Nick- Interesting (apt?) choice of poker-hands to attribute to "the Hillary" and to "the Donald".
- Sieve On 4/18/20 12:31 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > > So, Eric [Charles], > > > > What exactly were the /practicial/ consequences of declaring that > Hillary was “probably” going to win the election or that a full house > was probably going to win the pot given she lost and the dealer held a > strait flush? > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Eric Charles > *Sent:* Saturday, April 18, 2020 12:06 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] anthropological observations > > > > -------- Nick says --------- Nate constantly says that making such > predictions is, strictly speaking, not his job. As long as what > happens falls within the error of his prediction, he feels justified > in having made it. He will say things like, "actually we were > right." I would prefer him to say, "Actually we were wrong, /but I > would make the same prediction under the same circumstances the next > time.” /In other words, the right procedure produced, on this > occasion, a wrong result. ----------------- > > > > Well... so this connects a lot with poker, which I am in the process > of teaching the 10 year old... If I recall, Nate was giving Trump a > 1/3 chance of victory, which was much higher than most of the other > models at the time. You can hardly fault someone because something > happened that they said would happen 2/3 of the time. > > > > If a poker player has a model that predicts a given play to be the > best option, because it will work 2/3 of the time, and this one time > it doesn't work, that isn't grounds to say the model failed. > > > > YOU want the modelers to have models that rarely give anything close > to even odds. So do I, so I'm sympathetic. But the modeler might > prefer a more honest model, that includes more uncertainty, for a wide > variety of reasons. > > > ----------- > > Eric P. Charles, Ph.D. > Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist > > American University - Adjunct Instructor > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 12:17 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <geprope...@gmail.com > <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > I think it's interesting that you seemed to have *flipped* your > thinking within the same post. You restate my point about > conceptual metaphors by saying models/computation merely > *justifies* decisions/rhetoric. Then a few paragraphs later, you > suggest that's conflating language with thought. > > My diatribe to Nick was that he *uses* metaphors/models simply to > impute his conceptual structure onto Nate. Nick's decision is > already made and he wants Nate's work to justify it. And the way > he *imputes* his conceptual structure into Nate's work is through > the sloppy use of metaphor. Then when Nate tells Nick (indirectly) > that Nick's wrong about what Nate's done, Nick rejects Nate's > objection. > > I'm picking on Nick, of course. We all do it. I wish we all did it > much less. > > On 4/18/20 6:14 AM, Steven A Smith wrote: > > But frankly as often as not, I saw > > them use our work to *justify* the decision they had already made or > > were leaning heavily toward, *apparently* based on larger strategic > > biases. > > > > [...] > > > > As for your gut-level (and often well articulated) mistrust of > > "metaphorical thinking", you may conflate a belief (such as > mine) that > > language is metaphorical at it's base with being a "metaphorical > > thinker". Metaphor gets a bad rap/rep perhaps because of the > > "metaphorical license" often taken in creative arts (albeit for a > > different and possibly higher purpose). > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. > .- ... .... . ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> > unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> > http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... > .... . ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/