[FRIAM] anthropological observations

[Steven A Smith]

Nick-

Interesting (apt?) choice of poker-hands to attribute to "the Hillary"
and to "the Donald".

- Sieve

On 4/18/20 12:31 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
>
> So, Eric [Charles],
>
>  
>
> What exactly were the /practicial/ consequences of declaring that
> Hillary was “probably” going to win the election or that a full house
> was probably going to win the pot given she lost and the dealer held a
> strait flush? 
>
>  
>
> Nick
>
>  
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com>
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Eric Charles
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 18, 2020 12:06 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] anthropological observations
>
>  
>
> -------- Nick says --------- Nate constantly says that making such
> predictions is, strictly speaking, not his job.  As long as what
> happens falls within the error of his prediction, he feels justified
> in having made it.   He will say things like, "actually we were
> right."  I would prefer him to say, "Actually we were wrong, /but I
> would make the same prediction under the same circumstances the next
> time.”  /In other words, the right procedure produced, on this
> occasion, a wrong result. -----------------
>
>  
>
> Well... so this connects a lot with poker, which I am in the process
> of teaching the 10 year old... If I recall, Nate was giving Trump a
> 1/3 chance of victory, which was much higher than most of the other
> models at the time. You can hardly fault someone because something
> happened that they said would happen 2/3 of the time. 
>
>  
>
> If a poker player has a model that predicts a given play to be the
> best option, because it will work 2/3 of the time, and this one time
> it doesn't work, that isn't grounds to say the model failed. 
>
>  
>
>  YOU want the modelers to have models that rarely give anything close
> to even odds. So do I, so I'm sympathetic. But the modeler might
> prefer a more honest model, that includes more uncertainty, for a wide
> variety of reasons. 
>
>
> -----------
>
> Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
> Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist
>
> American University - Adjunct Instructor
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 12:17 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <gepropella at gmail.com
> <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I think it's interesting that you seemed to have *flipped* your
>     thinking within the same post. You restate my point about
>     conceptual metaphors by saying models/computation merely
>     *justifies* decisions/rhetoric. Then a few paragraphs later, you
>     suggest that's conflating language with thought.
>
>     My diatribe to Nick was that he *uses* metaphors/models simply to
>     impute his conceptual structure onto Nate. Nick's decision is
>     already made and he wants Nate's work to justify it. And the way
>     he *imputes* his conceptual structure into Nate's work is through
>     the sloppy use of metaphor. Then when Nate tells Nick (indirectly)
>     that Nick's wrong about what Nate's done, Nick rejects Nate's
>     objection.
>
>     I'm picking on Nick, of course. We all do it. I wish we all did it
>     much less.
>
>     On 4/18/20 6:14 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>     > But frankly as often as not, I saw
>     > them use our work to *justify* the decision they had already made or
>     > were leaning heavily toward, *apparently* based on larger strategic
>     > biases.
>     >
>     > [...]
>     >
>     > As for your gut-level (and often well articulated) mistrust of
>     > "metaphorical thinking",  you may conflate a belief (such as
>     mine) that
>     > language is metaphorical at it's base with being a "metaphorical
>     > thinker".    Metaphor gets a bad rap/rep perhaps because of the
>     > "metaphorical license" often taken in creative arts (albeit for a
>     > different and possibly higher purpose).  
>
>     -- 
>     ☣ uǝlƃ
>
>     .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -..
>     .- ... .... . ...
>     FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>     Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>     <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
>     unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>     archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>     FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC>
>     http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200418/0ba2b743/attachment.html>