Current events and the age of the paranoid times has led me to coming up with a method to "weigh" conspiracy theories- I'm going to call it "Conspirapoker" method (actually, it's something else, but I know you guys are going to make a big deal out of the name and completely ignore what I'm talking about, I'm calling it this instead here)
Essentially, the theory is this: Just like a game of poker (texas hold em in this case), there is information that we know(our cards, and community cards), and information thats "out there" that we don't know- (ie the other players cards and the cards left in the deck).
Poker, despite what many people believe, is a winnable game, the "odds" of particular outcomes are calculable.
Now, the odds of getting any particular end game outcome weighs on the strength of the "cards", 2-7 being the worst possible 2 cards- the odds of getting a full house on the flop are about 300,000 to 1. (IIRC).
The best cards you can have of course are pair aces, and then there are all the cards in between that vary in "starting strength".
Now, just like conspiracies, there are things that make the odds of a conspiracy being true more likely, just are there are things that make the odds of a conspiracy NOT being true more likely- Since due to the very nature of conspiracies, it's nearly impossible to verify them- just as it's impossible to "know" what your opponents have in poker and what the deck contains- BUT, you can make educated guesses as to what's likely.
In conspiracies, things like incentive, risk to reward ratio, power, organisation, and other things I'll think up soon, would all give "weight" to a conspiracy, and so I *believe*, with the proper methodology, it's possible to calculate the "odds" of any particular conspiracy being likely.
That's the *theory* anyway. I'm still trying to flesh this out. But I think I'm onto something here....
Thoughts, suggestions, criticisms welcome.
Christ, we're just begging for another HWWWNN infestation around here, aren't we?
Quote from: Nigel on May 05, 2011, 05:27:06 AM
Christ, we're just begging for another HWWWNN infestation around here, aren't we?
Good point, you guys are going to bitch about the name, so changed for keeping things relevant to the idea at hand.
Lys-
I like the conspiracy trip that you're on. Or rather the anti conspiracy trip that you're on. Conspiracy theories are the new big delusion. That and the Tea Party movement. They kinda have some overlap though. But, yeah dude, I'm liking it. Keep up the good work.
:mittens:
Afterthought-
I was stunned at how quick the crackpots came out after Bin Laden's death. Usually it seems like they need a month or two to figure out something crazy, but they had it lined right up.
Those pots were all cracked anyway. They were never meant to hold water for long, just give the reassuring illusion that they could. For some time now, I've entertained the theory that Bin Laden is some kind of Djinn, and beyond the reach of mere mortality. The dynamic he's been apparently playing with for the last decade is far greater in magnitude than any Human could possibly have any control over. He's instigated three fucking enormous Wargasms, without having to even stick one of his heads above the parapets. A few moody VHS and Audio cassettes, Then it's back to the Underworld, via Tora boru, or melting back into the desert sands, with no trace. I think the C.I.A were always aware of his "Tiger's blood", After all, he'd already been instrumental in driving one Superpower out of Afghanistan, with the Russian thing. (People tend to forget that) He's a
Cthonic Archetype from the pages of Arabian Nights, from one perspective. Of course they haven't got his body, or his DNA, he's a fucking Nephilim!
Of course, there's only so far you can run with that before your brains start oozing out of your ears, so I'm reserving judgement as to it's veracity as a theory. But I'm not ruling it out yet, because it makes as much sense as the official view, that he's some kind of Evil Master of Terror, trying to instigate some new reign of Eek!
Sounds like you're using Bayesian reasoning as applied to social narratives. Given a probability of A, you can adjust that based on the probability of B. As the value of B changes, so to does A.
In mathspeak,
P(A|B) = P(B|A) P(A)
P(B)
Dunno if that helps...
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 05, 2011, 01:13:22 PM
Sounds like you're using Bayesian reasoning as applied to social narratives. Given a probability of A, you can adjust that based on the probability of B. As the value of B changes, so to does A.
In mathspeak,
P(A|B) = P(B|A) P(A)
P(B)
Dunno if that helps...
Funny how you and I both thought of Bayes' Theorem upon seeing the OP.
I thought I was just being a bit of a Space Cadet.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 05, 2011, 01:34:10 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 05, 2011, 01:13:22 PM
Sounds like you're using Bayesian reasoning as applied to social narratives. Given a probability of A, you can adjust that based on the probability of B. As the value of B changes, so to does A.
In mathspeak,
P(A|B) = P(B|A) P(A)
P(B)
Dunno if that helps...
Funny how you and I both thought of Bayes' Theorem upon seeing the OP.
I'm finally finishing up the sequences Cain lovingly transferred to Word. The last bit on Fun Theory is great.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 05, 2011, 01:42:30 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 05, 2011, 01:34:10 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 05, 2011, 01:13:22 PM
Sounds like you're using Bayesian reasoning as applied to social narratives. Given a probability of A, you can adjust that based on the probability of B. As the value of B changes, so to does A.
In mathspeak,
P(A|B) = P(B|A) P(A)
P(B)
Dunno if that helps...
Funny how you and I both thought of Bayes' Theorem upon seeing the OP.
I'm finally finishing up the sequences Cain lovingly transferred to Word. The last bit on Fun Theory is great.
See, but here's my problem: how do you figure out the priors? How can you even APPLY numerical priors to social situations? Intuition? I don't even know. This is where Bayes' Theorem fails for me. I can figure out how to adjust probability once I have a prior, but without priors I can't even use it. And in most cases, there are no clearly defined priors.
Because I'm not very good at math, I use it as a guideline and a reminder: Every new bit of information should change your confidence in the Truth of an Idea.
I subjectively assign a percentage of assurance to an idea: "I'm 70% sure X is true."
Then Y happens. Now I think, "Given Y, how does that affect X?"
Then, I update X: "Because of Y, I am now 83% sure X is true."
Then, Z happens. GOTO 2.
Update again: "Because of Y and Z, I am now 61% sure X is true."
It's not pure Bayes, but it gives a structure, and a way forward.
At least, that's how I'm using it. I'm sure it will seem like common sense to many. But at the same time, many who consider it common sense don't use it. By calling it a Method, I can remind myself to use it.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 05, 2011, 02:07:00 PM
Because I'm not very good at math, I use it as a guideline and a reminder: Every new bit of information should change your confidence in the Truth of an Idea.
I subjectively assign a percentage of assurance to an idea: "I'm 70% sure X is true."
Then Y happens. Now I think, "Given Y, how does that affect X?"
Then, I update X: "Because of Y, I am now 83% sure X is true."
Then, Z happens. GOTO 2.
Update again: "Because of Y and Z, I am now 61% sure X is true."
It's not pure Bayes, but it gives a structure, and a way forward.
At least, that's how I'm using it. I'm sure it will seem like common sense to many. But at the same time, many who consider it common sense don't use it. By calling it a Method, I can remind myself to use it.
I was thinking about this on the bus in just a few minutes ago. It seems we should, without any priors, start from a position of equal odds. In other words, the default prior should be 50% without any other evidence, as that would indicate no information on whether the outcome is more likely to be one thing or another. I can then link any evidence to that, to push it one way or the other.
I'm also not very good at math. But I feel like I could still use Bayes's Theorem with some practice.
True, but I feel it's not practical to start without any priors. In the realm of experience, your entire history acts as a prior.
You see a wire attached to a car battery. Ok, we set the odds that it will shock you if you touch it at 50%. Either it will, or it won't.
Instantly, I recalculate upwards based on the previous knowledge that car batteries can send electricity down that wire.
Then, I calculate downwards based on my incomplete knowledge on electrical flow; I don't think a circuit has been made.
Then someone tells me that another other wire is touching a puddle I'm standing in. Recalculate upwards.
Finally, someone tells me that the car battery is actually dead. I suddenly realize that I haven't calculated the trustworthiness of this person. I leave the odds as greater than 50% for now, and start over with whether I can trust this person. Once I've settled on a probability of that, I can return to the case at hand. In this instance, I trust them completely, so now my odds are well below 50%.
All of that taking too much time, though. Sometimes simple intuition without active calculation is best when time is short.
I do like the point that you bring up though, that there are always priors. The problem is finding them.
Granted, by the time I reach "I recalculate upwards based on the previous knowledge that car batteries can send electricity down that wire" I've stepped well away from the wire and out of the puddle. Once assured I am in no danger, I can proceed with the rest of the process.
At some point, you reach a percentage where it's in your best interest to act. But that doesn't have to stop the process.
Also, this can happen in an instant. The brain can work pretty fast, sometimes. Explaining your actions afterwards takes time, though.
My priors are:
Realists are always wrong. Always.
and
Conspiracy theorists are either wrong, dead or in on it. Conspiring leaves little time for posting on the internet.
Ok, I'm feeling particularly dumb. What's the Realist stance, again?
Quote from: Cain on May 05, 2011, 04:48:23 PM
Realists are always wrong. Always.
I'd just like to remind that reversed stupidity isn't intelligence. "The world's greatest fool may say the sun is shining, but that doesn't make it dark out."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_in_international_relations_theory
Everything you know about Realism is that it did not predict the end of the Cold War and cannot protect us against the Zombie menace (http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/21/oh_right_the_zombies). And Mearsheimer (a Realist) wrote a hilariously wrong prediction (http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=22382#post-157793l) about where Europe was going in 1989, which involved Germany acquiring nuclear weapons.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 05, 2011, 04:59:55 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 05, 2011, 04:48:23 PM
Realists are always wrong. Always.
I'd just like to remind that reversed stupidity isn't intelligence. "The world's greatest fool may say the sun is shining, but that doesn't make it dark out."
Yes. But as a wise man once said "trolling Realists is fun." Trolling Realists is a moral duty is one of my priors.
A brief review make it sound like cynical pragmatism, doing what's good for the nation absent of ideology or morality.
While I can see using Realism in the short term can end up with results such as giving weapons and training to the Taliban which is later used against us, what are the other errors in Realistic thinking?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 05, 2011, 05:20:41 PM
A brief review make it sound like cynical pragmatism, doing what's good for the nation absent of ideology or morality.
While I can see using Realism in the short term can end up with results such as giving weapons and training to the Taliban which is later used against us, what are the other errors in Realistic thinking?
Using the state as the basic unit of assumption.
Using an abstracted to the point of uselessness theoretical approach (Bi-polar systems may be more stable, but what does that tell us about the outcome of the Cold War?).
Assumption of unitary rationalism at the state level.
The Democratic Peace Theory does contradict it.
Most forms of realism attempt to explain all outcomes in a highly reductionist manner. Ie; war happens because humans are bad. This fails to explain why peace occurs, in this example.
Some components of their thinking are useful. However, except in the case of the Iraq War, where Realists where mostly opposed, the Realist track record is dismal. This could be because the actual founders of Realism were actively involved in the making of policy (Machiavelli, Thucydides, E.H. Carr) whereas most modern Realists (Jervis, Walt, Mearsheimer) are cushy academics with tenure and who make extra cash off inflating the threat of China.
Ah. I think I can see that, now.
Ok, apparently one of my personal flawed biases is to adopt another's premise too quickly. This is the second time today it's been pointed out to me that I've been standing on flawed foundations, usually provided by someone else.
Interestingly, it's been Cain showing me that, both times.
Realism is less insane than Neoconservatism and less self-righteous than liberal interventionism, which is why it tends to look so good in the current climate.
It is better, but only comparatively speaking.
Cain
still has a soft spot for Machiavelli, Carr, Metternich and Tallyrand
Thanks for the input guys, I'll put this into consideration and update you as I come up with stuff
OK, here is a case study for your methodology: Operation Gladio.
If you want, I can provide a single source dealing with this purported conspiracy (via PM), and let us see your system at work.
Actually, what I think would be useful right now are a list of conspiracies that *actually* been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt so I can find things that are common between them and such, for now.
My methodology is still a work in process so I can't exactly "assess" anything yet til its a bit more fleshed out....
Quote from: Lies on May 06, 2011, 01:41:52 PM
Actually, what I think would be useful right now are a list of conspiracies that *actually* been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt so I can find things that are common between them and such, for now.
My methodology is still a work in process so I can't exactly "assess" anything yet til its a bit more fleshed out....
Well, depends on your required level of proven. I would say that is proven, but I may be biased from years of research.
OK, here are a list of proven conspiracies, in my estimation:
Operation Gladio
MK-Ultra
The Iran-Contra Affair
Operation Paperclip
COINTELPRO
Many of the activities of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International
The Soviet Union set up a fake organization of defectors in order to find out who their real opponents were, lure them back into the Soviet Union and execute them (this was known as The Trust).
Many invasions, such as the Soviet attack on Finland and the German attack on Poland which ignited WWII, were false flag operations where the Soviet/German armies created fake attacks to justify their wars. Also Japan did the same with their invasion of Manchuria.
The Marxist-Leninist Party of the Netherlands was a false front created by Dutch intelligence to allow them to contact and work with Chinese intelligence against the USSR.
Propaganda Due. Just...Propaganda Due.
http://www.youtube.com/user/deadkennedys555?ob=5#p/u/14/UZWOoFr4Y-s
http://www.youtube.com/user/deadkennedys555?ob=5#p/u/45/87lfMLVp6I8
http://www.youtube.com/user/deadkennedys555?ob=5#p/u/3/AefY_IDpTjc
http://www.youtube.com/user/deadkennedys555?ob=5#p/u/38/FK2JZ6x1qCM
http://www.youtube.com/user/deadkennedys555?ob=5#p/u/97/Uy6StqV6xBg
http://www.youtube.com/user/deadkennedys555?ob=5#p/u/407/Ia9t8eecNYo
http://www.youtube.com/user/deadkennedys555?ob=5#p/u/94/YeWbul-ZKDA
Quote from: Cain on May 06, 2011, 01:54:04 PM
Quote from: Lies on May 06, 2011, 01:41:52 PM
Actually, what I think would be useful right now are a list of conspiracies that *actually* been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt so I can find things that are common between them and such, for now.
My methodology is still a work in process so I can't exactly "assess" anything yet til its a bit more fleshed out....
Well, depends on your required level of proven. I would say that is proven, but I may be biased from years of research.
OK, here are a list of proven conspiracies, in my estimation:
Operation Gladio
MK-Ultra
The Iran-Contra Affair
Operation Paperclip
COINTELPRO
Many of the activities of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International
The Soviet Union set up a fake organization of defectors in order to find out who their real opponents were, lure them back into the Soviet Union and execute them (this was known as The Trust).
Many invasions, such as the Soviet attack on Finland and the German attack on Poland which ignited WWII, were false flag operations where the Soviet/German armies created fake attacks to justify their wars. Also Japan did the same with their invasion of Manchuria.
The Marxist-Leninist Party of the Netherlands was a false front created by Dutch intelligence to allow them to contact and work with Chinese intelligence against the USSR.
Propaganda Due. Just...Propaganda Due.
Thanks a lot Cain, I'll look into these and consider them into my theories.