4 ms·

> Then the expected chance that it's true is 50%. No it is not. Randomly generated ideas are much less likely than 50% to be true. For example, I could make t

> Then the expected chance that it's true is 50%. No it is not. Randomly generated ideas are much less likely than 50% to be true. For example, I could make two claims: COVID was a leaked research project, and COVID is a leaked research bioweapon. These claims cannot both be 50% probable, because the second claim is more specific version of the first and therefore must be less likely.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
Randomly generated ideas are gibberish. They don't even parse as a coherent sentence. For an idea to spread, it has to at least sound plausibly true. For it to spread to a large number of people in a forum open to public debate, it has to survive all of their attempts to convincingly refute it. The ideas that remain in contention are the ones that can neither be proved to be highly likely nor highly unlikely. In other words, the ones whose average probability is a coin flip. > These claims cannot both be 50% probable, because the second claim is more specific version of the first and therefore must be less likely. We're talking about average probabilities, not individual probabilities. Suppose the probability based on available information is 75% for the first and 25% for the second. Then the average is still 50%. When you put them in a box with a thousand other ideas with probabilities centered around 50% and pull one out at random, you're still at 50%. The things that didn't have a probability around 50%, i.e. the things that can be proved highly likely or highly unlikely, weren't in contention.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  > For an idea to spread, it has to at least sound plausibly true Given that just this week, QAnon believers showed up in Dealy plaza apparently expecting John F. Kennedy Jr would appear and re-appoint Donald Trump president, I think that assertion might call for a big [citation needed] sign hung from it.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    This doesn't apply to people who are mentally ill and/or trolling. It also requires public debate. This is why segregating people with stupid ideas from people who could correct them is a bad idea.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      I haven't seen a lot of evidence as of late that refraining from segregating them is having any positive impact. And some ideas are simply too profoundly foolish to exhaust time debating them. What sort of reasoned debate should we expect to have with people who think a man who died 22 years ago in a plane crash isn't dead?
      - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        > I haven't seen a lot of evidence as of late that refraining from segregating them is having any positive impact. Have we been refraining from that? They got mass banned from the biggest social media platforms and dumped into Gab and such like. > What sort of reasoned debate should we expect to have with people who think a man who died 22 years ago in a plane crash isn't dead? Encourage them to go to the place where he's alleged to show up. Have them commit in advance to admitting that if he doesn't, they were wrong. Then he won't, because he died 22 years ago in a plane crash. You'll have convinced some of them. Now recruit those to help you convince the others. They'll be more believable because of the shared experience and because they understand the language of that subculture. The whole thing has the hallmarks of a scam. If somebody is making money off of this somehow, figure out who it is. Expose them. Figure out what else they believe. Identify the things that can be falsified. Falsify them. "You're wrong, you're banned" doesn't do any of that, and then the only place they're accepted with their broken ideas is in a place full of other people who believe the same things and reinforce their nonsense.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

Randomly generated ideas are gibberish. They don't even parse as a coherent sentence. For an idea to spread, it has to at least sound plausibly true. For it to spread to a large number of people in a forum open to public debate, it has to survive all of their attempts to convincingly refute it. The ideas that remain in contention are the ones that can neither be proved to be highly likely nor highly unlikely. In other words, the ones whose average probability is a coin flip. > These claims cannot both be 50% probable, because the second claim is more specific version of the first and therefore must be less likely. We're talking about average probabilities, not individual probabilities. Suppose the probability based on available information is 75% for the first and 25% for the second. Then the average is still 50%. When you put them in a box with a thousand other ideas with probabilities centered around 50% and pull one out at random, you're still at 50%. The things that didn't have a probability around 50%, i.e. the things that can be proved highly likely or highly unlikely, weren't in contention.

shadowgovt 5y ago
> For an idea to spread, it has to at least sound plausibly true Given that just this week, QAnon believers showed up in Dealy plaza apparently expecting John F. Kennedy Jr would appear and re-appoint Donald Trump president, I think that assertion might call for a big [citation needed] sign hung from it.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  This doesn't apply to people who are mentally ill and/or trolling. It also requires public debate. This is why segregating people with stupid ideas from people who could correct them is a bad idea.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    I haven't seen a lot of evidence as of late that refraining from segregating them is having any positive impact. And some ideas are simply too profoundly foolish to exhaust time debating them. What sort of reasoned debate should we expect to have with people who think a man who died 22 years ago in a plane crash isn't dead?
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      > I haven't seen a lot of evidence as of late that refraining from segregating them is having any positive impact. Have we been refraining from that? They got mass banned from the biggest social media platforms and dumped into Gab and such like. > What sort of reasoned debate should we expect to have with people who think a man who died 22 years ago in a plane crash isn't dead? Encourage them to go to the place where he's alleged to show up. Have them commit in advance to admitting that if he doesn't, they were wrong. Then he won't, because he died 22 years ago in a plane crash. You'll have convinced some of them. Now recruit those to help you convince the others. They'll be more believable because of the shared experience and because they understand the language of that subculture. The whole thing has the hallmarks of a scam. If somebody is making money off of this somehow, figure out who it is. Expose them. Figure out what else they believe. Identify the things that can be falsified. Falsify them. "You're wrong, you're banned" doesn't do any of that, and then the only place they're accepted with their broken ideas is in a place full of other people who believe the same things and reinforce their nonsense.