Jussie Smollet Trial

[RecoveringYuppy]

Is the concept of pattern recognition really that alien to you? Or is that you don't recognize the patterns involved in fake hate crimes yourself, so you don't know how others can recognize them?

Even though I thought I saw a fraud I did not ever consider myself expert enough to claim it conclusively. Do you claim to be expert enough to recognize these patterns? Think everyone in the thread should be? Do you think the experts think the patterns lead to certainty of a conclusion? Do you think they assess numerical odds as you implied earlier?

 

[Ziggurat]

Deciding that a selection of events is a series that has a pattern is begging a question. I pull three books at random from a bookshelf. Shall I deduce a pattern between them so I can predict characteristics of the next book?

The characteristics of a real hate crime are not random, and they are not unrelated. The characteristics of a fake hate crime are not random, and they are not unrelated. Your question is completely irrelevant.

 

[Ziggurat]

Even though I thought I saw a fraud I did not ever consider myself expert enough to claim it conclusively.

Who said anything about conclusively? I never did.

Do you claim to be expert enough to recognize these patterns?

No special expertise is required.

Think everyone in the thread should be?

I think that if you want to weigh in on the question, you should have passing familiarity with the topic.

Do you think the experts think the patterns lead to certainty of a conclusion?

Again, who said anything about certainty? Again, not me.

Do you think they assess numerical odds as you implied earlier?

To the extent of either >50% or <50%, yes. You yourself did.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The characteristics of a real hate crime are not random, and they are not unrelated. The characteristics of a fake hate crime are not random, and they are not unrelated. Your question is completely irrelevant.

You're still leaping ahead. You only know of this event because it was reported in the news. Then you're assuming it must therefore fit a pattern of other events reported in the news. The data is selected, and you're proud of deducing a pattern...which is the common characteristics of what got the data selected to begin with.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're still leaping ahead. You only know of this event because it was reported in the news. Then you're assuming it must therefore fit a pattern of other events reported in the news.

Must? No, there is no "must". The question is whether it does fit a pattern of other events reported in the news, and which events it fits the pattern of. Does it fit the pattern of actual hate crimes, or does it fit the pattern of fake hate crimes?

It wasn't a hard call.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Who said anything about conclusively? I never did.

Then what's your point? Vague gloating that you were right and everyone else wrong without backing it up?

No special expertise is required.

Right. I take this as seriously as I take the people in the Trump Mental Illness thread that think simply looking up the symptoms of NPD is all the knowledge you need to do a diagnosis without realizing that diagnosing all the points on the list also requires training.

To the extent of either >50% or <50%, yes. You yourself did.

Quote me. I'm pretty sure I never cited a number. If I used some word that you think implies a number I'd retract it. And I just objected to a particular word put in my mouth for that very reason.

OK so how did you arrive at "extent of either >50% or <50%"?

 

[Ziggurat]

Then what's your point? Vague gloating that you were right and everyone else wrong without backing it up?

Lots of people were right. Hell, you were right. Do you feel bad about being right? Your response is quite peculiar.

And my point is simply that a lot of the people who were right were not right because of blind luck. They saw something that the people who were wrong missed.

Quote me. I'm pretty sure I never cited a number. If I used some word that you think implies a number I'd retract it

I never said you cited a number. But your words absolutely implied a range.

Even though I thought I saw a fraud I did not ever consider myself expert enough to claim it conclusively.

That absolutely implies something less than 100% but greater than 50%.

OK so how did you arrive at "extent of either >50% or <50%"?

Because people frequently think in terms of whether something is more likely to be true or more likely to be false. Why is that confusing?

 

[theprestige]

I think this is too uncharitable a reading of his post, though I have some issues with it.



He seems to be silent on whether or not it was reasonable to believe at first. That's suggestive, but he doesn't actually say it was. Perhaps he should have explicitly said it wasn't reasonable, but failing to say something true isn't the same as saying something that is false.

That's a good point.

Myriad, I'm sorry. I withdraw my accusation.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Lots of people were right. Hell, you were right. Do you feel bad about being right? Your response is quite peculiar.

What do you think I was right about and why? I basically went with the police opinion and didn't decide anything until about the time the accomplices confessed.

And my point is simply that a lot of the people who were right were not right because of blind luck. They saw something that the people who were wrong missed.

I'm sure you know the name for this fallacy.

I never said you cited a number. But your words absolutely implied a range.
That absolutely implies something less than 100% but greater than 50%.

Change it to "I though I might see a fraud" then. I certainly didn't have a number in mind. If this is your basis for thinking I was right then I certainly didn't earn being right. Especially since I just said that today.

Because people frequently think in terms of whether something is more likely to be true or more likely to be false. Why is that confusing?

It's not confusing and I think you know you're evading the question.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Must? No, there is no "must". The question is whether it does fit a pattern of other events reported in the news, and which events it fits the pattern of. Does it fit the pattern of actual hate crimes, or does it fit the pattern of fake hate crimes?

It wasn't a hard call.

Still seems like it's bolstered more by hindsight than deduction, but I have a doubting nature. Ymmv.

 

[Ziggurat]

What do you think I was right about and why?

You were right that it was fake. I don't know your reasoning, nor do I particularly care. You might have been right by accident, you can decide that for myself. I wasn't, nor were many others here.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

You were right that it was fake. I don't know your reasoning, nor do I particularly care. You might have been right by accident, you can decide that for myself. I wasn't, nor were many others here.

But I didn't decide it was fake. I was merely suspicious. I'd have been just as right if it turned out his story was true. Possibly I'm more right than people who failed to become suspicious, but I wasn't right about it being fake, nor about it being real.

 

[trustbutverify]

I admire the chutzpah of those who guessed correctly whether an event for which they had no evidence happened or not in congratulating themselves for their excellence in skepticism. Had it turned out the other way I'm certain they'd be admitting failure. In guessing, because that's all anybody was able to do. One day perhaps far in the future internet randos will stop confusing their reading of news with making them qualified investigators present on the scene with witnesses testimony and physical evidence in hand.

What about those who "guessed" incorrectly, promised to never let the skeptics forget their words, then slithered away as soon as things turned south? Do you admire their chutzpah?

 

[TragicMonkey]

What about those who "guessed" incorrectly, promised to never let the skeptics forget their words, then slithered away as soon as things turned south? Do you admire their chutzpah?

I don't really care. I can see you really want everyone to take sides on this but I just don't care that much. I never heard of this actor before this event, and I don't freak out over racist incidents real or manufactured. I don't care that some people guessed correctly, I don't think anybody used reason well enough then to justify bragging about it now, and I don't think the silliness gap between those who were right and those who were wrong is broad enough for anyone to look good in this one.

I also don't think everyone involved in the earlier part of this thread is necessarily even paying attention to this one now, it went on for a gazillion pages and over a year. It's possible some of the most strident posters then haven't even read this one. People do lose interest in things, it's not always a debate in which people's sides are permanently set and perpetually interesting. Sometimes people lose interest in something so fast they don't even finish their

 

[trustbutverify]

I don't really care. I can see you really want everyone to take sides on this but I just don't care that much.

You seemed to care enough to muster admiration for the chutzpah of doubters of this tall tale just a short while ago. What changed?

 

[Puppycow]

I admire the chutzpah of those who guessed correctly whether an event for which they had no evidence happened or not in congratulating themselves for their excellence in skepticism. Had it turned out the other way I'm certain they'd be admitting failure. In guessing, because that's all anybody was able to do. One day perhaps far in the future internet randos will stop confusing their reading of news with making them qualified investigators present on the scene with witnesses testimony and physical evidence in hand.

Shall we take guesses on when that'll be?

Well personally I aspire to be a poster who can admit when I have been wrong and concede when others have been right. Just because it's such a rare thing to see on the internet. So I would hope that I would have done that if my "guess" had been wrong.

But also, if it were merely a lucky guess, what would be the odds of correctly guessing that a given police report was false? Hopefully not 50/50. If that were the case, the police would be overwhelmed with false reports. I assume that the large majority of crimes reported to police really did happen. That doesn't mean that the police can solve them all, but I would imagine that people making up crimes that either didn't happen or that they themselves made happen as a way to get attention is much less common than actual crimes. My point is that if one merely guessed, the odds favor guessing that it is true, if you don't have any evidence to suggest that it might not be true.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You seemed to care enough to muster admiration for the chutzpah of doubters of this tall tale just a short while ago. What changed?

Do you think I actually admired the chutzpah of doubters of the tall tale? Or could it have been the use of words to mean other than their literal meaning? If only there were a word for that sort of thing!

 

[trustbutverify]

Do you think I actually admired the chutzpah of doubters of the tall tale?

I think you start tap dancing when cornered, is what I think.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think you start tap dancing when cornered.

Yeah, that must be it. Go back to the first thread, and read my first two posts. I've been deploring everybody from the beginning for taking on the mantle of CSI over matters they cannot possibly have any insight into. And now I'm finding the self-congratulatory attitude of those who happened to guess correctly a bit annoying. I'd find it equally annoying if it had gone the other way and it turned out the attack did really happen and now the people who leapt to Smollett's defense were crowing about their brilliant skepticism. This was an exercise in media entertainment, not reason. No prizes awarded.

 

[trustbutverify]

I admire the chutzpah of those who guessed correctly whether an event for which they had no evidence happened or not in congratulating themselves for their excellence in skepticism.

What about those who "guessed" incorrectly, promised to never let the skeptics forget their words, then slithered away as soon as things turned south? Do you admire their chutzpah?

I don't really care.

Your will to care seems to fluctuate wildly. I wonder if there's a pattern.