ELD

Surprised by outcome of election. I'll check back in from time to time and see if this place evolves into a right-wing political organization. Utterly disappointing to see the move away from anarchist thought. I wonder if there will be a null hypothesis on the Trump phenomenon. Even if things continue to erode under him, the tone I gather from the board is it will be met with "Trump may not have been a savior, but Clinton would have been much worse."

Did Stef make a video explaining how he was wrong about political action? Just a video to mirror the truth about voting. It's inconsistent to encourage voting, but not political donation and being involved with the campaign. Where's the video encouraging people to do more than just cast a ballot. The impression I got, which I am not alone in is Stef did the following: Make a bunch of videos about Trump, claiming to not be a Trump supporter, but just getting the facts out there Full blown pivot to Trump supporter I am waiting for the next step

The only fact regarding a potential Trump presidency is no one can forecast it's outcome with certainty. It's unknowable so long as it remains in the future. I'm willing to bet it will not occur, as the smart money has been on Hillary since day one. Seeing the certainty of a consistent argument misplaced on a false savior is utterly surprising to me. I was totally skeptical of the claim that Molyneux had pivoted away from anarchy towards government participation. I see the community has largely followed this pied piper, and I'll keep an eye on how things recover from the misstep. @Gavitor - You may not have read my posts, but I do not want him to win. I was musing that it would be interesting to see how y'all react to a Trump presidency that shows him not to be some messiah.

I think that quote more accurately reflects Stef's abandonment of his previous arguements. He fought with statists and now believes in their ritual of voting, the validity of their claim to control immigration, and the previously imaginary lines on a map called borders. It's remarkable to see the pivot, which I contend is done for the purpose of higher view counts. I am very much looking forward to the aftermath. To answer your question, I want neither. I answered your post seriously, but I hope you were just being ironic (harvesting souls lol)

This thinking can be use to justify just about any behavior. Do you agree that a police officer can use this line to justify doing his job?

Stefan now supports voting. His last video "fight for western civilization" says so point blank. I'm more than willing to wager that Stefan's new method will fail. Trump is going to be get trounced. Society will go on. I guess I'll check back in a year to see how he recovers from this unfortunate pivot, which I gather is just to get more viewership. Will he circle back to the consistent view he held before? Will he continue to evolve into more support of government solutions? (at this time I gather he's pro government borders, immigration control and participation via voting). Just never thought I'd see him calling me an asshole for not voting Of note, he's not the only one to figure out the ratings involved in supporting Trump. Alex Jones, I've learned, did a full pivot as well, completely distancing himself from the Ron Paul types. I wish I could see an alternative timeline where Trump wins, and I could witness how these pivoters recover from a Trump presidency not bringing what they imagined. Jones would come up with some batshit conspiracy theory (they have his kids, he's possessed by a demon?), but what would Molyneux do once our rights continue to erode under Trump?

I watched the most recent one about Trumps sexual advances. He pretty much just pointed out that the left slanders the right, without going into the right slandering the left. Brought up Clinton's actions. Didn't really make things clear, aside from appearing to be a Trump supporter due to the sheer volume of videos about him on this channel. Not like there was some disclaimer up front, which is what I'd expect before coming to the defense of a dangerous candidate who is promising to erode freedom. Do you find it surprising that the impression is Stefan is a Trump supporter? @NotDarkYet - Thank you for clarifying that. I think all those assumptions are wrong, and I don't see how Trump is going to win, but it is quite an interesting pivot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1322682237&feature=iv&src_vid=bZfU--q6qTY&v=igbBItLemsM

Hi all, I've been very busy over the last two years growing my business from four founders to over twenty employees, as well as being a father of three and husband. I haven't been keeping up with FDR or Molyneux much, but I did notice he seemed to be doing a lot more political videos. One of my coworkers, who I recommended Molyneux to regarding peaceful parenting, told that Stefan was a Trump supporter. I was skeptical to say the least, but it appears that the man who once proclaimed voting was immoral and politics was like trying to change the mission of the mafia has flipped (seems like a full jumping of the shark). Can someone bring me up to speed on this pivot? Was there any discussion on Gary Johnson or any other candidates that are more compatible with freedom? I'm rather baffled by this.

In what way is my physical existance not limited? I cannot be in two places at once.

Most people don't realise that the host knows the location of the prize and deliberately exposes a door that he knows to be empty. Most people "kind of assume" that the game is not rigged, and that the host is opening a door at random. In that case it wouldn't change the odds, so it's not surprising that most people don't switch. That kind of assumption isn't based on the facts though. In the example that I showed, there's no doubt he'll reveal a loser. In the case of the show, you'ld just have to look at the past history to see if he's ever revealed the winner.

The Fallacy of Sunken Costs. This is another great example of counter-intuitive-but-true economic logic. Honestly, I'd be amazed if this exact topic weren't already the subject of a long thread on this forum. As a poker player, I approve of other people believing in the Fallacy of Sunken Costs

Love it. Never heard of that one. Let's see if I understand. So you pick a ball at random. It's white. You have a 2/3 chance of having pulled it out of the box with two white, and a 1/3 chance of having pulled it out of the 50/50 box. The chances that the next ball is white would therefore be 2/3. Is that correct? This is correct yes. Maybe this problem is harder because it involves conditional probability and most people dont even know what it is. The subtelity is in the part 'given that the first ball is white'. Yeah, I'm not familiar with conditional probability, but I have no doubt that this stuff can easily be handled via formulas as well Just seemed like a very fun logic problem to me. Why is this a game of Say Uncle? I made this thread because I find the problem to be very fun, and I also wanted to see how people would react to being incorrect, and others being incorrect. So far, there demeanor of the board is mostly civil, which is fantastic.

It's not a joke. If you think you are rational, it's an important thing to be able to grasp. Please verify yourself by checking wikipedia or something if you think everyone is somehow messing with you.

One could switch, but there would be no empirical reason to do so. Why switch at all if there is no evidence tipping the odds of 50:50? Hi, If you read the previous posts, you'll see your logic is incorrect. You have twice as high a chance of winning if you switch. Empyrically speaking

Love it. Never heard of that one. Let's see if I understand. So you pick a ball at random. It's white. You have a 2/3 chance of having pulled it out of the box with two white, and a 1/3 chance of having pulled it out of the 50/50 box. The chances that the next ball is white would therefore be 2/3. Is that correct?

A fine explaination. This board grasps the Monty Hall Problem better than many other places I've posted it. The funny thing about this problem, is many people are unable to grasp it, even with a clear, concise explaination like yours. They hear it, follow it, then abandon it and say it's 50/50. Very fun to see how different people approach problems.

1) It's a really fun problem 2) I've seen people flat out refuse to accept the truth about. I know two people who've actually written a script to simulate the process, thinking they were going to disprove it. Even when their program came back to confirm a 1/3 to 2/3 split, they started checking for errors in their program 3) I'm new here and want to see what the conversations are like. haha, nice. I remember a friend of mine once said (after hours of debating) that he agrees that it is theoretically correct it would practically still be 50-50. Well, I hope you enjoy the conversations then For the most part it was fun

I was in error. The reason for my error was that I was typing on my phone, and didn't think it out properly. What I wrote is erroneous. That part was a bit of a brain fart. When Monty makes his reveal, it appears (falsely) to be a 50-50 chance that the other door holds the prize, since there are now 2 remaining doors, and one holds a prize. But it's not 50-50, because believing it's 50-50 ignores the events that occurred earlier in the game. Your initial guess has influenced Monty's choice about which door to reveal -- he can never reveal the one you have chosen. Furthermore, your initial choice (when it is wrong) dictates Monty's behavior -- he can only open the one remaining wrong door. Interesting that it was a phone that caused the error, and not the human. I wonder why the need to blame something or someone else, instead of just saying you made a simple mistake. Perhaps something in your past makes it difficult to simply admit when you make an error, without coming up with excuses?

1) It's a really fun problem 2) I've seen people flat out refuse to accept the truth about. I know two people who've actually written a script to simulate the process, thinking they were going to disprove it. Even when their program came back to confirm a 1/3 to 2/3 split, they started checking for errors in their program 3) I'm new here and want to see what the conversations are like.

To be clear, this only applies to specifically choosing to reveal doors that are loosers on purpose. If they are chosen at random, and may reveal the winner, then no information is gained.

Interesting response. I wonder why you would say you were unclear when you stated something factually incorrect, instead of just saying you were in error.

Your logic makes no sense. How can it switching give you a 50/50 chance of being a winner, when you're saying the door you picked has a 1/3 chance of being the winner

As I said before, you do not have a 50/50 chance of being the winner. You will win twice as much if you switch than if you don't.

It is correct to switch, but your numbers are incorrect. It is not a 50% situation after the reveal.

I've found sharing this question to be very interesting. Before you are 3 doors. One of them has a fantastic prize behind it, the other two, nothing. You get to choose one. After you make your choice, I will show you a loser from the two you did not pick, and then give you the option to switch your choice from your orignal choice to the remaining unknown door. Should you switch?