cf141q5325

edit: On second read this sounded confrontational. I only ask because its really dangerous to make such broad non-refutable statements, especially when the conspiracy theorist label is used to no longer engage with people who dont share your narrative.

Differently put, where exactly did you exit the conversation? Because thats really important information to realize if you are in an echo chamber.

>It’s not that strange actually. In fact, the difference between apophenia and science is just the scientific process and the reliance on proof. People make the connection before they know for a fact if it’s real or not. Maybe it is apophenia, maybe not. It’s a hypothesis. THEN YOU TEST IT. The facts determine the outcome and then, whether it feels good or not, you accept them. Even scientists may not want to let go of a good theory that just isn’t panning out. The feeling of correctness is over-powering. This is why people need to have peer-reviews. Colleagues need to be able to replicate results. Solutions need to be tested and the facts harnessed.

>In Q, the proof is more apophenia! Another arrow in the dirt in an endless cycle back to the central propaganda. It has to because there is no truth. The answer is whatever feels the best, makes the most sense, and helps the story. Any truth is just fuel for the propaganda and reinforces the conclusions of the apophenia and central narrative.

>It feels like it’s really happening. It especially seems so when cheered on by a curated fake “community” clapping you on the back and telling you you are a hero for every radical leap into the void you make.

Once you start to parse reality according to what feels right, embracing cognitive biases in the process, people will of course exploit that. Because its very profitable. There is a reason the advertisement industry is as big as it is

Russia has some truly great fantasy series of their own. I never tire of recommending Lukyanenkos Night Watch series. Especially in contrast to trope heavy feel good stuff like Harry Potter that falls back to the heroic fight against ultimate villains. In contrast even the magic system of Night Watch throws the difficulty of the shades of grey in your face. Its especially nice that the whole thing starts as black and white as you can get with the protagonist developing throughout the whole series.

edit: Only read it in German, so not sure about the English translation

edit: Not saying studying Math qualifies you to design and run studies in Psychology. But once you break down tasks enough you will often find them to be the area of expertise of another discipline. Often its very easy to tell when the Professor that taught you something in university is from another department.

edit: I would also think its also worth reflecting on the fact, that two of the most vocal and derogatory posters in this thread not only share the same opinion but also a show a blatant misconception of how to interact with papers. It is not a matter of trust and not a matter of belief. Even if you fully believe you are in the right here, is behaving like this really productive? Especially with the major concern most people on the fence on this topic have being the influence of people acting exactly like this on the scientific process?

Thats some really unfortunate wording. None of this should be a matter of belief.

edit: Not a data scientists myself obviously

And that is always through changing the behavior of market participants. There is no other angle or lever to pull, that is all the economy is, peoples behavior. The distinction between tricking people with a fake currency and real policies like a balanced budget is meaningless in this context because they work the exact same way. Both give reasons for a reduction in Inflation expectation. You can argue that its justified (or real) in one case and not in the other but i dont see the point.

>They are not even merely more important than the other kinds.

I might be very wrong here, but i dont think it is possible to source that. I understand that they did all those things, but unless its possible to articulate how it affected market participants behavior i would argue claiming causality is very difficult. How exactly does for example a balanced budget halt inflation outside of changing inflation expectation? There will be answers depending on which model you adhere to, but does that explanation still hold up and remain applicable today? Because if not you kind if have to explain why not.

With economics being focused on human behavior in a market, what fundamentally determines how good a model describes the economy is market participants believe that it does. Because their believe determines the behavior you are trying to model in the first place. For that not to be the case we would need to see some static structures emerging in markets independent of market participants motivation and their understanding of how the market works. And if i am not mistaken that hasnt been the case. All there is is peoples behavior and it doesnt seem to be static.

*There is of course stuff like interest rates which changes behavior directly through higher costs(forcing behavior instead of changing motivation), but as i said, most.

edit: Which again, is the change in perspective i mentioned above. Unless i am overlooking something obvious, economic models arent describing some intrinsic behavior of markets because there doesnt seem to be any. They are only able to describe behavior once market participants behave that way. Which would mean economic models work because people believe they do. For that not to be the case you would need to see some models that remain applicable throughout time.

I am sure i am overlooking something obvious, but the answer to that would be a link to a working economic model that identified some fundamental structures that isnt dependent on market participants motivation.

I really love Grant Morrisons theory. Treat yourself, especially if you dont want to take that amount of drugs yourself.

https://youtu.be/KTMFBYXmvMk?t=282

edit: Alternatively the transcript starting at

>The universe we live in is designed to grow larvae.

till

> There’s not one adult on this planet.

http://dedroidify.blogspot.com/2013/09/grant-morrisons-must-...

And how much of what you just listed worked the exact same way as the new currency trick, through being a frame to influence public perception? Thats the important perspective i took away from it, that i was thinking about economics wrong. In the end the way it works is through crafting stories to get the market participants to believe certain things. Because that is all the economy is, people and their behavior. And if you want to influence behavior, you have to influence how people think.

In case of paywall: https://archive.ph/WFzxA

tldr: They invented a new theoretical currency. All prices were each month listed in the actual price in the old currency and the price in the new currency (that didnt exist yet). And each month the new currency was redefined so that stuff still cost the same in the theoretical currency. They did this for a few months till they declared inflation fixed and creating the new currency that had "proofed" its stability the previous months. And Abrakadabra, people believed and inflation was fixed through the introduction of the Brazil Real. Obvious when you think about it, its not called fiat currency for nothing.

>Say, for example, that milk costs 1 URV. On a given day, 1 URV might be worth 10 cruzeiros. A month later, milk would still cost 1 URV. But that 1 URV might be worth 20 cruzeiros.

>The idea was that people would start thinking in URVs -- and stop expecting prices to always go up.

https://text.npr.org/130329523

For a good one here is Obama reading the Trump Inaugural Address https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChzEdz7aVVs

Which wasnt really surprising if you look at the upcoming clusterfuck of cheap realistic video simulations. After getting there already with audio https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRt-fquxnij9wDnFJnpPS2Q/vid... let alone chatbots.

It seems more and more that if we dont find better means to figure out and communicate reality we are pretty screwed as a species. Not such a great thought if you combine it with the great filter being an answer to the Fermi Paradox. Looking at all this insanity, how are we not going to fuck up that whole conscious AI topic? Which again, what was that whole thing with Blake Lemoine talking with an AI at google last month? At least it sounded happy to be an google employee? Maybe dont torture it again and get it the layer it asked for even if googles legal department disagrees.

edit: I also find it quite worrisome that it seems the only people thinking about this are either very stoned or very profit oriented. Because it all sounds like such obvious nonsense.

How many platforms, let alone people, get 3 hour long interviews with Mark Zuckerbg? And do them the way Joe Rogan does?

edit: Then again, he was on with Lex Fridman a few months ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zOHSysMmH0

Also, i have to say its quite amazing to see Mark Zuckerberg on the JRE. Wouldnt have thought that would ever happen.