[ExI] Top ten dumbest remarks (was: Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps)

[Spike]

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John K Clark
> Subject: [ExI] Top ten dumbest remarks (was: Fascist America,in 10 Easy
> Steps)
> 
> "Samantha Atkins" <sjatkins at mac.com> Wrote:
> 
> > 1) 911 almost certainly was an inside job,
> > seriously inside.
> 
> I won't say that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen, but I do believe
> the
> above deserves to be somewhere on the top ten list of the stupidest
> remarks ever made on the Extropian List. At least the UFO, ESP,
> Big Foot, and Cold Fusion people's ideas were not vicious.
> 
>   John K Clark



I propose a different way to look at this, one that might appeal to the
mathematically minded among ExIers, which are many methinks.

When someone suggests something like number 1 above, we often dismiss it
with an "oh, that's silly" or equivalent.  Instead, let us assign to it a
probability of being true.  The group of truthers that recently confronted
Geraldo insisting that 911 was an inside job, for instance, would assign a
probability of at least .5, otherwise they wouldn't be out there.  Some may
assign it as high as .95.  Few there would rationally suggest such an
extraordinary claim would have a greater than 95% chance of being true, ja?


But even the most skeptical among us would likely assign some probability,
perhaps 1E-6, that 911 was an inside job.  I would be comfortable with at
least one in a million; I would estimate the chances at about ten in a
million, 1E-5.  The way Samantha worded her comment number 1, we might
estimate her belief in the meme 911 was an inside job, a conspiracy
involving top levels of the US government at greater than .8, otherwise she
might have stated it as "911 was probably an inside job".

As a game or thought experiment, rate comment 1 above.  If you think 911 was
a conspiracy of US gov (call the meme 911con ala ideas futures) was probably
true, then 911con = .6 or if you think it was possibly true, then 911con =
.2 and so on.

For me, 911con = 1E-5.

Now we can derive a constant K(911con) by taking the ratio of another
person's Con911 with yours.  In this case my K(911con) with respect to
Samantha would be K(sp/sa) = (1e-5/8E-1) = 1.2E-5.  

Then when any meme that is related to this topic is uttered by Samantha, I
look up in my database K(sp/sa) and multiply thru by this constant to derive
how much that belief will impact my own.  

Clearly if someone with whom you generally agree utters a comment, that
often has influence on ones own thinking.  If they espouse memes which you
consider silly, then the K goes way down and one is not greatly influenced
by their comments.

spike