Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors

Write and post your long form essays and articles on The Post.
Is your name welcomed below? Then you can post here. Otherwise, click "Log In" to post!
Either that or you misinterpret what I say from one day to the next... one or the other.

Now where did you see the Deandre Jordan info? I'm interested.
Re: A short game sheds light on government policy, corporate America and why no one likes to be wrong.
July 09, 2015 02:53AM
So maybe you could just, like, say what you think about LeBron as a basketball player? For instance do you agree or disagree that he is the best of this era? Do you agree or disagree that it's a no-brainer that he easily ranks among the top ten players to ever play the game?
Stat-wise he is either 1 or 2 of this era (Kobe being the other). Top ten all time? The jury is still out on that one imho. There are certainly MANY players who have won more championships - even active players. I don't think it's fair to put Lebron in with the "top ten" all time greats until his career is over and we see what he has done in it's totality. Basketball is a game where it is easy to be "The Man" and put up a lot of stats because there are only 5 guys on a team. I know you don't want to hear it, but I've seen Lebron up close and understand that even though he scores a lot and has all the skills you could ask for - there are also negatives that offset that to some degree. I will say - for me at least - Lebron will never surpass Jordan or Russell as the GOAT. I don't care what he does from now on. For those two guys winning was everything - Lebron probably thinks that's important, but imho he's more concerned with the Lebron brand and "being great". I think when all is said and done, a lot of Lebron fans might look back and wonder how "the greatest" player could have lost the critical game 4 at home in this past Final series. Or how he could have only scored 8 points in game 4 of the 2011 Finals against Dallas - a game the Heat only lost by 3. And how did JJ Barrea - an unknown, undersized bench player basically neutralize him in that series? These are the kind of questions that - right now, while he's still playing - nobody is asking about Lebron.
I don't see the 'cheekiness' and there's nothing really to give away puzzle if those who work it out do so honestly. It's not a test. It's intended to illustrate the human tendency toward confirmation bias.
We all, or virtually all, seek facts and information that confirm our preexisting biases and not so much facts and information that throw doubt on them.

See, I told you guys Climate Change wasn't real!

I did what most people do. I doubled the next number(s). My brother-in-law did that but he also tested for a DECLINING sequence that had numbers half the previous one, so he at least looked for a "no". BTW, that pattern was just like one of the first and easiest patterns that I had on an SAT test I took decades ago. I suspect a lot of people recognized that. The test wasn't cheeky or trying to pull a fast one. It makes a good point. BTW, my website's selectors provide people with confirmation of their biases---people love to get reinforced.

I have no doubt that we look for articles to support our opinions, thus confirming our biases. I do however look for sites that are generally seen as objective to make a point. Sometimes I will find a conservative site supporting a liberal view or vice versa.

Read the test again, Curt...

"We’ve chosen a rule that some sequences of three numbers obey — and some do not. Your job is to guess what the rule is."

The cheekiness is in the question itself - we've "chosen" a rule. There are multiple rules that apply - but we're supposed to guess which one they've "chosen" out of the multitude. That's like holding up your hand and saying "I've 'chosen' one of my fingers - can you guess which one?" There is no correct answer because if someone guesses the correct one - you can simply say "that's not it." So "confirmation" means absolutely nothing in the "test". And again - the NYT (your favorite pub) couldn't even run the test as it was originally created - they had to use the doubling numbers for exactly the reason you suggested yourself - because it's going to be familiar to people.
Re: A short game sheds light on government policy, corporate America and why no one likes to be wrong.
July 10, 2015 05:13PM
Indy, why do you believe that the sequence "2, 4, 8" is more familiar than the sequence "2, 4, 6"? I don't get it. To me, each sequence clearly suggests a specific pattern.

Given the sequence "2, 4, 8" the most often guessed next sequence is probably something like, "16, 32, 64." IOW, the "guessed" sequence is an attempt to confirm the rule "double the previous number."

Given the sequence "2, 4, 6" the most often guessed next sequence is probably something like "8, 10, 12." IOW, the "guessed" sequence is an attempt to confirm the rule "add 2 to the previous number."

Both guesses, however, are attempts to confirm a particular rule, not to falsify it.
Right - each one suggests a specific pattern - so there is no need to change the numbers.

Seriously now, Dick - is this the kind of game you play when you're on vacation or just getting wild on the weekend or something? smiling smiley
Re: A short game sheds light on government policy, corporate America and why no one likes to be wrong.
July 10, 2015 11:03PM
LOL Only when I can't find an online chess partner!

No, but I will admit that I am fascinated by the evolution of the brain and of the thinking process, in general. There are reasons that people seek confirmation of their beliefs rather than falsification. In many cases, to think rationally is an unnatural act. That's why so few people do it well spontaneously.
Rationality is a natural process for the skeptical mind.
Re: A short game sheds light on government policy, corporate America and why no one likes to be wrong.
July 11, 2015 06:59PM
Not really. Rationality is hard if by rationality you mean to think critically. The linked Times article shows that as do a plethora of published studies. Critical thinking, for the most part, is a slow, cumbersome, artificial process. Those skills can definitely be learned but rarely, if ever, is anyone born with them.

The problem is that our brains have evolved to reach quick, short-cut answers, in many cases, NOT to the question "Is this reality?" but instead to the question "Is this my best chance to survive?"

The answers to those 2 questions are not always the same. Our brains will give us a false answer about reality if that false answer has proved to be useful to our ancestors' survival. To cite an often used example, it's much, much better "to see" a tiger that's not really there than it is to not see a tiger that is there. So our brains will and do sometimes complete pictures of reality for us with very, very little sensory data on which to draw. The trouble is, this "reality" often times doesn't jibe with actual reality even though we can't tell the difference.
The only problem there is your logical thinking has continually led you to conclusions on this board that are diametrically opposed to reality.
Re: A short game sheds light on government policy, corporate America and why no one likes to be wrong.
July 11, 2015 11:43PM
You are so out of your element on this board. You can't even use the word "logical" in an unequivocal way.
Well we are talking about your "logic", Dick.
Right away I saw 2 possible rules that fit.

First I entered 3 9 27

and got "Yes!"

Then I entered 3 6 12

and got "Yes".

There are probably other rules that work.
Numbers under 10, yada yada yada

It's a game only Dick would enjoy. But hey - that's why we love him... because he's an ultranerd.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact | Advertise on | This site is for sale!