What Are You Watching Right Now?

Fungi https://youtu.be/fYoFGnj6GzA

Pretty good case study on how you can find out when people are full of shit. Let me just start off by saying. From a technical programming standpoint. TechLead is absolutely brilliant. All of TechLeads’ success is because of his brilliant technical mind. Some of his old videos about tech are really good. But with all that being said. From a principled belief standpoint. TechLead is stupid as hell. TechLead never proclaims, but heavily implies that his a red pilled, lift yourself up from bootstraps, fuck victim mentality type of dude. Which hey! More power to you. It doesn’t matter if your blue pilled or red pilled. I can respect a principled person that believe what they say they believe. I also respect the grind and hard work that led to TechLeads’ success. But my god. TechLead is not principled in his own belief system. How is that so? Well, Coffeezilla pointed out problems with the million token that TechLead made. What is the million token? Million token is another crypto coin. Another scam really. When Coffeezilla pointed out problems with the scammy coin. What did TechLead do? Take personal responsibility? Hahaha! No. TechLead called Coffeezilla a wacist. White man wacist against me because he exposed my scam. Whatever happed to being against victim mentality? Maaan fuck outta here! Hahaha! TechLead is acting exactly like that which his against. Like a little snowflake victim. Is it not ironic? BTW since creation. Million token is down about 98%. Shit is a scam. TechLead is also against scams, unless his the one doing the scamming. To conclude this long post. I’ll just repeat that TechLead is technically brilliant and very hard worker. But from a principled belief standpoint. MF is full of shit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM444PDW3pY . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLrRt8R9zRA . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkXnx1kk3hs . https://i.ani.me/0335/3969/million.jpg I guess I didn’t conclude yet Lol. I’ll just add an extra thought. How can you find if people are full of shit on what they say they believe? One simple way is to find contradictions on what they say. For example, as Coffeezilla did to TechLead. Read above paragraph or watch the videos. Another easy way is to construct arguments from first principles. What do I mean constructing arguments from first principles? For example, if someone says they believe A, B and C. Construct arguments from their own belief system A, B, C. In other words. Beliefs A, B, C lead to some conclusion X, Y, Z. If the person disagrees with the conclusions that their own belief system leads to. That’s when you know that MF is full of shit. They don’t believe what they say they believe. It’s somewhat interesting to see people’s reaction to conclusions that they don’t agree with. But believe in the principles that derived those conclusions XD. With some people. It goes completely over their heads. Some other people become hypocrites like TechLead. Other people be like. I can’t believe your using my own arguments to destroy my own arguments. DOH! Hahaha XD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z4ZfRdxErA Mathematical statistician Nassim Taleb points out mathematical quackery in a Psychology paper. For point of refence. R squared refers to goodness of fit. An R squared of 0 indicates none of that variation around the mean of the model is explained. An R squared of 0 basically indicates that all of the points lie outside the line of the model. Model doesn’t explain anything with an R squared of 0. On the other end. An R squared of 1 indicates that all of the variation around the mean of the model is explained. An R squared of 1 basically indicates that all of the points lie on the line of the model. An R squared of 1 is a perfect fit to the data. The model in the Psychology paper had an R squared of 0.003. That is an extremely low R squared. I imminently was like hold up! That means that the model in the paper doesn’t explain much of anything in the data. I was like no! What are you doing? To basically simplify what Nassim Taleb points out in the video. The model draws conclusions from the tails of the distributions. Even with a very big data set. The tails have insufficient data points to draw any meaningful result. The psychologist in the paper were essentially trying to fit a line to data points that weren’t there. The mathematical rigor in psychology isn’t very high. Not just psychology. But in all the social sciences that use probability and statistics to draw conclusions. As Nassim Taleb puts it. “Quackery in the social sciences”. I’m not saying that psychologist should be writing papers in advanced math. But man! This is like very basic intro to probability stuff. As Nassim Taleb rightly points out. A Gaussian is as “vanilla” distribution as you’ll get. https://i.ani.me/0327/2911/grey.jpg I’m honestly conflicted on the social sciences. Psychology especially being one of them for me. I find psychology both really good on some aspects and really bad on other aspects. What are some of the really good aspects of psychology? The profound and deep fucked up psychological experiments that move forward human understanding of trauma. For example, the pit of despair. Yes, it was fucked up. But it greatly moved forward the understanding of trauma. But then you have on the other end. The bad aspect of psychology. Psychologist using really bad math to interpret data. It is mathematical quackery. I have personally experienced a little bit of this quackery. At the end of last year. I took a developmental psychology course. For the most part. I breezed through the course. Course was mostly good. But then on a test. The professor had the wrong answer to a question on a test. The professor was interpreting a graph wrong. Either the book is wrong or your wrong? You can’t both be correct. Then on the final. The professor had a liar paradox on a question. It didn’t matter if you answered A, B, C, or D. The way the question was constructed was nonsense. At the time I was also taking a course in mathematical logic. So, when I saw the liar paradox on the final. I just wanted to bash my head against the wall XD. Mind you, that wasn’t the same probability quackery that Nassim Taleb described. The liar paradox was more formal logical quackery. I said fuck it. You gotta pick and chose your battles. I wasn’t going to argue on the nonsensical construction of the question. I already knew that I only needed a certain number of correct questions on the final to get an A in the class. That’s exactly what I did. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shIazq_66Aw

Watched Dino Charge Earlier (Because I am down the Super Sentai/Kamen Rider Rabbit hole) now watching Dress-Up Darling https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjVdoxW2muc&list=PLPZ3EGbzCVQKQrwpLSW4U-Kcwoiq501Yd&index=7 https://beta.crunchyroll.com/watch/GN7UD75XM/then-why-dont-we