3 ms·

> This isn't useful or correct The formulas do not help you at all with the knowing. or not knowing, with being able to "predict" the past vs. being able to pr

> This isn't useful or correct The formulas do not help you at all with the knowing. or not knowing, with being able to "predict" the past vs. being able to predict the future! They make assumptions. I would make the claim my statement is useful for what I said, which was for somebody looking back at a decision of the long ago past with hindsight knowledge. The post was not about somebody evaluating different investments either. Oh and thanks, I guess, for completely disregarding that my comment was much more generalized? You threw away the vast majority of it.

trod1234 1y ago
The vast majority of your argument's volume was promoting an incorrect way of thinking comparing two unrelated things, for a question not asked or really that useful. You can't determine logical truth in a stochastic environment except after the fact when there is objective measure; and importantly there is no personal harm in doing this either, which is a direct contradiction to what you said. You then went way out into the weeds when you started talking about pedophiles, and truth. Any reasonable reader would throw away the vast majority of what you had to say as useless, or worse unstable. The underlying concepts you mention indirectly, while correct in a narrow context in psychology, bad choice of example aside, also don't have anything to do with what's being said here in this topic.
- nosianu 1y ago
  > The vast majority of your argument's volume was promoting an incorrect way of thinking comparing two unrelated things Funny, that is exactly what I saw when I read your "arguments". > Any reasonable reader would throw away the vast majority of what you had to say as useless You are talking about your own baseless attacks. You don't even try to argue, you replace coming up with arguments completely with going on the attack with otherwise content-free words, just accusations and insults.

trod1234 1y ago

The vast majority of your argument's volume was promoting an incorrect way of thinking comparing two unrelated things, for a question not asked or really that useful. You can't determine logical truth in a stochastic environment except after the fact when there is objective measure; and importantly there is no personal harm in doing this either, which is a direct contradiction to what you said. You then went way out into the weeds when you started talking about pedophiles, and truth. Any reasonable reader would throw away the vast majority of what you had to say as useless, or worse unstable. The underlying concepts you mention indirectly, while correct in a narrow context in psychology, bad choice of example aside, also don't have anything to do with what's being said here in this topic.

nosianu 1y ago
> The vast majority of your argument's volume was promoting an incorrect way of thinking comparing two unrelated things Funny, that is exactly what I saw when I read your "arguments". > Any reasonable reader would throw away the vast majority of what you had to say as useless You are talking about your own baseless attacks. You don't even try to argue, you replace coming up with arguments completely with going on the attack with otherwise content-free words, just accusations and insults.