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

The first non-bullshit book about culture I've read

zwischenzugs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–156 of 156 posts

Re: The first non-bullshit book about culture I've read

#151

Post by perl4ever »

teddyh wrote: post #149
perl4ever wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the popular explanation (in many circles, at least) instead assumes an incompetent Trump and/or external electoral influence," There is also a view that he won because of luck. Not that he won the lottery against incredible odds, but that he had about a 1/3 chance of winning enough electoral votes on the eve of the election, and also his polling followed a cyclical pattern that happened to have just peaked a few day…

Sure, that also fits. The problem with “it was just luck” is that it’s essentially the null hypothesis; it’s always a possible explanation, but unprovable except by eliminating all the other explanations.

That seems like...an unconventional epistemic outlook. Enough that, if you are saying this is Adams view, it might explain why people think he's acting insane.

Re: The first non-bullshit book about culture I've read

#152

Post by teddyh »

perl4ever wrote: post #151
teddyh wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, that also fits. The problem with “it was just luck” is that it’s essentially the null hypothesis; it’s always a possible explanation, but unprovable except by eliminating all the other explanations.

That seems like...an unconventional epistemic outlook. Enough that, if you are saying this is Adams view, it might explain why people think he's acting insane.

No, I’ve never seen Adams say this. Can you explain what’s insane about it?

If some unlikely event happens, one could assume that it was just a random occurrence, and leave it at that. But that is an assumption one could always make, for any event; “random chance” can explain anything. If, instead, one sets random chance aside for a moment and looks for reasons beside random chance, one could find other possible reasons for the event, and possibly learn something new. Of course, there’s always the possibility that it actually was random chance, in which case one risks seeing spurious non-related events as being causal, and thereby learning the wrong thing. But I think it’s a risk one will have to take in order not to always go “a wizard did it”, never learning anything.

Re: The first non-bullshit book about culture I've read

#153

Post by perl4ever »

teddyh wrote: post #152
perl4ever wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like...an unconventional epistemic outlook. Enough that, if you are saying this is Adams view, it might explain why people think he's acting insane.

No, I’ve never seen Adams say this. Can you explain what’s insane about it? If some unlikely event happens, one could assume that it was just a random occurrence, and leave it at that. But that is an assumption one could always make, for any event; “random chance” can explain anything . If, instead, one sets random chance aside for a moment and looks for reasons beside random chance, one could find other possible rea…

I didn't say it's insane, I said it's "unconventional".

I'm not sure of the connection between wizards, the null hypothesis, and random chance never being a component of an explanation.

You make me think of this:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Holmesian_fallacy

Re: The first non-bullshit book about culture I've read

#154

Post by teddyh »

perl4ever wrote: post #153
teddyh wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I’ve never seen Adams say this. Can you explain what’s insane about it? If some unlikely event happens, one could assume that it was just a random occurrence, and leave it at that. But that is an assumption one could always make, for any event; “random chance” can explain anything . If, instead, one sets random chance aside for a moment and looks for reasons beside random chance, one could find other possible rea…

I didn't say it's insane, I said it's "unconventional". I'm not sure of the connection between wizards, the null hypothesis, and random chance never being a component of an explanation. You make me think of this: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Holmesian_fallacy

The expression “a wizard did it” means an all-purpose explanation. (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AWizardDidIt). I did not refer to literal wizards. I assumed that this expression was well-known enough for me to use here.

The null hypothesis is, likewise, an assumption that nothing has happened; in this case, it would mean that no events have happened to cause the observed unlikely event (which, to be clear, did happen); i.e. it must have happened by random chance.

Yes, to ascribe causation to random chance could be the result of the Holmesian fallacy. But, of course, not necessarily.

I don’t know what you’re unsure about.

Re: The first non-bullshit book about culture I've read

#155

Post by kqr »

Tomte wrote: post #36
kqr wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read and enjoyed a bit by Edwards Deming recently, specifically Out of the Crisis and The New Economics .

New Economics is good if you make it through the first chapters, which are more or less "old man yells at cloud" or "what I've always wanted to say". They are highly political, the subjects range from how bad anti-cartel law is to telephones to hitting children. When he finally gets to special causes vs. common causes, control charts etc. the book gets quite good.

I agree, though I also think it is hard not to be political when you start seeing things through the lens of special vs common causes. So much of the rhetoric in politics surrounds taking a common cause produced by a system working as designed and treating it as a special cause to rally people behind. To the long-term detriment of society, in part because the adjustments promised frequently ruin the system that actually worked fairly well, and because trillions is earmarked for chasing ghosts getting nowhere.

Re: The first non-bullshit book about culture I've read

#156

Post by AdamM12 »

lucianomt wrote: post #107
AdamM12 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you like that you should read "About Face" by David Hackworth. I have not read it but I've hear about it via the Jocko Podcast.

I cannot recommend "About Face" enough. However it is a long read and covers the whole life story of Colonel Hack. Instead you might want to check out "Steel My Soldiers' Hearts" where he focuses specifically on the time when he turned around the worst fighting battalion in Vietnam.

Yeah heard that was good too. Thanks for the tip. I feel like that would give you the real details that one would need to know for a situation like that.
Post reply on HN