Pragmatarian Discussion Thread

[Soldati Senza Confini]

1. Only in your mind.

2. Yes. Because everyone else ranks things based on actual, legitimate criteria, not on who has the most effective PR campaign.

What relevance does this have to BV VS DV? Youtube videos are ranked by BV. Non-profits are ranked by DV.

3. I've already told you several deep flaws in your methodology. If you want somebody to test these ideas, or to give you some pointers on how to better refine your methodology (protip, NSG is not the place to carry this out), go down to your local university, and strike up a chat about it with someone in its social sciences department.

In the OP I specifically said that I had contacted a professor. Why would you assume that he is the first professor that I have contacted? Why don't you try e-mailing some professors? It's easy enough to do. Ask them if there's any evidence that BV is more effective than DV at ranking things. Let me know what they say.

I mean, I already contacted Charlie the Legit Economist and told me your idea was dumb :^)

[The Holy Therns]

Siri, define hubris...

Hubris is very little. You're being too kind.

That's kinda my nature.

[Bombadil]

Xero.. I've posted this a few times now, feel free to address it.

Simply put, if donors have the ability to influence the types of people elected to office, the direction of this influence is likely towards the ideological extremes.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... ded_R2.pdf

[Xerographica]

Right, I'll just go out and hire a team of scientists to conduct this experiment for me. Honestly I didn't think that it was possible for your feedback to become any more useless. Boy was I wrong.

You don't need a team. Just one person. A professor might be looking for something to do that's off the wall and interesting.

I'd probably try the psychology department instead of the economics one. Unless, of course, you enjoy being laughed at.

You already know that I've asked relevant professors to conduct this experiment. I'll continue to do so, but in the meantime... we can conduct our own very informal experiments.

[Grenartia]

It wouldn't even pass muster in a middle school science fair

Actually, having judged at a regional science fair (in my area, at least, regionals are held at my university, and as a science major, I get the opportunity to participate in judging along with some of the professors), I can safely say that it would indeed pass muster in a middle school science fair (unfortunately for the state of science education in this state, and probably this country).

The problem is that the people teaching science at the middle school level have only the bare minimum idea of what is expected in science fairs at best (and often have little to no actual scientific qualifications), and the people judging them (often overeager parents or randos who think they're doing a community service) have no idea what is and isn't actually science.

OP's misguided thinking is only another consequence of the rampant scientific illiteracy in the US, which is fed by the terrible state of science teaching.

[Dormill and Stiura]

You don't need a team. Just one person. A professor might be looking for something to do that's off the wall and interesting.

I'd probably try the psychology department instead of the economics one. Unless, of course, you enjoy being laughed at.

You already know that I've asked relevant professors to conduct this experiment. I'll continue to do so, but in the meantime... we can conduct our own very informal experiments.

>informal
>experiments

Huh, I never knew these two can be fitted into the same sentence. English is a weird language sometimes.

[Grenartia]

Then engage in some. In your last word vomit you call a thread, we talked about how science works and what you need to do to run a proper science experiment. You refused, intent on doing... whatever this is instead of actual science.

This... whatever this is is not science. It's not even close to science. It wouldn't even pass muster in a middle school science fair, much less in any sort of scientific capacity for adults. You can tell because it was so horribly wrecked that you tried to wash your hands of it and try it again and, somehow, did even worse on the next pass.

Please do not refer to whatever this is as science anymore. You insult the entire concept of it.

Your feedback is entirely useless. If you want to offer useful feedback, then make specific suggestions that I can actually implement.

Why should he? You've already proven that you wouldn't listen to it even if he did, after your response to my post (where I actually did make specific criticisms).

[Galloism]

1. Only in your mind.

2. Yes. Because everyone else ranks things based on actual, legitimate criteria, not on who has the most effective PR campaign.

What relevance does this have to BV VS DV? Youtube videos are ranked by BV. Non-profits are ranked by DV.

Non profits are ranked multiple ways by multiple people using a vast majority of differing criteria.

Arguably, "who has the most revenue" produces some of the worst results of all the different ways to rank them.

I mean, look at this list, there's quite a few good ones in there, one or two great ones, and quite a few terrible ones.

In the OP I specifically said that I had contacted a professor. Why would you assume that he is the first professor that I have contacted? Why don't you try e-mailing some professors? It's easy enough to do. Ask them if there's any evidence that BV is more effective than DV at ranking things. Let me know what they say.

I talked to a professor. Your idea eventually devolves (evolves? questionable terminology) into a democracy over time.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You don't need a team. Just one person. A professor might be looking for something to do that's off the wall and interesting.

I'd probably try the psychology department instead of the economics one. Unless, of course, you enjoy being laughed at.

You already know that I've asked relevant professors to conduct this experiment. I'll continue to do so, but in the meantime... we can conduct our own very informal experiments.

We already did though.

You will keep on manipulating the results, so fuck no.

[Galloism]

You don't need a team. Just one person. A professor might be looking for something to do that's off the wall and interesting.

I'd probably try the psychology department instead of the economics one. Unless, of course, you enjoy being laughed at.

You already know that I've asked relevant professors to conduct this experiment. I'll continue to do so, but in the meantime... we can conduct our own very informal experiments.

And how have those experiments gone?

[Xerographica]

Xero.. I've posted this a few times now, feel free to address it.

Simply put, if donors have the ability to influence the types of people elected to office, the direction of this influence is likely towards the ideological extremes.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... ded_R2.pdf

Does the study refer to any elections that were entirely determined by donations?

[Grenartia]

Oh, and Xero, Catalina V? She was my puppet :^)

I find it hilarious you said you could spot a puppet and you let me use a puppet to vote, effectively breaking your own rule.

What a coincidence, I'm Puerta Cerveza!

Best name on NS I've seen. Good job, TJ.

[Dormill and Stiura]

Xero.. I've posted this a few times now, feel free to address it.

Simply put, if donors have the ability to influence the types of people elected to office, the direction of this influence is likely towards the ideological extremes.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... ded_R2.pdf

Does the study refer to any elections that were entirely determined by donations?

I get the feeling that the database you might use for this search will just brick itself with the lack of results.

I can’t even conceive of such a situation, even in the corrupted hellscape that is my own government and electoral system.

[Xerographica]

Your feedback is entirely useless. If you want to offer useful feedback, then make specific suggestions that I can actually implement.

Why should he? You've already proven that you wouldn't listen to it even if he did, after your response to my post (where I actually did make specific criticisms).

One specific criticism you made was the absence of a control group. You're not the first to bring this up. Are you interested in being the first to apply it to what is actually being tested?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why should he? You've already proven that you wouldn't listen to it even if he did, after your response to my post (where I actually did make specific criticisms).

One specific criticism you made was the absence of a control group. You're not the first to bring this up. Are you interested in being the first to apply it to what is actually being tested?

Fuck, Xero, see? This is what I meant before.

Pragmatarianism for you is worse than your pet experiment, it is your fucking religion bro.

[Bombadil]

Xero.. I've posted this a few times now, feel free to address it.

Simply put, if donors have the ability to influence the types of people elected to office, the direction of this influence is likely towards the ideological extremes.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... ded_R2.pdf

Does the study refer to any elections that were entirely determined by donations?

Anyone is free to donate to a member of Congress. The point is that those Congress members vote in line with their biggest donors against the preferences of their total voter base.

Thus allowing donations over free voting is not the best means of ranking anything other than the desire of those with money to sway politics against the many, and to ideological extremes.

Your belief is that donating is always better than freely voting. It's clear it isn't. Your belief is wrong.

Lord knows it won't stop you continuously posting your belief and ignoring anything that goes against your predetermined position. Personally I think there should be an auto-lock on these threads from now on.

[Galloism]

Why should he? You've already proven that you wouldn't listen to it even if he did, after your response to my post (where I actually did make specific criticisms).

One specific criticism you made was the absence of a control group. You're not the first to bring this up. Are you interested in being the first to apply it to what is actually being tested?

Oh, that's another issue. Study participants should be random and they should not know the goal of the study or anything like that. If you reveal to the participants what the goal is, they'll either try to meet it or FUBAR it, as a general principle.

Stick that in your constructive criticism bucket.

[San Macalin]

DV is used to rank all the non-profits in the world. How could proving this system possibly be my responsibility?

Funding something is not the same as ranking it, otherwise Make of Wish Foundation is a higher ranked charity than the Mayo Clinic.

Which means we should move away from this, because it's giving us retarded results.

THANK you!

[Xerographica]

Does the study refer to any elections that were entirely determined by donations?

Anyone is free to donate to a member of Congress. The point is that those Congress members vote in line with their biggest donors against the preferences of their total voter base.

Thus allowing donations over free voting is not the best means of ranking anything other than the desire of those with money to sway politics against the many, and to ideological extremes.

Your belief is that donating is always better than freely voting. It's clear it isn't. Your belief is wrong.

Lord knows it won't stop you continuously posting your belief and ignoring anything that goes against your predetermined position. Personally I think there should be an auto-lock on these threads from now on.

Please apply your "proof" to the fact that DV is used to rank all the non-profits in the world. Regarding auto-lock, if you oppose my personal beliefs so strongly then you do have the option to add me to your foe list.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

One specific criticism you made was the absence of a control group. You're not the first to bring this up. Are you interested in being the first to apply it to what is actually being tested?

Oh, that's another issue. Study participants should be random and they should not know the goal of the study or anything like that. If you reveal to the participants what the goal is, they'll either try to meet it or FUBAR it, as a general principle.

Stick that in your constructive criticism bucket.

Even then, given enough time, his idea is easy to game, because it is a very gameable system.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Anyone is free to donate to a member of Congress. The point is that those Congress members vote in line with their biggest donors against the preferences of their total voter base.

Thus allowing donations over free voting is not the best means of ranking anything other than the desire of those with money to sway politics against the many, and to ideological extremes.

Your belief is that donating is always better than freely voting. It's clear it isn't. Your belief is wrong.

Lord knows it won't stop you continuously posting your belief and ignoring anything that goes against your predetermined position. Personally I think there should be an auto-lock on these threads from now on.

Please apply your "proof" to the fact that DV is used to rank all the non-profits in the world. Regarding auto-lock, if you oppose my personal beliefs so strongly then you do have the option to add me to your foe list.

We know that won't solve shit, and you will keep putrifying this website with your bullshit ideology.

And personally, I'd rather fight it to the bitter end than to be a coward and foe you.

[Xerographica]

One specific criticism you made was the absence of a control group. You're not the first to bring this up. Are you interested in being the first to apply it to what is actually being tested?

Oh, that's another issue. Study participants should be random and they should not know the goal of the study or anything like that. If you reveal to the participants what the goal is, they'll either try to meet it or FUBAR it, as a general principle.

Stick that in your constructive criticism bucket.

When I said "implementable" do you know what I meant? Because you keep making suggestions that I can't use to improve the experiments here on NS.

[Grenartia]

1. Only in your mind.

2. Yes. Because everyone else ranks things based on actual, legitimate criteria, not on who has the most effective PR campaign.

What relevance does this have to BV VS DV? Youtube videos are ranked by BV. 1. Non-profits are ranked by DV.

3. I've already told you several deep flaws in your methodology. If you want somebody to test these ideas, or to give you some pointers on how to better refine your methodology (protip, NSG is not the place to carry this out), go down to your local university, and strike up a chat about it with someone in its social sciences department.

2. In the OP I specifically said that I had contacted a professor. 3. Why would you assume that he is the first professor that I have contacted? 4. Why don't you try e-mailing some professors? It's easy enough to do. 5. Ask them if there's any evidence that BV is more effective than DV at ranking things. Let me know what they say.

1. No, they're not. At least not by the 7 billion+ native inhabitants of this planet.

2. You didn't say what you told him, other than your ramblings about how democracy hasn't 'been vetted by science' and how you were surprised he responded, and weren't surprised that he was rather polite and diplomatic in his response. Did you ramble on about your pet hypothesis? Did you ask him for any advice on how to correctly conduct an experiment to test your hypothesis? Did he actually provide any advice on how to do so?

3. Because if you had contacted multiple, and received decent advice, we wouldn't be having this discussion about how shitty your methodology is, because your methodology wouldn't be shitty (unless they actually did give you advice, and you blatantly ignored it, which is entirely within the realm of possibility).

4. Because I'm not trying to prove your pet hypothesis, and the status quo theory has quite a bit of facts and logic to back it up. Testing it isn't necessary, because it already works. You have to prove that your system works better. I see nothing in math, psychology, or economics that would cause it to actually be better.

5. Why don't you do that? Screen shot your email, screenshot their reply, and post it.

[Bombadil]

Anyone is free to donate to a member of Congress. The point is that those Congress members vote in line with their biggest donors against the preferences of their total voter base.

Thus allowing donations over free voting is not the best means of ranking anything other than the desire of those with money to sway politics against the many, and to ideological extremes.

Your belief is that donating is always better than freely voting. It's clear it isn't. Your belief is wrong.

Lord knows it won't stop you continuously posting your belief and ignoring anything that goes against your predetermined position. Personally I think there should be an auto-lock on these threads from now on.

Please apply your "proof" to the fact that DV is used to rank all the non-profits in the world. Regarding auto-lock, if you oppose my personal beliefs so strongly then you do have the option to add me to your foe list.

The Catholic Church is likely the highest ranked non-profit organisation.. it's purpose is to promote a myth.. ironic..

..it's not really for me, it's for you.. this seems an unhealthy obsession for you, at a point where you're paying a forum money to try and prove your point it's becoming disturbing..

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Oh, that's another issue. Study participants should be random and they should not know the goal of the study or anything like that. If you reveal to the participants what the goal is, they'll either try to meet it or FUBAR it, as a general principle.

Stick that in your constructive criticism bucket.

When I said "implementable" do you know what I meant? Because you keep making suggestions that I can't use to improve the experiments here on NS.

Every experiment you do on NS will go wrong because we will want to game it just to prove you wrong again and again.

Hell I just made you concede to letting a puppet vote in your thread. And I made you concede of several things through sheer argumentation.

You really can't do anything with this here.