Is there some evidence that psychopaths are more or less rational than other people?
Fair point. I was using the term "rational" as a counterpoint to "emotional".
Psychopaths are well known for making choices which are coldly beneficial, without consideration for feelings which would arise from the affect their choices have on others - their choices have little or no emotional bias. Psychopathy tests score emotional aspects such as "Lack of Remorse or Guilt" and "Callousness and Lack of Empathy" as suggestive for psychopathy.
Both emotional and un-emotional choices are rational in the sense of "being done for a reason" (as opposed to "random").
He actually contradicted himself in the last sentence.
I think he's making a distinction between "full on" psychopaths and "the rest of the spectrum".
This (if I'm reading his post correctly) is problematic in a bunch of ways; for instance, where is the cutoff between "full on" and "OK to have in the population"? For his distinction, behaviour might be a better metric; ie - illegal actions rather than suggestive tendencies.
The problem with psychopathy is that the very definition came from selection bias.
We took a bunch of people who exhibited aberrant behaviour (socially unacceptable behaviour) and looked for common attributes. Then we invented a name for these attributes ("psychopathic") and the name became associated with the behaviour, but not the attributes.
There is abundant evidence that psychopathic tendencies are a spectrum. It's not a binary label, there's levels and shades of grey.
There is also abundant evidence that psychopathic tendencies are common.
There is also the evolutionary model, which proposes that leadership requires vision that isn't swayed by other people. The tribe will occasionally need leaders, so it's an advantage to have some psychopaths in the population. They are the ones who can step back and analyze a situation rationally, who aren't helpless against the flow of public opinion, and are immune to groupthink and mob psychology.
It should come as no surprise that lots of people are closet psychopaths, to any specific degree. The problem isn't that they are psychopaths, it's that they somehow feel that that they are damaged, dangerous, or somehow unacceptable. (Viz: gay people).
Relax, it's all right. We've identified a set of genes, you have a subset, and life is what you make of it.
All actions by Federal government players seem rational when viewed from their point of view.
The problem with most analysis, here or on other sites across the web, is in the assumptions. Specifically, if you assume that the government actions are for some benefit to the people, or efficiently completes some task (which is assumed to benefit the people), then nothing they do makes sense. That assumption makes for good outrage which can attract readers, but it doesn't answer the question of "why".
When government actions are viewed in light of more obvious motivations, everything it does makes sense. You start to see them not as an pack of incompetent, bureaucratic screw-ups, but as a self-sustaining, self-absorbed, engine of corruption.
I'm not aware of *anything* the federal government's done in the past two decades that's been in the interests of the people. All the useful stuff, the stuff you would want to keep across a reboot, was several decades ago.
I don't know the specifics of why an obscure database was chosen over the obvious players, but the reason wasn't "best utility for the people". Look for another reason.
The most recent Big Dog video shows that this is a (largely) solved issue for quadrupeds. The middle of the video shows it walking over stumps, navigating a swingset, and so on.
Still, "four legs good, two legs better". Or so they say...
I'm the sort who prefers a more socialist state but I don't see how a wage disparity causes democracy to unravel
Here's a thought experiment:
1) Allocate an array of floats and set each value to 1.0. 2) Randomly choose a float, weighted by its value, and increase its value by 1%, then replace it. "Weighted by its value" means that the probability of choosing any float is it's value divided by the sum of all values in the array. 3) Repeat 2 above for a large number of rounds.
What you will find is that over time some values will skyrocket exponentially. This happens regardless of the number of floats or the amount of increase, or whether the increase is gifted or zero-sum (ie - whether the increase is deducted from the other values). It's an effect inherent in the "increase by percent" rule, which defines an exponential growth. It also doesn't depend on the initial values, so long as the value isn't zero (negative values will skyrocket the other direction).
This mathematical model underlies much of our current economy, with net (invested) worth being the float value, and compound interest being the rule. The old saying "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer" is rooted in mathematics.
Different rules affect the rates in different ways: compound interest is an exponential increase on value, but inflation is an exponential drain. The difference between two exponentials is itself an exponential (unless they are exactly equal), so the result is still an exponential. Government subsidy is the zero-sum rule of increasing the value of one float by taking it away from others, &c.
Consider now the effect of a fixed consumption level: food, shelter, and so on. As the system becomes more mature, ever more of the total value is stored in fewer floats, and the majority of floats become proportionally small. As mentioned, government subsidies serve to increase a few values at the expense of others, as does inflation.
When the situation matures enough that most people cannot afford food and shelter, they will revolt. They will burn down the system and try something new. (Viz: French Revolution)
Something that takes us out of the exponential mathematical model might serve to defuse discontent and revolution. Whether capping executive pay is effective or sufficient remains to be seen, but on the surface it looks like a rational response to avert a foregone outcome.
Wow, ad hominem, the telltale that a person knows they've lost the argument.
It took an ad hominem attack to wake you up, to get you to think through the issues and post a well-thought-out position that isn't facially ludicrous.
You have a good point (finally!), which you should have posted in the 1st response above. Keep it in mind, and post it the next time BitCoin comes up.
I like teasing trolls, but waking one up is an unexpected delight - like finding a $20 bill on the ground. I look forward to the next debate.
...don't be surprised when Bitcoin's two major technical flaws, massive block chain size and constantly increasing time to complete a transaction, finally catches up to it. The more bitcoin transactions, the larger the blockchain grows and the more drive space it costs you. The more people adopt bitcoin the faster it will become bloated to the point of usability.
Wow! A cogent, reasoned response, easily destroyed by a quick google search.
Apparently you can only win arguments against people who can't google. How's that working out for you?
In 10 years bitcoin will be seen the way an AOL dialup connection is viewed today, primitive and outdated, though there will likely still be a handful of dialup users left even then. Though much money will be made from trading them in the mean time, they will become worthless soon enough.
A bold statement. What's your reasoning? Because, like, your emotional energy isn't convincing me.
There are 2 other Bitcoin apologists besides you slithering around here. Ornia and Triclipse. One thing is for certain. When Nerdcoin inevitably implodes, idiots like you will be totally silent on the issues, having lost a tremendous amount of face. But don't count on people like me forgetting. When the Shitcoin bubble pops, better get yourself a new Slashdot ID.
Old Chinese saying: "If you wait by the river long enough, eventually you will see the body of your enemy float by."
Your position requires that you sit back and wait. That's fine from my point of view, but a different course of action might yield better results from your point of view: take a chance!
BitCoin might very well implode, and when it does I'll happily admit that I was wrong. There's nothing bad about that.
At the moment, the issue is why will it explode?
We can read all the economics textbooks and papers in the world and have a deep understanding of the issues, but unless we can make predictions the information is useless. Justifying and rationalizing historical incidents is a complete waste of time unless you can apply the lessons to future situations.
I've seen no argument against BitCoin that holds up to the merest cursory level of scrutiny, and there are enough historical parallels to indicate that it will be wildly successful. (Of specific note, the ubiquitous use of non-standard currency in revolutionary times for contraband. Ever wonder why our monetary system is based on the 'dollare and 'centavo instead of the pound and pence?)
Is that all of economics? Are you only able to see and explain the past, or are you able to predict the future?
I'm taking a stand. BitCoin has no logical flaws, and will rise in popularity simply because it has better utility and fewer disadvantages.
I wish I was the guy that came up with this pyramid scheme, I'd be liquidating by bitcoins and enjoying my mansion in Hawaii.
And... voila!
The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it, because of course you're not really looking. You don't really want to know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn't clap yet. Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back. That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call "The Prestige".
For those armchair economists here who haven't read anything about Bitcoin, but know what it's all about because they're, like, economists, I present this link:
Reading this might prevent your post from getting a response that makes you seem ignorant, if you care about that sort of thing.
(Such posts as: "it's a Ponzi scheme", "it can't work because it's not based on anything", "it's only for illegal commerce", "it's got some sort of technical flaw", or "the authorities will try to stop it, and that's important".)
It's top heavy, so I inserted a rare earth magnet in the base and covered over with felt. It now solidly sticks to metal surfaces. It's also manual aim and manual focus, with no staging. This can be a pain for certain applications.
I use it for surface examination when I'm experimenting with process - such as processes for making PCBs. Here's an example. I take pics of the final result and create a LibreOffice word page describing the details of the process and how well it worked out. This goes into my lab notebook.
For medium magnifications it's pretty useful, and I like being able to grab digital pics on my computer and annotate, save notes, and send to people (like in the post above).
"the single largest environmental disaster in U.S. history."
The oil spill did not happen in the United States. It happened in International Waters under the supervision of a British petroleum company.
Really dude? Is this important?
Is there some official administrative "stamp" of accuracy for environmental disasters? Is there some "office of deflecting bad opinion" that is responsible for keeping people accurate?
This sounds *exactly* like something a paid troll would say. "Ya know, Vietnam wasn't really a war" and such-like.
Your statement only serves to defuse public outrage. It helps those responsible avoid and minimize any sense of responsibility to the public. We should be holding their feet to the fire, not looking for ways to find the situation acceptable.
And to be more clearly on point, the drilling was overseen by the Minerals Management Service, a federal agency responsible for the safety protocols of the drilling at the time, and whose failure allowed the accident to happen. It was very much a US disaster.
Physicists like to think they are smarter than everyone else, but they often make big fools of themselves on non-physics topics that require social intelligence.
A quick search of Amazon and eBay turns up quite a few "quick MBA" selections. Titles like:
The One-Day MBA MBA in a Day: What You Would Learn at Top-Tier Business Schools The Mobile MBA: 112 Skills to Take You Further, Faster 2012 -Man The 10-Day MBA Complete MBA For Dummies
I couldn't find anything remotely similar for a degree in physics.
Memories are tied to emotion. In broad strokes, emotions act as a "volume control" for how well and easily you remember. A situation accompanied by emotion is important for survival, so you tend to remember the details. It's why we can recall the exciting parts of movies, but not the dialogue.
It's also why, even now 30 years later, nerds can recite large swatches of Monty Python verbatim.
Slashdot Mirror
According to this page, you can actually do this.
Get a 900 number, forward your line to it, and wait a week or two.
I believe anyone can get a 900 number, or one of those "costs $0.50 to vote" numbers.
Can you forward your phone line to one of these?
(Note: Caller ID can be spoofed, but the charge collections system uses ANI, which *can't* be spoofed.)
Can you forward the line to someone interesting? The president, the RNC, the Phillipine embassy?
If they harass you about it, just claim that it was an accident...
Is there some evidence that psychopaths are more or less rational than other people?
Fair point. I was using the term "rational" as a counterpoint to "emotional".
Psychopaths are well known for making choices which are coldly beneficial, without consideration for feelings which would arise from the affect their choices have on others - their choices have little or no emotional bias. Psychopathy tests score emotional aspects such as "Lack of Remorse or Guilt" and "Callousness and Lack of Empathy" as suggestive for psychopathy.
Both emotional and un-emotional choices are rational in the sense of "being done for a reason" (as opposed to "random").
He actually contradicted himself in the last sentence.
I think he's making a distinction between "full on" psychopaths and "the rest of the spectrum".
This (if I'm reading his post correctly) is problematic in a bunch of ways; for instance, where is the cutoff between "full on" and "OK to have in the population"? For his distinction, behaviour might be a better metric; ie - illegal actions rather than suggestive tendencies.
References would better clarify his position.
Full-on psychopaths do not normally make good leaders and I know of no evidence that it's an advantage to have psychopaths in the population.
That's a bold statement. Is it an opinion? (ie - can you back it up with references?)
Lots of references for my point of view here.
The problem with psychopathy is that the very definition came from selection bias.
We took a bunch of people who exhibited aberrant behaviour (socially unacceptable behaviour) and looked for common attributes. Then we invented a name for these attributes ("psychopathic") and the name became associated with the behaviour, but not the attributes.
There is abundant evidence that psychopathic tendencies are a spectrum. It's not a binary label, there's levels and shades of grey.
There is also abundant evidence that psychopathic tendencies are common.
There is also the evolutionary model, which proposes that leadership requires vision that isn't swayed by other people. The tribe will occasionally need leaders, so it's an advantage to have some psychopaths in the population. They are the ones who can step back and analyze a situation rationally, who aren't helpless against the flow of public opinion, and are immune to groupthink and mob psychology.
It should come as no surprise that lots of people are closet psychopaths, to any specific degree. The problem isn't that they are psychopaths, it's that they somehow feel that that they are damaged, dangerous, or somehow unacceptable. (Viz: gay people).
Relax, it's all right. We've identified a set of genes, you have a subset, and life is what you make of it.
Why did these guys fuck up the whole thing?
All actions by Federal government players seem rational when viewed from their point of view.
The problem with most analysis, here or on other sites across the web, is in the assumptions. Specifically, if you assume that the government actions are for some benefit to the people, or efficiently completes some task (which is assumed to benefit the people), then nothing they do makes sense. That assumption makes for good outrage which can attract readers, but it doesn't answer the question of "why".
When government actions are viewed in light of more obvious motivations, everything it does makes sense. You start to see them not as an pack of incompetent, bureaucratic screw-ups, but as a self-sustaining, self-absorbed, engine of corruption.
I'm not aware of *anything* the federal government's done in the past two decades that's been in the interests of the people. All the useful stuff, the stuff you would want to keep across a reboot, was several decades ago.
I don't know the specifics of why an obscure database was chosen over the obvious players, but the reason wasn't "best utility for the people". Look for another reason.
The most recent Big Dog video shows that this is a (largely) solved issue for quadrupeds. The middle of the video shows it walking over stumps, navigating a swingset, and so on.
Still, "four legs good, two legs better". Or so they say...
That's a good post, spot on and insightful. Thanks.
It should be on Google's home page, starting Saturday.
Perhaps it's not Saturday yet where you are? Or maybe it's locked by country-code or something?
I'm the sort who prefers a more socialist state but I don't see how a wage disparity causes democracy to unravel
Here's a thought experiment:
1) Allocate an array of floats and set each value to 1.0.
2) Randomly choose a float, weighted by its value, and increase its value by 1%, then replace it.
"Weighted by its value" means that the probability of choosing any float is it's value divided by the sum of all values in the array.
3) Repeat 2 above for a large number of rounds.
What you will find is that over time some values will skyrocket exponentially. This happens regardless of the number of floats or the amount of increase, or whether the increase is gifted or zero-sum (ie - whether the increase is deducted from the other values). It's an effect inherent in the "increase by percent" rule, which defines an exponential growth. It also doesn't depend on the initial values, so long as the value isn't zero (negative values will skyrocket the other direction).
This mathematical model underlies much of our current economy, with net (invested) worth being the float value, and compound interest being the rule. The old saying "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer" is rooted in mathematics.
Different rules affect the rates in different ways: compound interest is an exponential increase on value, but inflation is an exponential drain. The difference between two exponentials is itself an exponential (unless they are exactly equal), so the result is still an exponential. Government subsidy is the zero-sum rule of increasing the value of one float by taking it away from others, &c.
Consider now the effect of a fixed consumption level: food, shelter, and so on. As the system becomes more mature, ever more of the total value is stored in fewer floats, and the majority of floats become proportionally small. As mentioned, government subsidies serve to increase a few values at the expense of others, as does inflation.
When the situation matures enough that most people cannot afford food and shelter, they will revolt. They will burn down the system and try something new. (Viz: French Revolution)
Something that takes us out of the exponential mathematical model might serve to defuse discontent and revolution. Whether capping executive pay is effective or sufficient remains to be seen, but on the surface it looks like a rational response to avert a foregone outcome.
Wow, ad hominem, the telltale that a person knows they've lost the argument.
It took an ad hominem attack to wake you up, to get you to think through the issues and post a well-thought-out position that isn't facially ludicrous.
You have a good point (finally!), which you should have posted in the 1st response above. Keep it in mind, and post it the next time BitCoin comes up.
I like teasing trolls, but waking one up is an unexpected delight - like finding a $20 bill on the ground. I look forward to the next debate.
...don't be surprised when Bitcoin's two major technical flaws, massive block chain size and constantly increasing time to complete a transaction, finally catches up to it. The more bitcoin transactions, the larger the blockchain grows and the more drive space it costs you. The more people adopt bitcoin the faster it will become bloated to the point of usability.
Wow! A cogent, reasoned response, easily destroyed by a quick google search.
Apparently you can only win arguments against people who can't google. How's that working out for you?
In 10 years bitcoin will be seen the way an AOL dialup connection is viewed today, primitive and outdated, though there will likely still be a handful of dialup users left even then. Though much money will be made from trading them in the mean time, they will become worthless soon enough.
A bold statement. What's your reasoning? Because, like, your emotional energy isn't convincing me.
There are 2 other Bitcoin apologists besides you slithering around here. Ornia and Triclipse. One thing is for certain. When Nerdcoin inevitably implodes, idiots like you will be totally silent on the issues, having lost a tremendous amount of face. But don't count on people like me forgetting. When the Shitcoin bubble pops, better get yourself a new Slashdot ID.
Old Chinese saying: "If you wait by the river long enough, eventually you will see the body of your enemy float by."
Your position requires that you sit back and wait. That's fine from my point of view, but a different course of action might yield better results from your point of view: take a chance!
BitCoin might very well implode, and when it does I'll happily admit that I was wrong. There's nothing bad about that.
At the moment, the issue is why will it explode?
We can read all the economics textbooks and papers in the world and have a deep understanding of the issues, but unless we can make predictions the information is useless. Justifying and rationalizing historical incidents is a complete waste of time unless you can apply the lessons to future situations.
I've seen no argument against BitCoin that holds up to the merest cursory level of scrutiny, and there are enough historical parallels to indicate that it will be wildly successful. (Of specific note, the ubiquitous use of non-standard currency in revolutionary times for contraband. Ever wonder why our monetary system is based on the 'dollare and 'centavo instead of the pound and pence?)
Is that all of economics? Are you only able to see and explain the past, or are you able to predict the future?
I'm taking a stand. BitCoin has no logical flaws, and will rise in popularity simply because it has better utility and fewer disadvantages.
You think it will implode. What's your reasoning?
LOL - that article is full of propaganda.
I wish I was the guy that came up with this pyramid scheme, I'd be liquidating by bitcoins and enjoying my mansion in Hawaii.
And... voila!
The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it, because of course you're not really looking. You don't really want to know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn't clap yet. Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back. That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call "The Prestige".
For those armchair economists here who haven't read anything about Bitcoin, but know what it's all about because they're, like, economists, I present this link:
Bitcoin - The Libertarian Introduction.
Reading this might prevent your post from getting a response that makes you seem ignorant, if you care about that sort of thing.
(Such posts as: "it's a Ponzi scheme", "it can't work because it's not based on anything", "it's only for illegal commerce", "it's got some sort of technical flaw", or "the authorities will try to stop it, and that's important".)
Ah you've discovered an irrelevant pedant troll. Though common, it's one of my favourites.
Nice reply. It's going into my "quotes" file - thanks!
you can use the material from inside a floppy disk as a visible light filter
If you have a developed roll of film, the black frame at the ends of the roll is opaque to visible light but transparent to IR.
If you have an old blacklight bulb, the glass is Wood's Glass, which blocks visible light but is transparent to IR and UV.
Transmission characteristics of Wood's glass
I have a $40 digital microscope from eBay.
It's top heavy, so I inserted a rare earth magnet in the base and covered over with felt. It now solidly sticks to metal surfaces. It's also manual aim and manual focus, with no staging. This can be a pain for certain applications.
I use it for surface examination when I'm experimenting with process - such as processes for making PCBs. Here's an example. I take pics of the final result and create a LibreOffice word page describing the details of the process and how well it worked out. This goes into my lab notebook.
Here's another example.
For medium magnifications it's pretty useful, and I like being able to grab digital pics on my computer and annotate, save notes, and send to people (like in the post above).
"the single largest environmental disaster in U.S. history."
The oil spill did not happen in the United States. It happened in International Waters under the supervision of a British petroleum company.
Really dude? Is this important?
Is there some official administrative "stamp" of accuracy for environmental disasters? Is there some "office of deflecting bad opinion" that is responsible for keeping people accurate?
This sounds *exactly* like something a paid troll would say. "Ya know, Vietnam wasn't really a war" and such-like.
Your statement only serves to defuse public outrage. It helps those responsible avoid and minimize any sense of responsibility to the public. We should be holding their feet to the fire, not looking for ways to find the situation acceptable.
And to be more clearly on point, the drilling was overseen by the Minerals Management Service, a federal agency responsible for the safety protocols of the drilling at the time, and whose failure allowed the accident to happen. It was very much a US disaster.
I just want to say that, though I often attack, bully, and sometimes insult people on this very forum, I'm not a paid shill.
It's more of a "calling".
(Wait... what? I can also get *paid*?)
Physicists like to think they are smarter than everyone else, but they often make big fools of themselves on non-physics topics that require social intelligence.
A quick search of Amazon and eBay turns up quite a few "quick MBA" selections. Titles like:
The One-Day MBA
MBA in a Day: What You Would Learn at Top-Tier Business Schools
The Mobile MBA: 112 Skills to Take You Further, Faster 2012 -Man
The 10-Day MBA
Complete MBA For Dummies
I couldn't find anything remotely similar for a degree in physics.
What else you got?
Not really looking for yet another "Best of Python" stitched together and acted by old men.
I'll have you're Python, then. I love it!
Memories are tied to emotion. In broad strokes, emotions act as a "volume control" for how well and easily you remember. A situation accompanied by emotion is important for survival, so you tend to remember the details. It's why we can recall the exciting parts of movies, but not the dialogue.
It's also why, even now 30 years later, nerds can recite large swatches of Monty Python verbatim.