skepticism isn't confrontational, in the way that I intended it to mean (as a modifier), because you're reasonably skeptical about what is being directly claimed. i.e. when someone claims to be able to predict a future solar eclipse, you don't get them to prove their predictive powers by asking them to predict the colour of your new carpet. That would be confrontational. You'd be ghosted, also by the scientist.
    - rcoveson 5y ago
      > Even in a universe where I did 100% know the colour of your carpet via some form of clairvoyance, I've now understood that you will continue to react with confrontational scepticism. In this hypothetical, you are clairvoyant. This is an exceptional talent; if demonstrably repeatable, it's one-of-a-kind. Somebody asks that you prove yourself as a seer by telling them the color of their carpet. You actually know the color, but you choose not to say because you perceive the challenge as confrontational. To me, that is not the behavior of an extraordinary individual. It's the behavior of a fraud.
      - teachingassist 5y ago
        > You actually know the color, but you choose not to say because you perceive the challenge as confrontational. You should choose not to engage (in this hypothetical) because you have better things to do with your talent than spend time engaging with people acting unduly negatively towards you. It's not fraud, it's normal behaviour - in this universe. It's advice I would give to anyone.
        rcoveson 5y ago
        The problem is a clairvoyant isn’t anywhere near as useful to me, or anyone, while unproven. Performing a simple controlled experiment is perfectly logical, not “unduly negative”. It’s like auditioning an actor. I don’t know what “better things to do” you’re imagining a clairvoyant would occupy themselves with before having proven themselves beyond the shadow of a doubt to their clients. How many times more valuable is the advice of a seer who I know for a fact has “the sight” than that of one who I doubt? Say, if I’m the POTUS or something.
ipaddr 5y ago
Is it dark red or a blue with a bit of orange in it?

teachingassist 5y ago

Nobody claims to know what colour your carpet is. Even in a universe where I did 100% know the colour of your carpet via some form of clairvoyance (which is hardly an economically useful service), I've now understood that you will continue to react with confrontational scepticism. By asking this question, you have disqualified yourself as a client - not only of services which have no supernatural powers, but also of hypothetical "true" fortune tellers. Expect to be ghosted. Since I would expect the outcome to be the same in both cases, this doesn't prove or disprove anything to me.

tedunangst 5y ago
What's the overlap between "economically useful clairvoyance" and "true fortune tellers"?
- teachingassist 5y ago
  apologies for lack of clarity - I meant telling you the colour of your carpet, that you already know, is unlikely to be economically useful.
rcoveson 5y ago
Three people claim to be able to predict when and where a solar eclipse will occur. You ask them for their predictions. The first provides a haiku which they claim encapsulates the point in time and space where an eclipse or other significant astronomical event will occur, insofar as your heart is open to it. The second replies that they are perfectly capable of doing it, but they believe your request constitutes "confrontational skepticism" and ghosts you. The other provides a latitude, longitude, and UTC timestamp. The idea that skepticism is somehow "confrontational" and warrants "ghosting" is a lie propagated for the purpose of blurring the line between real and fake predictive ability. This third type of person does exist; they're not even uncommon. When you encounter types one or two, it's not your fault. They're just the "noise floor" ever present in the search for a good prediction, or a product that does what it says it does. Work around them. Find the third type.
- teachingassist 5y ago
  > The idea that skepticism is somehow "confrontational" Your example of skepticism isn't confrontational, in the way that I intended it to mean (as a modifier), because you're reasonably skeptical about what is being directly claimed. i.e. when someone claims to be able to predict a future solar eclipse, you don't get them to prove their predictive powers by asking them to predict the colour of your new carpet. That would be confrontational. You'd be ghosted, also by the scientist.
  - rcoveson 5y ago
    > Even in a universe where I did 100% know the colour of your carpet via some form of clairvoyance, I've now understood that you will continue to react with confrontational scepticism. In this hypothetical, you are clairvoyant. This is an exceptional talent; if demonstrably repeatable, it's one-of-a-kind. Somebody asks that you prove yourself as a seer by telling them the color of their carpet. You actually know the color, but you choose not to say because you perceive the challenge as confrontational. To me, that is not the behavior of an extraordinary individual. It's the behavior of a fraud.
    - teachingassist 5y ago
      > You actually know the color, but you choose not to say because you perceive the challenge as confrontational. You should choose not to engage (in this hypothetical) because you have better things to do with your talent than spend time engaging with people acting unduly negatively towards you. It's not fraud, it's normal behaviour - in this universe. It's advice I would give to anyone.
      - rcoveson 5y ago
        The problem is a clairvoyant isn’t anywhere near as useful to me, or anyone, while unproven. Performing a simple controlled experiment is perfectly logical, not “unduly negative”. It’s like auditioning an actor. I don’t know what “better things to do” you’re imagining a clairvoyant would occupy themselves with before having proven themselves beyond the shadow of a doubt to their clients. How many times more valuable is the advice of a seer who I know for a fact has “the sight” than that of one who I doubt? Say, if I’m the POTUS or something.

ipaddr 5y ago

Is it dark red or a blue with a bit of orange in it?