3 ms·
You're on the money in both this post and the grandparent. However, I'd urge you to examine your style. There's no need to condescend. In particular: > I just p
by bhickey 13y ago
You're on the money in both this post and the grandparent. However, I'd urge you to examine your style. There's no need to condescend. In particular:
> I just proved it. If you didn't understand the above proof, read it again.
> I can't believe you aren't getting this.
Plenty of otherwise rationally minded people have a hard time reasoning about this stuff. If I had a dollar for every time someone suggested that you can beat the house by playing a Martingale... gosh! You'll have a much easier time persuading people if you don't insult them.
- lutusp 13y agoI agree with your point, but in the 21st century, I have a hard time accepting that many people ignore basic scientific principles -- in particular, the null hypothesis, which in essence says that a given proposition is assumed to be false until there's evidence for it. > Plenty of otherwise rationally minded people have a hard time reasoning about this stuff. Rationality is what rationality does. There's a devious investment scam that, once explained, seems obvious, but most people fall for it unless forewarned. I call it the "Miracle Man" scam. Here it is: http://arachnoid.com/equities_myths/index.html#Miracle_Man http://arachnoid.com/equities_myths/index.html#Miracle_Man I would like to live in a world where a scam like "Miracle Man" couldn't work, because people would say "It seems too good to be true, therefore chances are it's not true." But that's not this world, not by any means.