Friday, May 15, 2015

Q&A - 15/5

Comment

[Paraphrasing] Some academics in the International Relations field are objecting against the "mathematicization" of their field, they don't like methods such as rational choice, expected utility, and game theory.

Too bad 

This is a futile attempt.. They can object all they want, but every scientific field no matter how "verbal" will have more math incorporated into it one way or another, international relations certainly, and even fields like history at some point. Otherwise all their research is bunch of words that do not connect to each other in a verifyable kind of way, worse, their theories will not gel with data easily.

Oh and my favorite objection: "but you say rational choice but people are not rational, so how can you even model them?". Because, somehow in these people's minds, whenever there is math involved the subject matter must be some kind of rational "machine", whatever that is.

However none of the methods outlined above make such a claim. What these methods assume is that people's preference ordering is consistent - that's it. An example: Let's say a certain dictator with a certain funny mustache in history says: "I like the burn me some Jews"... This is his preference. Then he says "you know what I'd like more... to burn me some gypsies"...Another preference. Then "but seriously, I reaally reaallly like to burn me some Fins now". Then, for this person, in order for his preferences to be consistent,  the dictator must like to burn Fins more than he likes to burn Jews. That's all that is required. Well, this is one of the core requirements, but if this and some others are  there, the game theory math can take this and crank through its computations. The computations would probably say "take out this f--er, now" but this is another subject.

Question

Why we are on this, why didn't anyone try to take Hitler out?

They tried

In total 14 times. What more can a brother do?

Question

If JFK's assassination was not a government conspiracy, then why was his assassin Oswald shot dead?

Well..

So JFK's assassination was not a conspiracy; but Oswald was killed to make his assassination of the president look like a conspiracy. Weird heh? Because if there is one thing worse than a president having been killed by a conspiracy, it is that he wasn't. In that case The Integrators would like a fool; hence the assassin was assassinated. Forming a mystery around the government was more preferable to having been implicated for a conspiracy.

But in reality Kennedy was an extremely bad president (an MBTI SP and LtCB, a deadly combination it turned out), and he did enough stupid shit to trigger such a response from a crazy extremist like Oswald but, that was the entirety of it all. There it is - extremely banal and boring.

Question

Any movie ideas?

Yes

Some scifi ideas - Now this is going to be providing fuel for the AI-gone-wild camp, but here it goes: silicon is made from dirt right? Well, there are a lot of excerpts in religious texts that "we" were created from soil / earth. A movie can revolve around the fact that religious texts were for the silicon people; a Morpheus like dude, holding a religious text says "this wasn't really meant for us.. it was meant for him" - camera cuts to the AI, WAAAA! [the same sound after M. shows the battery to Neo]. Boom.

Another: we are in a game, and during your sleep (in the game) you wake up in the "real" world, handling your chores, etc, then when you go in the game, you usually don't remember "the dream" right? The real world is crazy futuristic. When people die in the game, relatives etc., they can join your game as watchers (a little cringey, and the script can have a lot of fun with that), and whisper some help for you. Maybe even effecting some change one way or another.

News

Shell was given permission by gov for Arctic exploration

The Integrators must be scared

.. because of the peak oil scenario. By the way, I reran the peak oil prediction that use numbers for 2014 and 2015 (projected) [geek] and using a new library for nonlinear regression that fits Hubbard's curve to the data that can also report confidence intervals for the parameters it finds [/geek], the result is 2011 for point estimation, and best case scenario has [2006, 2018] for 95% confidence interval. The conclusion is as before - we are at or past peak (mostly). Who's gonna make up the shortfall? Someone "has" to. Hence arctic drilling. Which is government sponsored terrorism BTW.