WRL62

[Jack V Savage]

Farmer's supposed manipulation would only work if he could bet on an angry halfwit monitoring the interaction in bad faith. I get that he cashed in on that dice roll.

Yeah, I was thinking that, too. He's a master troll because he ... bluntly insulted you and caused you to bluntly insult him back in a similar form, knowing that biased moderating would lead only one of you to get infracted (for violating a rule that is almost never enforced in that way).

 

[waiguoren]

So this is what you said without any proof or even empirical evidence and then claim you should be relied upon for this assertion since there's no other data available than "the experience of regular readers". Why the hell should anyone take your word for it?

I didn't ask you to take my word for it. You could look for yourself, for example. You could even perform the analysis I suggested, if you have the time and patience.

If you look around the internet, you can find many people who agree with me on this point. It's not out of left field. I'd bet there are some posters in this very thread who would agree.

Simply put, if you understood half of what @Jack V Savage has written on this site you should be as aware as anyone of how your own biases are likely to determine your conclusion on this subject, not objective analysis.

Bias is pervasive. That doesn't mean no one is sufficiently unbiased to be capable of detecting specific cases of bias in others, particularly in narrow cases like NYT headlines over a period of a few months.

Sure, sensitivity is the issue (you're asserting that you have essentially super-human powers here). And, no, it's ridiculous to think that such a small bias (if you could even measure it like that) would be detectable through observation and memory over a long period.

Detecting a 30% negative bias in coverage is not "super-human". Actually, that was my original point, and framing it as "super-human" adds nothing to the conversation since you already staked that position.

The measurement issue is an important one, and it's good that you at least mentioned it in passing.

A period of a few months is not "a long period" for the memory of a normal-functioning human. That part is silly.

 

[Fawlty]

This may be the most pedantic lounge crew ever.

I changed the title to reflect this. We really are a bunch of noodges at times.

 

[Trotsky]

Dude is fuuuuucked if one of his employees files a ULP claim with the NLRB. Fucking moron.

 

[spin]

^^^^

dumbass



(the boss of course)

 

[Andy Capp]

I didn't ask you to take my word for it. You could look for yourself, for example. You could even perform the analysis I suggested, if you have the time and patience.

If you look around the internet, you can find many people who agree with me on this point. It's not out of left field. I'd bet there are some posters in this very thread who would agree.


Bias is pervasive. That doesn't mean no one is sufficiently unbiased to be capable of detecting specific cases of bias in others, particularly in narrow cases like NYT headlines over a period of a few months.



Detecting a 30% negative bias in coverage is not "super-human". Actually, that was my original point, and framing it as "super-human" adds nothing to the conversation since you already staked that position.

The measurement issue is an important one, and it's good that you at least mentioned it in passing.

A period of a few months is not "a long period" for the memory of a normal-functioning human. That part is silly.

I disagree. The more time that has passed, the more likely you are to remember only the things that fit your confirmation bias, as the studies I posted above demonstrate.

 

[Falsedawn]

So, is it game on? I mean if we're endorsing the manipulation of posters into screwing themselves, there are some very clever people who can make that game a blowout. I don't think that's a good direction for the WR, though.

I too would like the answer to this question.

I'd hate to be at a knife fight without my gun.

 

[Trotsky]

^^^^

dumbass



(the boss of course)

LOL his next one is even better. He doesn't seem to know what back wages are.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I changed the title to reflect this. We really are a bunch of noodges at times.

 

[spin]

LOL his next one is even better. He doesn't seem to know what back wages are.

 

[Trotsky]

aaaaand he tops it off with the classic Trump "losers & haters" cherry

 

[waiguoren]

I disagree. The more time that has passed, the more likely you are to remember only the things that fit your confirmation bias, as the studies I posted above demonstrate.

I think you're right on the confirmation bias thing for the average person unaware of it. However, I think that people are capable for minding that bias and correcting for it. For example---this might be a bit of overkill but just for sake of argument---a careful observer of the NYT headlines I mentioned could assign bias scores weekly for the entire four-month period in question in order to address the potential for an increase in confirmation bias through time.

 

[Falsedawn]

aaaaand he tops it off with the classic Trump "losers & haters" cherry

Isn't union busting awesome? Either you suck your boss's dick or you suck poverty's dick. Great options.

 

[curryjunkie]

Dude is fuuuuucked if one of his employees files a ULP claim with the NLRB. Fucking moron.

 

[Higus]

Haven't thought about that. Do you think he will surpass Warren in the next three weeks?

Hmm, gun to my head? Yes.

 

[waiguoren]

Hmm, gun to my head? Yes.

I'll give you >= 0.5%. In?

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

LOL his next one is even better. He doesn't seem to know what back wages are.

Is it possible for him to argue this is parody or is he fucked?

 

[waiguoren]

Interesting that you read Yudkowsky. He and Robin Hanson were the original two writers at Overcoming Bias, the blog that @Jack V Savage and I were discussing the other day.

 

[Madmick]

So, is it game on? I mean if we're endorsing the manipulation of posters into screwing themselves, there are some very clever people who can make that game a blowout. I don't think that's a good direction for the WR, though.

This is my subjective interpretation of his antics, not a definitive or incontrovertible opinion. He would certainly state that he is earnest, and many would believe him. The point is divining that is his schtick.

First, no, trolling isn't allowed.

 

[Trotsky]

Is it possible for him to argue this is parody or is he fucked?

In literally any other administration in the past 80 years? Absolutely fucked.

Under this administration and this Board, maybe it's possible he has a chance. Still most likely fucked.