3 ms·

What's causal? Can you predict "stupidity," for example, based on telemetry data? Perhaps skin-color, descendent property owners who own 5-6 acre

What's causal? Can you predict "stupidity," for example, based on telemetry data? Perhaps ______ skin-color, ______ descendent property owners who own 5-6 acres southwest of the city in the _____ zone, a couple of cows, read the _____, and are hesitant allies of the revolution are "stupid"? Are you aware that efforts to characterize the thoughts and minds of individuals based on their "telemetry data" are associated with the most horrific, unspeakable crimes against humanity that have occurred repeatedly in human history?

webinvest 5y ago
The answer to your question can be found by researching the Cambridge Analytica MyPersonality tool scandals. It is a tool that I personally used and tested. I wouldn’t call it a scandal but I’d describe it as being open to researchers and the general public, enormously powerful, and accurate. It only became a scandal after Steve Bannon’s team of smart political researchers used it with a high degree of effectiveness to get Trump into the White House —- and the Democrats who were still using weak user-data like race & ethnicity said hey that’s not fair! Essentially some researchers at Cambridge had a large number of participants take a personality test and click a button to share their FB account data. The personality test measured 5 traits: 1) Openness 2) Conscientiousness 3) Extroversion 4) Agreeableness 5) Neuroticism Now based on our large sample size of personality test takers, we can correlate that you or this Facebook user you’re studying has the following 5 personality traits and they probably have the following oddly-specific likes: ex: Anime, Lil Wayne, popping bubble wrap, Frosted Mini Wheats, AK47s, anal sex, cheap beer, and the sweet smell of air right before it rains.
- CobrastanJorji 5y ago
  This is interesting, and I'd love to learn more about your experience using it and what you were using it for.
- the_optimist 5y ago
  You certainly didn't answer what's causal, nor capture concepts such "terrifyingly stupid." Given substantial experience in data analytics, I also don't believe in the slightest that Bannon's crack team identified all the open-minded mini-wheaters and rode that analysis to victory. That's absurd on its face but probably sounds amazing to clueless people.
lmm 5y ago
The largest crime against humanity in human history (the cultural revolution) is associated with the anti-intellectual position you're advocating. So I don't think that's any kind of convincing argument to stop doing our best to figure out the facts and follow where they lead.
- the_optimist 5y ago
  Refusing this line of inquiry is itself a principled intellectual position. The structure of such questions invariably confirm the biases of the interrogators. The “evidence” is then typically levied against groups without respect to the individual, as it was in my understanding of the CR. There is only false intellectualism in this manner of social pseudoscience.
  - lmm 5y ago
    Refusing all inquiries into group statistics might be a principled intellectual position. Collecting data about some metrics at the group level (salaries, college admissions, ...) and then refusing to inquire about other attributes that might reasonably affect those metrics certainly isn't, for all the reasons you've just given.

What's causal? Can you predict "stupidity," for example, based on telemetry data? Perhaps ______ skin-color, ______ descendent property owners who own 5-6 acre

webinvest 5y ago

The answer to your question can be found by researching the Cambridge Analytica MyPersonality tool scandals. It is a tool that I personally used and tested. I wouldn’t call it a scandal but I’d describe it as being open to researchers and the general public, enormously powerful, and accurate. It only became a scandal after Steve Bannon’s team of smart political researchers used it with a high degree of effectiveness to get Trump into the White House —- and the Democrats who were still using weak user-data like race & ethnicity said hey that’s not fair! Essentially some researchers at Cambridge had a large number of participants take a personality test and click a button to share their FB account data. The personality test measured 5 traits: 1) Openness 2) Conscientiousness 3) Extroversion 4) Agreeableness 5) Neuroticism Now based on our large sample size of personality test takers, we can correlate that you or this Facebook user you’re studying has the following 5 personality traits and they probably have the following oddly-specific likes: ex: Anime, Lil Wayne, popping bubble wrap, Frosted Mini Wheats, AK47s, anal sex, cheap beer, and the sweet smell of air right before it rains.

CobrastanJorji 5y ago
This is interesting, and I'd love to learn more about your experience using it and what you were using it for.
the_optimist 5y ago
You certainly didn't answer what's causal, nor capture concepts such "terrifyingly stupid." Given substantial experience in data analytics, I also don't believe in the slightest that Bannon's crack team identified all the open-minded mini-wheaters and rode that analysis to victory. That's absurd on its face but probably sounds amazing to clueless people.

lmm 5y ago

The largest crime against humanity in human history (the cultural revolution) is associated with the anti-intellectual position you're advocating. So I don't think that's any kind of convincing argument to stop doing our best to figure out the facts and follow where they lead.

the_optimist 5y ago
Refusing this line of inquiry is itself a principled intellectual position. The structure of such questions invariably confirm the biases of the interrogators. The “evidence” is then typically levied against groups without respect to the individual, as it was in my understanding of the CR. There is only false intellectualism in this manner of social pseudoscience.
- lmm 5y ago
  Refusing all inquiries into group statistics might be a principled intellectual position. Collecting data about some metrics at the group level (salaries, college admissions, ...) and then refusing to inquire about other attributes that might reasonably affect those metrics certainly isn't, for all the reasons you've just given.