Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The physics of news, rumors, and opinions

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–37 of 37 posts

Re: The physics of news, rumors, and opinions

#31

Post by intended »

paganel wrote: post #24
intended wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These ideas are used, and they influence what policy is crafted. You can’t predict what an individual will do, but work like this kills many inaccurate ideological positions that we inherited. There’s a paper from 2016 that shows how posts saturate/cascade through conspiracy communities and that it has distinct cascade dynamics. This wasn’t a model, it was a description of observed behavior. Or take some relatively r…

> kills many inaccurate ideological positions that we inherited. It doesn't, which is part of the point the OP is making. And now my point, it's ok that these pseudo-scientific "revelations" don't kill those "inaccurate ideological positions", because that's the whole point of human free will, there's no "accurate ideological position" when it comes to the day-to-day life, or to societal life in general.

I have used them for moderation and policy, back when I used to moderate.

I retired ideological beliefs in favor of reality when I went and found the data and research.

Stating “it doesn’t”, does not convert an opinion into fact.

That said, I suspect you haven’t read the paper and are arguing from the headline.

My intuition is that you will find the research complimentary to your ideas, and not in opposition.

Re: The physics of news, rumors, and opinions

#32

Post by BergAndCo »

bofadeez wrote: post #2

All this “physics of news” framing repeats the same mistake mainstream economics made decades ago, confusing human action with measurable physical phenomena. People aren’t particles, and opinions aren’t spin states. As Mises and Hazlitt argued, mathematical models give spurious precision when applied to purposeful behavior: they hide their "arbitrary assumptions" behind elegant equations. Treating communication, beli…

Imagine thinking that a statistical model should address individuals' internal state. That's like considering thermodynamics bunk because it addresses aggregate behavior without accounting for that of individual particles.

Re: The physics of news, rumors, and opinions

#33

Post by paganel »

intended wrote: post #31
paganel wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> kills many inaccurate ideological positions that we inherited. It doesn't, which is part of the point the OP is making. And now my point, it's ok that these pseudo-scientific "revelations" don't kill those "inaccurate ideological positions", because that's the whole point of human free will, there's no "accurate ideological position" when it comes to the day-to-day life, or to societal life in general.

I have used them for moderation and policy, back when I used to moderate. I retired ideological beliefs in favor of reality when I went and found the data and research. Stating “it doesn’t”, does not convert an opinion into fact. That said, I suspect you haven’t read the paper and are arguing from the headline. My intuition is that you will find the research complimentary to your ideas, and not in opposition.

> That said, I suspect you haven’t read the paper and are arguing from the headline.

You're correct on that, as I find that applying the word "science", or "research", or "paper", to the day-to-day life, like to news article in this case, is not science per se, and unfortunately I don't have time to lose on drivel that paints itself as science (but which it is not science, as I mentioned above).

Re: The physics of news, rumors, and opinions

#34

Post by bofadeez »

BergAndCo wrote: post #32
bofadeez wrote: post #2

All this “physics of news” framing repeats the same mistake mainstream economics made decades ago, confusing human action with measurable physical phenomena. People aren’t particles, and opinions aren’t spin states. As Mises and Hazlitt argued, mathematical models give spurious precision when applied to purposeful behavior: they hide their "arbitrary assumptions" behind elegant equations. Treating communication, beli…

Imagine thinking that a statistical model should address individuals' internal state. That's like considering thermodynamics bunk because it addresses aggregate behavior without accounting for that of individual particles.

Wow man. Thermodynamics operates on mechanical causality while human behavior does not. Because of the internal state of a human.

Do you just believe anything that was p-hacked together? I can tell you have never predicted human behavior in practice for a living. If you're so interested, why not learn the basics of what quant traders do to predict behavior? Then your opinions would be a little more informed and not quite so embarrassing for yourself. Just a suggestion.

Also, if A implies B and B implies C then A implies C. You're welcome!!

Re: The physics of news, rumors, and opinions

#36

Post by jjk166 »

bofadeez wrote: post #30
jjk166 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are saying that if there exist quant traders making lots of money off their models, then that would be evidence that human behavior can be accurately mathematically modeled?

It's a lot more complicated than that. Eugene Fama might be a good starting point for you. (Spoiler: most PhD level machine learning quant trading funds do not make money. Marcos Lopez de Prado can explain why that is the case: they accidentally invest in false discoveries. It's so pervasive that I often argue it's a numerical analytic proof for EMH. Most quant funds you've heard of are engaged in high-frequency mark…

The question is not "do all quants make money modelling human behavior?" It's "do any quants make money modelling human behavior?"

Re: The physics of news, rumors, and opinions

#37

Post by bofadeez »

jjk166 wrote: post #36
bofadeez wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a lot more complicated than that. Eugene Fama might be a good starting point for you. (Spoiler: most PhD level machine learning quant trading funds do not make money. Marcos Lopez de Prado can explain why that is the case: they accidentally invest in false discoveries. It's so pervasive that I often argue it's a numerical analytic proof for EMH. Most quant funds you've heard of are engaged in high-frequency mark…

The question is not "do all quants make money modelling human behavior?" It's "do any quants make money modelling human behavior?"

And are there any quant funds that consistently make money? No. It's like professional gambling. Susquehanna actually bets on sports too. Constant losses (hopefully slightly) offset by gains. There's no such as a trader with high accuracy/precision. If you can even edge out 1% (gain-loss) you'll be a billionaire from $0 very quickly. A positive edge is so exceptionally rare, it's like a startup -> unicorn. It would be the equivalent of owning a casino with trillions of dollars being played nonstop. It almost never happens.

If there was any fixed analytic solution to behavior then a simple neural network would approximate it quite easily. It's almost all noise with only spurious correlations and misleading patterns that don't repeat.

Post reply on HN