Yeah man I just edited it saying that I understood it now. Thanks for the explanation though.Georgie_Leech said:
You're 100% correct, but no one can understand that
- Thread starter WolfThomas
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This example might sound highly petty but:
One day a friend of mine and myself were chatting and my friend desided to insist that there weren't crenellations (things that looked like battlements) on top of the local church (it may have been churches in general). This boiled my blood not only because I knew she was wrong as the church did have crenellations but also that she was wrong about crenellations being a sign of WEAKNESS on a biulding. (If you look up about battlements you'll find a very good reason why they were the shape they were!). (P.S. I will humbily accept defeat if some can conclusively prove that crenelations were considered a sign of weakness (not that they were a fundimentatly flawed design, that's a different matter)).
Petty I know, but maddening enough that I recall the conversation now.
As an aside, the Monty Hall problem is unfortuately a good way to cause an argument if people don't accept the fact that the maths is what it is. I'm sure there's many similar problems etc out there that cause similar arguments when people don't accept the fact.
One day a friend of mine and myself were chatting and my friend desided to insist that there weren't crenellations (things that looked like battlements) on top of the local church (it may have been churches in general). This boiled my blood not only because I knew she was wrong as the church did have crenellations but also that she was wrong about crenellations being a sign of WEAKNESS on a biulding. (If you look up about battlements you'll find a very good reason why they were the shape they were!). (P.S. I will humbily accept defeat if some can conclusively prove that crenelations were considered a sign of weakness (not that they were a fundimentatly flawed design, that's a different matter)).
Petty I know, but maddening enough that I recall the conversation now.
As an aside, the Monty Hall problem is unfortuately a good way to cause an argument if people don't accept the fact that the maths is what it is. I'm sure there's many similar problems etc out there that cause similar arguments when people don't accept the fact.
This one girl that I know insisted that Hitler was Russian, when everyone knows he is German. She also argued with me saying there is no such thing as a Five Star General in the U.S Army, even though it says it right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_star_general
This is awesome. Made me feel two completely separate things at once! I'm happy that this girl exist. She is funny. This same girl also makes me mad that such obvious truths can still be disputed by the stupid.AkJay said:
No, he was born Austrian, but he was a German. That would explain why he was the dictator of Germany. :0Sebenko said:
It is sort of like someone being born in France and moving to America: you don't call them French, you call them American... actually, it is exactly like that.
Sorry about that, I broke my established rules of no religon/politics. I consider myself a christian but I'm also a firm believer in evolution, and it frustrates me that faith and science is so incompatible, I guess I've just got a flexible mindset.Burningsok said:
(Not arguing for or against religiosity), but under the assumption that the Bible is true, the fall of man had to have been premeditated/planned. I have Christian friends who accept this, but many others that I have explained this to can't seem to wrap their head around the notion.
I tried to explain to my friends another scenario like the Monty Hall.
A woman has a baby. She later has another. One of the babies is a girl, what is the probability the other one is a Boy?
The "obvious" answer is 50%, but it isn't. After two babies the set could be,
Boy Boy
Boy Girl
Girl Boy
Girl Girl
Stating one is a girl, we eliminate Boy Boy. Selecting a remaining set, there is a 2 in 3 chance of picking a girl boy pair.
But, if a woman has two children and the older one is a girl, what is the chance the other is a boy?
A woman has a baby. She later has another. One of the babies is a girl, what is the probability the other one is a Boy?
The "obvious" answer is 50%, but it isn't. After two babies the set could be,
Boy Boy
Boy Girl
Girl Boy
Girl Girl
Stating one is a girl, we eliminate Boy Boy. Selecting a remaining set, there is a 2 in 3 chance of picking a girl boy pair.
But, if a woman has two children and the older one is a girl, what is the chance the other is a boy?
Ha, a friend of my Dad's brought that one up just this past summer. I thought he was yanking my chain until I got a set of cards and tested it out. There was almost no deviation; exactly two out of every three times I turned up the right card.BrynThomas said:3. Several years ago we got asked the Monty Hall problem at high school:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
Essentially there are three doorways, two have goats behind them and one has a car (you want to win the car). You pick a door, then the host reveals a goat behind one of the doors and asks you if you want to swap for the remaining door. The question is whether you should swap doors, the answer being yes because your chance of winning the car is 2/3, rather than 1/3.
I had some friends though who couldn't understand that the two probabilities were linked and affected each other, they said it didn't matter and that the chance of winning the car was 50%. This argument spilled over into an English class, where the English teacher joined in...on their side.
I almost got into a lot of trouble when I told her that her opinion would have mattered had she studied maths rather than arts.
Well, I have a hard time convincing my mom that sodium is a metal.
Because there are three cases hereCrazyHaircut94 said:
1. the car is behind door 1, either goat is shown, switching loses
2. the car is behind door 2, the goat behind door 3 is shown, switching wins
3. the car is behind door 3, the goat behind door 2 is shown, switching wins
possible wins/possible outcomes=2/3
Q.E.D. you have a 66% chance of winning if you switch
If you're in one of these heated arguments, and you KNOW that you're right, bet $20. The other person will either accept your bet, and you will win $20, or the person will decline in which case you will be able to use their lack of confidence in your own favor.
Also, Bryn, that was by far the best explanation of the Monty Hall problem.
Also, Bryn, that was by far the best explanation of the Monty Hall problem.
Everyone has this issue, because once we become adults we all have our own level of ego when it comes to who is right. It's just part of dealing with other adults that there is a kind of political game at work behind the scenes, which, if you're good at it, allows you to communicate that someone is incorrect without insulting their confidence.
Unfortunately, people, within my experience, often decide to ignore that possibility and just say that the other side is wrong, or else that someone has to be wrong and someone has to be right. Neither of those statements ever helps. Look at how society is split down the middle on religious grounds - atheists are convinced that there is no God, and religious people are convinced that there is, or else that there are many gods, or that there are spirits, or magic, etc. All of this division is really, obviously, a result of ego. A result of our need to be correct over others, and to divide ourselves from those who's disagreement is an inconvenience.
While it is true that saying you're right when you have very powerful evidence saying that you are makes you objectively justified, only through empathy and subjective reasoning will you ever convince those who disagree. In other words, tolerance comes before charisma, and charisma before diplomacy, and diplomacy before decisions, if you want to convince people on this. Few will surrender their ego immediately except if the empirical evidence is on hand - if it is, then that is a powerful tool indeed.
The situation with your sister is one example. If you had seen this information on a computer with her present, you might have said, "huh, I didn't know that, listen to this, sis", and read the thing that she didn't believe out. She would have accepted it, I'd bet. This is a result of the lack of ego-threatening danger in the situation - instead of directly attempting to prove her incorrect or "wrong", you have given her new data that suggests she was misinformed. That situation means that her self-worth is not threatened. So try the new data approach next time you have such an issue, with your sister if you can, since with family it is possible to have the data nearby in the house.
Never expect the scientific approach to thinking from others. You will be disappointed, and in any case, you might be wrong yourself on occasion. Not everything can be solved with objective logic.
Unfortunately, people, within my experience, often decide to ignore that possibility and just say that the other side is wrong, or else that someone has to be wrong and someone has to be right. Neither of those statements ever helps. Look at how society is split down the middle on religious grounds - atheists are convinced that there is no God, and religious people are convinced that there is, or else that there are many gods, or that there are spirits, or magic, etc. All of this division is really, obviously, a result of ego. A result of our need to be correct over others, and to divide ourselves from those who's disagreement is an inconvenience.
While it is true that saying you're right when you have very powerful evidence saying that you are makes you objectively justified, only through empathy and subjective reasoning will you ever convince those who disagree. In other words, tolerance comes before charisma, and charisma before diplomacy, and diplomacy before decisions, if you want to convince people on this. Few will surrender their ego immediately except if the empirical evidence is on hand - if it is, then that is a powerful tool indeed.
The situation with your sister is one example. If you had seen this information on a computer with her present, you might have said, "huh, I didn't know that, listen to this, sis", and read the thing that she didn't believe out. She would have accepted it, I'd bet. This is a result of the lack of ego-threatening danger in the situation - instead of directly attempting to prove her incorrect or "wrong", you have given her new data that suggests she was misinformed. That situation means that her self-worth is not threatened. So try the new data approach next time you have such an issue, with your sister if you can, since with family it is possible to have the data nearby in the house.
Never expect the scientific approach to thinking from others. You will be disappointed, and in any case, you might be wrong yourself on occasion. Not everything can be solved with objective logic.
This will be held in my mind for good as proof that, at this stage in history, America still has horrible general education for geography. Or, possibly none. Then again, it might be a child speaking in both of those situations. It wouldn't be a big deal if a three year old said it. An adult, well... I guess there's a chance they were playing with your mind, too.AkJay said:
I find it best if done visually, using three cards is usually the most easy way (e.g. two black and a red)Seva said:
Ok, i know we are supposed to avoid religion and blah blah blah....antipunt said:
DO NOT take the bible literally, especially the Old Testament.
The stories are meant to contain hidden morals about how to live life.
For example, Genesis contains 2 stories describing creation, the first is meant to show that God is all powerful and the source of all things
The second is to show that God loves humanity and mistrusting God causes only suffering
Only the Historical books contain history, the historical books, like the gospels, Kings, and Acts