Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[justinvacula]

[youtube]0EDoEzOymkk[/youtube]

24:11 - Matt talks about talking about disagreements in private before going public :o

[Dan]

rorschach/Wagner on ... something?: http://furiouspurpose.me/atheist-courty ... -gentiles/

I don't think it's Wagner. I think he's a cunt from Melbourne Australia that claims to be an E.R Doctor.

[Wonderist]

For those wondering WTF I'm going on about wrt the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, here's a simple demonstration of the Tit For Tat strategy, where you try to beat this simple strategy. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/playground/pd.html See if you can beat TFT (called 'Serendip' in the game).

Note that this scenario involves zero 'noise': you can always tell if the opponent is 'cooperating' or 'competing', there are no mixed signals (analogous to misunderstandings and misinterpretations in our current 'deep rifts' situation, where such miscommunications/noise are rather common). In noisy environments, TFT actually doesn't do that well. It still does okay, if the noise level is low enough. But Pavlov does better, usually. So, while TFT is often touted as the 'best' or 'optimal' strategy, as indeed this website also does, it actually doesn't translate that well into real life scenarios, unless communication between people is very clear and not subject to misinterpretations. When there are misinterpretations, however, Tit For Tat devolves into Eye For an Eye (leaving everyone blind; well, except for the last person, who becomes king/queen of the blind).

Still, getting familiar with TFT in a non-noisy environment can help to understand the significance of Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma in the first place, and how mutual cooperation can beat 'us vs. them' thinking in the long-run (again, to prove this, try to actually beat TFT in the link above). Being unable to beat it (by more than one turn) by cheating/competing against it should prove eye-opening at least for some people (it was for me when I first came across Axelrod's book).

To make it interesting, let's see who can get the highest average score (coins per turn). (Honour system.) To start things off, I'll do a random strategy by flipping a virtual coin for each turn:

Before playing, here are the random moves I'll play, from a quick random spreadsheet (C for Cooperate, D for Defect, which is called 'Compete' on that site):
CCDCCDCDDCCDCCDCCCCCDCCDC

Here's the results: After 11 rounds, the 'wizard' ended the game, so I only got to play:
CCDCCDCDDCC

Final result: 28 coins, 11 rounds, for average score of 2.55 coins per turn. Can anyone beat that? :popcorn: (If you can remember them or take note of them, try listing your moves, too, though this is just for fun, so it's not strictly necessary.)

[Wonderist]

Oh, just to clarify, I mean try to beat that score using your own preferred strategy, not just a random strategy like mine. That was just for establishing a baseline score to beat.

[Wonderist]

rorschach/Wagner on ... something?: http://furiouspurpose.me/atheist-courty ... -gentiles/

I don't think it's Wagner. I think he's a cunt from Melbourne Australia that claims to be an E.R Doctor.

Yes, I goofed: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=286#p81150

[Karmakin]

I just got 2.64. That was basically using a strategy of DCCDCCDCCD

[Submariner]

Oh, just to clarify, I mean try to beat that score using your own preferred strategy, not just a random strategy like mine. That was just for establishing a baseline score to beat.

Scored a 3 by all "C"'s 30 coins.

[Metalogic42]

For those wondering WTF I'm going on about wrt the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, here's a simple demonstration of the Tit For Tat strategy, where you try to beat this simple strategy. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/playground/pd.html See if you can beat TFT (called 'Serendip' in the game).

Note that this scenario involves zero 'noise': you can always tell if the opponent is 'cooperating' or 'competing', there are no mixed signals (analogous to misunderstandings and misinterpretations in our current 'deep rifts' situation, where such miscommunications/noise are rather common). In noisy environments, TFT actually doesn't do that well. It still does okay, if the noise level is low enough. But Pavlov does better, usually. So, while TFT is often touted as the 'best' or 'optimal' strategy, as indeed this website also does, it actually doesn't translate that well into real life scenarios, unless communication between people is very clear and not subject to misinterpretations. When there are misinterpretations, however, Tit For Tat devolves into Eye For an Eye (leaving everyone blind; well, except for the last person, who becomes king/queen of the blind).

Still, getting familiar with TFT in a non-noisy environment can help to understand the significance of Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma in the first place, and how mutual cooperation can beat 'us vs. them' thinking in the long-run (again, to prove this, try to actually beat TFT in the link above). Being unable to beat it (by more than one turn) by cheating/competing against it should prove eye-opening at least for some people (it was for me when I first came across Axelrod's book).

To make it interesting, let's see who can get the highest average score (coins per turn). (Honour system.) To start things off, I'll do a random strategy by flipping a virtual coin for each turn:

Before playing, here are the random moves I'll play, from a quick random spreadsheet (C for Cooperate, D for Defect, which is called 'Compete' on that site):
CCDCCDCDDCCDCCDCCCCCDCCDC

Here's the results: After 11 rounds, the 'wizard' ended the game, so I only got to play:
CCDCCDCDDCC

Final result: 28 coins, 11 rounds, for average score of 2.55 coins per turn. Can anyone beat that? :popcorn: (If you can remember them or take note of them, try listing your moves, too, though this is just for fun, so it's not strictly necessary.)

I did: CCCCCCCCCCC.....
Your average number of coins was 3.00 .
Serendip's average number of coins was 3.00 .

I did: DDDDDDDDDDD.....
Your average number of coins was 1.33 .
Serendip's average number of coins was 0.92 .
(The game tells me I was "flirting with an inconceivably foul fate the whole time". I noticed here that I started off with a large advantage, which dwindled slightly with each round. In my first game, we were even the whole time. Interesting.)

I did: CDCDCDCDCDC.....
Your average number of coins was 2.80 .
Serendip's average number of coins was 2.30 .
(In this game, we were evenly matched on D's, and I pulled slightly ahead on C's.)

I did: DCDCDCDCDCDCD.....
Your average number of coins was 2.50 .
Serendip's average number of coins was 2.50 .
(This was the opposite of the last round; we were matched on C's, and I pulled ahead on D's. It also lasted 13 rounds instead of 11.)

[AndrewV69]

In other news, I joined Facebook so I could ask someone about a question concerning her paper on Sentencing Disparities. So I thought I would look up Abbie on Facebook and got distracted here at this talk here:

PZ Myers (Pharyngula, University of Minnesota-Morris) and Abigail Smith (ERV, University of Oklahoma)
Epigenetics: new and exciting, but not quite magical 15:40
http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/1682

*shakes head*

That was then, this is now. How far has PeeZuss Christ has fallen? A lot.

[Skep tickle]

FWIW, my post at Lousy Canuck is still in moderation; mentioned here >24 hrs ago: viewtopic.php?p=80575#p80575 ...

FWIW, my post at Lousy Canuck is still in moderation; mentioned (& posted) here >48 hrs ago.

No links in it. No photoshopped images. No insults, to my reading. Not directly on the OP topic but relevant in explaining further a quote from me embedded in the OP, to which PZ responded in reply #1, making assumptions about what I said and meant.

Oh, well. I might as well edit down PZ's reply #1 in the Lousy Canuck thread "Defamation is not disagreement" to point out an apparent contradiction:

Wait…she listened, & all she took from it was 1 or 2 sentences which she then misinterprets ... ?

<snip>

But of course we have to accept the personal testimony of women’s experiences. In that case, it would have been totally injust to simply say, “oh, she’s a woman, therefore she’s lying”.

Right! It would always be totally "injust to simply say" that, though of course if they've ever demonstrated someone actually making such a clueless and prejudiced statement, I missed that part.

To go with the clipped PZ quote above for a moment: I guess because PZ says I misinterpreted rather than lied, and Jason could have let the post through (but didn't, or hasn't) in which I followed the link to show what my entire quote was & tried to show my work, therefore dismissing my comments is not "injust" - unfortunately, it seems simply like business as usual over there.

[TheMan]

For those wondering WTF I'm going on about wrt the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, here's a simple demonstration of the Tit For Tat strategy, where you try to beat this simple strategy. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/playground/pd.html See if you can beat TFT (called 'Serendip' in the game).

Note that this scenario involves zero 'noise': you can always tell if the opponent is 'cooperating' or 'competing', there are no mixed signals (analogous to misunderstandings and misinterpretations in our current 'deep rifts' situation, where such miscommunications/noise are rather common). In noisy environments, TFT actually doesn't do that well. It still does okay, if the noise level is low enough. But Pavlov does better, usually. So, while TFT is often touted as the 'best' or 'optimal' strategy, as indeed this website also does, it actually doesn't translate that well into real life scenarios, unless communication between people is very clear and not subject to misinterpretations. When there are misinterpretations, however, Tit For Tat devolves into Eye For an Eye (leaving everyone blind; well, except for the last person, who becomes king/queen of the blind).

Still, getting familiar with TFT in a non-noisy environment can help to understand the significance of Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma in the first place, and how mutual cooperation can beat 'us vs. them' thinking in the long-run (again, to prove this, try to actually beat TFT in the link above). Being unable to beat it (by more than one turn) by cheating/competing against it should prove eye-opening at least for some people (it was for me when I first came across Axelrod's book).

To make it interesting, let's see who can get the highest average score (coins per turn). (Honour system.) To start things off, I'll do a random strategy by flipping a virtual coin for each turn:

Before playing, here are the random moves I'll play, from a quick random spreadsheet (C for Cooperate, D for Defect, which is called 'Compete' on that site):
CCDCCDCDDCCDCCDCCCCCDCCDC

Here's the results: After 11 rounds, the 'wizard' ended the game, so I only got to play:
CCDCCDCDDCC

Final result: 28 coins, 11 rounds, for average score of 2.55 coins per turn. Can anyone beat that? :popcorn: (If you can remember them or take note of them, try listing your moves, too, though this is just for fun, so it's not strictly necessary.)

You got more than Serendip!
After the final round, the score is:
You have 18 gold coins, and
Serendip has 13 gold coins.
Your average number of coins was 1.64 .
Serendip's average number of coins was 1.18 .



BUT you were flirting with an Inconceivably Foul Fate the whole time!

I clicked compete except for once and I lost that round......

[Guest]

28 coins. 2.8 in 10 rounds. CDCDCDCDCD

apparently the boring and obvious wins :P

[TheMan]

and this when co-operating the whole time....

You and Serendip got the same amount!
After the final round, the score is:
You have 39 gold coins, and
Serendip has 39 gold coins.
Your average number of coins was 3.00 .
Serendip's average number of coins was 3.00 .



Think this is the BEST strategy?

[Guest]

i guess the point is to see if you can actually beat 3.00 with any other strategy that involves competing

[Metalogic42]

Ok, now for an interesting experiment. I'm going to play again, this time working under the assumption that Serendip is an average human being, complete with biases, desires, emotions, etc., and play as I would against a person.

I'll be nice to start off. People are basically good, right? (C) (coins 3:3, average 3:3)

Ok, maybe s/h/it thinks I'm a nice guy. I'll try to throw him for a loop and gain an early advantage. (D) (8:3, 4:1.5)

I don't think s/h/it likes that too much. S/h/it knows the rules; I'm expecting a compete, so I will too. (D) (9:4, 3:1.33)

This is going to be bad if we both compete every time. I'll offer the hand of friendship for a few turns. (C) (9:9, 2.25:2.25)

One more for s/h/it to get the message. (C) (12:12, 2.40:2.40)

Either s/h/it will decide to cooperate with me because I have been, or will compete again to take advantage of my niceness. Either way, compete! (D) (17:12, 2.83:2)

Success! I came out on top. I've got about 10-13 moves, so I'll coop again to trick s/h/it into a coop later. (C) (17:17, 2.43:2.43)

There goes my advantage, that bastard. Compete!!!! (D) (22:17, 2.75:2.12)

And here it comes again. Gonna take a gamble and compete again in hopes of gaining a large advantage. (D) (23:18, 2.56:2)

Well that didn't work. Maybe we can coop for the rest of the game and I'll still come out ahead. (C) (23:23, 2.3:2.3)

Or not. Game over, with a tie.

[John Greg]

Skep tickle, the nasty, nasty tease, said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 213#p81213):

FWIW, my post at Lousy Canuck is still in moderation; mentioned (& posted) here >48 hrs ago.

Toiletbowl plays very fast and loose with ethics when it comes to allowing (or not) a post to get through his moderation vacuum. Generally speaking, he is a kind of archetypical Laden in that he only lets through posts that fall into one of the following categories:

1. Agree with the toilet.
2. Disagree with the toilet, but presented in such a way, and with additional post edits, moderations, and/or deletions, to present the poster as a liar, or fabricater, or otherwise flawed.
3. Ban hammers on, then off, then on, then off, randomly, along with deletions, to make the poster appear to be a liar and or otherwise disingenuous piece of shit.

I mean really, the bottom line is that the toilet is simply an unscrupulous, unethical, and highly immorally menadacious puff of swamp gas that wants to be Greg Laden.

Floosh!

'nuff said.

[Skep tickle]

Hello lurkers.

In total there are 50 users online :: 3 registered, 3 hidden and 44 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)

[Pepsi]

I don't understand the letters, but my rounds: Cooperate, 3. Cooperate, 6. Cooperate, 9. Cooperate til 15... And I think the game is broken. I can't choose an option. Closing out now.

[debaser71]

good guys finish first
tit for tat, start with a cooperate

You and Serendip got the same amount!
After the final round, the score is:
You have 45 gold coins, and
Serendip has 45 gold coins.
Your average number of coins was 3.00 .
Serendip's average number of coins was 3.00 .



Think this is the BEST strategy?

[John Greg]

CCCC; CDCDCD; x gold coins, eh? What teh fuck are you people babbling about?!?

[Michael K Gray]

CCCC; CDCDCD; x gold coins, eh? What teh fuck are you people babbling about?!?

They've become archaeologists, and are now dating their horde of Roman Coins.

[Skep tickle]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ools-here/

Jeez, what a depressing bunch.

"I have never made an April Fool’s joke in my life, and this certainly isn’t one."

"I am glad to share this sentiment with you, PZ. I hate april-fools-gotcha jokes."

"I never could work out why April Fools day was such a big thing. It struck me too much as a bullying tactic. I’m glad to say I’ve never gone there."

"Never had the slightest use for April 1st idiocy."

"I hate April Fools’ Day. It’s a day for taking advantage of other people’s trust in order to make them feel stupid for your own sadistic amusement. No thanks."

"Thank you! Fuck I hate april fools."

"fuck this stupid day"

April Fool's jokes are vicious harassment and totes oppressive to people who are marginalized by their incredible narcissism and humorlessness.

Yowza.

Another one from that thread: "With a teenaged boy in the house, April 1st tends to be the most annoying day of the year."

I don't know what his teenager is like, but I really treasure sharing humor in various ways with my kid (now a teenager), at every opportunity, like my dad and I used to do. And that includes my kid pulling one over on me today for April Fools; I laughed when I'd realized I'd been had.

[Skep tickle]

CCCC; CDCDCD; x gold coins, eh? What teh fuck are you people babbling about?!?

They've become archaeologists, and are now dating their horde of Roman Coins.

Yeah, well, just watch that they don't slip anything into their horde of Roman Coins' drink.

[John Greg]

Ah, yes, I see.

Hmm.

....

Let's all joyously return to condemning the evil, the true, true evil that is April Fools day ... or summat.

I mean seriously, a renowned, respected, nay, revered PhD has compelled us to do so.

Yes.

....

Or, is that No!?!

Say, by-the-by, and on the sly, how many match packs does it take to become PeeZus Myers, renowned, respected, nay, revered PhD?

[John Greg]

Say, by-the-by, and on the sly, how many match packs does it take to become PeeZus Myers, renowned, respected, nay, revered PhD?

I should clarify.

I am only an Arts Degree with an associated thingamabob guy (Ooh, guys, don't do that!!), so I really do not have any idea whatsoever of what I speak of.

....

Eh?

Misogynist fuck! Degree-rape enabler.

[Skep tickle]

Ah, here's where the April Fools humor piece at FtB was hidden! Ho, ho, ho, or something like that!

http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason ... -activism/

Where Feminism Fails: The Ongoing Need for Men’s Rights Activism - By Miri, professional fun-ruiner

So, this might be kind of awkward given my past writing and activism, but it’s time for me to come clean: I’ve decided to become a Men’s Rights Activist.

I’ve realized that feminism’s biggest failure–much more important, in fact, than its historical disregard for women of color, poor women, and trans* people–is that it does absolutely nothing to address issues facing men. It starts right with the name “feminism.” If feminists really cared about equality for everyone, men included, they would’ve obviously called it “equalism” or “egalitarianism.” But they didn’t, because at its core feminism is only about helping women, perhaps even at the expense of men. ...

[rayshul]

Really enjoyed Tmklac's posts on the EBW thread - great point to make - that the original split began because a woman was treated obscenely for not towing the ideological line set by FtB/SC.

EBW getting shit on is yet another example of what started this.

[Skep tickle]

Say, by-the-by, and on the sly, how many match packs does it take to become PeeZus Myers, renowned, respected, nay, revered PhD?

...

Your last couple of posts sound like alcohol talking. (Not that that's the first time that's happened here...)

PZ Myers can be, or at least has been in the past, interesting & effective as a biological sciences educator (at least at the level of talks & blog posts; I haven't ever taken a class he's taught).

Presumably he got his PhD the way that's traditional in the sciences, by getting a Bachelor's then deciding to go to graduate school, applying, & getting in; then completing the required courses and completing original research (under a faculty member mentor) then writing it up in a thesis then defending his research & thesis before a committee.

The PhD isn't a talisman, but it does represent years of relatively focused work in one field, and if he can put that to use in educating other people about that field (like he used to), more power to him.

So you didn't go that route. You did other things during your 20's, for the 7-10 yr span that a Bachelor's & PhD takes. That's totally fine. You know things and have skills that PZ doesn't; that's great. (Oh, and you don't seem to expect to be "renowned, respected, nay, revered" - that may come from his having been a prominent blogger & conference speaker, where the PhD helped get him going but I don't think it in itself was the reason he was respected.)

Now, of course, he seems to have fallen for that old trap, thinking he's expert in fields outside his area of scientific concentration because of his relative celebrity & fame (albeit in a small pond). This isn't the first time that's happened to someone. Seems like scientists may be particularly prone to it, but my sample size is small.

(I said the PhD isn't a talisman, but it's necessary to get a faculty position like he has, and that's like a golden ring: if you work, you probably have a job that doesn't allow you anywhere near as much leeway as he gets, to be away at conferences unrelated to work, etc.)

[Wonderist]

Ok, now for an interesting experiment. I'm going to play again, this time working under the assumption that Serendip is an average human being, complete with biases, desires, emotions, etc., and play as I would against a person.

I'll be nice to start off. People are basically good, right? (C) (coins 3:3, average 3:3)

Ok, maybe s/h/it thinks I'm a nice guy. I'll try to throw him for a loop and gain an early advantage. (D) (8:3, 4:1.5)

I don't think s/h/it likes that too much. S/h/it knows the rules; I'm expecting a compete, so I will too. (D) (9:4, 3:1.33)

This is going to be bad if we both compete every time. I'll offer the hand of friendship for a few turns. (C) (9:9, 2.25:2.25)

One more for s/h/it to get the message. (C) (12:12, 2.40:2.40)

Either s/h/it will decide to cooperate with me because I have been, or will compete again to take advantage of my niceness. Either way, compete! (D) (17:12, 2.83:2)

Success! I came out on top. I've got about 10-13 moves, so I'll coop again to trick s/h/it into a coop later. (C) (17:17, 2.43:2.43)

There goes my advantage, that bastard. Compete!!!! (D) (22:17, 2.75:2.12)

And here it comes again. Gonna take a gamble and compete again in hopes of gaining a large advantage. (D) (23:18, 2.56:2)

Well that didn't work. Maybe we can coop for the rest of the game and I'll still come out ahead. (C) (23:23, 2.3:2.3)

Or not. Game over, with a tie.

Thanks for giving it a go, folks. This response to me is the most revealing one, not to disparage the others, tho.

This bit right here demonstrates the 'dilemma' very very well:

This is going to be bad if we both compete every time. I'll offer the hand of friendship for a few turns. (C) (9:9, 2.25:2.25)

One more for s/h/it to get the message. (C) (12:12, 2.40:2.40)

Either s/h/it will decide to cooperate with me because I have been, or will compete again to take advantage of my niceness. Either way, compete! (D) (17:12, 2.83:2)

Yes, it does go bad if both compete every time. The D vs. D payoff is actually the worst long-term payoff, with only 1 coin each, for a total of 2 coins between the two players.

If both players play D vs D each turn, your final score would be an avg of 1.00 coin per turn, which is pretty lousy.

Yet, if both sides play C vs C each turn, the payoff is 3 coins each, and you'd end up with 3.00 coins per turn. Whuh?!

Okay, so we gotta get some cooperation action going, or we're both going to end up with a lousy 1.00 score.

But, because playing the game involves a measure of trust (you each play simultaneously, and don't know what the other will play until it's already played), getting out of the D vs D rut requires a willingness to 'forgive' past grudges: to play a couple rounds of C, in the hopes that your opponent will "get the message", as you said. So, you played two Cs in a row.

In fact, it had worked. You managed to get Serendip/TFT to 'get the message'. It started to 'trust' you again, and played a round of C vs C with you, winning 3 coins for both of you. Notice, and this is key, actually, that 3 coins and 3 coins adds up to 6 coins, split between the two of you. Much better than the 2 coins split when D vs D is played.

But then comes the temptation for a *short term* gain by burning Serendip with your next D move. (Maybe D stands for Dick. I wonder what C could possibly stand for?) So, you played a Dick move, and poor sucker Serendip still thought you were going back to cooperation, so played the sucker move, your D vs its C. You got a payoff of 5 coins that turn, Seredip got zilch, 0 coins. Notice, 5 + 0 = 5.

While you managed a short term gain of 5 instead of 3, both of you together got only 5 coins total, instead of the 6 coins had you played C vs C that round.

So, succumbing to the temptation of a short term gain, you're actually choosing a *long term* loss because 5 is less than 6. What's worse though, is that your sucker punch triggers more defection on Serendip's part: Eye for an eye retaliation.

If you had stuck it out for just one more turn, you would have avoided the short term temptation, and so would Serendip, and you both would have kept cooperating, for another optimal round of C vs C for 3 coins each.

Here's what *could* have happened, (and in fact would have; try this sequence and you should get the same results, adjusting for minor diffs due to the randomized length of the game):

"I'll be nice to start off. People are basically good, right? (C) (coins 3:3, average 3:3)"
Yep, start nice. Always start with C. (I'm getting the feeling you've read about this before and are playing along for our benefit; if so, appreciated :) )

"Ok, maybe s/h/it thinks I'm a nice guy. I'll try to throw him for a loop and gain an early advantage. (D) (8:3, 4:1.5)"
An understandable temptation. Gotta at least *try* to see if it's an exploitable dummy, right?

"I don't think s/h/it likes that too much. S/h/it knows the rules; I'm expecting a compete, so I will too. (D) (9:4, 3:1.33)"
aka Doubling down, as we've seen lots of. I'm predicting Zvan will double-down on her limbo-ing of me in the near future, when I bring it up during discussion on Nugent's, for example.

"This is going to be bad if we both compete every time. I'll offer the hand of friendship for a few turns. (C) (9:9, 2.25:2.25)"
A wise observation. Turns out it's not an exploitable dummy after all.

"One more for s/h/it to get the message. (C) (12:12, 2.40:2.40)"
Another good move. A 'show of good faith', so to speak.

"Either s/h/it will decide to cooperate with me because I have been, or will compete again to take advantage of my niceness. Either way, compete! (D) (17:12, 2.83:2)"
The mistake. From this point on, I'm going to play all Cs, to show what would have happened if you'd stuck to it for the long-term win-win scenario, rather than getting tangled up in the short-term lose-lose scenario. So, the sequence, matching yours up till here, but switching from here on to Cs is:
CDDCC, followed by CCCCCC....

Result:
27 coins to 27 coins (10 rounds). Avg score: 2.70, which is... better than your score of 2.30

Cooperation pays off in the long run. That initial defection and double-down basically just lost coins for no good reason (optimal for 10 rounds would be 30 coins, for 3.00). Plus, the continued bickering of one-upmanship of your example just drags the overall game lower and lower into the gutter. The only way out is to signal clearly, "I fucked up, you fucked up, let's forgive each other and get back to mutual cooperation". (Note: In a noisy environment, you might not have *actually* fucked up. The other player might have just misread your comment (like Zvan), jumped to a hasty conclusion, and thought you were playing a D, when really you were playing a C. This is where Tit For Tat starts to lose its edge, and Pavlov starts to shine. Enough for now, though.

Thanks again, folks, for participating, and to Metalogic for the 'as if human' analysis.

[Barael]

Does anyone get a similar feeling reading it as from some anti-gay pastor's screed against those awful gays and their unnatural... and... sweaty... andohsohot man-on-man action?

Come on LeftSidePositive, it's okay to have rape fantasies. As long as you don't enact them on some hapless fellow, anyway.

[Hunt]

(Oh, and you don't seem to expect to be "renowned, respected, nay, revered" - that may come from his having been a prominent blogger & conference speaker, where the PhD helped get him going but I don't think it in itself was the reason he was respected.)

Ironically, it might have been Dawkins's mention of him in TGD that launched his blog into real prominence. I know that's how I first heard of him and a few other people I've read have said the same thing. It might be interesting to analyze just what factor Dawkins played in his ascent to fame (or infamy). A chronicle of biting the hand that feeds you.

[Tkmlac]

Caught up on the last couple pages but I have some more to peruse. You guys already know about EllenBeth Wachs on her blog. She is being reasonable, allowing people to say what they have to say and not jumping into insults when she finds something she disagrees with. I'm absolutely amazed! I am quite cynical for my age, so I'm really thrown for a loop seeing someone change their position or behavior in some way. Even though this doesn't mean she'll be agreeing with us any time soon on some of the stickier topics, she's at least open to the idea that attacking and shutting people down is not the right way to go.

I've seen great discussions here evolve into mutual understanding or respect and I've seen them devolve and sputter to become mostly friendly rivalries. It's due wholly to the idea that open discussion is the the best way to share ideas and I love

[Tkmlac]

that about you guys. I hope more people like EllenBeth come to realize that, too. (sorry, accidently hit submit).

[rayshul]

that about you guys. I hope more people like EllenBeth come to realize that, too. (sorry, accidently hit submit).

Have to say again that I appreciated you pointing out that what happened to EBW was what happened to McGraw, and was virtually identical to the incident which started all this off - except that McGraw's situation was a public, personal "call out/shaming" and that she was a young student, not a professional ex-lawyer with a leadership position in an atheist organisation.

This really is really fucking important to repeat. Women like EBW is why the Slymepit exists.

[Tkmlac]

that about you guys. I hope more people like EllenBeth come to realize that, too. (sorry, accidently hit submit).

Have to say again that I appreciated you pointing out that what happened to EBW was what happened to McGraw, and was virtually identical to the incident which started all this off - except that McGraw's situation was a public, personal "call out/shaming" and that she was a young student, not a professional ex-lawyer with a leadership position in an atheist organisation.

This really is really fucking important to repeat. Women like EBW is why the Slymepit exists.

I absolutely agree, but it looks like she's learned a hard lesson. I'm carefully watching the thread play out because the truce seems so fragile I'm scared someone is going to start throwing darts at any moment and set off the tripwire that brings it all back to attack-blogging and call-out culture. I'm figuratively crossing my fingers in hopes it stays a civil, open discussion. So far, even a few iffy comments have been met with openness on both sides.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Not sure EBW has learned a lesson yet (too early to say, I mean). But at least, she's walked a mile in some of our shoes, for better or for worse.

Only time will tell.

[Apples]

Associated with that is that I am very concerned about unilateral actions from one of our team, actions which nullify efforts as a team. I've stated my concerns, but there has been no adequate reponse at all on that, so I am with immediate effect withdrawing from the team. There are also other grave concerns underlying my resignation here, but they can be examined a little later.

http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?b=1695

Curiouser and curiouser .... Wonderist, were you subjecting Gurdur to a judo demonstration without his consent?

[Hunt]

Ah, here's where the April Fools humor piece at FtB was hidden! Ho, ho, ho, or something like that!

http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason ... -activism/

Where Feminism Fails: The Ongoing Need for Men’s Rights Activism - By Miri, professional fun-ruiner

So, this might be kind of awkward given my past writing and activism, but it’s time for me to come clean: I’ve decided to become a Men’s Rights Activist.

I’ve realized that feminism’s biggest failure–much more important, in fact, than its historical disregard for women of color, poor women, and trans* people–is that it does absolutely nothing to address issues facing men. It starts right with the name “feminism.” If feminists really cared about equality for everyone, men included, they would’ve obviously called it “equalism” or “egalitarianism.” But they didn’t, because at its core feminism is only about helping women, perhaps even at the expense of men. ...

MRM is really kind of a mixed bag. It has its valid points, but there's a lot of crazy there. One thing I particularly dislike about it is that it seems to have a certain prevalence of PUA, which I despise. However, I don't think dismissing all men's issues because MRM gets things wrong is anything to joke about. It's kind of like dismissing all of feminism just because radfems are crazy. But because MRM is composed of some crazies is the perfect excuse to ignore men's issues, especially when combined with the injunction to wrap all of men's issues back into feminism (where they can be conveniently ignored). It would be great to see feminist marches against prison rape instead of prison rape being considered an unofficial retribution for criminal behavior. And even if they do admit it's an issue that should be dealt with, it will be in terms of patriarchy and rape culture. But they're never going to march about it, trust me.

As for Miri, I may be wrong, but unfortunately she seems to be on the fast track to radfem. Presently she seems to be fairly free of it, but the signs are there.

[Michael K Gray]

I'm carefully watching the thread play out because the truce seems so fragile I'm scared someone is going to start throwing darts at any moment and set off the tripwire that brings it all back to attack-blogging and call-out culture. I'm figuratively crossing my fingers in hopes it stays a civil, open discussion.

Why? [serious question]
What is to be gained by treading on eggshells to comport with this so-called "truce"?
And: for what cause?
Comity, for the sake of it? Fuck that.

[Apples]

Rorschach demonstrates an interesting combination of batshit insane delusionality and somber realism:

I have to say that I’m seriously over this whole thing. And what’s more, I don’t think my side can win. I am bemused and bewildered at the same time when I see the fight raging for the souls of those in the movement who are on the fence or who try to provide a neutral space for what they think can be a civilised debate between equally valid positions, like Michael Nugent has been doing recently.

The fervor and energy with which the slymers are currently trying to convert Nugent to their cause of having the right to calling women cunts and bitches and stalking and harassing bloggers and activists with whom they disagree is simply breathtaking. At the same time, slyme associates like Russell Blackford or Miranda Hale are retweeting every brainfart from Richard Dawkins as if it was a new gospel, and now Blackford has even discovered the 2 year old “Dublin Declaration” and hails it as some kind of long forgotten masterpiece, in a not so subtle attempt to send a slyme signal to Nugent.

These people are fighting for atheist and skeptics’ souls, and for their brand of squeaky-clean old white guy atheism+ (where the “+” stands for the right to ankle-gnaw, sexually harass, or smear and discredit dissenters or critics of the former) to prevail, as if they were Christian missionaries fighting for the souls of the hunter-gatherers in the jungles of the Phillipines 400 years ago.

And I think they may actually win. Atheism and skepticism is still a predominantly old white guy thing. The women who are influential in those movements beyond the blogosphere are sadly mostly chill girls accustomed, and thereby accomplice, to the “boys will be boys” mentality, just as the female relatives of Tunesian woman Amina are, who may have helped to get her committed to a psychiatric hospital in recent days.

I’m frankly over this stuff. I thought I’d go to the upcoming “Empowering Women through Secularism” conference to help make a difference. But you know what, seeing how Michael Nugent is bending over backwards to accomodate those lying creeps, I’ve lost interest. Maybe I’ll take this blog offline soon too, while I’m at it. Atheism and skepticism fully deserve the leaders and spokespeople they currently have, from Sam “Nuke them from orbit” Harris to DJ “what harassment” Grothe, to Richard “what my racist uncle says when he’s drunk” Dawkins.

Good luck with Atheism+, people. But I’m just not optimistic that we have the numbers, that there are enough decent people around to make a difference.

http://furiouspurpose.me/the-fight-for- ... uls-is-on/

[Scented Nectar]

I found this, where she excuses 'durable' pseudonyms (meaning herself?), from http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... k-puppets/

As DrugMonkey has pointed out in prior discussions of online identity, the situation is different when dealing with a durable pseudonym. Over time, that pseudonym accretes history the same way any other name would online. It develops a reputation that follows it around. This reputation doesn’t generally attach itself to the person behind the pseudonym, but there are good, bad and indifferent reasons why that might be desirable. The pseudonymous themselves are generally approximately as mixed a bag of humanity as the rest of us, and we deal with them individually based on the reputation they built by their actions.

Hmmm I actually agree with her on durable "nyms". Although I call them "tags" but whatever. I was wondering what's the oldest post of mine I could find on the internet and this is what I found.

http://lvlworld.com/comments/id:34

comment 22, may 16, 2000

(so very fascinating! I know... /eyeroll) Of course, my tag is older than that, I just can't find any (not that I tried hard).

But the Pharygnula non-horde still tried to suggest that I was a drive by troll or something, that I could be dismissed because of my "nym"...that's right before they switched it up to "childmolester71". Hey, A-rat-in-a-cage, go fork a repo or something!

I agree about 'durable' nyms too, but she's against new ones. Mind you, the only way a nym becomes durable is if it starts out as a new one at some earlier point. Maybe Steffy hasn't thought this through.

As for what they called you, I'm not surprised. It makes me wonder how many real-life people they've also falsely accused of such things.

[Scented Nectar]

Well, unless her husband is also using a pseudonym, I'll remain skeptical about the issue...

http://photography.zvan.net/

Maybe she was lying to throw people off of knowing it was her real name. Or maybe she really kept her last name when she married and uses his as her pseudonym? Or my memory may be wrong. I don't know. One thing's for sure. She's a nutcase no matter what name she's using. :)

[Scented Nectar]

Steffy admitted once that 'Stephanie Zvan' is not her real name. All the talk against anonymous people should include her too. :lol:

Extra funny is how she freaks out over anyone mis-spelling her pseudonym!

I'm guessing googlability. Either so she can track mentions, or so, like in Soviet Russia: Mention tracks you!

You're probably right. It's a lot of extra work to search for all the extra names. I mean, there's Stefunny, Ste.Funny, Steffy, StaphInfection, Insvanity, and tons more. It probably forces her to read everything here so that she doesn't miss anything. :)

[Michael K Gray]

Associated with that is that I am very concerned about unilateral actions from one of our team, actions which nullify efforts as a team. I've stated my concerns, but there has been no adequate reponse at all on that, so I am with immediate effect withdrawing from the team. There are also other grave concerns underlying my resignation here, but they can be examined a little later.

http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?b=1695
Curiouser and curiouser .... Wonderist, were you subjecting Gurdur to a judo demonstration without his consent?

I would be surprised if Thaumus did such an intentional thing, even metaphorically.
But, it seems that I am not the only one to notice that Wonderist has brazenly & "unilaterally" donned the heroic ægis of "most polite and erudite speaker for the rationalist side, by fiat" (whilst repeatedly denying that he is speaking for we denizens), a rhetorical assassin if you will, claimedly accepting all criticism, positive or negative, whilst revealing himself as an hypocritical nonce to all and sundry in the next post.
I grow tired of him.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I'm carefully watching the thread play out because the truce seems so fragile I'm scared someone is going to start throwing darts at any moment and set off the tripwire that brings it all back to attack-blogging and call-out culture. I'm figuratively crossing my fingers in hopes it stays a civil, open discussion.

Why? [serious question]
What is to be gained by treading on eggshells to comport with this so-called "truce"?
And: for what cause?
Comity, for the sake of it? Fuck that.

For myself, it would serve the purpose of maybe getting a bit more into their thought-process. Seing how they go from the things we agree on to the things we disagree on. Not sure that talk will achieve it, but it can be an interesting experiment.

[Hunt]

I’m frankly over this stuff.

What is it they always say at Pharyngula? Don't slam the door on your way out?

[BarnOwl]

(I said the PhD isn't a talisman, but it's necessary to get a faculty position like he has, and that's like a golden ring: if you work, you probably have a job that doesn't allow you anywhere near as much leeway as he gets, to be away at conferences unrelated to work, etc.)

I'm PhD (from the same program as PeeZus) tenured faculty, and I have little or no leeway to be away at conferences unrelated (or related to, for that matter) work during the times at which I have teaching responsibilities (most of the year now). When I'm not teaching, I'm doing research, and that's sometimes less flexible than the teaching. At the moment I have a developmental biology course running, and I can't imagine missing a couple of sessions (part background lecture, part discussion of experimental design) just because I wanted to attend a conference unrelated to work. Even on days that I don't have class, I've usually got some fires to put out that would be difficult to manage at a distance. And if I'm not directing the course, I'm usually team-teaching under circumstances in which buggering off to a conference would inconvenience or burden the other instructors.

Even without the work-related restrictions, I doubt I'd travel as much as do the FtBers. Everyone has their snotty little ethical hang-ups, and one of mine is anthropogenic climate change.

[Michael K Gray]

Steffy admitted once that 'Stephanie Zvan' is not her real name. All the talk against anonymous people should include her too. :lol:

Extra funny is how she freaks out over anyone mis-spelling her pseudonym!

I'm guessing googlability. Either so she can track mentions, or so, like in Soviet Russia: Mention tracks you!

You're probably right. It's a lot of extra work to search for all the extra names. I mean, there's Stefunny, Ste.Funny, Steffy, StaphInfection, Insvanity, and tons more. It probably forces her to read everything here so that she doesn't miss anything. :)

Don't forget St. Effuny.
A wannabe Joan d' Arc.
(Noah's missus.)

[Michael K Gray]

I'm carefully watching the thread play out because the truce seems so fragile I'm scared someone is going to start throwing darts at any moment and set off the tripwire that brings it all back to attack-blogging and call-out culture. I'm figuratively crossing my fingers in hopes it stays a civil, open discussion.

Why? [serious question]
What is to be gained by treading on eggshells to comport with this so-called "truce"?
And: for what cause?
Comity, for the sake of it? Fuck that.

For myself, it would serve the purpose of maybe getting a bit more into their thought-process. Seing how they go from the things we agree on to the things we disagree on. Not sure that talk will achieve it, but it can be an interesting experiment.

Yes, as an experiment in anthropology, it might bear fruit.
Who knows, an Ass Prof from UofMin might draft a paper on it.

But "vaguely interesting" is not sufficient reward to my cease, or even 'pause', being brutally honest.
I don't have long enough to live for that foot-tapping waste of time, training willful fools.

Perhaps it is sufficient with others.

[Apples]

Even without the work-related restrictions, I doubt I'd travel as much as do the FtBers. Everyone has their snotty little ethical hang-ups, and one of mine is anthropogenic climate change.

And global warming aside, maintaining a hefty extracurricular travel schedule means you're probably not at your best when your customers come calling:

Oy, I’m home. Arrived at Minneapolis at 5:30am, had about 2 hours of fitful sleep on the plane. Drove 3½ hours to get home, threw my bags down, went straight to my office and have already fielded 4 students stopping by with questions.

I’m having a tough time keeping my eyes open.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-594444

I believe someone posted some ratemyprofessor type stuff here that indicated PZ often seems too busy and aloof to give his students -- who are, after all, his real customers/clients -- the attention they need. That is perhaps to be expected at a giant research university when your professor is busy getting his latest paper published, but when he's nothing more than a blowhard blogger jetting around to offer his half-baked opinions on things having little to do with his academic responsibilities, I'm sure your tuition might start to look like a bit of a ripoff.

[Hunt]

rorschach is a doctor?

Cry for the children.

[welch]

I'm carefully watching the thread play out because the truce seems so fragile I'm scared someone is going to start throwing darts at any moment and set off the tripwire that brings it all back to attack-blogging and call-out culture. I'm figuratively crossing my fingers in hopes it stays a civil, open discussion.

Why? [serious question]
What is to be gained by treading on eggshells to comport with this so-called "truce"?
And: for what cause?
Comity, for the sake of it? Fuck that.

Because even the 'seprgiest 'sperg in 'spergland, at some point sees the value in recognizing and encouraging people to learn and grow. If EBW does that, great. What, she committed some great fucking sin and can never be redeemed now? Or we've bagged on her this long, CAN'T STOP NOW!

Fuck that. She wants to stop doin' stupid shit, rock the fuck on

[John Greg]

My favourite nasty, nasty tease (Skeptical Liqourish) said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 231#p81231):

Your last couple of posts sound like alcohol talking.

Bingo. BingFuckingGo.

Ooh! Ooh, you witch, you! Nail o' the head! Ooh.

Merlot, with a passing hint of Pinot Gris, and a couple of Black Jack shots.

Hey, it's a holiday (in my neck of the whatever), and my latest writing contract is finished, so I am a free soul.

Cheers to ya'll.

Oh, and to continue ...

So you didn't go that route. You did other things during your 20's....

Nah, I did a lot of goofy/different shit. I am/was a high school dropout, in that I decamped from the cell block at the wise old age of 15, and wandered off to pasteurs (HAHAHA) more green for my taste, at that time, became a seriously dedicated hard working, and not-too-bad, professional musician in '76, and maintained that adventure for just short of 16 years, at which time I quit, in great disgust, sorrow, and sadness, took two years off to sit on Sunset Beach in Vancouver, pondering navels, bikinis, cocks and cunts, then decided to edumacate myself and went to Douglas College as an Adult Return Student for 5 years, including summers!, (man, oh, man, that was expensive and exhausting), then became what I am now ... whatever the fuck that is.

And, so well, what the fuck do I know?

Nought.

Anywayz, I'ze gonna take a couple hours off from here ... I knowz, I knowz ya'll gonna miss me so much.

See ya'll the day after....

[Apples]

Lousy Canuck's refusal to publish Skep Tickle's entirely germane and polite comment in reply to PZ is revealing as ever .... as is Stephanie's refusal to publish further comments from Wonderist while allowing his critics to yammer on for 30-40 comments as though he's still there. The fair and ethical thing to do, of course, would be to mention that he has tried to reply and she isn't letting him, but the baboons do often enjoy letting critics twist in the wind, making it appear they have flounced or can't handle the heat.

Noel Plum from a few months ago - "Freethought Blocks: The Ophelia Benson Method of Troll Creation"

[youtube]qhbQW2nHh-M[/youtube]

[comslave]

You went there? Fine, I am going to raise the ante with this:

[youtube]vUNFzsNdphQ[/youtube]

For some reason, the recommended videos for that one showed this:
[youtube]s5hSGOpF2to[/youtube]
Poor doggy. :( What is the world coming to when such mutt smut is on YT? :evil:

I'll just leave this here, and remember that rape is never funny.
http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=b481c385bfb2

[AnonymousCowherd]

Associated with that is that I am very concerned about unilateral actions from one of our team, actions which nullify efforts as a team. I've stated my concerns, but there has been no adequate reponse at all on that, so I am with immediate effect withdrawing from the team. There are also other grave concerns underlying my resignation here, but they can be examined a little later.

http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?b=1695

Curiouser and curiouser .... Wonderist, were you subjecting Gurdur to a judo demonstration without his consent?

'His "concerns" are not only "grave", they are numerous and divers;

I have a large number of major concerns with many different aspects of it all,

including that

There simply isn't enough time to properly cohere as a team and to prepare team responses in a time-frame that can adequately keep public interest going.

If Gurdur, who seems genuinely committed to this kind of dialogue, doesn't feel the whole thing is kosher and may just lead to terminal boredom in the millions of uncommitted onlookers searching for the truth of AtheoFemGate, I can't see there being much traction for the whole thing in those of us less impressed by NicenessGab.

[Hunt]

PZ registers the EBW post:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... periences/

[Hunt]

And then I’m torn, because that anger is actually valid, too.

Of course you're torn. If you're not torn, you might be torn apart, by your own shark tank.

[Hunt]

Sorry for the multi-comment, but if this isn't he most pusillanimous post I've ever seen:

Anyway, read it and think. I did, and I still think the disagreement was appropriate, but that she might be right that the derision was disproportionate…while at the same time I think outrageous derision is useful.

She has a point...but then no, so did you, but no, then again...

[Aneris]

Ok, now for an interesting experiment. I'm going to play again, this time working under the assumption that Serendip is an average human being, complete with biases, desires, emotions, etc., and play as I would against a person.

<snip>

Or not. Game over, with a tie.

Thanks for giving it a go, folks. This response to me is the most revealing one, not to disparage the others, tho.

This bit right here demonstrates the 'dilemma' very very well:
<snip>
Cooperation pays off in the long run. That initial defection and double-down basically just lost coins for no good reason (optimal for 10 rounds would be 30 coins, for 3.00). Plus, the continued bickering of one-upmanship of your example just drags the overall game lower and lower into the gutter. The only way out is to signal clearly, "I fucked up, you fucked up, let's forgive each other and get back to mutual cooperation". (Note: In a noisy environment, you might not have *actually* fucked up. The other player might have just misread your comment (like Zvan), jumped to a hasty conclusion, and thought you were playing a D, when really you were playing a C. This is where Tit For Tat starts to lose its edge, and Pavlov starts to shine. Enough for now, though.

Thanks again, folks, for participating, and to Metalogic for the 'as if human' analysis.

You could reach a higher score than 3.00 in principle, when you cooperate at all times, except the last round. But the opponent seems to decide how many rounds are being played, closing that loophole. It can then always retribute one more time with a D, ruining your score again.