site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   4056 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for February 17, 2023

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

INTUITION ESSAY FINAL

My Intuition Essay contest, is concluded. Thank you to everyone who participated, I really enjoyed reading every entry! Voting is concluded. The winner is: @Pitt19802 with This Untitled Piece Comparing Statistical and Intuitive Approaches in Baseball and Politics. Mr. Pitt selected Stage Right Greensburg, a small local theater company in my home state of PA, to receive the $300 in prize money (I tossed in a little to cover fees). Mr. Pitt only threw his work in at the last moment, so let that be a lesson: never be discouraged, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take, shoot for the moon even if you miss you'll land among the stars, man in the arena, every dog has his day, gods stand up for bastards, even a blind squirrel finds a nut, etc. etc. ditto ditto.

Thank you to all of our participants, and I want to take one more opportunity to highlight their excellent work.

@TheDag entered Intuition in a Scientific Age

@f3zinker entered A Case For/Against Education, Intuition

@felipec entered My Intuition About Intuition

@Gaashk on a Jungian View of Intuition

and

@ryandv on Forming Connections via Similarity of Mental Models

@DaseindustriesLtd also wrote this piece on the topic but explicitly asked to be excluded from the competition, hoping to leave the field to the rest of us.

Can anybody who voted explain to me how the winner entry is superior to mine?

From what I can see this is what it said about intuition:

  • Grady Little may have made a decision based on intuition, Joe Maddon didn't

  • To improve intuition one must train

  • LBJ was intuitive, Obama wasn't

That's basically it.

This is what it didn't say:

  • What is intuition

  • What is the opposite of intuition

  • When is intuition helpful

  • When is intuition unhelpful

  • How complex intuition is

  • What intuition is comprised of

My essay at least attempted to answer these.

To me this is clear evidence of bias in this community.

And because Mottizens are very prone to commit converse error fallacies, I shall point out that this is not something specific to my essay, I also don't see how the winner is superior to this entry: Intuition in a Scientific Age, which also does attempt to answer some of the important questions, such was: what is intuition? I also would be interested in hearing why somebody who voted for the winner considered it superior to that one.

  • -12

As a fellow loser, I say lets maintain sportmanship about it. No need to be salty.

To be honest, I do think my post is better than the winner too, because that post despite being good was too light on exploring intuition, the whole point of the competition. But I intuited that post will win by a longshot immediately upon reading it. TheMotte like all places has its tastes and our job was to cater to that taste.

No need to be salty.

That's specifically why I mentioned the converse error fallacy. Just because somebody appears to be salty doesn't mean that he is.

I am asking the people who voted for the winner if they could explain why. I am genuinely curious.

To be honest, I do think my post is better than the winner too

I agree as well.

TheMotte like all places has its tastes and our job was to cater to that taste.

No, our job was to write an essay about intuition, the price was the motivation, not the goal. Just like the goal of a newspaper is supposed to be to inform the truth, not to make money. Pandering to a specific audience wasn't supposed to be the goal.

That's specifically why I mentioned the converse error fallacy. Just because somebody appears to be salty doesn't mean that he is.

You can just say “you’re wrong”, you don’t add anything by throwing in philosophical fluff. People know what it means to assert something.

You can just say “you’re wrong”

Yes, and you can throw insults as well.

The question is not what one can do, the question is what one should do. And in a rational discussion it's better to explain why the person is wrong, not just assert that he is.

But that doesn’t explain anything, I called it fluff for a reason, it adds literally nothing.

You have poor theory of mind if you think bringing up the converse error fallacy addresses some gap in their accusation in a way that is convincing to a human being familiar with the concept of assertion.

But that doesn’t explain anything, I called it fluff for a reason, it adds literally nothing.

It is 100% a fallacy, that's all the explanation that is needed.

You have poor theory of mind if you think bringing up the converse error fallacy addresses some gap in their accusation

If you don't see how an argument being fallacious is a problem, you are not a rational being.

lmao

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats