Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[David Eric Smith]

with, or use or receipt of, a language that 
>> refers to a world beyond experience, that I imagine I would not have if it 
>> didn’t.
>> 
>> 
>> That didn’t buy you any of what you came for, I know.   Hopefully not time 
>> lost down a well, even so.
>> 
>> Eric
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 17, 2021, at 6:52 AM, >> <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> >> <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi, EricS
>>>  
>>> You faith in my consistency is touching (};-)]. 
>>>  
>>> I know that, in response to this, Nick will reply with a sequence of 
>>> English-language words that I find even more unparseable than the ones 
>>> above.  
>>>  
>>> Frankly, you shouldn’t have any faith that my average psychology colleague 
>>> will rescue me.  90% of them, directly or indirectly, make their living off 
>>> The Hard Problem.  
>>>  
>>> EricC and JonZ might do so, but they are  probably too busy.  
>>>  
>>> Given that I find my inability to communicate with you alarming and 
>>> distressing, and given that you find what I write so exasperating, is there 
>>> any way forward?  
>>>  
>>> Please understand that I am not fooling around, here.  
>>>  
>>> Are there any baby steps we could take?   If I can’t communicate with you 
>>> guys, small chance I will be able to communicate with ordinary mortals. 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Nick  
>>>  
>>> Nick Thompson
>>> thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ 
>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson%2f&c=E,1,7DujyKj5BlPA-iLJk3HDHbbYf60pN4x1wLc2-4y8BhU7T98FngpaBqZeRQ7hpECyZN4GzK-mPCBf7x_afUfzbyUr1CYriZXSYMJPqZQk&typo=1>
>>>  
>>> From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> 
>>> On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 5:32 PM
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?
>>>  
>>> This is where there is a style of use of language that may be unique to 
>>> Nick among all humans, or may be a tribal custom among the psychologists, 
>>> but which the common man needs to be aware exists, so that he knows that 
>>> the way Nick/psychologists use words will be directly opposed to the way 
>>> the common man has always used them.
>>>  
>>>> If that question disappears for you under those circumstances, then I can 
>>>> simply admit that a pleasure is just the behavioral transition that occurs 
>>>> upon the achievement of set of circumstances, and escape the tautology by 
>>>> defining  a goal as the organization of behavior that points to a set of 
>>>> circumstances.  
>>>  
>>> So, in archery, the way the archer points the bow (organization of 
>>> behavior) is the “goal”, and the event of an arrow’s hitting a bullseye is 
>>> somehow not a goal.  Nick didn’t happen to use the word “function” in the 
>>> clip above; I have no idea what he would say a “function” is, but in the 
>>> earlier posts, it was as bizarrely glossed to me as this glossing of goal, 
>>> so I can’t even come up with a guess for how to imitate it.  
>>>  
>>> The plugging in of an address for the supermarket to the GPS while sitting 
>>> in the car in the driveway (organization of behavior) is the goal, not the 
>>> event of my arriving at the supermarket.
>>>  
>>> For me as a mechanic, the bullseye as a position for arrows is the goal 
>>> (applied to an object), or the event of the arrow’s arriving there is a 
>>> goal (applied to an outcome of a behavior) that serves as a selection 
>>> criterion among directions in which a bow might be pointed.  My pointing 
>>> the bow one way versus another is to me a function 
>>> for attaining that goal.  The event of arriving at a supermarket is the 
>>> goal that serves as a criterion for selection of which GPS location I plug 
>>> in; the act of plugging in that address is then a function for attaining 
>>> that goal.
>>>  
>>> I know that, in response to this, Nick will reply with a sequence of 
>>> English-language words that I find even more unparseable than the ones 
>>> above.  
>>>

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[thompnickson2]

I think the broadest characterization of the genre is unanticipated 
consequences.  In every case we have to specify the anticipated consequences, 
the unanticipated consequences, and who and what is doing the anticipating.  

 

   

 

N

 

Nick Thompson

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2021 4:59 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

 

Hi Steve,

 

No, not a Borges reference in that case.

 

“Garden path sentence” is a technical term used in linguistics, specifically by 
syntacticians, to express nonlocalities in the parsing of sentences that are 
left ambiguous by subsets of the exact word sequences, but which normally take 
conventional forms, and in the garden-path sentence are resolved at the end in 
an unconventional way.  The experience of reading them is that the mind is 
setting up an understanding, letting drop the details of sentence structure 
early as they get replaced by semantic representations, and then at the end 
realizing that those expectations have no resolution with the actual words, so 
one has to go back and re-load all the specifics to try to re-parse the 
sentence.  It essentially halts the process of sense-making that is normal in 
reading, as one “reads through the text”, and returns one to the pre-K level 
when one isn’t really reading, but looking at the literal text and wondering 
what one is supposed to do in response to it.

 

I heard a nice one in a talk years ago, which I could not remember exactly and 
could not find on the internet yesterday.  But if you look at Wikipedia, you 
will find that canonical examples are things like:

 

The horse raced past the barn fell.  

 

The old man the boats.  

 

To say that reading something in the evolution literature has an alien feel to 
me that reminds me of reading garden-path sentences is an attempt to point to 
the non-local nature of meaning carriage and to express an aspect of an 
experience; I did not make a claim that some particular sentence in some 
particular post “is” a garden-path sentence by some criterion of alternative 
parse-trees that I can deliver upon demand.  It’s more like saying Gosh, being 
hit in the head with a piece of a cinder block feels somewhat like falling off 
a bike and hitting my head on the ground (just to be sure I use two events I 
have really experienced, so I do not have to speak metaphorically).  

 

Thanks,

 

Eric

 

 

 





On Sep 18, 2021, at 12:56 AM, Steve Smith mailto:sasm...@swcp.com> > wrote:

 

EricS -

 

2. Before commenting on resolutions, maybe a comment more to clarify the 
experience of the problem.  The use of some of these words in the various posts 
leads to a reading experience for me that is like garden path sentences.  So it 
is not so simple as “defining” a term.  It is that the semantic work the usage 
of a certain term does in someone’s mind percolates down to lots of levels in 
the forming and the reading of text.  

I appreciate what I presume might be a Borges reference and my own apprehension 
(expressed quite lamely in my last post/response) of these things as "fields of 
meaning" which may or may not be continuous/differentiable if even ultimately 
defined over metric spaces.



 

3, Often, there are cadences in your use of the term function that feel 
familiar to me from evolutionists, whose use of it also is a garden-path 
sentence for me.  So for that I know you are at most partly idiosyncratic, or 
that the behaviorist conventions are only partly distinctive.  Some of this 
goes back a level in generality and community.  Since the evolutionists don’t 
use the word “goal” the way you do, the things in that that seem strange to me 
are more particular to this discourse.

This description bumbles me over from Borges "Garden of Forking Paths" to "the 
Library of Babel".

Of course, you may only be using "Garden Path" in the more vernacular sense of 
being "lead astray" or "wandering amongst constraints imposed by the garden 
designer but mostly occult to the wanderer".  Or something else entirely?





4a. I happen to feel like this is something I run into in the “beyond fitness” 
exercise.  So in being concrete I can allow others to tell me how I am 
misunderstanding everything they say.  I experience the evolutionists as 
thinking about things like sporophytes, gametophytes, spores, gametes, etc. — 
the various objects in the lifecycle of ferns — as epiphenomena of the 
fitnesses of units of selection.  As for Plato, the Unit of Selection, and its 
Fitness, are the true Forms, and all those objects and transitions are just 
shadows on the cave wall.  The “no epiphenomena” is for me the pushback that 
says: No,

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[Steve Smith]

rs as the religious ones do, is to scream
> at them IT’S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU.  The religious ones don’t want to live
> in a world that isn’t all about them.  I think the mystics and the
> contemplatives want to say they are not that breed of cat.  I will
> take them at their word, but I can’t picture myself doing a good job
> of arguing on their behalf, which is usually the measure for whether I
> understand something.
>
> But what then is the careful version?
>
> Well, my discourse can never happen except within the larger field of
> my experience, and I would do well to always keep that in mind.  That
> seems good.  But what is there of the language I produce, and that we
> produce together?  It is generated within behavior, it is transacted
> in experience, indeed.  But what forms is it desirable for me to endow
> it with, or in which to try to use it and develop it?  Suppose it is
> capable of having forms that refer to an existence in ways such that
> that referral doesn’t care how my experience is or isn’t involved.  A
> biosphere could have sprung up on this planet, with all these insects
> and plants and fish and so forth, and with never people to comment
> about them.  They would be no less themselves.  A language capable of
> expressing (or aspiring to express) that frame is one I would like to
> use.  To conceive of a language that has structures in common with a
> world beyond experience, even though my talking in it is an event
> within behavior or experience, does not seem to me obviously logically
> incoherent.  Any more than living in a world that would have been much
> the same if I hadn’t been living in it seems incompatible with the
> inherent coherence — of a thing’s being whatever-all that thing is —
> of existing.
>
> The question of “how would I know whether the language had ever
> achieved such an alignment, since my knowing takes place within
> experience” is of course fine to pursue.  But I think I can express a
> preference for trying for a language with that overall form, even if I
> don’t know how to answer the question about validation.  There is the
> issue of how I participate in a language, given whatever it is and
> whatever I am.  I have a mode of participation in, or engagement with,
> or use or receipt of, a language that refers to a world beyond
> experience, that I imagine I would not have if it didn’t.
>
>
> That didn’t buy you any of what you came for, I know.   Hopefully not
> time lost down a well, even so.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>> On Sep 17, 2021, at 6:52 AM, > <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> > <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, EricS
>>  
>> You faith in my consistency is touching (};-)]. 
>>  
>> I know that, in response to this, Nick will reply with a sequence of
>> English-language words that I find even more unparseable than the
>> ones above.  
>>  
>> Frankly, you shouldn’t have any faith that my average psychology
>> colleague will rescue me.  90% of them, directly or indirectly, make
>> their living off The Hard Problem.  
>>  
>> EricC and JonZ might do so, but they are  probably too busy.  
>>  
>> Given that I find my inability to communicate with you alarming and
>> distressing, and given that you find what I write so exasperating, is
>> there any way forward?  
>>  
>> Please understand that I am not fooling around, here.  
>>  
>> Are there any baby steps we could take?   If I can’t communicate with
>> you guys, small chance I will be able to communicate with ordinary
>> mortals. 
>>  
>>  
>> Nick  
>>  
>> Nick Thompson
>> thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson%2f&c=E,1,7DujyKj5BlPA-iLJk3HDHbbYf60pN4x1wLc2-4y8BhU7T98FngpaBqZeRQ7hpECyZN4GzK-mPCBf7x_afUfzbyUr1CYriZXSYMJPqZQk&typo=1>
>>  
>> *From:* Friam > <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> *On Behalf Of *David Eric Smith
>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 16, 2021 5:32 PM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?
>>  
>> This is where there is a style of use of language that may be unique
>> to Nick among all humans, or may be a tribal custom among the
>> psychologists, but which the common man needs to be aware exists, so
>> that he knows that the way Nick/psychologists use words will be
>> directly opposed to the way the common man has always used them.
>>  
>>&g

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[thompnickson2]

Dear EricS,

 

So much here, and yet I wanted to take baby steps.  

 

Let me just announce something personal, in case it’s relevant.  I never had a 
religion.  My father was an announced a-religonist (i.e., he asserted his right 
not to give a damn about any of that crap) and my mother an announced agnostic. 
 My closest pass to religion was when – in lieu of a baby sitter and because 
there were cookies I liked – she took me to an occasional hymn-singing, hosted 
by different neighbors “on The Road” who had a piano where hymns were sung and 
psalms were read because she liked the words and the music.  {She was, 
literally, tone deaf.}  So, for me, in my childhood, there was literally no 
organization outside my immediate family that claimed any authority.  I say 
this because many of the people who have said they don’t understand me …. 
Including some of my collaborators, by the way … were beaten by nuns in their 
childhood, or some spiritual equivalent.   I say this not to spur a response, 
but to identify an area in which I simply don’t share much of human experience. 
 I am religiously deaf and dumb.   I say this so that you will not suppose that 
I am pushing  for any Establishment.  I would have no idea what an 
Establishment was.  

 

Moving right along … baby steps.  I am going to annotate your note below as 
plainly as I can until I get too confused or run out of steam and then stop, so 
I don’t blather.  So, I will see you below.  

 

N 




Nick Thompson

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2021 12:55 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

 

Hi Nick,

 

It’s such a broom of things going on, that it is hard to respond to with 
orderly thought.  

 

0.  If I had a motto, it would probably be something like “Nothing is 
impossible; everything is hard.”  But that oversimplifies too much, so I don’t 
have mottos.

[NST===>I do have mottos and that is one of them. <===nst] 

 

 

1.  To have people unable to understand you seems to me like the default 
expectation.  So, from Dylan: No reason to get excited.  Or from Pete 
Townshend: This is not a social crisis.

[NST===>No, but it is a kind of call to action when somebody whom I respect 
disagrees with me.  <===nst] 

 

 

2. Before commenting on resolutions, maybe a comment more to clarify the 
experience of the problem.  The use of some of these words in the various posts 
leads to a reading experience for me that is like garden path sentences.  So it 
is not so simple as “defining” a term.  It is that the semantic work the usage 
of a certain term does in someone’s mind percolates down to lots of levels in 
the forming and the reading of text

[NST===>I think what you PERHAPS identify as a FRIAM bug, here, is actually a 
feature.  Words are like flotation devices which, when abused, can deliver one 
to unsafe depths and leave one to drown.  But I find the challenge of that 
really exciting and was largely missing from University life.<===nst] 

.  

 

3, Often, there are cadences in your use of the term function that feel 
familiar to me from evolutionists, whose use of it also is a garden-path 
sentence for me.  So for that I know you are at most partly idiosyncratic, or 
that the behaviorist conventions are only partly distinctive.  Some of this 
goes back a level in generality and community.  Since the evolutionists don’t 
use the word “goal” the way you do, the things in that that seem strange to me 
are more particular to this discourse.[NST===>My confusions arise, it turns 
out, from those of Edward Chase Tolman, famed “cognitive” psychologist and 
freedom of speech advocate.  When I arrived at Berkeley, he had just died, and 
I got an extremely heavy (but inexplicit) dose of his thought from a mourning 
faculty.  Tolman was raised in the same New England milieu that I was and even 
though I never met him, I seem somehow to have identified with him.  I say that 
Tolman was confused because his roots were in the Neo-Realist and neutral 
monist movement of the Harvard Teens, but for reasons I have never understood, 
those roots were cut off and any shoots sprayed with herbicide after James 
died.  I say “cognitive” with scare-quotes because those should have 
predisposed Tolman to be against the very ideas for which he became famous much 
later on. Tolman was, in this sense, a deracinated thinker.  <===nst]  

 

4. Many things in the evolutionists’ discourse feel neo-Platonist to me. 

[NST===>Let’s say, ex hypothesi, that you called me an ignoramous, and, 
further, that I did not know what an ign

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[⛧ glen]

That post, taken as a whole, with an arc, is excellent. But I want to violently 
slice out the part below because it's an expression of 'the Will to Simulation' 
that I may want to borrow one day. Your expressions retain a humanity mine 
never do. In particular, within this excerpt, you treat both the structural and 
phenomenal strengths of any particular analogy/simulation in one fell swoop. 
The you manage to toss in the necessary participatory requirement, as well.

Thanks! If I manage to use it, I'll ask first.

On September 16, 2021 9:55:15 PM PDT, David Eric Smith  
wrote:
>But what then is the careful version?
>
>Well, my discourse can never happen except within the larger field of my 
>experience, and I would do well to always keep that in mind.  That seems good. 
> But what is there of the language I produce, and that we produce together?  
>It is generated within behavior, it is transacted in experience, indeed.  But 
>what forms is it desirable for me to endow it with, or in which to try to use 
>it and develop it?  Suppose it is capable of having forms that refer to an 
>existence in ways such that that referral doesn’t care how my experience is or 
>isn’t involved.  A biosphere could have sprung up on this planet, with all 
>these insects and plants and fish and so forth, and with never people to 
>comment about them.  They would be no less themselves.  A language capable of 
>expressing (or aspiring to express) that frame is one I would like to use.  To 
>conceive of a language that has structures in common with a world beyond 
>experience, even though my talking in it is an event within behavior or 
>experience, does not seem to me obviously logically incoherent.  Any more than 
>living in a world that would have been much the same if I hadn’t been living 
>in it seems incompatible with the inherent coherence — of a thing’s being 
>whatever-all that thing is — of existing.
>
>The question of “how would I know whether the language had ever achieved such 
>an alignment, since my knowing takes place within experience” is of course 
>fine to pursue.  But I think I can express a preference for trying for a 
>language with that overall form, even if I don’t know how to answer the 
>question about validation.  There is the issue of how I participate in a 
>language, given whatever it is and whatever I am.  I have a mode of 
>participation in, or engagement with, or use or receipt of, a language that 
>refers to a world beyond experience, that I imagine I would not have if it 
>didn’t.
>
>

-- 
glen ⛧


.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[David Eric Smith]

careful version?

Well, my discourse can never happen except within the larger field of my 
experience, and I would do well to always keep that in mind.  That seems good.  
But what is there of the language I produce, and that we produce together?  It 
is generated within behavior, it is transacted in experience, indeed.  But what 
forms is it desirable for me to endow it with, or in which to try to use it and 
develop it?  Suppose it is capable of having forms that refer to an existence 
in ways such that that referral doesn’t care how my experience is or isn’t 
involved.  A biosphere could have sprung up on this planet, with all these 
insects and plants and fish and so forth, and with never people to comment 
about them.  They would be no less themselves.  A language capable of 
expressing (or aspiring to express) that frame is one I would like to use.  To 
conceive of a language that has structures in common with a world beyond 
experience, even though my talking in it is an event within behavior or 
experience, does not seem to me obviously logically incoherent.  Any more than 
living in a world that would have been much the same if I hadn’t been living in 
it seems incompatible with the inherent coherence — of a thing’s being 
whatever-all that thing is — of existing.

The question of “how would I know whether the language had ever achieved such 
an alignment, since my knowing takes place within experience” is of course fine 
to pursue.  But I think I can express a preference for trying for a language 
with that overall form, even if I don’t know how to answer the question about 
validation.  There is the issue of how I participate in a language, given 
whatever it is and whatever I am.  I have a mode of participation in, or 
engagement with, or use or receipt of, a language that refers to a world beyond 
experience, that I imagine I would not have if it didn’t.


That didn’t buy you any of what you came for, I know.   Hopefully not time lost 
down a well, even so.

Eric




> On Sep 17, 2021, at 6:52 AM,  
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi, EricS
>  
> You faith in my consistency is touching (};-)]. 
>  
> I know that, in response to this, Nick will reply with a sequence of 
> English-language words that I find even more unparseable than the ones above. 
>  
>  
> Frankly, you shouldn’t have any faith that my average psychology colleague 
> will rescue me.  90% of them, directly or indirectly, make their living off 
> The Hard Problem.  
>  
> EricC and JonZ might do so, but they are  probably too busy.  
>  
> Given that I find my inability to communicate with you alarming and 
> distressing, and given that you find what I write so exasperating, is there 
> any way forward?  
>  
> Please understand that I am not fooling around, here.  
>  
> Are there any baby steps we could take?   If I can’t communicate with you 
> guys, small chance I will be able to communicate with ordinary mortals. 
>  
>  
> Nick  
>  
> Nick Thompson
> thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ 
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson%2f&c=E,1,7DujyKj5BlPA-iLJk3HDHbbYf60pN4x1wLc2-4y8BhU7T98FngpaBqZeRQ7hpECyZN4GzK-mPCBf7x_afUfzbyUr1CYriZXSYMJPqZQk&typo=1>
>  
> From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On 
> Behalf Of David Eric Smith
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 5:32 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group  <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?
>  
> This is where there is a style of use of language that may be unique to Nick 
> among all humans, or may be a tribal custom among the psychologists, but 
> which the common man needs to be aware exists, so that he knows that the way 
> Nick/psychologists use words will be directly opposed to the way the common 
> man has always used them.
>  
>> If that question disappears for you under those circumstances, then I can 
>> simply admit that a pleasure is just the behavioral transition that occurs 
>> upon the achievement of set of circumstances, and escape the tautology by 
>> defining  a goal as the organization of behavior that points to a set of 
>> circumstances.  
>  
> So, in archery, the way the archer points the bow (organization of behavior) 
> is the “goal”, and the event of an arrow’s hitting a bullseye is somehow not 
> a goal.  Nick didn’t happen to use the word “function” in the clip above; I 
> have no idea what he would say a “function” is, but in the earlier posts, it 
> was as bizarrely glossed to me as this glossing of goal, so I can’t even come 
> up with a guess for how to imitate it.  
>  
> The plugging in of an address for the supermarket to the GPS while sitting i

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[David Eric Smith]

Was it Joan Jett who penned the lyrics “I don’t give a damn about being out of 
favor"

> On Sep 17, 2021, at 8:08 AM, Frank Wimberly  wrote:
> 
> I should have said "out of favor" instead of "bad reputation".
> 
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, 
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
> 
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
> 
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 3:50 PM Frank Wimberly  > wrote:
> I don't think psychologists in general use language that way.  Behaviorists 
> may.  When I was a graduate student in psychology 55 years ago behaviorism 
> had a bad reputation, at least at Carnegie Mellon but I suspect at other 
> places that emphasized theories of cognition.
> 
> After a year I switched to the grad program in math because I couldn't cope 
> with the ambiguities.  I was young 
> 
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, 
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
> 
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
> 
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 3:32 PM David Eric Smith  > wrote:
> This is where there is a style of use of language that may be unique to Nick 
> among all humans, or may be a tribal custom among the psychologists, but 
> which the common man needs to be aware exists, so that he knows that the way 
> Nick/psychologists use words will be directly opposed to the way the common 
> man has always used them.
> 
>> If that question disappears for you under those circumstances, then I can 
>> simply admit that a pleasure is just the behavioral transition that occurs 
>> upon the achievement of set of circumstances, and escape the tautology by 
>> defining  a goal as the organization of behavior that points to a set of 
>> circumstances.  
> 
> So, in archery, the way the archer points the bow (organization of behavior) 
> is the “goal”, and the event of an arrow’s hitting a bullseye is somehow not 
> a goal.  Nick didn’t happen to use the word “function” in the clip above; I 
> have no idea what he would say a “function” is, but in the earlier posts, it 
> was as bizarrely glossed to me as this glossing of goal, so I can’t even come 
> up with a guess for how to imitate it.  
> 
> The plugging in of an address for the supermarket to the GPS while sitting in 
> the car in the driveway (organization of behavior) is the goal, not the event 
> of my arriving at the supermarket.
> 
> For me as a mechanic, the bullseye as a position for arrows is the goal 
> (applied to an object), or the event of the arrow’s arriving there is a goal 
> (applied to an outcome of a behavior) that serves as a selection criterion 
> among directions in which a bow might be pointed.  My pointing the bow one 
> way versus another is to me a function for attaining that goal.  The event of 
> arriving at a supermarket is the goal that serves as a criterion for 
> selection of which GPS location I plug in; the act of plugging in that 
> address is then a function for attaining that goal.
> 
> I know that, in response to this, Nick will reply with a sequence of 
> English-language words that I find even more unparseable than the ones above. 
>  
> 
> The meditators do this too.  If I comment that, as a mechanic, I am 
> interested in what would get people to be more restrained in the use of 
> excesses of power when they find themselves in possession of such, to try to 
> unwind the death spiral that is leading to the dissolution of the society, I 
> know that the meditators will say “Poor child, lost in samsara, he doesn’t 
> realize that all these things he refers to are just illusion.”  If I say to 
> them that this is what I expect them to say, the meditators get annoyed at me 
> because they think I am insulting them.  They say “when we say, over and over 
> again, in the first pages of every piece of our literature, and again every 
> three pages after that, that `all that is illusion’ “, we don’t mean that all 
> that is illusion.  You strawman us.  Seriously?
> 
> I guess that’s how either discipline-specific or idiosyncratic speech habits 
> work.  What is unexplainably self-evident to one person is mystifying to 
> somebody else.
> 
> Eric 
> 
> 
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam 
> 
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com 
> 
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
> 

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[David Eric Smith]

This is where there is a style of use of language that may be unique to Nick 
among all humans, or may be a tribal custom among the psychologists, but which 
the common man needs to be aware exists, so that he knows that the way 
Nick/psychologists use words will be directly opposed to the way the common man 
has always used them.

> If that question disappears for you under those circumstances, then I can 
> simply admit that a pleasure is just the behavioral transition that occurs 
> upon the achievement of set of circumstances, and escape the tautology by 
> defining  a goal as the organization of behavior that points to a set of 
> circumstances.  

So, in archery, the way the archer points the bow (organization of behavior) is 
the “goal”, and the event of an arrow’s hitting a bullseye is somehow not a 
goal.  Nick didn’t happen to use the word “function” in the clip above; I have 
no idea what he would say a “function” is, but in the earlier posts, it was as 
bizarrely glossed to me as this glossing of goal, so I can’t even come up with 
a guess for how to imitate it.  

The plugging in of an address for the supermarket to the GPS while sitting in 
the car in the driveway (organization of behavior) is the goal, not the event 
of my arriving at the supermarket.

For me as a mechanic, the bullseye as a position for arrows is the goal 
(applied to an object), or the event of the arrow’s arriving there is a goal 
(applied to an outcome of a behavior) that serves as a selection criterion 
among directions in which a bow might be pointed.  My pointing the bow one way 
versus another is to me a function for attaining that goal.  The event of 
arriving at a supermarket is the goal that serves as a criterion for selection 
of which GPS location I plug in; the act of plugging in that address is then a 
function for attaining that goal.

I know that, in response to this, Nick will reply with a sequence of 
English-language words that I find even more unparseable than the ones above.  

The meditators do this too.  If I comment that, as a mechanic, I am interested 
in what would get people to be more restrained in the use of excesses of power 
when they find themselves in possession of such, to try to unwind the death 
spiral that is leading to the dissolution of the society, I know that the 
meditators will say “Poor child, lost in samsara, he doesn’t realize that all 
these things he refers to are just illusion.”  If I say to them that this is 
what I expect them to say, the meditators get annoyed at me because they think 
I am insulting them.  They say “when we say, over and over again, in the first 
pages of every piece of our literature, and again every three pages after that, 
that `all that is illusion’ “, we don’t mean that all that is illusion.  You 
strawman us.  Seriously?

I guess that’s how either discipline-specific or idiosyncratic speech habits 
work.  What is unexplainably self-evident to one person is mystifying to 
somebody else.

Eric 


.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[thompnickson2]

Just like the rest of you.  

 

n

 

Nick Thompson

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 8:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

 

I wonder if behaviorists feel the same.  They will observe their behavior to 
learn how they feel.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz, 
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

 

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 6:10 PM David Eric Smith mailto:desm...@santafe.edu> > wrote:

Was it Joan Jett who penned the lyrics “I don’t give a damn about being out of 
favor"





On Sep 17, 2021, at 8:08 AM, Frank Wimberly mailto:wimber...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

I should have said "out of favor" instead of "bad reputation".

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz, 
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

 

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 3:50 PM Frank Wimberly mailto:wimber...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I don't think psychologists in general use language that way.  Behaviorists 
may.  When I was a graduate student in psychology 55 years ago behaviorism had 
a bad reputation, at least at Carnegie Mellon but I suspect at other places 
that emphasized theories of cognition.

 

After a year I switched to the grad program in math because I couldn't cope 
with the ambiguities.  I was young 

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz, 
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

 

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 3:32 PM David Eric Smith mailto:desm...@santafe.edu> > wrote:

This is where there is a style of use of language that may be unique to Nick 
among all humans, or may be a tribal custom among the psychologists, but which 
the common man needs to be aware exists, so that he knows that the way 
Nick/psychologists use words will be directly opposed to the way the common man 
has always used them.

 

If that question disappears for you under those circumstances, then I can 
simply admit that a pleasure is just the behavioral transition that occurs upon 
the achievement of set of circumstances, and escape the tautology by defining  
a goal as the organization of behavior that points to a set of circumstances.  

 

So, in archery, the way the archer points the bow (organization of behavior) is 
the “goal”, and the event of an arrow’s hitting a bullseye is somehow not a 
goal.  Nick didn’t happen to use the word “function” in the clip above; I have 
no idea what he would say a “function” is, but in the earlier posts, it was as 
bizarrely glossed to me as this glossing of goal, so I can’t even come up with 
a guess for how to imitate it.  

 

The plugging in of an address for the supermarket to the GPS while sitting in 
the car in the driveway (organization of behavior) is the goal, not the event 
of my arriving at the supermarket.

 

For me as a mechanic, the bullseye as a position for arrows is the goal 
(applied to an object), or the event of the arrow’s arriving there is a goal 
(applied to an outcome of a behavior) that serves as a selection criterion 
among directions in which a bow might be pointed.  My pointing the bow one way 
versus another is to me a function for attaining that goal.  The event of 
arriving at a supermarket is the goal that serves as a criterion for selection 
of which GPS location I plug in; the act of plugging in that address is then a 
function for attaining that goal.

 

I know that, in response to this, Nick will reply with a sequence of 
English-language words that I find even more unparseable than the ones above.  

 

The meditators do this too.  If I comment that, as a mechanic, I am interested 
in what would get people to be more restrained in the use of excesses of power 
when they find themselves in possession of such, to try to unwind the death 
spiral that is leading to the dissolution of the society, I know that the 
meditators will say “Poor child, lost in samsara, he doesn’t realize that all 
these things he refers to are just illusion.”  If I say to them that this is 
what I expect them to say, the meditators get annoyed at me because they think 
I am insulting them.  They say “when we say, over and over again, in the first 
pages of every piece of our literature, and again every three pages after that, 
that `all that is illusion’ “, we don’t mean that all that is illusion.  You 
strawman us.  Seriously?

 

I guess that’s how either discipline-specific or idiosyncratic speech habits 
work.  What is unexplainably self-evident to one person is mystifying to 
somebody else.

 

Eric 

 


.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[David Eric Smith]

> On Sep 17, 2021, at 1:28 AM,  
>  wrote:
> 
> Would any of you buy a seat belt that was marketed to not cause deaths?   You 
> are so lost in your point about small numbers that you’ve lost your sense of 
> the plain meaning of words.  Sheesh!

Yes.  Like “goal”.  And “function”.  I pass judgment on you all!

>  
> n
>  
> Nick Thompson
> thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ 
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson%2f&c=E,1,V8E2wZpn-KPf9gL7JM5R_8ZQ1y7CVgBHbZFHfUw3Pvz0r-NeNdGkNJ05amvJ2Bxa1FHd29HdLu7TLpj5rk7kmiCgj4bHkG9mOB1pMT8_x5ShAPvGlDJUxsw,&typo=1>
>  
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 12:16 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?
>  
> sum(reasons_for_death) != number_of_deaths, and Death itself is listed as a 
> reported cause of death.
>  
> -- rec --
>  
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 12:01 PM Pieter Steenekamp 
> mailto:piet...@randcontrols.co.za>> wrote:
>> For what it's worth, from table S4 in the supplementary data 
>> https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/2021.07.28.21261159/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf
>>  
>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.medrxiv.org%2fcontent%2fmedrxiv%2fearly%2f2021%2f07%2f28%2f2021.07.28.21261159%2fDC1%2fembed%2fmedia-1.pdf&c=E,1,R0pU8wvkUlcpkdfQRbJVL2Uobg6euwmwfSU6g4LRKfs-VLiHrFCDbNjXgMMPRyPfm42KJL9AMm8eL2ExfYTPfkrm5KpUZMaXGtSnYygX9XwQzCM,&typo=1>
>> 
>> Reported Cause of Death   BNT162b2 (N=21,926) Placebo (N=21,921) 
>>  
>> Deaths15 
>> 14 
>> Acute respiratory failure  0 
>>   1 
>> Aortic rupture  0
>> 1 
>> Arteriosclerosis   2 
>>0 
>> Biliary cancer metastatic0   
>>  1 
>> COVID-19  0  
>>   2 
>> COVID-19 pneumonia   1   
>>  0 
>> Cardiac arrest4  
>>   1 
>> Cardiac failure congestive 1 
>>0 
>> Cardiorespiratory arrest 1   
>>  1 
>> Chronic obstructive pulmonary 
>> disease  1   
>>  0 
>> Death 0  
>>   1 
>> Dementia   0 
>>1 
>> Emphysematous cholecystitis   1  
>>0 
>> Hemorrhagic stroke   0   
>>   1 
>> Hypertensive heart disease  1
>>   0 
>> Lung cancer metastatic1  
>>  0 
>> Metastases to liver   0  
>>  1 
>> Missing 0
>>1 
>> Multiple organ dysfunction 
>> syndrome 0   
>>  2 
>> Myocardial infarction0   
>>  2 
>> Overdose 0   
>>  1 
>> Pneumonia   0
>> 2 
>> Sepsis  1
>> 0 
>> Septic shock 1   
>> 0 
>> Shigella sepsis 1
>&

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[David Eric Smith]

 
> 
> N
> 
>  
> 
> PS to Frank.  There’s lot’s of irony in Pittsburgh.  I count on you to 
> recognize it. 
> 
> Nick Thompson
> 
> thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ 
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson%2f&c=E,1,TyDEVSRIE0SeXH4oUb2NLH72-_MtKz_3q8bY-68jXaX-I6J08KlUumptKiq48nFPVHkWzQKv06aXGvUNpUaCCWg1kX7WnPxaJ7cRF9sE74wro1UffhXjfHYd&typo=1>
>  
> 
> From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On 
> Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 7:34 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group  <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you Roger,
> 
> Using the numbers from Phizer's report, I did a sort of quick and dirty 
> manual iteration process to get to the following Monte Carlo testing 
> conclusion
> 
> If:
> a) the total death rate of the unvaccinated is 14/22000 (all causes) and
> b) a total of 15 out of 22000  (again all causes)  of the vaccinated group 
> died
> Then we can say with a 99% probability that the vaccination does not increase 
> the total  (again all causes) death rate with more than a factor of 1.6.
> 
> My Python program to do this is as follows:
> 
> import random
> total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=0
> r=1.6 # manually iterate this number until the answer is less than 100, with 
> 1000 test runs for a probability of 99% 
> numberList = [0, 1] # 0 = live, 1=dead
> for i in range(1000):
>   x=(random.choices(numberList, weights=((1-r*14/22000), r*14/22000), 
> k=22000))
>   if( sum(x)<16):
> 
> total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16+1
> 
> print(total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16)
> 
> # iteration tally:
> # with r=1.5 then total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=105
> # with r=1.6 then total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=69  
> 
> 
> Pieter
> 
>  
> 
> On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 22:26, Roger Critchlow  <mailto:r...@elf.org>> wrote:
> 
> Pieter -
> 
>  
> 
> The initial safety and efficacy report was published in the New England 
> Journal of Medicine at the end of 2020,  
> https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577 
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.nejm.org%2fdoi%2ffull%2f10.1056%2fnejmoa2034577&c=E,1,3vBgbhTMbNvgPkNNCkoG1Di9PyMZ4wdlO_pfzcTwmmrCnsjA4GOZCpQ3jcAwkdDg3MuW6p4TH9Am9S_vCjZ3nwn7L7B-NwD9c48FznmRRZhUg49OGdEewGI,&typo=1>,
>  it has smoother language and inline graphics.  It also has fewer deaths in 
> the treatment group than in the control group, but it is only reporting the 
> first two months of the study.
> 
>  
> 
> The numbers of deaths reported in the "Adverse Reactions" section of these 
> reports will eventually track the expected death rate of the population in 
> the trial, and apparently they do, since there is no comment to indicate 
> otherwise.   Every clinical trial that tests the safety of a treatment is 
> expected to agree with the baseline mortality statistics for the population 
> in the trial.
> 
>  
> 
> If you see 14 and 15 deaths out of 22000 participants and your immediate 
> response is that 15 is bigger than 14, then you should probably stop 
> torturing yourself with statistical data.  You're making and agonizing over 
> distinctions that the data can never support.  The number of deaths in a 
> population over a period of time has an average value and a variance which 
> are found by looking at large populations over long periods of time.  In any 
> particular population and period of time there are a lot trajectories that 
> the death count can take that will be consistent with the long term average 
> even as they wander above and below the average.
> 
>  
> 
> I append a simple simulation in julia that you can think about.
> 
>  
> 
> -- rec --
> 
>  
> 
> # from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm 
> <https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm>
> death_rate = 869.7  # raw deaths per 10 per year
> 
>  
> 
> # simulate the action of a 'death rate' on a population of 'sample' 
> individuals for 'days' of time.
> 
> # convert the raw death rate to the death_rate_per_individual_per_day, ie 
> death_rate/10/365.25,
> 
> # allocate an array of size sample*days, size coerced to an integer value,
> 
> # fill the array with uniform random numbers.
> 
> # if an array value is less than the death rate per person per day, score 1 
> death.
> 
> # this overcounts because individuals

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[Frank Wimberly]

I wonder if behaviorists feel the same.  They will observe their behavior
to learn how they feel.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 6:10 PM David Eric Smith  wrote:

> Was it Joan Jett who penned the lyrics “I don’t give a damn about being
> out of favor"
>
> On Sep 17, 2021, at 8:08 AM, Frank Wimberly  wrote:
>
> I should have said "out of favor" instead of "bad reputation".
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 3:50 PM Frank Wimberly  wrote:
>
>> I don't think psychologists in general use language that way.
>> Behaviorists may.  When I was a graduate student in psychology 55 years ago
>> behaviorism had a bad reputation, at least at Carnegie Mellon but I suspect
>> at other places that emphasized theories of cognition.
>>
>> After a year I switched to the grad program in math because I couldn't
>> cope with the ambiguities.  I was young
>>
>> ---
>> Frank C. Wimberly
>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
>> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>>
>> 505 670-9918
>> Santa Fe, NM
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 3:32 PM David Eric Smith 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is where there is a style of use of language that may be unique to
>>> Nick among all humans, or may be a tribal custom among the psychologists,
>>> but which the common man needs to be aware exists, so that he knows that
>>> the way Nick/psychologists use words will be directly opposed to the way
>>> the common man has always used them.
>>>
>>> If that question disappears for you under those circumstances, then I
>>> can simply admit that a pleasure is just the behavioral transition that
>>> occurs upon the achievement of set of circumstances, and escape the
>>> tautology by defining  a goal as the organization of behavior that points
>>> to a set of circumstances.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, in archery, the way the archer points the bow (organization of
>>> behavior) is the “goal”, and the event of an arrow’s hitting a bullseye is
>>> somehow not a goal.  Nick didn’t happen to use the word “function” in the
>>> clip above; I have no idea what he would say a “function” is, but in the
>>> earlier posts, it was as bizarrely glossed to me as this glossing of goal,
>>> so I can’t even come up with a guess for how to imitate it.
>>>
>>> The plugging in of an address for the supermarket to the GPS while
>>> sitting in the car in the driveway (organization of behavior) is the goal,
>>> not the event of my arriving at the supermarket.
>>>
>>> For me as a mechanic, the bullseye as a position for arrows is the goal
>>> (applied to an object), or the event of the arrow’s arriving there is a
>>> goal (applied to an outcome of a behavior) that serves as a selection
>>> criterion among directions in which a bow might be pointed.  My pointing
>>> the bow one way versus another is to me a function for attaining that
>>> goal.  The event of arriving at a supermarket is the goal that serves as a
>>> criterion for selection of which GPS location I plug in; the act of
>>> plugging in that address is then a function for attaining that goal.
>>>
>>> I know that, in response to this, Nick will reply with a sequence of
>>> English-language words that I find even more unparseable than the ones
>>> above.
>>>
>>> The meditators do this too.  If I comment that, as a mechanic, I am
>>> interested in what would get people to be more restrained in the use of
>>> excesses of power when they find themselves in possession of such, to try
>>> to unwind the death spiral that is leading to the dissolution of the
>>> society, I know that the meditators will say “Poor child, lost in samsara,
>>> he doesn’t realize that all these things he refers to are just illusion.”
>>>  If I say to them that this is what I expect them to say, the meditators
>>> get annoyed at me because they think I am insulting them.  They say “when
>>> we say, over and over again, in the first pages of every piece of our
>>> literature, and again every three pages after that, that `all that is
>>> illusion’ “, we don’t mean that all that is illusion.  You strawman us.
>>> Seriously?
>>>
>>> I guess that’s how either discipline-specific or idiosyncratic speech
>>> habits work.  What is unexplainably self-evident to one person is
>>> mystifying to somebody else.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- -
>>> .
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>> 
>>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> 

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[Frank Wimberly]

I should have said "out of favor" instead of "bad reputation".

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 3:50 PM Frank Wimberly  wrote:

> I don't think psychologists in general use language that way.
> Behaviorists may.  When I was a graduate student in psychology 55 years ago
> behaviorism had a bad reputation, at least at Carnegie Mellon but I suspect
> at other places that emphasized theories of cognition.
>
> After a year I switched to the grad program in math because I couldn't
> cope with the ambiguities.  I was young
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 3:32 PM David Eric Smith 
> wrote:
>
>> This is where there is a style of use of language that may be unique to
>> Nick among all humans, or may be a tribal custom among the psychologists,
>> but which the common man needs to be aware exists, so that he knows that
>> the way Nick/psychologists use words will be directly opposed to the way
>> the common man has always used them.
>>
>> If that question disappears for you under those circumstances, then I can
>> simply admit that a pleasure is just the behavioral transition that occurs
>> upon the achievement of set of circumstances, and escape the tautology by
>> defining  a goal as the organization of behavior that points to a set of
>> circumstances.
>>
>>
>> So, in archery, the way the archer points the bow (organization of
>> behavior) is the “goal”, and the event of an arrow’s hitting a bullseye is
>> somehow not a goal.  Nick didn’t happen to use the word “function” in the
>> clip above; I have no idea what he would say a “function” is, but in the
>> earlier posts, it was as bizarrely glossed to me as this glossing of goal,
>> so I can’t even come up with a guess for how to imitate it.
>>
>> The plugging in of an address for the supermarket to the GPS while
>> sitting in the car in the driveway (organization of behavior) is the goal,
>> not the event of my arriving at the supermarket.
>>
>> For me as a mechanic, the bullseye as a position for arrows is the goal
>> (applied to an object), or the event of the arrow’s arriving there is a
>> goal (applied to an outcome of a behavior) that serves as a selection
>> criterion among directions in which a bow might be pointed.  My pointing
>> the bow one way versus another is to me a function for attaining that
>> goal.  The event of arriving at a supermarket is the goal that serves as a
>> criterion for selection of which GPS location I plug in; the act of
>> plugging in that address is then a function for attaining that goal.
>>
>> I know that, in response to this, Nick will reply with a sequence of
>> English-language words that I find even more unparseable than the ones
>> above.
>>
>> The meditators do this too.  If I comment that, as a mechanic, I am
>> interested in what would get people to be more restrained in the use of
>> excesses of power when they find themselves in possession of such, to try
>> to unwind the death spiral that is leading to the dissolution of the
>> society, I know that the meditators will say “Poor child, lost in samsara,
>> he doesn’t realize that all these things he refers to are just illusion.”
>>  If I say to them that this is what I expect them to say, the meditators
>> get annoyed at me because they think I am insulting them.  They say “when
>> we say, over and over again, in the first pages of every piece of our
>> literature, and again every three pages after that, that `all that is
>> illusion’ “, we don’t mean that all that is illusion.  You strawman us.
>> Seriously?
>>
>> I guess that’s how either discipline-specific or idiosyncratic speech
>> habits work.  What is unexplainably self-evident to one person is
>> mystifying to somebody else.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>> archives:
>>  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>
>

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[thompnickson2]

I think it is Phaedrus’s conceit that all perception begins with pleasure or 
pain. 

 

n

 

Nick Thompson

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 5:42 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

 

NST -

In my (lame) pursuit of enlightenment I find that pleasure and pain start to 
muddle together with all other less-judged experiences...   slipping into the 
flow of "what is"...  and those experiences become more and more ineffable or 
more apropos, less effing effable?

- SAS

Great.  That is indeed the weakest point in my argument.  It is the central 
argument of Sober and Wilson’s UNTO OTHERS 
<https://www.amazon.com/Unto-Others-Evolution-Psychology-Unselfish/dp/0674930479/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=wilson+and+sober+unto+others&qid=1631822440&sr=8-1https://www.bing.com/search?q=amazon+com&form=IENTNB&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&msnews=1&refig=01d8e6a6f68f4e79c1b939b52a4e26a6&sp=1&ghc=1&filters=ufn%3A%22amazon+com%22+sid%3A%22ce00286a-e903-ff2c-7dac-b49bd707399c%22&qs=MB&pq=ama&sc=8-3&cvid=01d8e6a6f68f4e79c1b939b52a4e26a6>
 .  I hate (and have done so repeatedly in print) confusing tautologies with 
statements of fact.  So this is indeed my petard your are threatening to hoist 
me on. 

 

First, let me stipulate that there are pain motives, and that pain is not the 
cessation of pleasure, nor pleasure the cessation of pain.  I assume that that 
stipulation will not change your question, right? 

 

Hearing me try to wiggle out of the tautology problem will require a lot of 
patience of you.  It will lead us into the dreadful confusion of “the hard 
problem” and “effing the ineffable”.  Only for the strong of heart.  I predict 
that you will say, at some point, “Nick, you are confusing what a feeling does 
with what a feeling is, and only I can know what my feelings are.”  And I will 
say, “No. No.  That is nonsense, Marcus, and even you know it.  Anybody who has 
ever been married or even owned a dog knows that others can often gauge 
feelings better than the feeling-owner.”  And you will reply, “No, no, 
Nicholas, you idiot.  Yours will be a INFERENCE of my feelings; I know my own 
feelings directly, without inference.”  And I will say, “No. No, Marcus.  A 
thousand experiments in psychology will demonstrate that the feeling owner is 
often wrong about his own feelings.”  And notice that I am at that point edging 
you up to the tautology line because one way to define feelings that ends the 
argument is to say that my feelings just are those experiences that I and I 
alone can know uniquely.   Frank and Bruce Simon and I have been over this 
ground a gazillion times. 

 

It’s possible we can avoid it, but I don’t think so.  To test the proposition, 
ask yourself: if we stripped the notion of pleasure of all association with how 
a pleasure feels uniquely and momentarily to you, would you still raise the 
question you do.  Would you still ask,

 

“Does all conscious (even synthetic) life need to be driven by a pleasure 
motive?   This seems to be Nick’s claim.   I expect the way this argument plays 
out is that, e.g., altruism is defined to “feel good”.  It is tautological.

"

If that question disappears for you under those circumstances, then I can 
simply admit that a pleasure is just the behavioral transition that occurs upon 
the achievement of set of circumstances, and escape the tautology by defining  
a goal as the organization of behavior that points to a set of circumstances.  

 

So.  Where are we an the socalled Hard Problem.  I know you have probably said, 
but, to be honest, I don’t remember.

 

Nick

 

Nick Thompson

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam  <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>  On 
Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 3:48 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group  
<mailto:friam@redfish.com> 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

 

Does all conscious (even synthetic) life need to be driven by a pleasure 
motive?   This seems to be Nick’s claim.   I expect the way this argument plays 
out is that, e.g., altruism is defined to “feel good”.  It is tautological.






On Sep 16, 2021, at 12:22 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com 
<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>  wrote:

 

some of us might be writing only to hear ourselves gumflap?

 

Pt!  All of us are and all of us aren’t.

 

For my own case, I am writing here to develop my thinking, so that it may 
someday coalesce into something that I publish, with, or without, others.   
That that enterprise is not entirely nugatory 

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[thompnickson2]

Hi, EricS

 

You faith in my consistency is touching (};-)]. 

 

I know that, in response to this, Nick will reply with a sequence of 
English-language words that I find even more unparseable than the ones above.  

 

Frankly, you shouldn’t have any faith that my average psychology colleague will 
rescue me.  90% of them, directly or indirectly, make their living off The Hard 
Problem.  

 

EricC and JonZ might do so, but they are  probably too busy.  

 

Given that I find my inability to communicate with you alarming and 
distressing, and given that you find what I write so exasperating, is there any 
way forward?  

 

Please understand that I am not fooling around, here.  

 

Are there any baby steps we could take?   If I can’t communicate with you guys, 
small chance I will be able to communicate with ordinary mortals. 

 

 

Nick  

 

Nick Thompson

thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> 

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 5:32 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

 

This is where there is a style of use of language that may be unique to Nick 
among all humans, or may be a tribal custom among the psychologists, but which 
the common man needs to be aware exists, so that he knows that the way 
Nick/psychologists use words will be directly opposed to the way the common man 
has always used them.

 

If that question disappears for you under those circumstances, then I can 
simply admit that a pleasure is just the behavioral transition that occurs upon 
the achievement of set of circumstances, and escape the tautology by defining  
a goal as the organization of behavior that points to a set of circumstances.  

 

So, in archery, the way the archer points the bow (organization of behavior) is 
the “goal”, and the event of an arrow’s hitting a bullseye is somehow not a 
goal.  Nick didn’t happen to use the word “function” in the clip above; I have 
no idea what he would say a “function” is, but in the earlier posts, it was as 
bizarrely glossed to me as this glossing of goal, so I can’t even come up with 
a guess for how to imitate it.  

 

The plugging in of an address for the supermarket to the GPS while sitting in 
the car in the driveway (organization of behavior) is the goal, not the event 
of my arriving at the supermarket.

 

For me as a mechanic, the bullseye as a position for arrows is the goal 
(applied to an object), or the event of the arrow’s arriving there is a goal 
(applied to an outcome of a behavior) that serves as a selection criterion 
among directions in which a bow might be pointed.  My pointing the bow one way 
versus another is to me a function for attaining that goal.  The event of 
arriving at a supermarket is the goal that serves as a criterion for selection 
of which GPS location I plug in; the act of plugging in that address is then a 
function for attaining that goal.

 

I know that, in response to this, Nick will reply with a sequence of 
English-language words that I find even more unparseable than the ones above.  

 

The meditators do this too.  If I comment that, as a mechanic, I am interested 
in what would get people to be more restrained in the use of excesses of power 
when they find themselves in possession of such, to try to unwind the death 
spiral that is leading to the dissolution of the society, I know that the 
meditators will say “Poor child, lost in samsara, he doesn’t realize that all 
these things he refers to are just illusion.”  If I say to them that this is 
what I expect them to say, the meditators get annoyed at me because they think 
I am insulting them.  They say “when we say, over and over again, in the first 
pages of every piece of our literature, and again every three pages after that, 
that `all that is illusion’ “, we don’t mean that all that is illusion.  You 
strawman us.  Seriously?

 

I guess that’s how either discipline-specific or idiosyncratic speech habits 
work.  What is unexplainably self-evident to one person is mystifying to 
somebody else.

 

Eric 

 


.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[Frank Wimberly]

I don't think psychologists in general use language that way.  Behaviorists
may.  When I was a graduate student in psychology 55 years ago behaviorism
had a bad reputation, at least at Carnegie Mellon but I suspect at other
places that emphasized theories of cognition.

After a year I switched to the grad program in math because I couldn't cope
with the ambiguities.  I was young

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 3:32 PM David Eric Smith  wrote:

> This is where there is a style of use of language that may be unique to
> Nick among all humans, or may be a tribal custom among the psychologists,
> but which the common man needs to be aware exists, so that he knows that
> the way Nick/psychologists use words will be directly opposed to the way
> the common man has always used them.
>
> If that question disappears for you under those circumstances, then I can
> simply admit that a pleasure is just the behavioral transition that occurs
> upon the achievement of set of circumstances, and escape the tautology by
> defining  a goal as the organization of behavior that points to a set of
> circumstances.
>
>
> So, in archery, the way the archer points the bow (organization of
> behavior) is the “goal”, and the event of an arrow’s hitting a bullseye is
> somehow not a goal.  Nick didn’t happen to use the word “function” in the
> clip above; I have no idea what he would say a “function” is, but in the
> earlier posts, it was as bizarrely glossed to me as this glossing of goal,
> so I can’t even come up with a guess for how to imitate it.
>
> The plugging in of an address for the supermarket to the GPS while sitting
> in the car in the driveway (organization of behavior) is the goal, not the
> event of my arriving at the supermarket.
>
> For me as a mechanic, the bullseye as a position for arrows is the goal
> (applied to an object), or the event of the arrow’s arriving there is a
> goal (applied to an outcome of a behavior) that serves as a selection
> criterion among directions in which a bow might be pointed.  My pointing
> the bow one way versus another is to me a function for attaining that
> goal.  The event of arriving at a supermarket is the goal that serves as a
> criterion for selection of which GPS location I plug in; the act of
> plugging in that address is then a function for attaining that goal.
>
> I know that, in response to this, Nick will reply with a sequence of
> English-language words that I find even more unparseable than the ones
> above.
>
> The meditators do this too.  If I comment that, as a mechanic, I am
> interested in what would get people to be more restrained in the use of
> excesses of power when they find themselves in possession of such, to try
> to unwind the death spiral that is leading to the dissolution of the
> society, I know that the meditators will say “Poor child, lost in samsara,
> he doesn’t realize that all these things he refers to are just illusion.”
>  If I say to them that this is what I expect them to say, the meditators
> get annoyed at me because they think I am insulting them.  They say “when
> we say, over and over again, in the first pages of every piece of our
> literature, and again every three pages after that, that `all that is
> illusion’ “, we don’t mean that all that is illusion.  You strawman us.
> Seriously?
>
> I guess that’s how either discipline-specific or idiosyncratic speech
> habits work.  What is unexplainably self-evident to one person is
> mystifying to somebody else.
>
> Eric
>
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:
>  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[Steve Smith]

NST -

In my (lame) pursuit of enlightenment I find that pleasure and pain
start to muddle together with all other less-judged experiences...  
slipping into the flow of "what is"...  and those experiences become
more and more ineffable or more apropos, less effing effable?

- SAS

> Great.  That is indeed the weakest point in my argument.  It is the
> central argument of Sober and Wilson’s UNTO OTHERS
> <https://www.amazon.com/Unto-Others-Evolution-Psychology-Unselfish/dp/0674930479/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=wilson+and+sober+unto+others&qid=1631822440&sr=8-1https://www.bing.com/search?q=amazon+com&form=IENTNB&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&msnews=1&refig=01d8e6a6f68f4e79c1b939b52a4e26a6&sp=1&ghc=1&filters=ufn%3A%22amazon+com%22+sid%3A%22ce00286a-e903-ff2c-7dac-b49bd707399c%22&qs=MB&pq=ama&sc=8-3&cvid=01d8e6a6f68f4e79c1b939b52a4e26a6>.
>  I hate (and have done so repeatedly in print) confusing tautologies
> with statements of fact.  So this is indeed my petard your are
> threatening to hoist me on.
>
>  
>
> First, let me stipulate that there are pain motives, and that pain is
> not the cessation of pleasure, nor pleasure the cessation of pain.  I
> assume that that stipulation will not change your question, right?
>
>  
>
> Hearing me try to wiggle out of the tautology problem will require a
> lot of patience of you.  It will lead us into the dreadful confusion
> of “the hard problem” and “effing the ineffable”.  Only for the strong
> of heart.  I predict that you will say, at some point, “Nick, you are
> confusing what a feeling does with what a feeling is, and only I can
> know what my feelings are.”  And I will say, “No. No.  That is
> nonsense, Marcus, and even you know it.  Anybody who has ever been
> married or even owned a dog knows that others can often gauge feelings
> better than the feeling-owner.”  And you will reply, “No, no,
> Nicholas, you idiot.  Yours will be a INFERENCE of my feelings; I know
> my own feelings directly, without inference.”  And I will say, “No.
> No, Marcus.  A thousand experiments in psychology will demonstrate
> that the feeling owner is often wrong about his own feelings.”  And
> notice that I am at that point edging you up to the tautology line
> because one way to define feelings that ends the argument is to say
> that my feelings just are those experiences that I and I alone can
> know uniquely.   Frank and Bruce Simon and I have been over this
> ground a gazillion times.
>
>  
>
> It’s possible we can avoid it, but I don’t think so.  To test the
> proposition, ask yourself: if we stripped the notion of pleasure of
> all association with how a pleasure feels uniquely and momentarily to
> you, would you still raise the question you do.  Would you still ask,
>
>  
>
> “Does all conscious (even synthetic) life need to be driven by a
> pleasure motive?   This seems to be Nick’s claim.   I expect the way
> this argument plays out is that, e.g., altruism is defined to “feel
> good”.  It is tautological.
>
> "
>
> If that question disappears for you under those circumstances, then I
> can simply admit that a pleasure is just the behavioral transition
> that occurs upon the achievement of set of circumstances, and escape
> the tautology by defining  a goal as the organization of behavior that
> points to a set of circumstances. 
>
>  
>
> So.  Where are we an the socalled Hard Problem.  I know you have
> probably said, but, to be honest, I don’t remember.
>
>  
>
> Nick
>
>  
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
> <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>
>
>  
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Marcus Daniels
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 16, 2021 3:48 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> 
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?
>
>  
>
> Does all conscious (even synthetic) life need to be driven by a
> pleasure motive?   This seems to be Nick’s claim.   I expect the way
> this argument plays out is that, e.g., altruism is defined to “feel
> good”.  It is tautological.
>
>
>
> On Sep 16, 2021, at 12:22 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com
> <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
> some of us might be writing only to hear ourselves gumflap?
>
>  
>
> Pt!  All of us are and all of us aren’t.
>
>  
>
> For my own case, I am writing here to develop my thinking, so that
> it may someday coalesce into something that I publish, with, or
> without, others.   That that enterprise is not entirely nug

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[Marcus Daniels]

I don’t think it holds up.   People delay gratification to save money or 
complete needed tasks.   People put on vests full of explosives and blow 
themselves up in the name of abstractions.   Actually I think the feelings can 
be quantified with some machine learning and an appropriate array of sensors.   
There is no hard problem.

From: Friam  On Behalf Of thompnicks...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 1:32 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

Great.  That is indeed the weakest point in my argument.  It is the central 
argument of Sober and Wilson’s UNTO 
OTHERS<https://www.amazon.com/Unto-Others-Evolution-Psychology-Unselfish/dp/0674930479/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=wilson+and+sober+unto+others&qid=1631822440&sr=8-1https://www.bing.com/search?q=amazon+com&form=IENTNB&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&msnews=1&refig=01d8e6a6f68f4e79c1b939b52a4e26a6&sp=1&ghc=1&filters=ufn%3A%22amazon+com%22+sid%3A%22ce00286a-e903-ff2c-7dac-b49bd707399c%22&qs=MB&pq=ama&sc=8-3&cvid=01d8e6a6f68f4e79c1b939b52a4e26a6>.
  I hate (and have done so repeatedly in print) confusing tautologies with 
statements of fact.  So this is indeed my petard your are threatening to hoist 
me on.

First, let me stipulate that there are pain motives, and that pain is not the 
cessation of pleasure, nor pleasure the cessation of pain.  I assume that that 
stipulation will not change your question, right?

Hearing me try to wiggle out of the tautology problem will require a lot of 
patience of you.  It will lead us into the dreadful confusion of “the hard 
problem” and “effing the ineffable”.  Only for the strong of heart.  I predict 
that you will say, at some point, “Nick, you are confusing what a feeling does 
with what a feeling is, and only I can know what my feelings are.”  And I will 
say, “No. No.  That is nonsense, Marcus, and even you know it.  Anybody who has 
ever been married or even owned a dog knows that others can often gauge 
feelings better than the feeling-owner.”  And you will reply, “No, no, 
Nicholas, you idiot.  Yours will be a INFERENCE of my feelings; I know my own 
feelings directly, without inference.”  And I will say, “No. No, Marcus.  A 
thousand experiments in psychology will demonstrate that the feeling owner is 
often wrong about his own feelings.”  And notice that I am at that point edging 
you up to the tautology line because one way to define feelings that ends the 
argument is to say that my feelings just are those experiences that I and I 
alone can know uniquely.   Frank and Bruce Simon and I have been over this 
ground a gazillion times.

It’s possible we can avoid it, but I don’t think so.  To test the proposition, 
ask yourself: if we stripped the notion of pleasure of all association with how 
a pleasure feels uniquely and momentarily to you, would you still raise the 
question you do.  Would you still ask,

“Does all conscious (even synthetic) life need to be driven by a pleasure 
motive?   This seems to be Nick’s claim.   I expect the way this argument plays 
out is that, e.g., altruism is defined to “feel good”.  It is tautological.
"
If that question disappears for you under those circumstances, then I can 
simply admit that a pleasure is just the behavioral transition that occurs upon 
the achievement of set of circumstances, and escape the tautology by defining  
a goal as the organization of behavior that points to a set of circumstances.

So.  Where are we an the socalled Hard Problem.  I know you have probably said, 
but, to be honest, I don’t remember.

Nick

Nick Thompson
thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On 
Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 3:48 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

Does all conscious (even synthetic) life need to be driven by a pleasure 
motive?   This seems to be Nick’s claim.   I expect the way this argument plays 
out is that, e.g., altruism is defined to “feel good”.  It is tautological.

On Sep 16, 2021, at 12:22 PM, 
thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote:


some of us might be writing only to hear ourselves gumflap?

Pt!  All of us are and all of us aren’t.

For my own case, I am writing here to develop my thinking, so that it may 
someday coalesce into something that I publish, with, or without, others.   
That that enterprise is not entirely nugatory is evident in my writing which is 
both stable and evolving and usually does involve others.

I stipulate that you all may be being forced to serve in a cause you may not 
have signed up for.  I guess this is the point where a glen would say, “Live 
with it!”

n

Nick Thompson
tho

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[thompnickson2]

Great.  That is indeed the weakest point in my argument.  It is the central 
argument of Sober and Wilson’s UNTO OTHERS 
<https://www.amazon.com/Unto-Others-Evolution-Psychology-Unselfish/dp/0674930479/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=wilson+and+sober+unto+others&qid=1631822440&sr=8-1https://www.bing.com/search?q=amazon+com&form=IENTNB&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&msnews=1&refig=01d8e6a6f68f4e79c1b939b52a4e26a6&sp=1&ghc=1&filters=ufn%3A%22amazon+com%22+sid%3A%22ce00286a-e903-ff2c-7dac-b49bd707399c%22&qs=MB&pq=ama&sc=8-3&cvid=01d8e6a6f68f4e79c1b939b52a4e26a6>
 .  I hate (and have done so repeatedly in print) confusing tautologies with 
statements of fact.  So this is indeed my petard your are threatening to hoist 
me on. 

 

First, let me stipulate that there are pain motives, and that pain is not the 
cessation of pleasure, nor pleasure the cessation of pain.  I assume that that 
stipulation will not change your question, right? 

 

Hearing me try to wiggle out of the tautology problem will require a lot of 
patience of you.  It will lead us into the dreadful confusion of “the hard 
problem” and “effing the ineffable”.  Only for the strong of heart.  I predict 
that you will say, at some point, “Nick, you are confusing what a feeling does 
with what a feeling is, and only I can know what my feelings are.”  And I will 
say, “No. No.  That is nonsense, Marcus, and even you know it.  Anybody who has 
ever been married or even owned a dog knows that others can often gauge 
feelings better than the feeling-owner.”  And you will reply, “No, no, 
Nicholas, you idiot.  Yours will be a INFERENCE of my feelings; I know my own 
feelings directly, without inference.”  And I will say, “No. No, Marcus.  A 
thousand experiments in psychology will demonstrate that the feeling owner is 
often wrong about his own feelings.”  And notice that I am at that point edging 
you up to the tautology line because one way to define feelings that ends the 
argument is to say that my feelings just are those experiences that I and I 
alone can know uniquely.   Frank and Bruce Simon and I have been over this 
ground a gazillion times. 

 

It’s possible we can avoid it, but I don’t think so.  To test the proposition, 
ask yourself: if we stripped the notion of pleasure of all association with how 
a pleasure feels uniquely and momentarily to you, would you still raise the 
question you do.  Would you still ask,

 

“Does all conscious (even synthetic) life need to be driven by a pleasure 
motive?   This seems to be Nick’s claim.   I expect the way this argument plays 
out is that, e.g., altruism is defined to “feel good”.  It is tautological.

"

If that question disappears for you under those circumstances, then I can 
simply admit that a pleasure is just the behavioral transition that occurs upon 
the achievement of set of circumstances, and escape the tautology by defining  
a goal as the organization of behavior that points to a set of circumstances.  

 

So.  Where are we an the socalled Hard Problem.  I know you have probably said, 
but, to be honest, I don’t remember.

 

Nick

 

Nick Thompson

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 3:48 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

 

Does all conscious (even synthetic) life need to be driven by a pleasure 
motive?   This seems to be Nick’s claim.   I expect the way this argument plays 
out is that, e.g., altruism is defined to “feel good”.  It is tautological.





On Sep 16, 2021, at 12:22 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com 
<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>  wrote:

 

some of us might be writing only to hear ourselves gumflap?

 

Pt!  All of us are and all of us aren’t.

 

For my own case, I am writing here to develop my thinking, so that it may 
someday coalesce into something that I publish, with, or without, others.   
That that enterprise is not entirely nugatory is evident in my writing which is 
both stable and evolving and usually does involve others.  

 

I stipulate that you all may be being forced to serve in a cause you may not 
have signed up for.  I guess this is the point where a glen would say, “Live 
with it!”

 

n

 

Nick Thompson

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On 
Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 3:06 PM
To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

 

 

On 9/16/21 10:35 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>  
wrote:

Just so’s you know, 

 

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[Marcus Daniels]

There are primary and secondary ICD-10 codes for cause of death, there might be 
some double counting.

From: Friam  On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 1:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

Yes, I wondered if anyone else enjoyed that as much as I did.


On Sep 17, 2021, at 1:15 AM, Roger Critchlow 
mailto:r...@elf.org>> wrote:

sum(reasons_for_death) != number_of_deaths, and Death itself is listed as a 
reported cause of death.

-- rec --

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 12:01 PM Pieter Steenekamp 
mailto:piet...@randcontrols.co.za>> wrote:
For what it's worth, from table S4 in the supplementary data 
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/2021.07.28.21261159/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.medrxiv.org%2fcontent%2fmedrxiv%2fearly%2f2021%2f07%2f28%2f2021.07.28.21261159%2fDC1%2fembed%2fmedia-1.pdf&c=E,1,6VfStpuSzrEd0AAiOsShT0R5D3p6OBIjgLpPVffJphF-rw0GBDmGlU5GWImascp4KtBdoqX7fEevwAFa0itV31yZ6ORM__prytVuyeBn&typo=1>

Reported Cause of Death   BNT162b2 (N=21,926) Placebo (N=21,921)
Deaths15
 14
Acute respiratory failure  0
   1
Aortic rupture  0   
 1
Arteriosclerosis   2
0
Biliary cancer metastatic0  
  1
COVID-19  0 
   2
COVID-19 pneumonia   1  
  0
Cardiac arrest4 
   1
Cardiac failure congestive 1
0
Cardiorespiratory arrest 1  
  1
Chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease  1  
  0
Death 0 
   1
Dementia   0
1
Emphysematous cholecystitis   1 
0
Hemorrhagic stroke   0  
   1
Hypertensive heart disease  1   
   0
Lung cancer metastatic1 
  0
Metastases to liver   0 
  1
Missing 0   
1
Multiple organ dysfunction
syndrome 0  
  2
Myocardial infarction0  
  2
Overdose 0  
  1
Pneumonia   0   
 2
Sepsis  1   
 0
Septic shock 1  
 0
Shigella sepsis 1   
0
Unevaluable event   1   
0

On Thu, 16 Sept 2021 at 17:37, Frank Wimberly 
mailto:wimber...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Pittsburgh irony:  Ooh.  Yinz are rill tough.  I'm skeered.  Cf. Kasich, who is 
from McKees Rocks which is across the river from "dahntahn" Pittsburgh.

Yinz = "you ones" similar to "y'all" in the South.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 8:41 AM 
mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Then we can say with a 99% probability that the vaccination does not increase 
the total  (again all causes) death rate with more than a factor of 1.6.
Oh I am so glad.  So reassuring*.

You guys are scaring the total crap out of us citizens.

N

PS to Frank.  There’s lot’s of irony in Pittsburgh.  I count on you to 
recognize it.
Nick Thompson
thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[Marcus Daniels]

Does all conscious (even synthetic) life need to be driven by a pleasure 
motive?   This seems to be Nick’s claim.   I expect the way this argument plays 
out is that, e.g., altruism is defined to “feel good”.  It is tautological.

On Sep 16, 2021, at 12:22 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:



some of us might be writing only to hear ourselves gumflap?

Pt!  All of us are and all of us aren’t.

For my own case, I am writing here to develop my thinking, so that it may 
someday coalesce into something that I publish, with, or without, others.   
That that enterprise is not entirely nugatory is evident in my writing which is 
both stable and evolving and usually does involve others.

I stipulate that you all may be being forced to serve in a cause you may not 
have signed up for.  I guess this is the point where a glen would say, “Live 
with it!”

n

Nick Thompson
thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 3:06 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?



On 9/16/21 10:35 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> 
wrote:
Just so’s you know,

I took it from this email thread, where it pretty much stood alone.

And remember.  Y ou (we) aren’t just writing to one another.  You (we) are 
writing to 300 other people.

And according to Glen a few threads in the weft-weave back, some of us might be 
writing only to hear ourselves gumflap?   I think that (his characterization or 
my characterization of his characterization or both) might be hyperbolic.



.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[thompnickson2]

some of us might be writing only to hear ourselves gumflap?

 

Pt!  All of us are and all of us aren’t.

 

For my own case, I am writing here to develop my thinking, so that it may 
someday coalesce into something that I publish, with, or without, others.   
That that enterprise is not entirely nugatory is evident in my writing which is 
both stable and evolving and usually does involve others.  

 

I stipulate that you all may be being forced to serve in a cause you may not 
have signed up for.  I guess this is the point where a glen would say, “Live 
with it!”

 

n

 

Nick Thompson

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 3:06 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

 

 

On 9/16/21 10:35 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>  
wrote:

Just so’s you know, 

 

I took it from this email thread, where it pretty much stood alone. 

 

And remember.  Y ou (we) aren’t just writing to one another.  You (we) are 
writing to 300 other people.

And according to Glen a few threads in the weft-weave back, some of us might be 
writing only to hear ourselves gumflap?   I think that (his characterization or 
my characterization of his characterization or both) might be hyperbolic.

 


.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[Steve Smith]

On 9/16/21 10:35 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Just so’s you know,
>
>  
>
> I took it from this email thread, where it pretty much stood alone.
>
>  
>
> And remember.  Y ou (we) aren’t just writing to one another.  You (we)
> are writing to 300 other people.
>
And according to Glen a few threads in the weft-weave back, some of us
might be writing only to hear ourselves gumflap?   I think that (his
characterization or my characterization of his characterization or both)
might be hyperbolic.



.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[Marcus Daniels]

And you can see that there are two deaths for the placebo and none for 
BNT162b2.There was a low death rate in this cohort, period, and essentially 
an unmeasurable signal for COVID caused death.

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 10:17 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

Marcus,

The data are fresh from the horse's mouth, Phizer themselves.
Their main report 
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full.pdf and
their supplementary data 
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/2021.07.28.21261159/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf

Maybe you want to read the very first email in this thread again?

Pieter

On Thu, 16 Sept 2021 at 18:37, 
mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Just so’s you know,

I took it from this email thread, where it pretty much stood alone.

And remember.  Y ou (we) aren’t just writing to one another.  You (we) are 
writing to 300 other people.

n

Nick Thompson
thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On 
Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 12:32 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

Trials are done in phases.  First they have to establish that the treatment 
does no harm.  That’s what this was about.   Some anti-vax jerk probably dug up 
this reference and started quoting it out of context, like you are.

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On 
Behalf Of thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 9:28 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

You guys keep proving my point about the 100th Meridian and irony.

Would any of you buy a seat belt that was marketed to not cause deaths?   You 
are so lost in your point about small numbers that you’ve lost your sense of 
the plain meaning of words.  Sheesh!

n

Nick Thompson
thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On 
Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 12:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

sum(reasons_for_death) != number_of_deaths, and Death itself is listed as a 
reported cause of death.

-- rec --

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 12:01 PM Pieter Steenekamp 
mailto:piet...@randcontrols.co.za>> wrote:
For what it's worth, from table S4 in the supplementary data 
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/2021.07.28.21261159/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf

Reported Cause of Death   BNT162b2 (N=21,926) Placebo (N=21,921)
Deaths15
 14
Acute respiratory failure  0
   1
Aortic rupture  0   
 1
Arteriosclerosis   2
0
Biliary cancer metastatic0  
  1
COVID-19  0 
   2
COVID-19 pneumonia   1  
  0
Cardiac arrest4 
   1
Cardiac failure congestive 1
0
Cardiorespiratory arrest 1  
  1
Chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease  1  
  0
Death 0 
   1
Dementia   0
1
Emphysematous cholecystitis   1 
0
Hemorrhagic stroke   0  
   1
Hypertensive heart disease  1   
   0
Lung cancer metastatic1 
  0
Metastases to liver   0 
  1
Missing 0   

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[Pieter Steenekamp]

Marcus,

The data are fresh from the horse's mouth, Phizer themselves.
Their main report
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full.pdf and
their supplementary data
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/2021.07.28.21261159/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf

Maybe you want to read the very first email in this thread again?

Pieter

On Thu, 16 Sept 2021 at 18:37,  wrote:

> Just so’s you know,
>
>
>
> I took it from this email thread, where it pretty much stood alone.
>
>
>
> And remember.  Y ou (we) aren’t just writing to one another.  You (we) are
> writing to 300 other people.
>
>
>
> n
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Marcus Daniels
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 16, 2021 12:32 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?
>
>
>
> Trials are done in phases.  First they have to establish that the
> treatment does no harm.  That’s what this was about.   Some anti-vax jerk
> probably dug up this reference and started quoting it out of context, like
> you are.
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 16, 2021 9:28 AM
> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?
>
>
>
> You guys keep proving my point about the 100th Meridian and irony.
>
>
>
> Would any of you buy a seat belt that was marketed to not cause deaths?
> You are so lost in your point about small numbers that you’ve lost your
> sense of the plain meaning of words.  Sheesh!
>
>
>
> n
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Roger Critchlow
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 16, 2021 12:16 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?
>
>
>
> sum(reasons_for_death) != number_of_deaths, and Death itself is listed as
> a reported cause of death.
>
>
>
> -- rec --
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 12:01 PM Pieter Steenekamp <
> piet...@randcontrols.co.za> wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, from table S4 in the supplementary data
> https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/2021.07.28.21261159/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf
>
> Reported Cause of Death   BNT162b2 (N=21,926) Placebo
> (N=21,921)
> Deaths15
>14
> Acute respiratory failure  0
>  1
> Aortic rupture  0
>   1
> Arteriosclerosis   2
>   0
> Biliary cancer metastatic0
> 1
> COVID-19  0
> 2
> COVID-19 pneumonia   1
> 0
> Cardiac arrest4
> 1
> Cardiac failure congestive 1
>   0
> Cardiorespiratory arrest 1
> 1
> Chronic obstructive pulmonary
> disease  1
> 0
> Death 0
> 1
> Dementia   0
>   1
> Emphysematous cholecystitis   1
>  0
> Hemorrhagic stroke   0
>  1
> Hypertensive heart disease  1
> 0
> Lung cancer metastatic1
>0
> Metastases to liver   0
>1
> Missing 0
>  1
> Multiple organ dysfunction
> syndrome 0
> 2
> Myocardial infarction0
> 2
> Overdose 0
> 1
> Pneumonia   0
>   2
> Sepsis  1
>   0
> Septic sh

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[thompnickson2]

Just so’s you know, 

 

I took it from this email thread, where it pretty much stood alone. 

 

And remember.  Y ou (we) aren’t just writing to one another.  You (we) are 
writing to 300 other people.  

 

n

 

Nick Thompson

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 12:32 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

 

Trials are done in phases.  First they have to establish that the treatment 
does no harm.  That’s what this was about.   Some anti-vax jerk probably dug up 
this reference and started quoting it out of context, like you are.

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On 
Behalf Of thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 9:28 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

 

You guys keep proving my point about the 100th Meridian and irony.

 

Would any of you buy a seat belt that was marketed to not cause deaths?   You 
are so lost in your point about small numbers that you’ve lost your sense of 
the plain meaning of words.  Sheesh!

 

n

 

Nick Thompson

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On 
Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 12:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

 

sum(reasons_for_death) != number_of_deaths, and Death itself is listed as a 
reported cause of death.

 

-- rec --

 

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 12:01 PM Pieter Steenekamp mailto:piet...@randcontrols.co.za> > wrote:

For what it's worth, from table S4 in the supplementary data 
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/2021.07.28.21261159/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf

Reported Cause of Death   BNT162b2 (N=21,926) Placebo (N=21,921)  
Deaths15
 14 
Acute respiratory failure  0
   1 
Aortic rupture  0   
 1 
Arteriosclerosis   2
0 
Biliary cancer metastatic0  
  1 
COVID-19  0 
   2 
COVID-19 pneumonia   1  
  0 
Cardiac arrest4 
   1 
Cardiac failure congestive 1
0 
Cardiorespiratory arrest 1  
  1 
Chronic obstructive pulmonary 
disease  1  
  0 
Death 0 
   1 
Dementia   0
1 
Emphysematous cholecystitis   1 
0 
Hemorrhagic stroke   0  
   1 
Hypertensive heart disease  1   
   0 
Lung cancer metastatic1 
  0 
Metastases to liver   0 
  1 
Missing 0   
1 
Multiple organ dysfunction 
syndrome 0  
  2 
Myocardial infarction0  
  2 
Overdose 0  
  1 
Pneumonia   0   
 2 
Sepsis  1   
 0 
Septic shock 1  
 0 
Shigella sepsis   

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[Marcus Daniels]

Trials are done in phases.  First they have to establish that the treatment 
does no harm.  That’s what this was about.   Some anti-vax jerk probably dug up 
this reference and started quoting it out of context, like you are.

From: Friam  On Behalf Of thompnicks...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 9:28 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

You guys keep proving my point about the 100th Meridian and irony.

Would any of you buy a seat belt that was marketed to not cause deaths?   You 
are so lost in your point about small numbers that you’ve lost your sense of 
the plain meaning of words.  Sheesh!

n

Nick Thompson
thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On 
Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 12:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

sum(reasons_for_death) != number_of_deaths, and Death itself is listed as a 
reported cause of death.

-- rec --

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 12:01 PM Pieter Steenekamp 
mailto:piet...@randcontrols.co.za>> wrote:
For what it's worth, from table S4 in the supplementary data 
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/2021.07.28.21261159/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf

Reported Cause of Death   BNT162b2 (N=21,926) Placebo (N=21,921)
Deaths15
 14
Acute respiratory failure  0
   1
Aortic rupture  0   
 1
Arteriosclerosis   2
0
Biliary cancer metastatic0  
  1
COVID-19  0 
   2
COVID-19 pneumonia   1  
  0
Cardiac arrest4 
   1
Cardiac failure congestive 1
0
Cardiorespiratory arrest 1  
  1
Chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease  1  
  0
Death 0 
   1
Dementia   0
1
Emphysematous cholecystitis   1 
0
Hemorrhagic stroke   0  
   1
Hypertensive heart disease  1   
   0
Lung cancer metastatic1 
  0
Metastases to liver   0 
  1
Missing 0   
1
Multiple organ dysfunction
syndrome 0  
  2
Myocardial infarction0  
  2
Overdose 0  
  1
Pneumonia   0   
 2
Sepsis  1   
 0
Septic shock 1  
 0
Shigella sepsis 1   
0
Unevaluable event   1   
0

On Thu, 16 Sept 2021 at 17:37, Frank Wimberly 
mailto:wimber...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Pittsburgh irony:  Ooh.  Yinz are rill tough.  I'm skeered.  Cf. Kasich, who is 
from McKees Rocks which is across the river from "dahntahn" Pittsburgh.

Yinz = "you ones" similar to "y'all" in the South.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 8:41 AM 
mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Then we can say with a 99% probability that the vaccination does not increase 
the total  (again all causes) death rate with more than a factor of 1.6.
Oh I am s

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[thompnickson2]

You guys keep proving my point about the 100th Meridian and irony.

 

Would any of you buy a seat belt that was marketed to not cause deaths?   You 
are so lost in your point about small numbers that you’ve lost your sense of 
the plain meaning of words.  Sheesh!

 

n

 

Nick Thompson

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 12:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

 

sum(reasons_for_death) != number_of_deaths, and Death itself is listed as a 
reported cause of death.

 

-- rec --

 

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 12:01 PM Pieter Steenekamp mailto:piet...@randcontrols.co.za> > wrote:

For what it's worth, from table S4 in the supplementary data 
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/2021.07.28.21261159/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf

Reported Cause of Death   BNT162b2 (N=21,926) Placebo (N=21,921)  
Deaths15
 14 
Acute respiratory failure  0
   1 
Aortic rupture  0   
 1 
Arteriosclerosis   2
0 
Biliary cancer metastatic0  
  1 
COVID-19  0 
   2 
COVID-19 pneumonia   1  
  0 
Cardiac arrest4 
   1 
Cardiac failure congestive 1
0 
Cardiorespiratory arrest 1  
  1 
Chronic obstructive pulmonary 
disease  1  
  0 
Death 0 
   1 
Dementia   0
1 
Emphysematous cholecystitis   1 
0 
Hemorrhagic stroke   0  
   1 
Hypertensive heart disease  1   
   0 
Lung cancer metastatic1 
  0 
Metastases to liver   0 
  1 
Missing 0   
1 
Multiple organ dysfunction 
syndrome 0  
  2 
Myocardial infarction0  
  2 
Overdose 0  
  1 
Pneumonia   0   
 2 
Sepsis  1   
 0 
Septic shock 1  
 0 
Shigella sepsis 1   
0 
Unevaluable event   1   
0

 

On Thu, 16 Sept 2021 at 17:37, Frank Wimberly mailto:wimber...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Pittsburgh irony:  Ooh.  Yinz are rill tough.  I'm skeered.  Cf. Kasich, who is 
from McKees Rocks which is across the river from "dahntahn" Pittsburgh.

 

Yinz = "you ones" similar to "y'all" in the South.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz, 
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

 

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 8:41 AM mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Then we can say with a 99% probability that the vaccination does not increase 
the total  (again all causes) death rate with more than a factor of 1.6.

Oh I am so glad.  So reassuring*.  

 

You guys are scaring the total crap out of us citizens.  

 

N

 

PS to Frank.  There’s lot’s of irony in Pittsburgh.  I count on you to 
recognize it.  

Nick Thompson

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[Roger Critchlow]

sum(reasons_for_death) != number_of_deaths, and Death itself is listed as a
reported cause of death.

-- rec --

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 12:01 PM Pieter Steenekamp <
piet...@randcontrols.co.za> wrote:

> For what it's worth, from table S4 in the supplementary data
> https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/2021.07.28.21261159/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf
>
> Reported Cause of Death   BNT162b2 (N=21,926) Placebo
> (N=21,921)
> Deaths15
>14
> Acute respiratory failure  0
>  1
> Aortic rupture  0
>   1
> Arteriosclerosis   2
>   0
> Biliary cancer metastatic0
> 1
> COVID-19  0
> 2
> COVID-19 pneumonia   1
> 0
> Cardiac arrest4
> 1
> Cardiac failure congestive 1
>   0
> Cardiorespiratory arrest 1
> 1
> Chronic obstructive pulmonary
> disease  1
> 0
> Death 0
> 1
> Dementia   0
>   1
> Emphysematous cholecystitis   1
>  0
> Hemorrhagic stroke   0
>  1
> Hypertensive heart disease  1
> 0
> Lung cancer metastatic1
>0
> Metastases to liver   0
>1
> Missing 0
>  1
> Multiple organ dysfunction
> syndrome 0
> 2
> Myocardial infarction0
> 2
> Overdose 0
> 1
> Pneumonia   0
>   2
> Sepsis  1
>   0
> Septic shock 1
>0
> Shigella sepsis 1
>  0
> Unevaluable event   1
>  0
>
> On Thu, 16 Sept 2021 at 17:37, Frank Wimberly  wrote:
>
>> Pittsburgh irony:  Ooh.  Yinz are rill tough.  I'm skeered.  Cf. Kasich,
>> who is from McKees Rocks which is across the river from "dahntahn"
>> Pittsburgh.
>>
>> Yinz = "you ones" similar to "y'all" in the South.
>>
>> ---
>> Frank C. Wimberly
>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
>> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>>
>> 505 670-9918
>> Santa Fe, NM
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 8:41 AM  wrote:
>>
>>> Then we can say with a 99% probability that the vaccination does not
>>> increase the total  (again all causes) death rate with more than a factor
>>> of 1.6.
>>>
>>> Oh I am so glad.  So reassuring*.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You guys are scaring the total crap out of us citizens.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> N
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> PS to Frank.  There’s lot’s of irony in Pittsburgh.  I count on you to
>>> recognize it.
>>>
>>> Nick Thompson
>>>
>>> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>>>
>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Pieter
>>> Steenekamp
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 16, 2021 7:34 AM
>>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>> friam@redfish.com>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you Roger,
>>>
>>> Using the numbers from Phizer's report, I did a sort of quick and dirty
>>> manual iteration process to get to the following Monte Carlo testing
>>> conclusion
>>>
>>> If:
>>> a) the total death rate of the unvaccinated is 14/22000 (all causes) and
>>> b) a total of 15 out of 22000  (again all causes)  of the vaccinated
>>> group died
>>>

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[Pieter Steenekamp]

For what it's worth, from table S4 in the supplementary data
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/2021.07.28.21261159/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf

Reported Cause of Death   BNT162b2 (N=21,926) Placebo
(N=21,921)
Deaths15
 14
Acute respiratory failure  0
   1
Aortic rupture  0
  1
Arteriosclerosis   2
0
Biliary cancer metastatic0
  1
COVID-19  0
2
COVID-19 pneumonia   1
  0
Cardiac arrest4
1
Cardiac failure congestive 1
0
Cardiorespiratory arrest 1
  1
Chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease  1
  0
Death 0
1
Dementia   0
1
Emphysematous cholecystitis   1
 0
Hemorrhagic stroke   0
   1
Hypertensive heart disease  1
0
Lung cancer metastatic1
   0
Metastases to liver   0
   1
Missing 0
 1
Multiple organ dysfunction
syndrome 0
  2
Myocardial infarction0
  2
Overdose 0
  1
Pneumonia   0
  2
Sepsis  1
  0
Septic shock 1
 0
Shigella sepsis 1
 0
Unevaluable event   1
 0

On Thu, 16 Sept 2021 at 17:37, Frank Wimberly  wrote:

> Pittsburgh irony:  Ooh.  Yinz are rill tough.  I'm skeered.  Cf. Kasich,
> who is from McKees Rocks which is across the river from "dahntahn"
> Pittsburgh.
>
> Yinz = "you ones" similar to "y'all" in the South.
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 8:41 AM  wrote:
>
>> Then we can say with a 99% probability that the vaccination does not
>> increase the total  (again all causes) death rate with more than a factor
>> of 1.6.
>>
>> Oh I am so glad.  So reassuring*.
>>
>>
>>
>> You guys are scaring the total crap out of us citizens.
>>
>>
>>
>> N
>>
>>
>>
>> PS to Frank.  There’s lot’s of irony in Pittsburgh.  I count on you to
>> recognize it.
>>
>> Nick Thompson
>>
>> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>>
>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Pieter
>> Steenekamp
>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 16, 2021 7:34 AM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>> friam@redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you Roger,
>>
>> Using the numbers from Phizer's report, I did a sort of quick and dirty
>> manual iteration process to get to the following Monte Carlo testing
>> conclusion
>>
>> If:
>> a) the total death rate of the unvaccinated is 14/22000 (all causes) and
>> b) a total of 15 out of 22000  (again all causes)  of the vaccinated
>> group died
>> Then we can say with a 99% probability that the vaccination does not
>> increase the total  (again all causes) death rate with more than a factor
>> of 1.6.
>>
>> My Python program to do this is as follows:
>>
>> import random
>> total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=0
>> r=1.6 # manually iterate this number until the answer is less than 100,
>> with 1000 test runs for a probability of 99%
>> numberList = [0, 1] # 0 = live, 1=dead
>> for i in range(1000):
>>   x=(random.choices(numberList, weights=((1-r*14/22000), r*14/22000),
>> k=22000))
>>   if( sum(x)<16):
>>
>> total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16+1
>>
>> print(total_of_tentousand_

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[Frank Wimberly]

Pittsburgh irony:  Ooh.  Yinz are rill tough.  I'm skeered.  Cf. Kasich,
who is from McKees Rocks which is across the river from "dahntahn"
Pittsburgh.

Yinz = "you ones" similar to "y'all" in the South.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 8:41 AM  wrote:

> Then we can say with a 99% probability that the vaccination does not
> increase the total  (again all causes) death rate with more than a factor
> of 1.6.
>
> Oh I am so glad.  So reassuring*.
>
>
>
> You guys are scaring the total crap out of us citizens.
>
>
>
> N
>
>
>
> PS to Frank.  There’s lot’s of irony in Pittsburgh.  I count on you to
> recognize it.
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Pieter Steenekamp
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 16, 2021 7:34 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?
>
>
>
> Thank you Roger,
>
> Using the numbers from Phizer's report, I did a sort of quick and dirty
> manual iteration process to get to the following Monte Carlo testing
> conclusion
>
> If:
> a) the total death rate of the unvaccinated is 14/22000 (all causes) and
> b) a total of 15 out of 22000  (again all causes)  of the vaccinated group
> died
> Then we can say with a 99% probability that the vaccination does not
> increase the total  (again all causes) death rate with more than a factor
> of 1.6.
>
> My Python program to do this is as follows:
>
> import random
> total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=0
> r=1.6 # manually iterate this number until the answer is less than 100,
> with 1000 test runs for a probability of 99%
> numberList = [0, 1] # 0 = live, 1=dead
> for i in range(1000):
>   x=(random.choices(numberList, weights=((1-r*14/22000), r*14/22000),
> k=22000))
>   if( sum(x)<16):
>
> total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16+1
>
> print(total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16)
>
> # iteration tally:
> # with r=1.5 then total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=105
> # with r=1.6 then total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=69
>
>
> Pieter
>
>
>
> On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 22:26, Roger Critchlow  wrote:
>
> Pieter -
>
>
>
> The initial safety and efficacy report was published in the New England
> Journal of Medicine at the end of 2020,
> https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577, it has smoother
> language and inline graphics.  It also has fewer deaths in the treatment
> group than in the control group, but it is only reporting the first two
> months of the study.
>
>
>
> The numbers of deaths reported in the "Adverse Reactions" section of these
> reports will eventually track the expected death rate of the population in
> the trial, and apparently they do, since there is no comment to indicate
> otherwise.   Every clinical trial that tests the safety of a treatment is
> expected to agree with the baseline mortality statistics for the population
> in the trial.
>
>
>
> If you see 14 and 15 deaths out of 22000 participants and your immediate
> response is that 15 is bigger than 14, then you should probably stop
> torturing yourself with statistical data.  You're making and agonizing over
> distinctions that the data can never support.  The number of deaths in a
> population over a period of time has an average value and a variance which
> are found by looking at large populations over long periods of time.  In
> any particular population and period of time there are a lot trajectories
> that the death count can take that will be consistent with the long term
> average even as they wander above and below the average.
>
>
>
> I append a simple simulation in julia that you can think about.
>
>
>
> -- rec --
>
>
>
> # from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
> death_rate = 869.7  # raw deaths per 10 per year
>
>
>
> # simulate the action of a 'death rate' on a population of 'sample'
> individuals for 'days' of time.
>
> # convert the raw death rate to the death_rate_per_individual_per_day, ie
> death_rate/10/365.25,
>
> # allocate an array of size sample*days, size coerced to an integer value,
>
> # fill the array with uniform random numbers.
>
> # if an array value is less than the death rate per person per day, score
> 1 death.
>
> # this overcounts because individuals can be scored as dying more than
&g

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[Marcus Daniels]

Are you being “ironic” again?   You didn’t read the paper.

From: Friam  On Behalf Of thompnicks...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 8:00 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

But that’s not what the passage says!

n

Nick Thompson
thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On 
Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 10:44 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

There are less COVID deaths in the vaccinated group.   The death count includes 
things like car accidents.   No fancy statistical reasoning required.

On Sep 16, 2021, at 7:41 AM, 
thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote:


Then we can say with a 99% probability that the vaccination does not increase 
the total  (again all causes) death rate with more than a factor of 1.6.
Oh I am so glad.  So reassuring*.

You guys are scaring the total crap out of us citizens.

N

PS to Frank.  There’s lot’s of irony in Pittsburgh.  I count on you to 
recognize it.
Nick Thompson
thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On 
Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 7:34 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

Thank you Roger,

Using the numbers from Phizer's report, I did a sort of quick and dirty manual 
iteration process to get to the following Monte Carlo testing conclusion

If:
a) the total death rate of the unvaccinated is 14/22000 (all causes) and
b) a total of 15 out of 22000  (again all causes)  of the vaccinated group died
Then we can say with a 99% probability that the vaccination does not increase 
the total  (again all causes) death rate with more than a factor of 1.6.

My Python program to do this is as follows:
import random
total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=0
r=1.6 # manually iterate this number until the answer is less than 100, with 
1000 test runs for a probability of 99%
numberList = [0, 1] # 0 = live, 1=dead
for i in range(1000):
  x=(random.choices(numberList, weights=((1-r*14/22000), r*14/22000), k=22000))
  if( sum(x)<16):

total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16+1
print(total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16)

# iteration tally:
# with r=1.5 then total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=105
# with r=1.6 then total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=69

Pieter

On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 22:26, Roger Critchlow 
mailto:r...@elf.org>> wrote:
Pieter -

The initial safety and efficacy report was published in the New England Journal 
of Medicine at the end of 2020,  
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577, it has smoother language 
and inline graphics.  It also has fewer deaths in the treatment group than in 
the control group, but it is only reporting the first two months of the study.

The numbers of deaths reported in the "Adverse Reactions" section of these 
reports will eventually track the expected death rate of the population in the 
trial, and apparently they do, since there is no comment to indicate otherwise. 
  Every clinical trial that tests the safety of a treatment is expected to 
agree with the baseline mortality statistics for the population in the trial.

If you see 14 and 15 deaths out of 22000 participants and your immediate 
response is that 15 is bigger than 14, then you should probably stop torturing 
yourself with statistical data.  You're making and agonizing over distinctions 
that the data can never support.  The number of deaths in a population over a 
period of time has an average value and a variance which are found by looking 
at large populations over long periods of time.  In any particular population 
and period of time there are a lot trajectories that the death count can take 
that will be consistent with the long term average even as they wander above 
and below the average.

I append a simple simulation in julia that you can think about.

-- rec --

# from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
death_rate = 869.7  # raw deaths per 10 per year

# simulate the action of a 'death rate' on a population of 'sample' individuals 
for 'days' of time.
# convert the raw death rate to the death_rate_per_individual_per_day, ie 
death_rate/10/365.25,
# allocate an array of size sample*days, size coerced to an integer value,
# fill the array with uniform random numbers.
# if an array value is less than the death rate per person per day, score 1 
death.
# this overcounts because individu

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[thompnickson2]

But that’s not what the passage says! 

 

n

 

Nick Thompson

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 10:44 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

 

There are less COVID deaths in the vaccinated group.   The death count includes 
things like car accidents.   No fancy statistical reasoning required.





On Sep 16, 2021, at 7:41 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com 
<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>  wrote:

 

Then we can say with a 99% probability that the vaccination does not increase 
the total  (again all causes) death rate with more than a factor of 1.6.

Oh I am so glad.  So reassuring*.  

 

You guys are scaring the total crap out of us citizens.  

 

N

 

PS to Frank.  There’s lot’s of irony in Pittsburgh.  I count on you to 
recognize it.  

Nick Thompson

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On 
Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 7:34 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

 

Thank you Roger,

Using the numbers from Phizer's report, I did a sort of quick and dirty manual 
iteration process to get to the following Monte Carlo testing conclusion

If:
a) the total death rate of the unvaccinated is 14/22000 (all causes) and
b) a total of 15 out of 22000  (again all causes)  of the vaccinated group died
Then we can say with a 99% probability that the vaccination does not increase 
the total  (again all causes) death rate with more than a factor of 1.6.

My Python program to do this is as follows:

import random
total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=0
r=1.6 # manually iterate this number until the answer is less than 100, with 
1000 test runs for a probability of 99% 
numberList = [0, 1] # 0 = live, 1=dead
for i in range(1000):
  x=(random.choices(numberList, weights=((1-r*14/22000), r*14/22000), k=22000))
  if( sum(x)<16):

total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16+1

print(total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16)

# iteration tally:
# with r=1.5 then total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=105
# with r=1.6 then total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=69  


Pieter

 

On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 22:26, Roger Critchlow mailto:r...@elf.org> > wrote:

Pieter -

 

The initial safety and efficacy report was published in the New England Journal 
of Medicine at the end of 2020,  
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577, it has smoother language 
and inline graphics.  It also has fewer deaths in the treatment group than in 
the control group, but it is only reporting the first two months of the study.

 

The numbers of deaths reported in the "Adverse Reactions" section of these 
reports will eventually track the expected death rate of the population in the 
trial, and apparently they do, since there is no comment to indicate otherwise. 
  Every clinical trial that tests the safety of a treatment is expected to 
agree with the baseline mortality statistics for the population in the trial.

 

If you see 14 and 15 deaths out of 22000 participants and your immediate 
response is that 15 is bigger than 14, then you should probably stop torturing 
yourself with statistical data.  You're making and agonizing over distinctions 
that the data can never support.  The number of deaths in a population over a 
period of time has an average value and a variance which are found by looking 
at large populations over long periods of time.  In any particular population 
and period of time there are a lot trajectories that the death count can take 
that will be consistent with the long term average even as they wander above 
and below the average.

 

I append a simple simulation in julia that you can think about.

 

-- rec --

 

# from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
death_rate = 869.7  # raw deaths per 10 per year

 

# simulate the action of a 'death rate' on a population of 'sample' individuals 
for 'days' of time.

# convert the raw death rate to the death_rate_per_individual_per_day, ie 
death_rate/10/365.25,

# allocate an array of size sample*days, size coerced to an integer value,

# fill the array with uniform random numbers.

# if an array value is less than the death rate per person per day, score 1 
death.

# this overcounts because individuals can be scored as dying more than once, 
YODO!

 

simulate(death_rate, sample, days) =
sum(rand(Int(sample*days)) .< death_rate/1000

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[Marcus Daniels]

There are less COVID deaths in the vaccinated group.   The death count includes 
things like car accidents.   No fancy statistical reasoning required.

On Sep 16, 2021, at 7:41 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:



Then we can say with a 99% probability that the vaccination does not increase 
the total  (again all causes) death rate with more than a factor of 1.6.
Oh I am so glad.  So reassuring*.

You guys are scaring the total crap out of us citizens.

N

PS to Frank.  There’s lot’s of irony in Pittsburgh.  I count on you to 
recognize it.
Nick Thompson
thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 7:34 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

Thank you Roger,

Using the numbers from Phizer's report, I did a sort of quick and dirty manual 
iteration process to get to the following Monte Carlo testing conclusion

If:
a) the total death rate of the unvaccinated is 14/22000 (all causes) and
b) a total of 15 out of 22000  (again all causes)  of the vaccinated group died
Then we can say with a 99% probability that the vaccination does not increase 
the total  (again all causes) death rate with more than a factor of 1.6.

My Python program to do this is as follows:
import random
total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=0
r=1.6 # manually iterate this number until the answer is less than 100, with 
1000 test runs for a probability of 99%
numberList = [0, 1] # 0 = live, 1=dead
for i in range(1000):
  x=(random.choices(numberList, weights=((1-r*14/22000), r*14/22000), k=22000))
  if( sum(x)<16):

total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16+1
print(total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16)

# iteration tally:
# with r=1.5 then total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=105
# with r=1.6 then total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=69

Pieter

On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 22:26, Roger Critchlow 
mailto:r...@elf.org>> wrote:
Pieter -

The initial safety and efficacy report was published in the New England Journal 
of Medicine at the end of 2020,  
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577, it has smoother language 
and inline graphics.  It also has fewer deaths in the treatment group than in 
the control group, but it is only reporting the first two months of the study.

The numbers of deaths reported in the "Adverse Reactions" section of these 
reports will eventually track the expected death rate of the population in the 
trial, and apparently they do, since there is no comment to indicate otherwise. 
  Every clinical trial that tests the safety of a treatment is expected to 
agree with the baseline mortality statistics for the population in the trial.

If you see 14 and 15 deaths out of 22000 participants and your immediate 
response is that 15 is bigger than 14, then you should probably stop torturing 
yourself with statistical data.  You're making and agonizing over distinctions 
that the data can never support.  The number of deaths in a population over a 
period of time has an average value and a variance which are found by looking 
at large populations over long periods of time.  In any particular population 
and period of time there are a lot trajectories that the death count can take 
that will be consistent with the long term average even as they wander above 
and below the average.

I append a simple simulation in julia that you can think about.

-- rec --

# from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
death_rate = 869.7  # raw deaths per 10 per year

# simulate the action of a 'death rate' on a population of 'sample' individuals 
for 'days' of time.
# convert the raw death rate to the death_rate_per_individual_per_day, ie 
death_rate/10/365.25,
# allocate an array of size sample*days, size coerced to an integer value,
# fill the array with uniform random numbers.
# if an array value is less than the death rate per person per day, score 1 
death.
# this overcounts because individuals can be scored as dying more than once, 
YODO!

simulate(death_rate, sample, days) =
sum(rand(Int(sample*days)) .< death_rate/10/365.25)

# accumulate an ensemble of death rate simulation results.
# run 'trials' simulations of 'death_rate' for 'sample' individuals for 'days' 
time.
# accumulate an array with the number of deaths in each simulation
accumulate(death_rate, sample, days, trials) =
[simulate(death_rate, sample, days) for i in 1:trials]

# check the model: run the simulation with death_rate for 10 individuals 
and 365.25 days,
# the result averaged over multiple simulations should tend to the original 
death_rate.
# we report the mean and standard error of the accumulated death counts
julia> mean_and_std(accumulate(dea

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[thompnickson2]

Then we can say with a 99% probability that the vaccination does not increase 
the total  (again all causes) death rate with more than a factor of 1.6.

Oh I am so glad.  So reassuring*.  

 

You guys are scaring the total crap out of us citizens.  

 

N

 

PS to Frank.  There’s lot’s of irony in Pittsburgh.  I count on you to 
recognize it.  

Nick Thompson

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 7:34 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

 

Thank you Roger,

Using the numbers from Phizer's report, I did a sort of quick and dirty manual 
iteration process to get to the following Monte Carlo testing conclusion

If:
a) the total death rate of the unvaccinated is 14/22000 (all causes) and
b) a total of 15 out of 22000  (again all causes)  of the vaccinated group died
Then we can say with a 99% probability that the vaccination does not increase 
the total  (again all causes) death rate with more than a factor of 1.6.

My Python program to do this is as follows:

import random
total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=0
r=1.6 # manually iterate this number until the answer is less than 100, with 
1000 test runs for a probability of 99% 
numberList = [0, 1] # 0 = live, 1=dead
for i in range(1000):
  x=(random.choices(numberList, weights=((1-r*14/22000), r*14/22000), k=22000))
  if( sum(x)<16):

total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16+1

print(total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16)

# iteration tally:
# with r=1.5 then total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=105
# with r=1.6 then total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=69  


Pieter

 

On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 22:26, Roger Critchlow mailto:r...@elf.org> > wrote:

Pieter -

 

The initial safety and efficacy report was published in the New England Journal 
of Medicine at the end of 2020,  
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577, it has smoother language 
and inline graphics.  It also has fewer deaths in the treatment group than in 
the control group, but it is only reporting the first two months of the study.

 

The numbers of deaths reported in the "Adverse Reactions" section of these 
reports will eventually track the expected death rate of the population in the 
trial, and apparently they do, since there is no comment to indicate otherwise. 
  Every clinical trial that tests the safety of a treatment is expected to 
agree with the baseline mortality statistics for the population in the trial.

 

If you see 14 and 15 deaths out of 22000 participants and your immediate 
response is that 15 is bigger than 14, then you should probably stop torturing 
yourself with statistical data.  You're making and agonizing over distinctions 
that the data can never support.  The number of deaths in a population over a 
period of time has an average value and a variance which are found by looking 
at large populations over long periods of time.  In any particular population 
and period of time there are a lot trajectories that the death count can take 
that will be consistent with the long term average even as they wander above 
and below the average.

 

I append a simple simulation in julia that you can think about.

 

-- rec --

 

# from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
death_rate = 869.7  # raw deaths per 10 per year

 

# simulate the action of a 'death rate' on a population of 'sample' individuals 
for 'days' of time.

# convert the raw death rate to the death_rate_per_individual_per_day, ie 
death_rate/10/365.25,

# allocate an array of size sample*days, size coerced to an integer value,

# fill the array with uniform random numbers.

# if an array value is less than the death rate per person per day, score 1 
death.

# this overcounts because individuals can be scored as dying more than once, 
YODO!

 

simulate(death_rate, sample, days) =
sum(rand(Int(sample*days)) .< death_rate/10/365.25)

 

# accumulate an ensemble of death rate simulation results.

# run 'trials' simulations of 'death_rate' for 'sample' individuals for 'days' 
time.

# accumulate an array with the number of deaths in each simulation

accumulate(death_rate, sample, days, trials) =
[simulate(death_rate, sample, days) for i in 1:trials]

 

# check the model: run the simulation with death_rate for 10 individuals 
and 365.25 days,

# the result averaged over multiple simulations should tend to the original 
death_rate.

# we report the mean and standard error of the accumulated death counts

julia> mean_and_std(accumulate(death_rate, 10, 365.25, 50))
(868.34, 31.64188002361066)

# That's in the ball p

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[Roger Critchlow]

Excellent, this is something that one can demonstrate for oneself, no need
to take the experts at their word, check their work.

This is something that Andrew Gelman is always repeating on his blog,
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/: if you aren't sure what the
statistics is telling you, then simulate it until you do.

My julia program was missing a "using StatsBase" statement needed to import
the mean_and_std() function.

-- rec --


On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 7:35 AM Pieter Steenekamp <
piet...@randcontrols.co.za> wrote:

> Thank you Roger,
>
> Using the numbers from Phizer's report, I did a sort of quick and dirty
> manual iteration process to get to the following Monte Carlo testing
> conclusion
>
> If:
> a) the total death rate of the unvaccinated is 14/22000 (all causes) and
> b) a total of 15 out of 22000  (again all causes)  of the vaccinated group
> died
> Then we can say with a 99% probability that the vaccination does not
> increase the total  (again all causes) death rate with more than a factor
> of 1.6.
>
> My Python program to do this is as follows:
> import random
> total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=0
> r=1.6 # manually iterate this number until the answer is less than 100,
> with 1000 test runs for a probability of 99%
> numberList = [0, 1] # 0 = live, 1=dead
> for i in range(1000):
>   x=(random.choices(numberList, weights=((1-r*14/22000), r*14/22000),
> k=22000))
>   if( sum(x)<16):
>
> total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16+1
>
> print(total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16)
>
> # iteration tally:
> # with r=1.5 then total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=105
> # with r=1.6 then total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=69
>
> Pieter
>
> On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 22:26, Roger Critchlow  wrote:
>
>> Pieter -
>>
>> The initial safety and efficacy report was published in the New England
>> Journal of Medicine at the end of 2020,
>> https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577, it has smoother
>> language and inline graphics.  It also has fewer deaths in the treatment
>> group than in the control group, but it is only reporting the first two
>> months of the study.
>>
>> The numbers of deaths reported in the "Adverse Reactions" section of
>> these reports will eventually track the expected death rate of the
>> population in the trial, and apparently they do, since there is no comment
>> to indicate otherwise.   Every clinical trial that tests the safety of a
>> treatment is expected to agree with the baseline mortality statistics for
>> the population in the trial.
>>
>> If you see 14 and 15 deaths out of 22000 participants and your immediate
>> response is that 15 is bigger than 14, then you should probably stop
>> torturing yourself with statistical data.  You're making and agonizing over
>> distinctions that the data can never support.  The number of deaths in a
>> population over a period of time has an average value and a variance which
>> are found by looking at large populations over long periods of time.  In
>> any particular population and period of time there are a lot trajectories
>> that the death count can take that will be consistent with the long term
>> average even as they wander above and below the average.
>>
>> I append a simple simulation in julia that you can think about.
>>
>> -- rec --
>>
>> # from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
>> death_rate = 869.7  # raw deaths per 10 per year
>>
>> # simulate the action of a 'death rate' on a population of 'sample'
>> individuals for 'days' of time.
>> # convert the raw death rate to the death_rate_per_individual_per_day, ie
>> death_rate/10/365.25,
>> # allocate an array of size sample*days, size coerced to an integer value,
>> # fill the array with uniform random numbers.
>> # if an array value is less than the death rate per person per day, score
>> 1 death.
>> # this overcounts because individuals can be scored as dying more than
>> once, YODO!
>>
>> simulate(death_rate, sample, days) =
>> sum(rand(Int(sample*days)) .< death_rate/10/365.25)
>>
>> # accumulate an ensemble of death rate simulation results.
>> # run 'trials' simulations of 'death_rate' for 'sample' individuals for
>> 'days' time.
>> # accumulate an array with the number of deaths in each simulation
>> accumulate(death_rate, sample, days, trials) =
>> [simulate(death_rate, sample, days) for i in 1:trials]
>>
>> # check the model: run the simulation with death_rate for 10
>> individuals and 365.25 days,
>> # the result averaged over multiple simulations should tend to the
>> original death_rate.
>> # we report the mean and standard error of the accumulated death counts
>> julia> mean_and_std(accumulate(death_rate, 10, 365.25, 50))
>> (868.34, 31.64188002361066)
>>
>> # That's in the ball park
>> # Now what are the expected deaths per 22000 over 180 days
>> julia> mean_and_std(accumulate(death_rate, 22000, 180, 50))
>> (94.3, 10.272312697891614)
>>
>> #

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[Pieter Steenekamp]

Thank you Roger,

Using the numbers from Phizer's report, I did a sort of quick and dirty
manual iteration process to get to the following Monte Carlo testing
conclusion

If:
a) the total death rate of the unvaccinated is 14/22000 (all causes) and
b) a total of 15 out of 22000  (again all causes)  of the vaccinated group
died
Then we can say with a 99% probability that the vaccination does not
increase the total  (again all causes) death rate with more than a factor
of 1.6.

My Python program to do this is as follows:
import random
total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=0
r=1.6 # manually iterate this number until the answer is less than 100,
with 1000 test runs for a probability of 99%
numberList = [0, 1] # 0 = live, 1=dead
for i in range(1000):
  x=(random.choices(numberList, weights=((1-r*14/22000), r*14/22000),
k=22000))
  if( sum(x)<16):

total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16+1

print(total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16)

# iteration tally:
# with r=1.5 then total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=105
# with r=1.6 then total_of_tentousand_samples_less_than_16=69

Pieter

On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 22:26, Roger Critchlow  wrote:

> Pieter -
>
> The initial safety and efficacy report was published in the New England
> Journal of Medicine at the end of 2020,
> https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577, it has smoother
> language and inline graphics.  It also has fewer deaths in the treatment
> group than in the control group, but it is only reporting the first two
> months of the study.
>
> The numbers of deaths reported in the "Adverse Reactions" section of these
> reports will eventually track the expected death rate of the population in
> the trial, and apparently they do, since there is no comment to indicate
> otherwise.   Every clinical trial that tests the safety of a treatment is
> expected to agree with the baseline mortality statistics for the population
> in the trial.
>
> If you see 14 and 15 deaths out of 22000 participants and your immediate
> response is that 15 is bigger than 14, then you should probably stop
> torturing yourself with statistical data.  You're making and agonizing over
> distinctions that the data can never support.  The number of deaths in a
> population over a period of time has an average value and a variance which
> are found by looking at large populations over long periods of time.  In
> any particular population and period of time there are a lot trajectories
> that the death count can take that will be consistent with the long term
> average even as they wander above and below the average.
>
> I append a simple simulation in julia that you can think about.
>
> -- rec --
>
> # from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
> death_rate = 869.7  # raw deaths per 10 per year
>
> # simulate the action of a 'death rate' on a population of 'sample'
> individuals for 'days' of time.
> # convert the raw death rate to the death_rate_per_individual_per_day, ie
> death_rate/10/365.25,
> # allocate an array of size sample*days, size coerced to an integer value,
> # fill the array with uniform random numbers.
> # if an array value is less than the death rate per person per day, score
> 1 death.
> # this overcounts because individuals can be scored as dying more than
> once, YODO!
>
> simulate(death_rate, sample, days) =
> sum(rand(Int(sample*days)) .< death_rate/10/365.25)
>
> # accumulate an ensemble of death rate simulation results.
> # run 'trials' simulations of 'death_rate' for 'sample' individuals for
> 'days' time.
> # accumulate an array with the number of deaths in each simulation
> accumulate(death_rate, sample, days, trials) =
> [simulate(death_rate, sample, days) for i in 1:trials]
>
> # check the model: run the simulation with death_rate for 10
> individuals and 365.25 days,
> # the result averaged over multiple simulations should tend to the
> original death_rate.
> # we report the mean and standard error of the accumulated death counts
> julia> mean_and_std(accumulate(death_rate, 10, 365.25, 50))
> (868.34, 31.64188002361066)
>
> # That's in the ball park
> # Now what are the expected deaths per 22000 over 180 days
> julia> mean_and_std(accumulate(death_rate, 22000, 180, 50))
> (94.3, 10.272312697891614)
>
> # that's nowhere close to the 14 and 15 found in the report.
> # Probably the trial population was chosen to be young and healthy,
> # so they have a lower death rate than the general population.
> # let's use 14.5 deaths per 22000 per 180 days as an estimated trial
> population death rate
> # but convert the value to per_10_per_year.
> julia> est_death_rate = 14.5/22000*10/180*365.25
> 133.74053030303028
>
> # check the model:
> julia> mean_and_std(accumulate(est_death_rate, 22000, 180, 50))
> (14.96, 3.6419326558007294)
>
> # in the ball park again.
>
> # So the point of this simulation isn't the exact result, it's the pairs
> of results that this p

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[Roger Critchlow]

Pieter -

The initial safety and efficacy report was published in the New England
Journal of Medicine at the end of 2020,
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577, it has smoother
language and inline graphics.  It also has fewer deaths in the treatment
group than in the control group, but it is only reporting the first two
months of the study.

The numbers of deaths reported in the "Adverse Reactions" section of these
reports will eventually track the expected death rate of the population in
the trial, and apparently they do, since there is no comment to indicate
otherwise.   Every clinical trial that tests the safety of a treatment is
expected to agree with the baseline mortality statistics for the population
in the trial.

If you see 14 and 15 deaths out of 22000 participants and your immediate
response is that 15 is bigger than 14, then you should probably stop
torturing yourself with statistical data.  You're making and agonizing over
distinctions that the data can never support.  The number of deaths in a
population over a period of time has an average value and a variance which
are found by looking at large populations over long periods of time.  In
any particular population and period of time there are a lot trajectories
that the death count can take that will be consistent with the long term
average even as they wander above and below the average.

I append a simple simulation in julia that you can think about.

-- rec --

# from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
death_rate = 869.7  # raw deaths per 10 per year

# simulate the action of a 'death rate' on a population of 'sample'
individuals for 'days' of time.
# convert the raw death rate to the death_rate_per_individual_per_day, ie
death_rate/10/365.25,
# allocate an array of size sample*days, size coerced to an integer value,
# fill the array with uniform random numbers.
# if an array value is less than the death rate per person per day, score 1
death.
# this overcounts because individuals can be scored as dying more than
once, YODO!

simulate(death_rate, sample, days) =
sum(rand(Int(sample*days)) .< death_rate/10/365.25)

# accumulate an ensemble of death rate simulation results.
# run 'trials' simulations of 'death_rate' for 'sample' individuals for
'days' time.
# accumulate an array with the number of deaths in each simulation
accumulate(death_rate, sample, days, trials) =
[simulate(death_rate, sample, days) for i in 1:trials]

# check the model: run the simulation with death_rate for 10
individuals and 365.25 days,
# the result averaged over multiple simulations should tend to the original
death_rate.
# we report the mean and standard error of the accumulated death counts
julia> mean_and_std(accumulate(death_rate, 10, 365.25, 50))
(868.34, 31.64188002361066)

# That's in the ball park
# Now what are the expected deaths per 22000 over 180 days
julia> mean_and_std(accumulate(death_rate, 22000, 180, 50))
(94.3, 10.272312697891614)

# that's nowhere close to the 14 and 15 found in the report.
# Probably the trial population was chosen to be young and healthy,
# so they have a lower death rate than the general population.
# let's use 14.5 deaths per 22000 per 180 days as an estimated trial
population death rate
# but convert the value to per_10_per_year.
julia> est_death_rate = 14.5/22000*10/180*365.25
133.74053030303028

# check the model:
julia> mean_and_std(accumulate(est_death_rate, 22000, 180, 50))
(14.96, 3.6419326558007294)

# in the ball park again.

# So the point of this simulation isn't the exact result, it's the pairs of
results that this process can generate
# let's stack up two sets of simulations, call the top one 'treatment' and
the bottom one 'control'
# treatment and control are being generated by the exact same model,
# but their mutual relation is bouncing all over the place.
# That treatment>control or vice versa is just luck of the draw

julia> [accumulate(est_death_rate, 22000, 180, 20),
accumulate(est_death_rate, 22000, 180, 20) ]
2-element Vector{Vector{Int64}}:
 [12, 12, 13, 11, 22, 13, 14, 16, 13, 14, 21, 17, 13, 14, 19, 11, 20, 11,
9, 19]
 [11, 14, 15, 17, 11, 19, 17, 12, 16, 14, 18, 16, 11, 16, 12, 16, 10, 14,
17, 13]


On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 2:25 AM Pieter Steenekamp <
piet...@randcontrols.co.za> wrote:

> In the Phizer report "Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA
> COVID-19 Vaccine" (
> https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full.pdf) ,
> I picked up the following:
>
> "During the blinded, controlled period, 15 BNT162b2 and 14 placebo
> recipients died"
>
> Does this mean the Phizer vaccine did not result in fewer total deaths in
> the vaccinated group compared to the placebo unvaccinated group?
>
> I sort of can't believe this, I obviously miss something.
>
> But of course, there are clear benefits in that the reported vaccine
> efficacy was 91.3%
> -  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
> FRIA

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[Marcus Daniels]

In table S4 (supplementary material), there are two cases of death attributed 
to COVID-19 in the placebo case, and none to BNT162b2.   There are other 
unrelated causes of death in the cohort.   Also the causes of death are from 
dose 1 to unblinding, so there is the possibility that antibodies would not 
have ramped up entirely.  It was a study to ascertain safety; that it did not 
cause more deaths.

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 11:25 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

In the Phizer report "Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA 
COVID-19 Vaccine" 
(https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full.pdf) , I 
picked up the following:

"During the blinded, controlled period, 15 BNT162b2 and 14 placebo recipients 
died"

Does this mean the Phizer vaccine did not result in fewer total deaths in the 
vaccinated group compared to the placebo unvaccinated group?

I sort of can't believe this, I obviously miss something.

But of course, there are clear benefits in that the reported vaccine efficacy 
was 91.3%
-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[thompnickson2]

EricS

 

I hope everything you have said is wildly right.  

 

If the last year has revealed anything it is how fragile are our networks of 
trust. 

 

n

 

Nick Thompson

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 2:59 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

 

Pieter, 

 

On its own, I don’t think the statement means anything.  You have to know what 
the cohort was and what the null model was.  I think that in all these trials, 
to be seeking approval for multiple age groups, they must have tested in 
multiple age groups as well.  Sometimes old people die, no matter what you are 
doing.  (Sometimes people who are not old die too, but to have significant 
numbers of people who just happen to die in a trial is not in itself surprising 
if the trial has an old or fragile cohort.)  Numbers like 14 and 15 are very 
small in any clinical trial, which should have been run with some thousands to 
tens of thousands of participants.  Even if the numbers of vaccine and placebo 
in the whole sample were quite different, those numbers are so small that they 
might be in the sampling noise for any conclusion.  

 

Apologies that I don’t have time to read the report, and thank you for 
circulating.  This is the sort of question for which it would be good to have 
one of these public-health professors who write community-information articles, 
to go back and round up all the other data that are needed to determine what 
the null model is, whether there is any excess in either number you post, and 
then what the sample noise is for this statistic.  In principle, any of us 
could do it.  But people who do this for a living know rapidly where to find 
the relevant statistics, what data sources are properly curated, how to weight 
background statistics to match the tested cohort, what other systematic sample 
biases to look for, etc., which is important in interpreting any of these 
statistics as evidence for a causation question.

 

I will hope that nothing I have said above is wildly wrong, but of course we 
should look for a better source than me,

 

Eric

 





On Sep 15, 2021, at 3:24 PM, Pieter Steenekamp mailto:piet...@randcontrols.co.za> > wrote:

 

In the Phizer report "Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA 
COVID-19 Vaccine" 
(https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full.pdf 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.medrxiv.org%2fcontent%2f10.1101%2f2021.07.28.21261159v1.full.pdf&c=E,1,l1mASX-DLApZIhUOYFgy-r7F74HlDesTNgutDt0LykvRihqhyjrzAGpEqJwx8jOzFnbbUQdx3BQTfd8osCdHSXyPMjhkpPHcBs-mpPzlecdaEIt50MlLoyIK8g,,&typo=1>
 ) , I picked up the following:

"During the blinded, controlled period, 15 BNT162b2 and 14 placebo recipients 
died"  

Does this mean the Phizer vaccine did not result in fewer total deaths in the 
vaccinated group compared to the placebo unvaccinated group?

I sort of can't believe this, I obviously miss something.

But of course, there are clear benefits in that the reported vaccine efficacy 
was 91.3%

-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam 
<http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> 
un/subscribe 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com
 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,qQ04t1PHqQRf_fqBmHRi_i-kfHlaWEsv2Yj00qkraJ0IgNm6KCq9ULhRTeivYn0mJkQj79E4m3_xuRgshJg2rVL9Qz70NCuGD2Urbejfq3OLmkREP4VP1w,,&typo=1>
 
&c=E,1,qQ04t1PHqQRf_fqBmHRi_i-kfHlaWEsv2Yj00qkraJ0IgNm6KCq9ULhRTeivYn0mJkQj79E4m3_xuRgshJg2rVL9Qz70NCuGD2Urbejfq3OLmkREP4VP1w,,&typo=1
FRIAM-COMIC 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,F173hux88fHVUEQ2YfndUC0DQHdTqOgrbQn28kuC-wTCeCrekHPRcaCfITyfd5YWuzIYFiWicr3ecQYBT-yaQdfJskTKZOTbRgqjAFzVJq5OYw,,&typo=1>
 
&c=E,1,F173hux88fHVUEQ2YfndUC0DQHdTqOgrbQn28kuC-wTCeCrekHPRcaCfITyfd5YWuzIYFiWicr3ecQYBT-yaQdfJskTKZOTbRgqjAFzVJq5OYw,,&typo=1
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

 

-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[Pieter Steenekamp]

Thank you Eric.

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021, 9:00 am David Eric Smith,  wrote:

> Pieter,
>
> On its own, I don’t think the statement means anything.  You have to know
> what the cohort was and what the null model was.  I think that in all these
> trials, to be seeking approval for multiple age groups, they must have
> tested in multiple age groups as well.  Sometimes old people die, no matter
> what you are doing.  (Sometimes people who are not old die too, but to have
> significant numbers of people who just happen to die in a trial is not in
> itself surprising if the trial has an old or fragile cohort.)  Numbers like
> 14 and 15 are very small in any clinical trial, which should have been run
> with some thousands to tens of thousands of participants.  Even if the
> numbers of vaccine and placebo in the whole sample were quite different,
> those numbers are so small that they might be in the sampling noise for any
> conclusion.
>
> Apologies that I don’t have time to read the report, and thank you for
> circulating.  This is the sort of question for which it would be good to
> have one of these public-health professors who write community-information
> articles, to go back and round up all the other data that are needed to
> determine what the null model is, whether there is any excess in either
> number you post, and then what the sample noise is for this statistic.  In
> principle, any of us could do it.  But people who do this for a living know
> rapidly where to find the relevant statistics, what data sources are
> properly curated, how to weight background statistics to match the tested
> cohort, what other systematic sample biases to look for, etc., which is
> important in interpreting any of these statistics as evidence for a
> causation question.
>
> I will hope that nothing I have said above is wildly wrong, but of course
> we should look for a better source than me,
>
> Eric
>
>
> On Sep 15, 2021, at 3:24 PM, Pieter Steenekamp 
> wrote:
>
> In the Phizer report "Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA
> COVID-19 Vaccine" (
> https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full.pdf
> )
> , I picked up the following:
>
> "During the blinded, controlled period, 15 BNT162b2 and 14 placebo
> recipients died"
>
> Does this mean the Phizer vaccine did not result in fewer total deaths in
> the vaccinated group compared to the placebo unvaccinated group?
>
> I sort of can't believe this, I obviously miss something.
>
> But of course, there are clear benefits in that the reported vaccine
> efficacy was 91.3%
> -  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,qQ04t1PHqQRf_fqBmHRi_i-kfHlaWEsv2Yj00qkraJ0IgNm6KCq9ULhRTeivYn0mJkQj79E4m3_xuRgshJg2rVL9Qz70NCuGD2Urbejfq3OLmkREP4VP1w,,&typo=1
> FRIAM-COMIC
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,F173hux88fHVUEQ2YfndUC0DQHdTqOgrbQn28kuC-wTCeCrekHPRcaCfITyfd5YWuzIYFiWicr3ecQYBT-yaQdfJskTKZOTbRgqjAFzVJq5OYw,,&typo=1
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
>
> -  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[David Eric Smith]

Pieter, 

On its own, I don’t think the statement means anything.  You have to know what 
the cohort was and what the null model was.  I think that in all these trials, 
to be seeking approval for multiple age groups, they must have tested in 
multiple age groups as well.  Sometimes old people die, no matter what you are 
doing.  (Sometimes people who are not old die too, but to have significant 
numbers of people who just happen to die in a trial is not in itself surprising 
if the trial has an old or fragile cohort.)  Numbers like 14 and 15 are very 
small in any clinical trial, which should have been run with some thousands to 
tens of thousands of participants.  Even if the numbers of vaccine and placebo 
in the whole sample were quite different, those numbers are so small that they 
might be in the sampling noise for any conclusion.  

Apologies that I don’t have time to read the report, and thank you for 
circulating.  This is the sort of question for which it would be good to have 
one of these public-health professors who write community-information articles, 
to go back and round up all the other data that are needed to determine what 
the null model is, whether there is any excess in either number you post, and 
then what the sample noise is for this statistic.  In principle, any of us 
could do it.  But people who do this for a living know rapidly where to find 
the relevant statistics, what data sources are properly curated, how to weight 
background statistics to match the tested cohort, what other systematic sample 
biases to look for, etc., which is important in interpreting any of these 
statistics as evidence for a causation question.

I will hope that nothing I have said above is wildly wrong, but of course we 
should look for a better source than me,

Eric


> On Sep 15, 2021, at 3:24 PM, Pieter Steenekamp  
> wrote:
> 
> In the Phizer report "Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA 
> COVID-19 Vaccine" 
> (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full.pdf 
> )
>  , I picked up the following:
> 
> "During the blinded, controlled period, 15 BNT162b2 and 14 placebo recipients 
> died"  
> 
> Does this mean the Phizer vaccine did not result in fewer total deaths in the 
> vaccinated group compared to the placebo unvaccinated group?
> 
> I sort of can't believe this, I obviously miss something.
> 
> But of course, there are clear benefits in that the reported vaccine efficacy 
> was 91.3%
> -  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe 
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,qQ04t1PHqQRf_fqBmHRi_i-kfHlaWEsv2Yj00qkraJ0IgNm6KCq9ULhRTeivYn0mJkQj79E4m3_xuRgshJg2rVL9Qz70NCuGD2Urbejfq3OLmkREP4VP1w,,&typo=1
> FRIAM-COMIC 
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,F173hux88fHVUEQ2YfndUC0DQHdTqOgrbQn28kuC-wTCeCrekHPRcaCfITyfd5YWuzIYFiWicr3ecQYBT-yaQdfJskTKZOTbRgqjAFzVJq5OYw,,&typo=1
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/