Yes agreed for the most part I think hbotz does not even like me because I disrupt his 14hr conversations about nothing with ewiz
1 Like
i for one believe ewiz has read a lot of things.
i just cant gauge the veracity of what he has read because it has very low overlap with what i have read. its like he is doing marxist commentary on capitalism, which i hope is internally consistent, but i disagree with his characterization of capitalism outright. its paradigmal.
id like the engage the specific ideas like how a society without a central monopoly on violence can exist without regressing to feudalism, or how we incentive people to work hard and be efficient, but then it becomes book-length. you can also reject the notion of efficiency, but then i would like to question what is your proposed alternative to efficiency
you back him up by discrediting and undermining ewiz's refutations out of hand
you're honestly a better analogy for me in this situation; i've just refrained for awhile until i randomly got triggered by the overgeneralized use of nash equilibrium + tragedy of the commons
Basically it comes down to this
One day I will get in a call and explain things to someone in a way that doesn't expose my personal information, or I will be doxxed and it won't be an issue any more
One day hbotz you will be so fed up of talking to ewiz and on that day you can come talk to me. I will listen to your opinions on game theory
In general I think ppl should avoid talking to ewiz and it pisses me off when people feed his reality distortion field
like okay it makes sense that you dont want efficiency at the cost of humans starving to death. i declare that not starving to death is a human right and we should give people americans free money at the cost of efficiency so they do not starve to death.
same but hbotz
Based on your quick skimming of the Wikipedia article?
I think it's fair to say I unfairly discredit ewiz because I've had experience with him talking out his ass and being a cunt about it and I tend to read his posts with that lens in mind
and googling on how people have applied the concepts to capitalism/communism before too
i mean it was an issue with the underlying assumptions and premises behind being able to apply it more than anything
It actually matters a shitton because you're defining the space of payoffs
Let's just go back to asking ewiz about his kooky neo-fascist political theories
Let's hear it bud. Should followers of the whiz-kid (math genius, read a lot of books) be burning down neighborhoods or start with breaking into and looting small businesses?
look im not here to educate people or be educated about game theory. tragedy of the commons is a simple concept that applies to many things. its not meant to be a technical thing. if it fails your technical ideas you can throw it out.
i think its a useful way to frame my analysis of the collective labor incentive problem. if you disagree ignore the phrase. it exists merely to ease communication. im not trying to do intellectual signalling by invoking it.
also as much as Ewiz backs up his own political ideology with beliefs from other political theorists they're still only ideologies and there's no definitive truth
1 Like
okay. ignore real numbers. its a element of the set of permutations on S^n. that is, a preference ordering over outcomes.
This perfectly embodies my thoughts as well
They're typically misunderstandings of the writings of others but he speaks with aggressive confidence that cows people out of the conversation
If you ever were in one of these conversations where you had actually read the stuff being discussed, you might challenge him and then get bullied out of the discussion/ganged up on by a bunch of "I read the wikipedia/googled the theories" posters who for whatever reason have been taken in by him this time around
It's almost the equivalent of arguing over what a fictional character might do in a given situation
what stuff have you read that contradicts or shows the flaws in what ewiz has said
i mean mighta skimmed over it but i have not seen much evidence of this dynamic
i want to understand what ewiz thinks. because i believe he represents a set of people i have not interacted with before. im just trying to stereotype everyone i meet in a satisfactory manner, but he doesnt fit my boxes, so im prodding him until i can categorize him or until i have enough information to invent a new box.
i dont really understand well-read communists or how they justify what they think.
Let's unite in our dislike of vague things which we will not pin on anyone
Turning namafia into a debate club was a mistake. y/n iaafr
1 Like
Lol there is more than 1 Nash equilibrium in that case.
Lol walk me through the proof of existence for a Nash equilibrium
You can't because it's clear you only studied the bullshit economics application of game theory, which the pure mathematicians studying game theory universally agree is horseshit