Devon Del Vecchio / "Dev" / ShortFatOtaku / @sleepy_devo - Degenerate loser, honorary whiteknight for Lilith Lovett, constantly at odds with his own viewers for being a centrist

I have noticed a corelation between people who keep trying to use Bayesian theorems and other forms of formalize logical notation and complete and total midwit retards. Like LessWrong who also has a thread here on the farms, who goes on about how "smart" and "logical" he is for worshipping that theorem but is a total midwit. Or the people who are "professional ethics experts" but end up being some of the most horrible people around like the Bike Lock Antifa guy or the one "ethicist" who said sex with 1yo babies "could be moral" and such others.

The midwit feels like by wrapping themselves in complicated looking symbols and maths they magically gain some sort of legitimacy. Like that by appearing smart they become smart.

No nigger you are just a retard. Appealing to bayes and logical terminology just makes you look like a tryhard. Actual smart people don't need to appeal to fucking Bayes to deal with basic shit.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Nachos Bell Grande, Oshino Meme, KuatManipulations and 5 others
General Emílio Médici said:
I have noticed a corelation between people who keep trying to use Bayesian theorems and other forms of formalize logical notation and complete and total midwit retards. Like LessWrong who also has a thread here on the farms, who goes on about how "smart" and "logical" he is for worshipping that theorem but is a total midwit. Or the people who are "professional ethics experts" but end up being some of the most horrible people around like the Bike Lock Antifa guy or the one "ethicist" who said sex with 1yo babies "could be moral" and such others.

The midwit feels like by wrapping themselves in complicated looking symbols and maths they magically gain some sort of legitimacy. Like that by appearing smart they become smart.

No nigger you are just a retard. Appealing to bayes and logical terminology just makes you look like a tryhard. Actual smart people don't need to appeal to fucking Bayes to deal with basic shit.
Click to expand...
It's all about claiming to be smarter than you because they unquestionably follow the thinking of someone they consider an authority. As usual, this bullshit is just religion for atheists.
 
General Emílio Médici said:
I have noticed a corelation between people who keep trying to use Bayesian theorems and other forms of formalize logical notation and complete and total midwit retards. Like LessWrong who also has a thread here on the farms, who goes on about how "smart" and "logical" he is for worshipping that theorem but is a total midwit. Or the people who are "professional ethics experts" but end up being some of the most horrible people around like the Bike Lock Antifa guy or the one "ethicist" who said sex with 1yo babies "could be moral" and such others.

The midwit feels like by wrapping themselves in complicated looking symbols and maths they magically gain some sort of legitimacy. Like that by appearing smart they become smart.

No nigger you are just a retard. Appealing to bayes and logical terminology just makes you look like a tryhard. Actual smart people don't need to appeal to fucking Bayes to deal with basic shit.
Click to expand...
Bayes theorums are built for probabilistic mathematics, not for a Midwit to make their dumbass opinion sound like it was based on a mathematic process because they though something with their brain.
I also doubt whether this thought even came from his brain.
Regardless, Dev will say bullshit like he used Bayesian reasoning, but he'll never give you that reasoning. He has no replicable Bayes net, he can't share prior or conditional probabilities, because all he's doing is relying on his built in "Bayes net" (pattern recognition) and using his intuition.
The problem for Dev is his intuition sucks and he refuses to improve it.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: Oshino Meme, KuatManipulations, liam dees and 5 others
The issue I see with using Bayesian theorem in current day politics is one thing Dev has (poorly) addressed and one thing he has not
1) The effect of lack of information. Dev has simply replied with "well, when we find out that new information, that can change your mind." Problem is, that is dependent on the information coming out to the public within the time frame of interest for the event/the willingness of someone to actually engage and deal with that information. Problem is, in current day, that isn't happening that much, and no amount of "well, give more info/make it more accessible" is really helping.
2) Malice. The general issue here is just how much current day ideologues lie/tell-half truths out of a malice against the other side. Problem there is that includes giving fake info that doesn't help with "Bayesian analysis" for normies, but instead hurts it. If the only answer to that is "wait till the real information comes out", we're fucked 8 ways to Sunday because of how long it takes for actual info to come out on the event, if it even does.

Honestly, I feel Dev's video has a good point, i.e. weighing evidence and keeping one's mind open to changing if some probable evidence comes in. On top of which, the guy explains Bayesian theorem easier than what I had back in college.
The issue is the theorem does not map as well in subjective real world socio-politics due to a lot of factors Dev has not addressed/addresses poorly. The theorem is difficult to work in outside of a qualitative level.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: BigGuyOS 6 : Jovial Janny, liam dees, Celso Bin Portiolli and 5 others
1728924130935.png
(X/A)
If only Dev was that honest :story:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oshino Meme, liam dees, Da Capo and 1 other person
Bridget said:
The TL;DR for the Baysian vid was Dev making a huge build up to try and cope about his TDS.
'I use the Baysian method with every new piece of information that comes out about Trump. So much bad info has come out about Trump that I've got a higher amount of probability that he's a total wanker than a good guy.'
Click to expand...
Dev, you moron, did you even realize that, if the information you're giving "deep consideration" to turns out to be lies, you're just described why the Big Lie is so effective, especially on midwits like you? Whipping out mathematical theorems that explain exactly why your preconceived biases were actually right all along in the face if the knowledge that the media is wholly untrustworth is why you get a centrist midwit fencesitter that's sliding further the left with every shallow pained breath you take.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Oshino Meme, Popcorn Muncher, Burekbossman and 7 others
Bridget said:
The TL;DR for the Baysian vid was Dev making a huge build up to try and cope about his TDS.
'I use the Baysian method with every new piece of information that comes out about Trump. So much bad info has come out about Trump that I've got a higher amount of probability that he's a total wanker than a good guy.'
Ignoring that half the shit that comes out about Trump is blatantly false and Dev even points it out, there's still some major disconnect where he can't accept that Trump isn't some malicious retard. Trump is a retard, just not a particularly malicious one unless it's going against team blue, which I suppose Dev can't tolerate. It's funny considering that Dev dislikes Trump's sex pest nature but if he had all the money and power Trump does then he'd be doing the same thing or worse given he's canadian.
Click to expand...
Trump's Sexpest Nature? Fuck is wrong with you? Soying out much? because he said, ''grab em by the pussy''? Banter?
 
Drag-on Knight 91873 said:
They kind of have a point, even though they're telling on themselves while doing so. Apathy is how a lot of America's problems came about in the first place.
Click to expand...
I mean you can argue they are similar, but they aren't the same.

Both are cases of not giving a fuck, but only one justifies violence because you don't participate.

You don't have to be neutral to not participate. You can just believe things are where they need to be and opt out of it until you feel you need to opt in again. Voting on it's own shouldn't even be the thing that moves the goal post, it should be something that you're using to affirm the cultural zeitgeist.

As far as Centrists..
There's the rare centrist that is ACTUALLY a philosophical centrist. The rest are just leftoid Homeless Democrats or rightoid Homeless Christians. Both groups define a "good" candidate based on vagina and fag shit. Usually only idiots listen to them to give the veneer of legitimacy to their views.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Classical Lord Dessler
The Fuck's Going On Here said:
The issue I see with using Bayesian theorem in current day politics is one thing Dev has (poorly) addressed and one thing he has not
1) The effect of lack of information. Dev has simply replied with "well, when we find out that new information, that can change your mind." Problem is, that is dependent on the information coming out to the public within the time frame of interest for the event/the willingness of someone to actually engage and deal with that information. Problem is, in current day, that isn't happening that much, and no amount of "well, give more info/make it more accessible" is really helping.
2) Malice. The general issue here is just how much current day ideologues lie/tell-half truths out of a malice against the other side. Problem there is that includes giving fake info that doesn't help with "Bayesian analysis" for normies, but instead hurts it. If the only answer to that is "wait till the real information comes out", we're fucked 8 ways to Sunday because of how long it takes for actual info to come out on the event, if it even does.

Honestly, I feel Dev's video has a good point, i.e. weighing evidence and keeping one's mind open to changing if some probable evidence comes in. On top of which, the guy explains Bayesian theorem easier than what I had back in college.
The issue is the theorem does not map as well in subjective real world socio-politics due to a lot of factors Dev has not addressed/addresses poorly. The theorem is difficult to work in outside of a qualitative level.
Click to expand...
I would argue the whole theorem breaks down on a simple, more fundamental point. With Dev being a perfect example.

Confirmation Bias

It is easy to -claim- someone weighs every new piece of information but that is simply not how humans work. At all. We, as a species, are hardwired to notice things that fit our bias over things that conflict with said bias. In practical terms, if you hate Trump you are more likely to notice and engage with content that is negative to him than content that is positive. This necessarily would then completely lopsidedly outweigh the Theorem.

This is without even getting into recommendation Algorithms, which are designed to take full advantage of confirmation bias to ensure you outright do not see things that conflict with it.

The entire Theorem does not work unless one is making an active and constant effort on all subjects to obtain the full picture. And anyone who claims they are is a lying bastard.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Agree
Reactions: m1ddl3m4rch, Da Capo, Jaimas and 7 others
FurbusCuckus said:
Trump's Sexpest Nature? Fuck is wrong with you? Soying out much? because he said, ''grab em by the pussy''? Banter?
Click to expand...
No, because he's gone on record as doing shit with whores, allegedly. Could be more of the Dem lies but I don't doubt he's had some fun with his money and connections. Grab them by the pussy is hilarious but not that. The main point is that if it was legit then Dev being mad about it is stupid because he would do the exact same thing.
 
Bridget said:
No, because he's gone on record as doing shit with whores, allegedly. Could be more of the Dem lies but I don't doubt he's had some fun with his money and connections. Grab them by the pussy is hilarious but not that. The main point is that if it was legit then Dev being mad about it is stupid because he would do the exact same thing.
Click to expand...
Your source is ''trust me bro''? i still remember those two shitheels who were spreadin that fake story of Raz0rfist being a groomer.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Drag-on Knight 91873
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back