Liberal Forum

LibDave » 30 Dec 2021, 10:53 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 10:53 pm

The example I gave earlier was of a study done. They took 500 Obama supporters and 500 Trump supporters and gave them the inaugural and state of the union speeches of both Trump and Obama and were told they would be asked questions about the speech afterwards. Only they switched the names of the candidates in bold letters at the top of the pages.

Out of 500 Obama supporters something like 475 when given multiple choice questions as to which policies they supported chose the policies of the opposite candidate. And they also provided reasons why. Almost the same results from the Trump supporters. So what does this say about the way humans make decisions? And what is it about yourself that makes you PRESUME you aren't in that 95% group? Or me for that matter. I was, I know that for sure.

this is because 95% of people literally do not think.  It gives them a headache

Now honestly block your perception and actually examine the facts and list out the philosophical possibilities. Not what you THINK Bezos did that linked him to this conspiracy, but what the possibilities are.

SJConspirator » 30 Dec 2021, 11:02 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 11:02 pm

this is because 95% of people literally do not think.  It gives them a headache

Could it be you make decisions just like most everyone else.  What makes you different.  We all think our perspective is OBVIOUSLY right.
 

LibDave » 30 Dec 2021, 11:01 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 11:01 pm

I will could be someone inside Sears did some **** stuff to Sears.  But to make a connection to Bezos is a long stretch without ANY evidence.  Your brain naturally made that connection because that is the perception you have of the world and how business works.  If you believe the system is corrupt your brain will automatically make logical connections which are completely illogical based on that perception of the world.  It is how we work.  It is how we sort of paraphrase the world around us.  Our brain simplifies analysis.  It has to because it receives a great deal of input and can't process it.  So we develop a viewpoint of the world and before we even logically look at the factual details our brain has chosen which side of the issue it believes will be true.  And then it thinks up reasons for why the data presented fits our model.  Our preconceived perception of the world.  This is why people who think happy thoughts often see mostly good in the world and are happy people.  But the curmudgeonly old coot who see has a notion the world is out to cause him grief sees nothing but ill-intent everywhere he looks.

I granted my theory was conspiratorial. But I believe my worldview is correct because it has proven to have very strong predictive and explanatory power. Basically the essence of epistemology. 

You would of course struggle to explain why the ceo of sears might sabotage sears. From your own world view this would never happen.. that is why you are resisting it despite a lot of very powerful circumstantial evidence. 

No matter. I would like to move to something that has now been confirmed and accepted by historians. The history of united fruit, the assistance of the Cia, and the resulting conquest of central American countries. This also refutes your world view of meritocracy and honest business

LibDave » 30 Dec 2021, 11:01 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 11:01 pm

It will could be someone inside Sears did some **** stuff to Sears.  But to make a connection to Bezos is a long stretch without ANY evidence.  Your brain naturally made that connection because that is the perception you have of the world and how business works.  If you believe the system is corrupt your brain will automatically make logical connections which are completely illogical based on that perception of the world.  It is how we work.  It is how we sort of paraphrase the world around us.  Our brain simplifies analysis.  It has to because it receives a great deal of input and can't process it.  So we develop a viewpoint of the world and before we even logically look at the factual details our brain has chosen which side of the issue it believes will be true.  And then it thinks up reasons for why the data presented fits our model.  Our preconceived perception of the world.  This is why people who think happy thoughts often see mostly good in the world and are happy people.  But the curmudgeonly old coot who see has a notion the world is out to cause him grief sees nothing but ill-intent everywhere he looks.

You say good morning to him and he thinks you are about to con him into something and so he replies, "Whats good about it!!!"

my mind is so open, it literally had garbage fall in and became an open sewer.

I am so suggestible, a hypnotist can put me in a trance within seconds.

yet, nothing you brought has been compelling even to one as open minded as me.  Because you are not stating facts, just theory.

And unless you have practiced the technique of overriding your confirmation bias's and cognitive dissonance I guarantee you brain simplifies and picks a side and then looks at the data for figure out why the data might match your preconceived perception of the world. And low and behold your brain figures it out and those fallacious mental links generated by your brain become reality. Not the other way around.

This is because our brains don't have the time to reconfigure our perceptions every 6 months even. We need these preconceived views of how the world works to simplify things so we can get on with our lives. It takes a great deal of practice to really learn how to push that aside and do real understanding. When you do, predicting what is to come becomes child's play for the most part.

LibDave » 30 Dec 2021, 11:10 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 11:10 pm

And unless you have practiced the technique of overriding your confirmation bias's and cognitive dissonance I guarantee you brain simplifies and picks a side and then looks at the data for figure out why the data might match your preconceived perception of the world. And low and behold your brain figures it out and those fallacious mental links generated by your brain become reality. Not the other way around.

This is because our brains don't have the time to reconfigure our perceptions every 6 months even. We need these preconceived views of how the world works to simplify things so we can get on with our lives. It takes a great deal of practice to really learn how to push that aside and do real understanding. When you do, predicting what is to come becomes child's play for the most part.

what you are calling confirmation bias is simply inductive reasoning lol. I have seen so much empirical evidence for how things really work that I have build a model that is actually highly predictive. 

LibDave » 30 Dec 2021, 11:10 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 11:10 pm

And unless you have practiced the technique of overriding your confirmation bias's and cognitive dissonance I guarantee you brain simplifies and picks a side and then looks at the data for figure out why the data might match your preconceived perception of the world. And low and behold your brain figures it out and those fallacious mental links generated by your brain become reality. Not the other way around.

This is because our brains don't have the time to reconfigure our perceptions every 6 months even. We need these preconceived views of how the world works to simplify things so we can get on with our lives. It takes a great deal of practice to really learn how to push that aside and do real understanding. When you do, predicting what is to come becomes child's play for the most part.

you have been preaching about the virtues of challenging ones own preconceived notions when confronted with new info, yet you refuse to even look at new info regarding FOS point about United Fruit.

FOS » 30 Dec 2021, 11:00 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 11:00 pm

his speeches were quite brilliant. But no normal person listens to them. You have to get unbrainwashed before you even consider listening to them.

this one my fave

https://youtu.be/XXjjmEPs5fc

FOS » 30 Dec 2021, 11:06 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 11:06 pm

I granted my theory was conspiratorial. But I believe my worldview is correct because it has proven to have very strong predictive and explanatory power. Basically the essence of epistemology. 

You would of course struggle to explain why the ceo of sears might sabotage sears. From your own world view this would never happen.. that is why you are resisting it despite a lot of very powerful circumstantial evidence. 

No matter. I would like to move to something that has now been confirmed and accepted by historians. The history of united fruit, the assistance of the Cia, and the resulting conquest of central American countries. This also refutes your world view of meritocracy and honest busines

Honestly I'm not totally familiar with this CEO's actions and what your information specifically accuses him of.  I do know that this is a nation of laws and the government isn't one to **** around with.  And they have taken down Billionaires many times to stepped over the line.  Slow sometimes but they do normally get them.  In regards to Sears CEO I would have to know first who the source of the accusations is.  That's the first thing you should always find out.  Where did this data come from.  Why is this source hoping to further this information?  If it is a biased source then don't even waste your time.  That's why you don't get much from MSM these days.
 

But to answer your query, I can tell you Sears was going down. There were a great number of business issues which they were not going to be able to overcome. They were absolutely on their way out and those in the know knew it long before they finally got crushed. There were a lot of people pointing fingers and a great number who were disgruntled. All the way from mechanics in the shop, to stock holders, laid off employees, pensions lost. Whether there was some unknown conspiracy link or not they weren't going to affect Bezos. And Bezos was likely way too busy to care about Sears. And I also know NEITHER of them developed the model. There were many write-ups about just this type of business model in WSJ and a ton of other business journals. Kind of futuristic stories about how, "In the future you will just ask your computer or robot to do the shopping and an hour later another robot will arrive in a flying car and place them on your doorstep. And your robot will pay for the groceries and take it right out of your account". So they didn't invent it by any stretch. About the same time they started trying to implement it. But the devil is in the details and clearly Bezos had an edge. Also the journals got the idea from young women who loved to shop. They loved it so much they thought it would be a good idea to sell stuff online. They would go to the mall and find stuff on sale and sell it for a profit. Small time ****. And many did okay. Some came to Sears and I'm sure that's where this CEO got the idea. Bezos too. But Bezos figured out how to make the model work. No nefarious conspiracy and hidden links. Just figured out how to make these young girls shopping model work on a grander scale

And don't forget Ebay. When Ebay found out about all these entrepreneurs starting up business they decided to provide them with a central site were they could auction these wares. Ebay still does well, but they don't bring it to your door. They have 3rd party shipment. This is why Bezos won. He just pieced together what was developing and figured out the best way to make the customers happy and do it cheaper and no one came up with as good a model. And yes the bigger he got the easier it was to cut costs through the miracle of economy of numbers.

LibDave » 30 Dec 2021, 11:24 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 11:24 pm

Honestly I'm not totally familiar with this CEO's actions and what your information specifically accuses him of.  I do know that this is a nation of laws and the government isn't one to **** around with.  And they have taken down Billionaires many times to stepped over the line.  Slow sometimes but they do normally get them.  In regards to Sears CEO I would have to know first who the source of the accusations is.  That's the first thing you should always find out.  Where did this data come from.  Why is this source hoping to further this information?  If it is a biased source then don't even waste your time.  That's why you don't get much from MSM these days.

I don't trust the msm at all lol. But I think we can safely agree that sears is currently suing their former ceo. And it has been admitted that his administration of sears was uncharacteristically incompetent...perhaps tactically incompetent. 

The mom is not going to connect the dots that I did of course. Because the msm is biased.. 

Regardless you yourself brought up Amazon and pretended bezos invented the business model. That was not true. That was your own confirmation bias. It is accepted fact that sears invented the model. But you assumed it was bezos because you think our economy is based on meritocracy...so why wouldn't it be bezos?

Didn't bill gates create the first operating system for a home pc? No, he didn't lol. He literally got rich selling someone else's work. 

Didn't Steve Jobs invent the gui? no.. Xerox did.. 

I mean we can go on for hours.. there was am element of meritocracy involved with wealth in the 1930s perhaps.. Henry Ford really did have great ideas. 

But not today. Not at all. 

SJConspirator » 30 Dec 2021, 11:12 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 11:12 pm

you have been preaching about the virtues of challenging ones own preconceived notions when confronted with new info, yet you refuse to even look at new info regarding FOS point about United Fruit.

My apologies.  It isn't out of rudeness.  More a lack of time.  Trying to answer questions and respond where I see confirmation links.  And of course I've got issues going on around here.  And I also have to watch the markets from time to time.  And that's work too trust me.  A lot of effort weeding out information and getting to the truth there too.
 

LibDave » 30 Dec 2021, 11:24 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 11:24 pm

But to answer your query, I can tell you Sears was going down. There were a great number of business issues which they were not going to be able to overcome. They were absolutely on their way out and those in the know knew it long before they finally got crushed. There were a lot of people pointing fingers and a great number who were disgruntled. All the way from mechanics in the shop, to stock holders, laid off employees, pensions lost. Whether there was some unknown conspiracy link or not they weren't going to affect Bezos. And Bezos was likely way too busy to care about Sears. And I also know NEITHER of them developed the model. There were many write-ups about just this type of business model in WSJ and a ton of other business journals. Kind of futuristic stories about how, "In the future you will just ask your computer or robot to do the shopping and an hour later another robot will arrive in a flying car and place them on your doorstep. And your robot will pay for the groceries and take it right out of your account". So they didn't invent it by any stretch. About the same time they started trying to implement it. But the devil is in the details and clearly Bezos had an edge. Also the journals got the idea from young women who loved to shop. They loved it so much they thought it would be a good idea to sell stuff online. They would go to the mall and find stuff on sale and sell it for a profit. Small time ****. And many did okay. Some came to Sears and I'm sure that's where this CEO got the idea. Bezos too. But Bezos figured out how to make the model work. No nefarious conspiracy and hidden links. Just figured out how to make these young girls shopping model work on a grander scale

You keep insisting that sears did not invent the Amazon business model...but the experts disagree with you. 

Naturally I do not agree with the narrative of this article...I have a more conspiratorial opiniom...but it does at least support my assertion about sears being competition for Amazon https://fortune.com/longform/sears-couldve-been-amazon/
 

FOS » 30 Dec 2021, 11:12 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 11:12 pm

what you are calling confirmation bias is simply inductive reasoning lol. I have seen so much empirical evidence for how things really work that I have build a model that is actually highly predictive.

The more information you bombard your mind with the more likely your confirmation bias is to hone it's ability to do just that.  It isn't easy and takes some work to learn how to list out all possibilities which could fit the same data.  Then you have to identify every link your brain makes and verify they are actually there.  Not just assume they are there because "Thats how the world works".  Thats only how the world works according to your perception model.
 

LibDave » 30 Dec 2021, 11:38 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 11:38 pm

The more information you bombard your mind with the more likely your confirmation bias is to hone it's ability to do just that.  It isn't easy and takes some work to learn how to list out all possibilities which could fit the same data.  Then you have to identify every link your brain makes and verify they are actually there.  Not just assume they are there because "Thats how the world works".  Thats only how the world works according to your perception model.

Tell me the difference between inductive reasoning and confirmation bias then? Shall we conclude that the scientific method is just confirmation bias?

Quite often you end up with at least 2 different logical possibilities. When this happens you cannot determine which is reality. So you have to assume BOTH are wrong... one perceived one possible. Then you make a prediction which could only occur if one was correct and not the other. Even if this is for the one you deem possible but incorrect. In fact it is best to develop 2 predictions if possible. One for each and wait. Later if one pans out then you know your logic is correct or not and can begin to adjust your perceptions to reality. This is a VERY valuable tool in business.

LibDave » 30 Dec 2021, 11:42 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2021, 11:42 pm

Quite often you end up with at least 2 different logical possibilities. When this happens you cannot determine which is reality. So you have to assume BOTH are wrong... one perceived one possible. Then you make a prediction which could only occur if one was correct and not the other. Even if this is for the one you deem possible but incorrect. In fact it is best to develop 2 predictions if possible. One for each and wait. Later if one pans out then you know your logic is correct or not and can begin to adjust your perceptions to reality. This is a VERY valuable tool in business.

you know what is a good tool in business? Having one prediction and being correct almost all of the time. 

I can do that. Because my world view is correct.

The scientific method is designed to remove confirmation bias from the equation. Yes. When you look at the data you are asked to put aside judgements and define what is unexplained precisely. Then you do the opposite... you allow your confirmation bias to develop a hypothesis based on your "notion" of how it works. Then you test out predictions based on all possibilities. The results should eventually lead you to the truth without bias. I never really thought of it that way... but yes it does seem to fit with the scientific process. I come at it from business and engineering and quantum.