|
Engagement with peers goes more positively when you don't communicate in a needlessly esoteric and obtuse fashion that obfuscates what the hell you're even talking about.
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Learning is an active process that includes both writing and study and also engaging peers. I am learning. You are my peers. When was the last time you submitted a chapter draft to your committee?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Learning is an active process that includes both writing and study and also engaging peers. I am learning. You are my peers. But I thought we were idiots who your real academic peers saw through at a glance. Which is it? Are we idiots, or are your colleagues too dumb and solipsistic to identify salient criticisms of hot garbage?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Frankly I'm less concerned with improving my writing than with improving my understanding of the concepts, and that improvement comes through the activity of talking it out with others in an argumentative discussion. Whether or not I write well, I am absolutely learning in the process. You seem to be under the delusion that the problem is people can't understand your grand theories because they, the people, are stupid. The problem is actually the opposite we can understand what your are proposing despite your best effort to obfuscate it in bullshit jargon and its the proposal which is stupid. Jesus, it took you 5 pages of someone much more knowledgeable repeatedly pointing out you were completely wrong for you to finally admit you don't know what linear means for gently caress sake. jre fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Learning is an active process that includes both writing and study and also engaging peers. I am learning. You are my peers. Given that your peers have given you the same criticisms over and over again and you continue to handwave them away, it doesn't appear you're learning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The first sentence was your one sentence definition. The rest was an explanation of that definition because I'm using technical terms. You are the one George Orwell had in mind when he wrote "Politics and the English Language".
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:But I thought we were idiots who your real academic peers saw through at a glance. Which is it? Are we idiots, or are your colleagues too dumb and solipsistic to identify salient criticisms of hot garbage? Eripsa is performance art. We're morons for continuing to play along.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Since you seem to know this literature, though, I did struggle a bit to find discussions of nepotism might be distinct from other forms of discrimination. I saw lots of work on gender and racial discrimination, but not much on nepotism. I know of some theoretical discussions in ethics concerning how they differ, and of course the evo/neuro psych line, but if there's anything in the economics or social science literature that would help. I have not reviewed the total literature since discrimination isn't my field but from my casual review of the literature, the problem at the moment is not that nepotism is unique and different from racial or gender discrimination, but the difficulty of getting associated data for analysis since it is a very intrusive level of analysis. For large scale datasets like the CPS, the data is made anonymous for privacy reasons. Some authors have looked at datasets from other countries like Italy and have measured incidences as well as effects of nepotism just fine. While its possible that nepotism is a unique and special snowflake, my feeling is that if you could set up the data, you could see the economic effects just fine with an Oaxaca-Blinder model or whatever econometric technique you want to use. http://www.nber.org/papers/w17572 quote:This paper investigates to what extent the impact of policies of decentralization depend on the specific socio-cultural norms of the targeted communities. We examine this question by looking at the incidence of practices related to familism and nepotism in the Italian academia and, in particular, at the evolution of this phenomenon before and after the 1998 reform which decentralized the recruitment of professors from the national to the university level. To measure the incidence of practices related to familism we construct two intuitive measures of “homonymy” by comparing the concentration of last names in each academic unit with that of the population of the region where the university is located. We first use the “homonymy” indices to investigate the incidence of familism across departments, with particular regard to the relationship between familism and academic performance, finding evidence of a robust negative correlation: departments characterized by higher degrees of familism - as measured by our “homonymy” indices - tend to display poorer research performance. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086...Click=true#_i17 quote:The attractiveness of public sector jobs in Italy may induce parents working in this sector to use their positions and the network of relationships to favor their sons/daughters in gaining access to public sector jobs. We verify whether children of public employees effectively enjoy an advantage, estimating a model of the probability of working in the public sector controlling for individual characteristics and labor market conditions. We show that if the father is a public employee the probability of his child working in the same sector is increased by a huge 44%. This advantage is larger for low-ability individuals, "stayers" and Southern Italian residents. We interpret these findings as evidence of nepotism in public employment. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086...Click=true#_i17 quote:We develop an experimental test to distinguish between discrimination against and nepotism. The experiment compares the behavior toward individuals of different groups with the behavior toward anonymous individuals (those having no clear group affiliation). Not only is the distinction between the different types of discrimination important for the study of social segmentation, but it has interesting policy implications regarding the effectiveness and the efficiency of antidiscriminatory legislation. We study two segmented societies: Belgian (Flemish versus Walloons) and Israeli (religious versus secular). In Belgium, we find evidence of discrimination. Both the Walloons and the Flemish treat people of their own group in the same way as anonymous individuals while discriminating against individuals of the other group. In contrast, the behavior of ultraorthodox religious Jews in Israel can be categorized as nepotism: they favor members of their own group while treating anonymous individuals in the same way as secular individuals. quote:Ford, R. & Mc Laughin, F. (1985). “Nepotism”, Personnel Journal, 64, 57-61 This is article is garbage by the way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Learning is an active process that includes both writing and study and also engaging peers. I am learning. You are my peers. If you were my peer I'd do everything in my power to blackball you for the sake of my profession as a whole and the students in particular. Seriously, answer my question about how you could possibly build a complex piece of engineering like a suspension bridge or an oil tanker in a Strangecoin-based economy. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
jre posted:You seem to be under the delusion that the problem is people can't understand your grand theories because they, the people, are stupid. The problem is actually the opposite we can understand what your are proposing despite your best effort to obfuscate it in bullshit jargon and its the proposal which is stupid. The coupling relations are the nonlinear part of the transaction, because they depend on income. The account balance caps are also nonlinearities in the system, as would be any decay transaction near the caps as was proposed by someone else in the thread. As far as I know, I won the argument between Slanderer and me about whether or not this is a nonlinear system, and the description is appropriate. For what it's worth I found access to this book, which has been interesting: http://www.amazon.com/Nonlinearity-Complexity-Randomness-Economics-Algorithmic-ebook/dp/B007032XLY/ref=dp_kinlend_rdm_t
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
So the strangecoin identifies nepotism at the cost of enabling 3 people collaborating to generate infinite funds and we are the morons?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Erispa, how does Strangecoin account for the division of labor?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Eripsa your core problem is that you want to be the ~high level thinker~ who can put everything together into a grand unified scheme. But you don't actually understand anything at all about any building blocks of any scheme you start concocting and aggressively disdain knowing basics. This is why nearly any time you're pinned down and forced to get into detail you say something horrendously wrong or something that makes it clear you have no idea what you're talking about. You basically want to build a skyscraper, you're obsessed with skyscrapers, but you utterly refuse to learn about materials science, engineering, how buildings are constructed, or literally anything about the subject. People who can effectively theorize at a high level are impressive because they put the work into understanding the details and can build off them. You, instead, are lazy and refuse to learn details and in fact dismiss the very idea of learning the basics of how things function. At no point do you ever realize you were factually wrong on a detail, acknowledge you were wrong and the detail is important and restructure your theories around the actual reality. Instead you whine and complain that people are not staying on the high level you want to bullshit around at. That's because everyone else realizes those details are important. It turns out it matters what the physical properties of steel are, if you're building a skyscraper. You're just not intelligent enough or motivated enough to understand that, put the unglamorous work in to understand details, and just insist on trying to skip ahead to being a ~philosopher~.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The coupling relations are the nonlinear part of the transaction, because they depend on income. The account balance caps are also nonlinearities in the system, as would be any decay transaction near the caps as was proposed by someone else in the thread. As far as I know, I won the argument between Slanderer and me about whether or not this is a nonlinear system, and the description is appropriate. the bolded part is both very true and the reason you don't actually learn anything, because you are not smart enough to learn something from being wrong
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the bolded part is both very true and the reason you don't actually learn anything, because you are not smart enough to learn something from being wrong Honestly I think Eripsa is a classic case of "not even wrong".
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:As far as I know, I won the argument between Slanderer and me about whether or not this is a nonlinear system, and the description is appropriate.  You 'won' by adding new random elements to the equations which weren't mentioned in the op, and it took you three goes of 'is it non linear now ?' which clearly showed you had no idea what it meant. edit: evilweasel posted:the bolded part is both very true and the reason you don't actually learn anything, because you are not smart enough to learn something from being wrong what the weasel said.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Zikan posted:even more Okay, I can't take it anymore. Your terrible anti-writing is now infecting other people in this thread! You might come from a big town where they use big words, but not me. I can't understand a thing you're saying.  I dare you to describe what Strangecoin is, and why someone would want to use it, without using ANY of the following:
The post must be under 500 words, and must be posted within 24 hours. If you can do this within 24 hours, I will stop questioning your idea in this thread. If you can do this within 24 hours and get at least three other people in this thread to agree that it's a readable post, I will also accept an avatar change of your choice. You have nothing to lose if you don't do this, and you look... sorta normal, I guess, if you do. But please, talk like a normal human being for once.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
If I give my 13-year-old a Strangecoin to go in and buy a soda while I pump gas, are the oh-so-non-linear aspects calculated based on my economic and social history, my 13-year-old's economic and social history, both of our histories, our collective history, or all of the above?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
If i'm understanding correctly, Strangecoin would eliminate what we normally consider investment because it is is optimal to have income by equal to expenses, eliminating saving. How would loans or any sort of capital market work in a strangecoin environment?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I don't currently have academic access to any databases. I'm limited with what I can learn on the free web, or what people can liberate for me. RealityApologist posted:I have academic friends and colleagues who know my work and are reading this thread and refuse to participate because of the audience. They tell me I'm wasting my time with morons. I feel like I'm paying my dues on the dirty streets on the internet.  Your academic (pause for emphasis) friends aren't willing to let you hitchhike JSTOR access, and so you have to avail yourself on free internet articles when real academic journals are provided for you by the thread?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Maybe you should tell your friends to post in this thread if they're not going to be chip-on-the-shoulder babies about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
I don't get it, Zikan's post was pretty easy to understand. If you need it dumber nothing will help.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'm not saying you should. I'm saying that aspects of chemistry and aspects of sociology are both explained by the same unifying framework, network theory. This unification of the sciences (like all attempts at unifying the sciences) raises a number of philosophical and conceptual challenges. Digital philosophy takes up those philosophical challenges. What? No. Connected, yes. Explained? No. The outputs from different fields may resemble each other, but the principles behind them come from completely different directions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
So, RealityApologist, can you name a single example when this grand pet theory of yours was useful in any way to another human being? I'm not even talking this thread specifically, I mean the whole magical network-in-the-sky that supposedly explains literally everything. Alternatively, can you name a single group of people that would benefit in any way from implementing your totally radical system?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
I googled and read the Digital Philosophy Wikipedia entry and am still unsure if this is a legitimate field of inquiry. The whole "networked cellular automata may describe literally everything" statement smells like bullshit, but I am neither smart nor informed enough to say for sure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Kuantum Kash: A Kooky Kurrency In this post I sketch a proposal for a digital currency that works unlike Strangecoin. I'm calling it Kuantam Kash because these are unique ways to spell these words. What's unique about Kuantam Kash? -Kuantum Kash transactions are tied to quantum physics. A Kuantam Kash transaction might result in some or most or all of your money disappearing. -Kuantum Kash transactions can be zero-sided and can be conducted entirely by no parties. -The rate of change in one's Kuantam Kash balance sets your Kuantam Kash multiplier. Spend or receive large amounts at once to for a 10x multiplier! -Optimal invesment strategy in Kuantam Kash aims to stabilize your balance, because the 10x multiplier means some or most or all of your money can disappear 10x as fast. -A universal account balances provides all users with a basic Kuantam Kash income, because the rules are made up and the points don't matter. I've only started thinking through this idea while I let my spaghetti cool, and implementing it would require the intervention of a trickster God. For instance, I'm not sure if Kuantum Kash could be implemented by Loki, or if some fundamentally new God of Screwing You Over is required. If you might know something about Kaos gods, I'd love to hear your thoughts. If you might know how to empower an Avatar of Kaos, I'd love to help you try. But since I don't know of anything else that works like this, this proposal is mostly intended to simply put the idea that a Kurrency tied to random particle decay is more coherent than Strangecoin. Background and Motivation If I give you a dollar for a beer, then I've lost a dollar and gained a beer, and you've gained a dollar and a guy whose about to drink a lot more beer for future dollars. Assuming this was a fair trade (that you're not using those little 4.5 oz taster cups to promote "Dollar Draft Night"), then as a result of the transaction we've simply helped keep your bar from going out of business and gotten me drunk, both of which are fantastically valuable to each of us. What I've lost oh wait I haven't lost anything I wanted to buy the beer and you wanted to sell it THAT'S HOW FUCKEN BUYING STUFF WORKS In game theory, sociopaths continually try to screw each over and that kind of behavior is one of the reasons I have to drink beer, and anyway they're a bunch of fuckers and if going to the bar meant having to consider game theory I'd probably just kill myself. Of course, I wanted the beer and you wanted to sell it, which even a small child or some of the brighter dogs in the world understands. But if our bookkeeping methods only keep track of dollars, then it's not accounting for the fact that we are both happy with this arrangement. In the proposal below, I'll describe Kuantum Kash as a method for needlessly obfuscating this transaction, where parties can enter into financial transactions that may or may not screw them out of both their dollar and their beer based on the random particle decay. In this way, Kuantum Kash is a model of randomness of the universe. The trick is to implement UP TO A 10X POWERBALL-STYLE MULTIPLIER so that other parties who are not themselves involved in the transaction can see 10 beers get poured straight down the sink while I set ten dollars on fire to make a philosophical point about how life sucks sometimes. If this seems counter-intuitive, a nonfinancial example might help: it's not unusual for three stooges to gain greater stooge status upon entering into a comedy trio. Although strictly speaking the relationship is between the three stooges, the greater injuries of their japes and follies results in more overall popularity than any initially had prior to opening a comically-named plumbing service. As the example suggests, the dynamics of Kuantum Kash might be usefully thought of in terms of "potential comedy value" rather than a strictly financial tool, even though the basic mechanics involve the regular method of exchanging Kurrency for beer and is perceived by both parties to be an awesome idea. Because of the random nature of Kuantum Kash, each user effectively provides observers with two opportunities for seeing someone lose or gain comically large amounts of Kash or beer during each economic transaction, coupling their drunkeness (and sobriety) to how busy the bar is and how much I win with my beer multiplier. The result is a model of the complex randomness within the universe, by which particles develop and decay. For this reason, Kuantum Kash might be infuriating and most likely would result in a terrible night out. I will say more about Kuantum Kash after I get my garlic bread. CheesyDog fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
ryde posted:I googled and read the Digital Philosophy Wikipedia entry and am still unsure if this is a legitimate field of inquiry. The whole "networked cellular automata may describe literally everything" statement smells like bullshit, but I am neither smart nor informed enough to say for sure. Stephen Wolfram has gotten absolutely pilloried for this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:As far as I know, I won the argument between Slanderer and me about whether or not this is a nonlinear system, and the description is appropriate. jre posted:
 Why does it even loving matter to you whether you won or not? If you were wrong, then accept that, and stop calling your coin "non-linear". You don't just loving change your idea so that calling it non-linear is the correct term, that's completely rear end-backwards.If you say a human has nine toes and someone calls you out on it, you don't cut off your own loving toe to prove yourself "right". (Well, if all the cyborg poo poo is true, maybe you would, but most normal humans wouldn't.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Strangecoin models a network of human social action. Users in the network have some relations to each other, of varying types and degrees of social support. These support networks form groups that have an impact on the way the network develops as a whole, because they provide incentives for users to engage or disengage from their various relations. There are other incentives for users to balance their overall impact on the network, and to balance the global state of the network. My goal is not to have people use Strangecoin. My goal is to present the model, describe how it works, and to compare it to other models of human social action. In cases where the incentive for Strangecoin users is different from other models, we can ask if Strangecoin better predicts what humans really do. We can also ask about whether Strangecoin users have an easier time achieving certain social ends than users in other models. For instance, Strangecoin users might be better able to stabilize their network, and might be able to arrange more efficient divisions of social labor than on other models, because of the feedback from the network it makes available. If that's the case, then we might want to apply the lessons of the Strangecoin model to improve user feedback in other domains of human social action, like politics and the econ. O my.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Good Dumplings posted:Okay, I can't take it anymore. Your terrible anti-writing is now infecting other people in this thread! You might come from a big town where they use big words, but not me. I can't understand a thing you're saying. SedanChair posted:I don't get it, Zikan's post was pretty easy to understand. If you need it dumber nothing will help. For kicks I decided to see how much I could simply it. Eprisa did not not look at the economics studies on nepotism closely. Thus he thinks that it a special case of discrimination not examined by economics properly. I took a brief look at them and think it is just a matter of improper data. Most data used in economic studies do not have variables needed for study of nepotism, i.e. family names, due to privacy concerns. But some studies have found some data and studied it just fine. I think that nepotism is not at the level of needing a whole new system of study but just better data to use with current statistical techniques. Also the article he was asking about is really bad. Zikan fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Strangecoin doesn't model a network, it is a network. Want to try again?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:For instance, Strangecoin users might be better able to stabilize their network, and might be able to arrange more efficient divisions of social labor than on other models, because of the feedback from the network it makes available. Good Dumplings posted:[*] A word longer than 3 syllables (besides "Strangecoin") or longer than 10 characters (again, besides "Strangecoin"). Available is 4 syllables, you lose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
mike- posted:If i'm understanding correctly, Strangecoin would eliminate what we normally consider investment because it is is optimal to have income by equal to expenses, eliminating saving. How would loans or any sort of capital market work in a strangecoin environment? CheesyDog posted:If I give my 13-year-old a Strangecoin to go in and buy a soda while I pump gas, are the oh-so-non-linear aspects calculated based on my economic and social history, my 13-year-old's economic and social history, both of our histories, our collective history, or all of the above? The only relations you can be in with other people are the ones described in the OP. You wouldn't need to give your kid strangecoin because he's got his own account, and it's probably coupled to yours. You wouldn't need loans because you'd never be short of cash. You wouldn't invest in businesses, you invest in people by coupling/supporting/endorsing, and the transaction itself accounts for the dividends from that investment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Available is 4 syllables, you lose. fuckkkkk
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:You wouldn't need loans because you'd never be short of cash. Weeee! ^^^^ You also didn't describe it. You described something incredibly vague, and said it was a model, but Strangecoin is a system. I mean, you claimed it was a currency, but really it's a financial system. It's not a model.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The only relations you can be in with other people are the ones described in the OP. You wouldn't need to give your kid strangecoin because he's got his own account, and it's probably coupled to yours. You wouldn't need loans because you'd never be short of cash. You wouldn't invest in businesses, you invest in people by coupling/supporting/endorsing, and the transaction itself accounts for the dividends from that investment. Why do I want to give a thirteen-year-old access to a personal account that's never short of cash?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:In cases where the incentive for Strangecoin users is different from other models, we can ask if Strangecoin better predicts what humans really do. Hey! Did you ever start reading the Krugman micro and macro textbooks? For god's sake you are reinventing the wheel as a rectangle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:I've only started thinking through this idea while I let my spaghetti cool, and implementing it would require the intervention of a trickster God. For instance, I'm not sure if Kuantum Kash could be implemented by Loki, or if some fundamentally new God of Screwing You Over is required. If you might know something about Kaos gods, I'd love to hear your thoughts. If you might know how to empower an Avatar of Kaos, I'd love to help you try. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Strangecoin models a network of human social action. Strangecoin models Strangecoin. End of statement. You created a thing, it is what it is. I can create anything also. None of this makes it interesting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Dec 10, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
CheesyDog posted:I've only started thinking through this idea while I let my spaghetti cool, and implementing it would require the intervention of a trickster God. For instance, I'm not sure if Kuantum Kash could be implemented by Loki, or if some fundamentally new God of Screwing You Over is required. That is still the greatest scene ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:25
|
|