ControlsFreak
No bio...
User ID: 1422
ControlsFreak
2d ago
Nietzche was a loser and his ideology is for losers. Usually the people who are proclaiming that God Is Dead and that Game Theory Is The Way are the sickly, marginalized, unattractive, and resentful. The purveyors of the ad hominem are often the best targets of their own devices.
ControlsFreak
6d ago
Perhaps this was all just a bit of confusion. I was responding to your bit:
This also touches on Trump's dreaded funding cuts. We've had a number of people here complaining about them, claiming that Trump should have used a more precise approach. It can't be done. Any presumption-of-innocence approach would yield no significant outcome, as institutions could hire activists faster than you could get them fired.
where the internal link was to funding cuts to academia, with the context being whether or not there were goal-oriented, somewhat tailored ways of approaching it compared to what I've perceived in these fora as calls for 'indiscriminate chemotherapy'. So, I guess, I'm not really sure what you're meaning or going for.
I think I already linked it, but it might not have been worth the time to read it before, but here is some context, with links to prior discussions where I was pushing back against the 'indiscriminate chemo' calls, culminating in the more recent cuts being targeted and linked to institutional behavior.
ControlsFreak
6d ago
"Right and wrong"? What's that? I keep hearing here that those things don't real. Naive meta-ethical relativism, you see. Best you can do is something something game theory (don't ask how that's supposed to work). And best as I can see, assassination is a strategy in the strategy set. Ergo, there's nothing "wrong" about it.
It's a tough line to walk, especially because as you get closer to the optimal frontier, the quality of evidence for what is "best" declines significantly, so many folks find themselves swimming in all sorts of claims about minute details, which, even if real, may only have an extremely small effect size. E.g., people nitpicking about exact timing of protein intake and its exact composition at those times. Like, sure, if you're an elite athlete and your pay may depend on whether you can eek out an extra percent here and there, maybe it's worth trying to figure it out, but it's just not for most people. It's definitely not worth the psychological hassle of trying to wade through the various claims or attempting to micromanage a signal which may not even be high-quality enough to ever capture the phenomenon you're looking for.
On the other side, there are basic things that many people just don't grok until you collect their specific data from them and show it to them. For a couple examples, I've met people who simply did not truly comprehend that calories correspond noisily but directly to body weight or that alcohol messed up their sleep until it was shown to them with their own data.
Of course, it's always difficult to know which category you're in, because, well, you don't know what you don't know.
More options
Context Copy link