3 ms·

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 c

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.
      - teachingassist 5y ago
        > It’s like auditioning an actor. To analogise this with the original comment in this thread: "Last time someone told me they were an actor I simply asked them to audition, for a different part, in front of me" - would be more clearly unacceptable.
        rcoveson 5y ago
        You can’t hold an audition as part of a conversation. A better question in that scenario would have been, “oh, have you been in anything I might be familiar with?” If you knew the color of the couch, it costs you nothing to blow my mind. You’re crazy if you think the right and normal thing to do in that scenario is to refuse. If you don’t want to be asked to demonstrate an extraordinary power, then don’t claim it in the first place! If I conversationally mention that I can do six figure arithmetic in my head, I fully expect to be asked “what’s 357453/737901”. I think we’ve lost track of the fact that the first thing that happens in this conversation is somebody chooses to mention that they possess an extraordinary power. One that can be demonstrated conversationally, even.

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.
    - teachingassist 5y ago
      > It’s like auditioning an actor. To analogise this with the original comment in this thread: "Last time someone told me they were an actor I simply asked them to audition, for a different part, in front of me" - would be more clearly unacceptable.
      - rcoveson 5y ago
        You can’t hold an audition as part of a conversation. A better question in that scenario would have been, “oh, have you been in anything I might be familiar with?” If you knew the color of the couch, it costs you nothing to blow my mind. You’re crazy if you think the right and normal thing to do in that scenario is to refuse. If you don’t want to be asked to demonstrate an extraordinary power, then don’t claim it in the first place! If I conversationally mention that I can do six figure arithmetic in my head, I fully expect to be asked “what’s 357453/737901”. I think we’ve lost track of the fact that the first thing that happens in this conversation is somebody chooses to mention that they possess an extraordinary power. One that can be demonstrated conversationally, even.