The Conspirapoker method.

[Lies]

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.  

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Christ, we're just begging for another HWWWNN infestation around here, aren't we?

[Lies]

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.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

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.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

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.

[BadBeast]

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! 

[LMNO]

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...

[Kai]

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.

[BadBeast]

I thought I was just being a bit of a Space Cadet.

[LMNO]

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.

[Kai]

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.

[LMNO]

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.

[Kai]

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.

[LMNO]

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%.

[Kai]

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.