You are more awesome than a monkey wearing a tuxedo made out [of] bacon riding a cyborg unicorn
Tag Challenge
The quiz Dan Kahneman wants you to fail...
Peyton Manning gets a waiter fired, though it was the waiter's fault.
Sauce for the goose? In retaliation, female legislators try to regulate the gander's sauce, too. (Sorry about the "gander's sauce" thing. Ick.)
All of a sudden, Geithner and co. are Austrians? Markets are hard to regulate, and prices fluctuate because of uncertainty? Are we in bizarro world?
And, in an attempt to get the president to concentrate on being president, instead of just always campaigning:
(Nod to SdM, Anonyman, Kevin Lewis, and the Blonde)
The journalist gets Kahneman totally wrong in quiz question #2. He basically says that you shouldn't apply Bayes' rule to incorporate the information from the personality test.
ReplyDeleteThis is not what Kahneman and Tversky argued at all:
http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/Ec101/JudgementUncertainty.pdf
It seems that every time a journalist writes about something I know even a little bit about, there is a glaring error. Am I to assume that all articles, including those on subjects I know nothing about, are substantively wrong? Sad.
Geithner is no Austrian. The price of gas is a "problem" only to a politician.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Obama could bring down the price of gas easily -- just by declaring that the U.S. would, on no account, use force against Iran nor support Israel doing so.
@Andrew-
ReplyDeleteIt seems that every time a journalist writes about something I know even a little bit about, there is a glaring error. Am I to assume that all articles, including those on subjects I know nothing about, are substantively wrong?
From Michael Chrichton's 2002 essay, "Why Speculate?"
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
...I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say.
It seems that whenever a reporter creates about something I know even a little bit about, there is a obvious mistake. Am I to believe that all content, such as those on topics I know nothing about, are substantively wrong?
ReplyDeleteRS 3 Gold
cheapest runescape gold
Gold für World of Warcraft