I'm not massively into all the conspiracy theories to be honest, I'm damn sure JFK was not the work of a lone gunman but suspect if there's any conspiracy regarding 9/11 then it's going to be along the lines of the US not acting on information to prevent it....to then let them go build bases near some more oil fields/pipelines (not 100% on this but I recall reading that Afganistan is well placed to mess with the access to some russian oil fields)
I'm not massively into all the conspiracy theories to be honest, I'm damn sure JFK was not the work of a lone gunman but suspect if there's any conspiracy regarding 9/11 then it's going to be along the lines of the US not acting on information to prevent it....to then let them go build bases near some more oil fields/pipelines (not 100% on this but I recall reading that Afganistan is well placed to mess with the access to some russian oil fields)
Correct, an oil pipeline could be built across Afghanistan to supply China with Oil.
China is a massive producer of goods in this day and age.
Plus, Geologists recently discovered massive mineral deposits in Afghanistan.
I always liked Bayes Theorem (aka the Monty Hall problem)
Link here folks in case you don't know what it is and weren't going to bother looking it up. It's interesting and worth knowing in case you're ever faced with a similar choice :)
According to Google there are 103,657 architects registered in the USA. So assuming the 2,000 you refer to are all registered in the USA (which they might not be), that's around 2% of the architects currently in the USA.
2,000 sounds a lot. 2% sounds less impressive.
I'm not making a case for or against what may or may not have happened. Just adding some clarity to the quoted numbers :)
Well, knowing how the USA is and its idiocracy, that 2.000 arquitects are on that side is more than unbelievable. I see it on the other way, there are 2.000 professionals who are convinced of something, not 2 or 10, 2.000. It indeed shows and means there is something going on in that subject...
The percentage in cases like this is non-indicative, regarding the circumstances, but the total number is more the gauge :)
RE: kennedy
How the heck did the only guy willing to go through with this get a job in the building overlooking the motorcade route a month before the route was announced?
Monty Hall is probability not statistics ;) EDIT: Statistics is applied probability theory, of course. Why don't Americans abbreviate it as stat though?
It isn't as confusing if you scale up the problem, lets say you have 1,000,000 doors and you pick one. Monty then opens 999,998 other doors and they all have goats behind them, do you change your pick? (EDIT: If yes, but you wouldn't change in the 3 door case, how many doors would be required to make you change your mind?) Derren Brown did a trick based on it as well.
It isn't as confusing if you scale up the problem, lets say you have 1,000,000 doors and you pick one. Monty then opens 999,998 doors and they all have goats behind them, do you change your pick?
Yes, but you could just as easily 'scale up' a two-door choice by saying 'instead of door A or B, your choice is between doors A..Y and door Z'. If you change the rules you shift the balance so it's not the same problem anymore.
What you have to go back to is the original choice is a 1-in-3 chance of getting the right answer. And you're offered a choice to swap, which means you're being offered the other 2-in-3 chance.
Let's say you pick door A. You're now being offered the choice to take doors B and C together instead. That doubles your chances of winning. You get to walk away with whichever result you prefer from behind those two doors.
The host interfering with his prior knowledge doesn't affect the balance of probability that you were wrong with your first choice.
Yes, but the same principle applies even in the 3 door case (i.e. there is no "turning point" when it becomes advantageous to change instead of stick with your choice, since it is advantageous to change even in the minimal 3 door case).
Check the maths in the wikipedia article or crank out your spectrum and do a statistical simulation of the 3 door case for a large number of trials if you don't believe me. It is advantageous to change your pick, it's just psychological that most people wont, which is what Derren's trick was about; it clearly breaks down in the million door case. All it depends on is Bayes' Theorem which is easily proven to be true (some statistical applications of Bayes' Theorem are controversial, this just isn't one of them, it's purely probability theory).
EDIT: Bayes' not Baye's. Sorry about that Rev. Bayes ;)
Well, knowing how the USA is and its idiocracy, that 2.000 arquitects are on that side is more than unbelievable. I see it on the other way, there are 2.000 professionals who are convinced of something, not 2 or 10, 2.000. It indeed shows and means there is something going on in that subject...
The percentage in cases like this is non-indicative, regarding the circumstances, but the total number is more the gauge :)
2% of a profession claiming something proves nothing.
There are a number of reasons that could apply :-
1. Sheer incompetence
2. Error on gathered information (ie not having all the correct facts)
3. Error on interpretation
4. Errors due to being in a different specialist area. ie an architect who mainly works on low rise sports centres making a point about high rise office blocks
5. Errors in misunderstanding or misinterpreting the consequences of the extreme conditions in this particular event
6. Observational bias. The fact that some people (including architects) like to look for conspiracies and are happy to only give weight to the 'evidence' that supports their case
7. Wrong field. As was stated previously, this is really more about demolitions than building
8. Lazy interpretation. Ie an architect says, I don't think that's right and people assume that, because he's an architect, he's actually done a thorough analysis when it could just be an opinion he has.
I'm not saying that everybody who thinks there was something wrong is saying that for any of the reasons listed here. I'm not an architect or demolitions expert. I simply don't know. But how many fields have you ever worked in where you could say that even 95% of everybody in that field is 100% competent? Plenty of doctors get struck off. Loads of people do the minimum work possible to get their pay cheque. Add in all the other reasons above and maybe even a few more that I haven't thought of and 2,000 or 2% is not at all surprising.
Again. Not expressing any opinion here about what actually happened. I'm just pointing out that just because 2,000 sounds like a large number it still means very little if that's only 2% of the entire sample AND, again, just having the number presented with no indication of the total number of architects in the USA is not as transparent as it should be for somebody claiming dishonesty in another party.
I don't think anyone said it was. I am reminded of it when people discuss statistics because I suspect most people's interpretation of statistics is similar to their interpretation of probability, based on emotion rather than mathematical understanding. Take the issues the British political parties are fighting the next election on for example.
Agree though that intuition trumps correctness when it comes to statistics. As I said, it is psychology, which is why people are bad at game theory (it assumes rational actors, i.e. not intuition). It also explains why Libertarians are such cockmunchers. Utility theory is also questionable when it comes to game theory.
Check the maths in the wikipedia article or crank out your spectrum and do a statistical simulation of the 3 door case for a large number of trials if you don't believe me. It is advantageous to change your pick, it's just psychological that most people wont
Don't be daft, I wasn't arguing with the result.
I'm just saying that a four-door-case or a million-door case doesn't really count as you're changing the problem. Just because you find that particular way of looking at it settles the matter doesn't make it right. It's not a method you can just apply to any question of probability. You're changing a 1-in-3 problem to a 1-in-a-million problem to make a point. But if you take a 1-in-2 problem (i.e. 50:50) and take the same approach, biasing one side over the other, you'll get the wrong answer.
I think we are in agreement then? The million door case just demonstrates that there is definitely a crossover point where changing is obviously and intuitively correct, it just happens if you do the maths it is better to swap in the 3 door case too. EDIT: It would probably be more fun if the 3 door case wasn't optimal to change (or was 50-50), but it isn't the case. Even Paul Erdos (of the Erdos-Bacon number, the main characters girlfriend Winnie from the Wonder Years has one of those ;)), one of the most prolific mathematicians of all time (second only to Euler I think?) didn't believe it until he saw a simulation, and he developed the theory of using probability arguments to tackle combinatoric proofs!!!
EDIT2: My ? post was in response to aowen saying noone had mentioned statistics regarding the Monty Hall problem ;)
EDIT3: Danica McKellar (Winnie from the Wonder Years) also wrote the books Math Doesn't Suck, Kiss My Math, Hot X: Algebra Exposed and Girls Get Curves: Geometry Takes Shape, which encourage middle-school and high-school girls to have confidence and succeed in mathematics. Girl power! I bet she ends up doing a Vorderman and advertising consolidating all your loans into an easy payment plan though :(
EDIT4: Her Erdos-Bacon number is 6. If she appears in a film with Kevin Bacon it could achieve a minimum of 3. Natalie Portman's Erdos-Bacon number is 7. Paul Erdos is now dead so he can't help improving her number to lower than 3.
2% of a profession claiming something proves nothin
The fact that there are 2000 professionals with that opinion is simply overwhelming. And the rest, as someone else pointed out, could be affected by the unfriendly consequences of saying it, and, could also and I am sure, some others may have not been asked or have spoken out.
Being on this side of the opinion means in this case quite bravery, and thats something to take in account when making numbers ;)
I'm sure they asked a lot more than 2000 people ;) There are scientists who claim evolution isn't true and intelligent design is a credible theory too.
The fact that there are 2000 professionals with that opinion is simply overwhelming. And the rest, as someone else pointed out, could be affected by the unfriendly consequences of saying it, and, could also and I am sure, some others may have not been asked or have spoken out.
Being on this side of the opinion means in this case quite bravery, and thats something to take in account when making numbers ;)
Hey! You missed the 'g' off of nothing in
>>Originally Posted by David Jones
>>2% of a profession claiming something proves nothin
Makes it look like I can't spell or that I'm prone to slang :( (& :))
Ok, overwhelming to you, but I made my points and I stand by them. It's underwhelming to me, but I understand that large numbers can be impressive.
If somebody told you a roulette wheel had come up with 25 on 2,000 occasions would you bet on it or would you first want to know how many times the wheel had been spun? (Probably around 74,000 spins assuming a fair wheel with a single zero). Not all professionals or all supposed experts can be relied upon to be correct. Even if there were 5 times as many architects who had that opinion and only 1 in 5 was willing to speak up that's still only 10%. How many bankers (professional experts, or so we thought) predicted the recent financial crash? Significantly fewer than 90%.
Anyway, I don't want to bang on about this (any more than I have already) so you're welcome to the final word on the subject :)
Comments
http://xkcd.com/1282/
Correct, an oil pipeline could be built across Afghanistan to supply China with Oil.
China is a massive producer of goods in this day and age.
Plus, Geologists recently discovered massive mineral deposits in Afghanistan.
Link here folks in case you don't know what it is and weren't going to bother looking it up. It's interesting and worth knowing in case you're ever faced with a similar choice :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
Well, knowing how the USA is and its idiocracy, that 2.000 arquitects are on that side is more than unbelievable. I see it on the other way, there are 2.000 professionals who are convinced of something, not 2 or 10, 2.000. It indeed shows and means there is something going on in that subject...
The percentage in cases like this is non-indicative, regarding the circumstances, but the total number is more the gauge :)
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
How the heck did the only guy willing to go through with this get a job in the building overlooking the motorcade route a month before the route was announced?
It isn't as confusing if you scale up the problem, lets say you have 1,000,000 doors and you pick one. Monty then opens 999,998 other doors and they all have goats behind them, do you change your pick? (EDIT: If yes, but you wouldn't change in the 3 door case, how many doors would be required to make you change your mind?) Derren Brown did a trick based on it as well.
EDIT: This is my favourite XKCD
Reading the list of ingredients proved my doubts to be true.
Still though, even if it does taste somewhat like butter, I am hitherto as yet convinced of it being nothing but not butter.
What you have to go back to is the original choice is a 1-in-3 chance of getting the right answer. And you're offered a choice to swap, which means you're being offered the other 2-in-3 chance.
Let's say you pick door A. You're now being offered the choice to take doors B and C together instead. That doubles your chances of winning. You get to walk away with whichever result you prefer from behind those two doors.
The host interfering with his prior knowledge doesn't affect the balance of probability that you were wrong with your first choice.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
Check the maths in the wikipedia article or crank out your spectrum and do a statistical simulation of the 3 door case for a large number of trials if you don't believe me. It is advantageous to change your pick, it's just psychological that most people wont, which is what Derren's trick was about; it clearly breaks down in the million door case. All it depends on is Bayes' Theorem which is easily proven to be true (some statistical applications of Bayes' Theorem are controversial, this just isn't one of them, it's purely probability theory).
EDIT: Bayes' not Baye's. Sorry about that Rev. Bayes ;)
There are a number of reasons that could apply :-
1. Sheer incompetence
2. Error on gathered information (ie not having all the correct facts)
3. Error on interpretation
4. Errors due to being in a different specialist area. ie an architect who mainly works on low rise sports centres making a point about high rise office blocks
5. Errors in misunderstanding or misinterpreting the consequences of the extreme conditions in this particular event
6. Observational bias. The fact that some people (including architects) like to look for conspiracies and are happy to only give weight to the 'evidence' that supports their case
7. Wrong field. As was stated previously, this is really more about demolitions than building
8. Lazy interpretation. Ie an architect says, I don't think that's right and people assume that, because he's an architect, he's actually done a thorough analysis when it could just be an opinion he has.
I'm not saying that everybody who thinks there was something wrong is saying that for any of the reasons listed here. I'm not an architect or demolitions expert. I simply don't know. But how many fields have you ever worked in where you could say that even 95% of everybody in that field is 100% competent? Plenty of doctors get struck off. Loads of people do the minimum work possible to get their pay cheque. Add in all the other reasons above and maybe even a few more that I haven't thought of and 2,000 or 2% is not at all surprising.
Again. Not expressing any opinion here about what actually happened. I'm just pointing out that just because 2,000 sounds like a large number it still means very little if that's only 2% of the entire sample AND, again, just having the number presented with no indication of the total number of architects in the USA is not as transparent as it should be for somebody claiming dishonesty in another party.
?
Agree though that intuition trumps correctness when it comes to statistics. As I said, it is psychology, which is why people are bad at game theory (it assumes rational actors, i.e. not intuition). It also explains why Libertarians are such cockmunchers. Utility theory is also questionable when it comes to game theory.
I'm just saying that a four-door-case or a million-door case doesn't really count as you're changing the problem. Just because you find that particular way of looking at it settles the matter doesn't make it right. It's not a method you can just apply to any question of probability. You're changing a 1-in-3 problem to a 1-in-a-million problem to make a point. But if you take a 1-in-2 problem (i.e. 50:50) and take the same approach, biasing one side over the other, you'll get the wrong answer.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
EDIT2: My ? post was in response to aowen saying noone had mentioned statistics regarding the Monty Hall problem ;)
EDIT3: Danica McKellar (Winnie from the Wonder Years) also wrote the books Math Doesn't Suck, Kiss My Math, Hot X: Algebra Exposed and Girls Get Curves: Geometry Takes Shape, which encourage middle-school and high-school girls to have confidence and succeed in mathematics. Girl power! I bet she ends up doing a Vorderman and advertising consolidating all your loans into an easy payment plan though :(
EDIT4: Her Erdos-Bacon number is 6. If she appears in a film with Kevin Bacon it could achieve a minimum of 3. Natalie Portman's Erdos-Bacon number is 7. Paul Erdos is now dead so he can't help improving her number to lower than 3.
And the hover text is: "A few minutes later, the goat from behind door C drives away in the car."
Lol. :D
The fact that there are 2000 professionals with that opinion is simply overwhelming. And the rest, as someone else pointed out, could be affected by the unfriendly consequences of saying it, and, could also and I am sure, some others may have not been asked or have spoken out.
Being on this side of the opinion means in this case quite bravery, and thats something to take in account when making numbers ;)
>>Originally Posted by David Jones
>>2% of a profession claiming something proves nothin
Makes it look like I can't spell or that I'm prone to slang :( (& :))
Ok, overwhelming to you, but I made my points and I stand by them. It's underwhelming to me, but I understand that large numbers can be impressive.
If somebody told you a roulette wheel had come up with 25 on 2,000 occasions would you bet on it or would you first want to know how many times the wheel had been spun? (Probably around 74,000 spins assuming a fair wheel with a single zero). Not all professionals or all supposed experts can be relied upon to be correct. Even if there were 5 times as many architects who had that opinion and only 1 in 5 was willing to speak up that's still only 10%. How many bankers (professional experts, or so we thought) predicted the recent financial crash? Significantly fewer than 90%.
Anyway, I don't want to bang on about this (any more than I have already) so you're welcome to the final word on the subject :)