4 ms·

Have you considered that you missed the point entirely? It's hard to see how you consider this an insult and not an interesting "live" experimental result. "T

by 16bytes 11y ago

Have you considered that you missed the point entirely? It's hard to see how you consider this an insult and not an interesting "live" experimental result. "Test your problem solving skills" is merely the experimental set-up and the purpose isn't to actually measure problem solving skill, but rather to demonstrate confirmation bias on a population. Your alligator tears and perceived insult add nothing to the conversation.

graycat 11y ago
"Interesting"? Not at all. Instead, sick-o. > demonstrate confirmation bias Nonsense. Psycho-babble. Got to be total mush-brained to have that exercise cause "confirmation bias". Indeed, elsewhere in this thread are descriptions of some quite careful work with that puzzle with no hint at all about "confirmation bias". Again, that that "test" illustrates the psycho-babble of "confirmation bias" is nonsense -- it illustrates no such thing. Maybe the "test" caused something like "confirmation bias" in you, although I doubt it. In me it caused no such thing. Instead all their efforts at hints, distractions, I, of course, deliberately ignored, successfully so. Got to be mush-brained to jump at the first conclusion that the "rule" was about powers of 2 or doubling; instead, make such a conjecture and put in some input to test it. I did that. I'm sure nearly everyone on HN who tried the "test" did that. We're just not going to jump to a conclusion that the rule is about powers of 2 -- no way. "Confirmation bias"? Horse feathers. > Your alligator tears and perceived insult add nothing to the conversation. In no way is my post about me. But somehow the NYT has some very good friends on HN.
graycat 11y ago
There's no question that what the NYT wrote is, to put is mildly, junk. I believe that they should be called out on such junk. Maybe you agree that they should be called out, and maybe not. Maybe you like that I called them out, and maybe not. Still, what they wrote was junk. Maybe you should take what I wrote as a call for the NYT to up their game by several notches. You've just got to agree that the NYT has room enough for improvement to stack all the US national debt in one column of pennies.

by 16bytes 11y ago

graycat 11y ago

"Interesting"? Not at all. Instead, sick-o. > demonstrate confirmation bias Nonsense. Psycho-babble. Got to be total mush-brained to have that exercise cause "confirmation bias". Indeed, elsewhere in this thread are descriptions of some quite careful work with that puzzle with no hint at all about "confirmation bias". Again, that that "test" illustrates the psycho-babble of "confirmation bias" is nonsense -- it illustrates no such thing. Maybe the "test" caused something like "confirmation bias" in you, although I doubt it. In me it caused no such thing. Instead all their efforts at hints, distractions, I, of course, deliberately ignored, successfully so. Got to be mush-brained to jump at the first conclusion that the "rule" was about powers of 2 or doubling; instead, make such a conjecture and put in some input to test it. I did that. I'm sure nearly everyone on HN who tried the "test" did that. We're just not going to jump to a conclusion that the rule is about powers of 2 -- no way. "Confirmation bias"? Horse feathers. > Your alligator tears and perceived insult add nothing to the conversation. In no way is my post about me. But somehow the NYT has some very good friends on HN.

graycat 11y ago

There's no question that what the NYT wrote is, to put is mildly, junk. I believe that they should be called out on such junk. Maybe you agree that they should be called out, and maybe not. Maybe you like that I called them out, and maybe not. Still, what they wrote was junk. Maybe you should take what I wrote as a call for the NYT to up their game by several notches. You've just got to agree that the NYT has room enough for improvement to stack all the US national debt in one column of pennies.