3 ms·

I haven’t dug into this deeply for a long time, I’m just going with what I recall off the top of my head. Iraq body count is a common reference, it paints the

by prvit 4y ago

I haven’t dug into this deeply for a long time, I’m just going with what I recall off the top of my head. Iraq body count is a common reference, it paints the coalition forces in a rather good light https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ For Afghanistan it’s harder to find numbers, but given the vastly higher casualties among local forces, it seems fair to assume that they’d have been doing most of the fighting. Given the doctrinal differences between US and Russian forces, it’s completely unsurprising that Russians would be killing way more people. US relies on air superiority and PGMs whereas Russia is stuck fighting WW1 style artillery battles. Not to mention that US doctrine does not really involve terror attacks on civilian targets, whereas Russian doctrine clearly does. You don’t see US bombing power plants many months into a conflict in order to cause civilian misery to gain an upper hand in negotiations.

mistermann 4y ago
> Iraq body count is a common reference, it paints the coalition forces in a rather good light https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ Another common reference is this one, which has numbers as high as 1,000,000+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War I wonder: does it seem possible that humans might choose (and psychologically/epistemically favor) one source over another according to how well it supports their pre-existing worldview? Similarly: might people also "calculate" causality (which directly affects attribution of responsibility for death) differently for similar reasons (assuming they don't just ignore it entirely, even when it is explicitly mentioned in a conversation)? > For Afghanistan it’s harder to find numbers, but given the vastly higher casualties among local forces, it seems fair to assume that they’d have been doing most of the fighting. Do you have any interest in the causality that preceded that fighting, and if so: how many years do you go back in your model, and how many variables are in your model? (Perhaps I should also ask: do you even have a model, or might you be using a different technique/phenomenon to produce your values?) > Given the doctrinal differences between US and Russian forces, it’s completely unsurprising that Russians would be killing way more people. Perhaps...but then there's also this rather unpopular question: what is actually true? > Not to mention that US doctrine does not really involve terror attacks on civilian targets, whereas Russian doctrine clearly does. "Clearly". > You don’t see US bombing power plants many months into a conflict in order to cause civilian misery to gain an upper hand in negotiations. You see mostly what is shown to you, and what your mind allows you to see. I recommend against the premature formation of belief, as well as being mindful of the mind's tendency to conflate belief with knowledge.
- prvit 4y ago
  > Another common reference is this one, which has numbers as high as 1,000,000+ But that source does not speak of US forces. > I wonder: does it seem possible that humans might choose (and psychologically/epistemically favor) one source over another according to how well it supports their pre-existing worldview? This is exactly what you are doing, yes. You’re picking a number intended to quantify something entirely different and comparing it against mine. > "Clearly". What else would you call Russia repeatedly using low precision missiles to strike population centers? They’ve done this with fucking MLRS, an area denial weapon. What else could you call Russias extensive campaign against the power infrastructure in Ukraine? This can’t possibly achieve any military goals this long into the war, the only purpose is to hurt the civilian population.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > But that source does not speak of US forces. Rumour has it that the US Military had some involvement in the Iraq war. > This is exactly what you are doing, yes. Technically, this is your perception/interpretation of what I am doing. > You’re picking a number intended to quantify something entirely different and comparing it against mine. I'm not asserting "my number" (actually, it is just one example among many on that page) as factual, but I get the impression that you present yours as such. Am I mistaken in that? Do you actually wonder what is true? >> "Clearly". > What else would you call Russia repeatedly using low precision missiles to strike population centers? They’ve done this with fucking MLRS, an area denial weapon. I was just teasing a bit about the phenomenon where humans tend to believe that what is "clear" to them is synonymous with what is true. Feed incorrect training data to a neural network and then ask it questions, and it will give incorrect answers, but to it, the answers would be "clearly" true. > What else could you call Russias extensive campaign against the power infrastructure in Ukraine? This can’t possibly achieve any military goals this long into the war, the only purpose is to hurt the civilian population. I would call it: an unfortunate turn of events...yet another consequence of ongoing human folly, and in this case: a cultural inability (reinforced and enforced in numerous places) to desire to speak truthfully.
    - 4y ago

by prvit 4y ago

mistermann 4y ago

> Iraq body count is a common reference, it paints the coalition forces in a rather good light https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ Another common reference is this one, which has numbers as high as 1,000,000+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War I wonder: does it seem possible that humans might choose (and psychologically/epistemically favor) one source over another according to how well it supports their pre-existing worldview? Similarly: might people also "calculate" causality (which directly affects attribution of responsibility for death) differently for similar reasons (assuming they don't just ignore it entirely, even when it is explicitly mentioned in a conversation)? > For Afghanistan it’s harder to find numbers, but given the vastly higher casualties among local forces, it seems fair to assume that they’d have been doing most of the fighting. Do you have any interest in the causality that preceded that fighting, and if so: how many years do you go back in your model, and how many variables are in your model? (Perhaps I should also ask: do you even have a model, or might you be using a different technique/phenomenon to produce your values?) > Given the doctrinal differences between US and Russian forces, it’s completely unsurprising that Russians would be killing way more people. Perhaps...but then there's also this rather unpopular question: what is actually true? > Not to mention that US doctrine does not really involve terror attacks on civilian targets, whereas Russian doctrine clearly does. "Clearly". > You don’t see US bombing power plants many months into a conflict in order to cause civilian misery to gain an upper hand in negotiations. You see mostly what is shown to you, and what your mind allows you to see. I recommend against the premature formation of belief, as well as being mindful of the mind's tendency to conflate belief with knowledge.

prvit 4y ago
> Another common reference is this one, which has numbers as high as 1,000,000+ But that source does not speak of US forces. > I wonder: does it seem possible that humans might choose (and psychologically/epistemically favor) one source over another according to how well it supports their pre-existing worldview? This is exactly what you are doing, yes. You’re picking a number intended to quantify something entirely different and comparing it against mine. > "Clearly". What else would you call Russia repeatedly using low precision missiles to strike population centers? They’ve done this with fucking MLRS, an area denial weapon. What else could you call Russias extensive campaign against the power infrastructure in Ukraine? This can’t possibly achieve any military goals this long into the war, the only purpose is to hurt the civilian population.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > But that source does not speak of US forces. Rumour has it that the US Military had some involvement in the Iraq war. > This is exactly what you are doing, yes. Technically, this is your perception/interpretation of what I am doing. > You’re picking a number intended to quantify something entirely different and comparing it against mine. I'm not asserting "my number" (actually, it is just one example among many on that page) as factual, but I get the impression that you present yours as such. Am I mistaken in that? Do you actually wonder what is true? >> "Clearly". > What else would you call Russia repeatedly using low precision missiles to strike population centers? They’ve done this with fucking MLRS, an area denial weapon. I was just teasing a bit about the phenomenon where humans tend to believe that what is "clear" to them is synonymous with what is true. Feed incorrect training data to a neural network and then ask it questions, and it will give incorrect answers, but to it, the answers would be "clearly" true. > What else could you call Russias extensive campaign against the power infrastructure in Ukraine? This can’t possibly achieve any military goals this long into the war, the only purpose is to hurt the civilian population. I would call it: an unfortunate turn of events...yet another consequence of ongoing human folly, and in this case: a cultural inability (reinforced and enforced in numerous places) to desire to speak truthfully.
  - 4y ago