Predictably, everyone is ignoring it except jillery, and jillery's response is what
one would predict after seeing earlier behavior of jillery under similar severe
circumstances: unabashed sophistry.
On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 5:30:17 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
As I've tried to point out before, people are the same everywhere.
Oh, please, are you still harping on this slogan of yours?
Look. Except for needs and behaviors that we share with
all members of the order Primates, we are not the same at all.
Sure, most people seek out others who are like them
--a behavior common to primates-- and this accounts for the
fact that these *groups* are pretty much the same.
A similar dynamic is at work in online forums, like right here
in talk.origins, where all your critics except for Glenn and myself
(and the two of us are very different) are getting to be more and more
alike.
However, in the big outside world, there is a staggering variety of human
behaviors.
I don't want to add to the overkill of all the ways you've been told this, but I do want to talk about another slogan of yours, "People are very predictable."
My thesis is that people only *become* very predictable after we see how
they pass through what I call "The Black Swan Filter":
"I don't particularly care about the usual. If you want to get an idea of
a friend's temperament, ethics, and personal elegance, you need to look at him under the tests of severe circumstances, not under the regular rosy
glow of daily life. Can you assess the danger a criminal poses by
examining only what he does on an ordinary day? Can we understand health without considering wild diseases and epidemics? Indeed the normal is
often irrelevant. Almost everything in social life is produced by rare but consequential shocks and jumps; all the while almost everything studied
about social life focuses on the 'normal,' particularly with 'bell curve' methods of inference that tell you close to nothing. Why? Because the bell curve ignores large deviations, cannot handle them, yet makes us confident that we have tamed uncertainty. Its nickname in this book is GIF, Great Intellectual Fraud."
--Taleb, Nassim Nicholas (22 April 2007). "The Black Swan: Chapter 1:
The Impact of the Highly Improbable". The New York Times. Quoted in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
Many here in talk.origins have been tested many times under severe circumstances, and so their
behavior is very predictable under similar circumstances. You have not
taken notice of more than a handful of these circumstances, so their behavior is predictable to you "under the regular rosy glow of daily
life."
And thus you maintain the illusion that they are like what you see,
oblivious to what ridiculous or despicable behavior some of them will
resort to when things are not going their way.
I gave Glenn an example of this earlier today:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/WATJ1V2lWcI/m/9cvb_wxJBgAJ
Re: Darwin of the Gaps
9:55 AM EST
Predictably, everyone is ignoring it except jillery, and jillery's
response is what one would predict after seeing earlier behavior of
jillery under similar severe circumstances: unabashed sophistry.
The differences we see are fairly insignificant, superficial really.
The way you go off on a tangent below suggests that you were
thinking along very specialized lines while writing this last slogan,
and not trying to make a statement about people in general.
Just the history of 20th century proves that people will enthusiastically
murder and maim their enemies. The enemies are determined by whoever
controls the government. Their badness or goodness is determined by the
government.
Either we are loyal patriots of we are traitors and, again, that is
determined by the government. It is through our passive acceptance of the
Official Word that makes it all possible.
Is it possible that your slogan about predictability was also confined to such a highly specialized context, perhaps even more specialized than an application of the Black Swan Filter, and not meant to be about
people in general?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Peter Nyikos
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 5:30:17 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
As I've tried to point out before, people are the same everywhere.
Oh, please, are you still harping on this slogan of yours?
Look. Except for needs and behaviors that we share with
all members of the order Primates, we are not the same at all.
Sure, most people seek out others who are like them
--a behavior common to primates-- and this accounts for the
fact that these *groups* are pretty much the same.
A similar dynamic is at work in online forums, like right here
in talk.origins, where all your critics except for Glenn and myself
(and the two of us are very different) are getting to be more and more alike.
However, in the big outside world, there is a staggering variety of human behaviors.
I don't want to add to the overkill of all the ways you've been told this, but I do want to talk about another slogan of yours, "People are very predictable."
My thesis is that people only *become* very predictable after we see how they pass through what I call "The Black Swan Filter":
"I don't particularly care about the usual. If you want to get an idea of a friend's temperament, ethics, and personal elegance, you need to look at him under the tests of severe circumstances, not under the regular rosy glow of daily life. Can you assess the danger a criminal poses by examining only what he does on an ordinary day? Can we understand health without considering wild diseases and epidemics? Indeed the normal is often irrelevant. Almost everything in social life is produced by rare but consequential shocks and jumps; all the while almost everything studied about social life focuses on the 'normal,' particularly with 'bell curve' methods of inference that tell you close to nothing. Why? Because the bell curve ignores large deviations, cannot handle them, yet makes us confident that we have tamed uncertainty. Its nickname in this book is GIF, Great Intellectual Fraud."
--Taleb, Nassim Nicholas (22 April 2007). "The Black Swan: Chapter 1:
The Impact of the Highly Improbable". The New York Times. Quoted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
Many here in talk.origins have been tested many times under severe circumstances, and so their
behavior is very predictable under similar circumstances. You have not taken notice of more than a handful of these circumstances, so their behavior is predictable to you "under the regular rosy glow of daily life."
And thus you maintain the illusion that they are like what you see, oblivious to what ridiculous or despicable behavior some of them will resort to when things are not going their way.
I gave Glenn an example of this earlier today:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/WATJ1V2lWcI/m/9cvb_wxJBgAJ
Re: Darwin of the Gaps
9:55 AM EST
Predictably, everyone is ignoring it except jillery, and jillery's response is what one would predict after seeing earlier behavior of jillery under similar severe circumstances: unabashed sophistry.
The differences we see are fairly insignificant, superficial really.
The way you go off on a tangent below suggests that you were
thinking along very specialized lines while writing this last slogan,
and not trying to make a statement about people in general.
Just the history of 20th century proves that people will enthusiastically >> murder and maim their enemies. The enemies are determined by whoever
controls the government. Their badness or goodness is determined by the >> government.
Either we are loyal patriots of we are traitors and, again, that is
determined by the government. It is through our passive acceptance of the >> Official Word that makes it all possible.
Is it possible that your slogan about predictability was also confined to such a highly specialized context, perhaps even more specialized than an application of the Black Swan Filter, and not meant to be about
people in general?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Peter Nyikos
Why mention anthropologists or sociologists or even psychologists since they each claim to study human behavior as if it were predictable?
Doesn't this
suggest that science, the Grand Arbiter of knowledge worth knowing,
sees humans as a collective; individuality merely interesting without being significant? Again, consider history, the collection of facts that shows that people repeat their behavior over generations with little variation.
On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 15:42:16 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> continued to add to his 300+ lines of
obfuscating noise [by others, along with his corrections]:
<snip for focus, a futile exercise with PeeWee Peter>
Predictably, everyone is ignoring it except jillery,
and jillery's response is whatPeeWee Peter's baseless accusations don't remotely cover jillery's
one would predict after seeing earlier behavior of jillery under similar severe
circumstances: unabashed sophistry.
alleged unabashed sophistry. PeeWee Peter needs to ante-up or fold.
On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 6:05:20 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 15:42:16 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> continued to add to his 300+ lines of
obfuscating noise:
Fixed to make it honest; and the jillery is showing below what real >obfuscating is all about, by indulging in it.
<snip for focus, a futile exercise with PeeWee Peter>
The jillery is snipping not just for focus, but to obfuscate [see above]
by forcing people wanting to know what
"ignoring it" is all about, to scroll up and find the right post, etc.
Keep reading, folks, there is more obfuscation to come.
Predictably, everyone is ignoring it except jillery,
This is what is being ignored by everyone else, and jillery is obfuscating about:
_________________________ repost of text addressed to Freon Bill ___________________
And thus you maintain the illusion that they are like what you see, oblivious to what ridiculous
or despicable behavior some of them will resort to when things are not going their way.
I gave Glenn an example of this earlier today:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/WATJ1V2lWcI/m/9cvb_wxJBgAJ
Re: Darwin of the Gaps
9:55 AM EST
===================== end of repost =================
And now I reveal that the "example" is of ridiculous comments by Mark Isaak, >a staunch ally of the jillery.
and jillery's response is whatPeeWee Peter's baseless accusations don't remotely cover jillery's
one would predict after seeing earlier behavior of jillery under similar severe
circumstances: unabashed sophistry.
alleged unabashed sophistry. PeeWee Peter needs to ante-up or fold.
Note how the jillery makes no attempt to show that the accusations were baseless;
this could easily have been done with a link to the jillery's response so that readers
can see for themselves how baseless [or not] the accusations were.
Nevertheless, I will ante-up, on the thread where the incidents occurred, and >report the results back to this thread. But the jillery will have to wait for his/her/their turn.
On-topic discussion/debate takes precedence over personal attacks,
and one or two earlier attacks by the jillery on the same thread will be dealt with before
the ante-up takes place.
The jillery does not have the power to enforce deadlines or priorities by others,
much though the jillery would love to have that kind of power.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 216:02:22 |
| Calls: | 6,621 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,169 |
| Messages: | 5,317,557 |