[XBoxBoy]

Okay, if we’re going to talk conspiracy theories, here’s my version:

The Japanese were Yakuzi who were brokering a deal between Iran and France. The deal was for Iran to buy a nuke from France for 100 billion dollars. The Iranians, being the clever sort decided rather than pay with actual dollars, they would just print 134 billion in counterfeit bonds. (100B for the French, 34 billion commission to the Yakuzi) The Yakuzi were on their way to deposit the bonds in a Swiss bank for the French. BUT! The CIA got wind of the deal and tipped Italy, thus stopping the sale of a nuke to Iran.

[XBoxBoy]

Okay, if we’re going to talk conspiracy theories, here’s my version:

The Japanese were Yakuzi who were brokering a deal between Iran and France. The deal was for Iran to buy a nuke from France for 100 billion dollars. The Iranians, being the clever sort decided rather than pay with actual dollars, they would just print 134 billion in counterfeit bonds. (100B for the French, 34 billion commission to the Yakuzi) The Yakuzi were on their way to deposit the bonds in a Swiss bank for the French. BUT! The CIA got wind of the deal and tipped Italy, thus stopping the sale of a nuke to Iran.

[XBoxBoy]

Okay, if we’re going to talk conspiracy theories, here’s my version:

The Japanese were Yakuzi who were brokering a deal between Iran and France. The deal was for Iran to buy a nuke from France for 100 billion dollars. The Iranians, being the clever sort decided rather than pay with actual dollars, they would just print 134 billion in counterfeit bonds. (100B for the French, 34 billion commission to the Yakuzi) The Yakuzi were on their way to deposit the bonds in a Swiss bank for the French. BUT! The CIA got wind of the deal and tipped Italy, thus stopping the sale of a nuke to Iran.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=XBoxBoy]Ummmm…. wait a minute… are you basically relying on an expert to justify a particular view[/quote]

The key difference is I’m relying on expert’s research which contains facts and experiments. But I am not relying on expert’s opinion.
I trust scientific evidence from experts but I don’t trust their judgments.
[/quote]

Sorry Carlsbad, you’re only kidding yourself here. Let’s go back and see what you wrote originally

[quote=carlsbadworker]The result is that experts are normally even not as good as non-experts. That’s because they don’t modify their forecasts in the light of new information, as they felt that they knew all the relevant facts. Such kind of over-confidence will blind them from making accurate prediction about the future.[/quote]

The above snippet is clearly a representation of the expert’s opinions. There is no way to prove that the failure to adjust to new information or that over-confidence are the causes of the experts being wrong. The snippet is the expert’s opinion, not scientific evidence or fact.

But hey, don’t take it so personally, I’m just pointing out the irony of what you did. Basically you want to convince people that experts are often wrong. Fine, I couldn’t agree more. But you did so by using an expert’s opinion to legitimize your argument. It’s actually pretty funny if you ask me, and I personally love making these kinds of arguments just to see if I can slide it past the person I’m arguing with. Course, that’s just my warped sense of humor. My only real suggestion is when you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, don’t try to deny it, just grin and offer the person who’s caught you 50% of the cookies. (Okay, I’ll settle for a 40/60 split…)

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=XBoxBoy]Ummmm…. wait a minute… are you basically relying on an expert to justify a particular view[/quote]

The key difference is I’m relying on expert’s research which contains facts and experiments. But I am not relying on expert’s opinion.
I trust scientific evidence from experts but I don’t trust their judgments.
[/quote]

Sorry Carlsbad, you’re only kidding yourself here. Let’s go back and see what you wrote originally

[quote=carlsbadworker]The result is that experts are normally even not as good as non-experts. That’s because they don’t modify their forecasts in the light of new information, as they felt that they knew all the relevant facts. Such kind of over-confidence will blind them from making accurate prediction about the future.[/quote]

The above snippet is clearly a representation of the expert’s opinions. There is no way to prove that the failure to adjust to new information or that over-confidence are the causes of the experts being wrong. The snippet is the expert’s opinion, not scientific evidence or fact.

But hey, don’t take it so personally, I’m just pointing out the irony of what you did. Basically you want to convince people that experts are often wrong. Fine, I couldn’t agree more. But you did so by using an expert’s opinion to legitimize your argument. It’s actually pretty funny if you ask me, and I personally love making these kinds of arguments just to see if I can slide it past the person I’m arguing with. Course, that’s just my warped sense of humor. My only real suggestion is when you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, don’t try to deny it, just grin and offer the person who’s caught you 50% of the cookies. (Okay, I’ll settle for a 40/60 split…)

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=XBoxBoy]Ummmm…. wait a minute… are you basically relying on an expert to justify a particular view[/quote]

The key difference is I’m relying on expert’s research which contains facts and experiments. But I am not relying on expert’s opinion.
I trust scientific evidence from experts but I don’t trust their judgments.
[/quote]

Sorry Carlsbad, you’re only kidding yourself here. Let’s go back and see what you wrote originally

[quote=carlsbadworker]The result is that experts are normally even not as good as non-experts. That’s because they don’t modify their forecasts in the light of new information, as they felt that they knew all the relevant facts. Such kind of over-confidence will blind them from making accurate prediction about the future.[/quote]

The above snippet is clearly a representation of the expert’s opinions. There is no way to prove that the failure to adjust to new information or that over-confidence are the causes of the experts being wrong. The snippet is the expert’s opinion, not scientific evidence or fact.

But hey, don’t take it so personally, I’m just pointing out the irony of what you did. Basically you want to convince people that experts are often wrong. Fine, I couldn’t agree more. But you did so by using an expert’s opinion to legitimize your argument. It’s actually pretty funny if you ask me, and I personally love making these kinds of arguments just to see if I can slide it past the person I’m arguing with. Course, that’s just my warped sense of humor. My only real suggestion is when you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, don’t try to deny it, just grin and offer the person who’s caught you 50% of the cookies. (Okay, I’ll settle for a 40/60 split…)

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=XBoxBoy]Ummmm…. wait a minute… are you basically relying on an expert to justify a particular view[/quote]

The key difference is I’m relying on expert’s research which contains facts and experiments. But I am not relying on expert’s opinion.
I trust scientific evidence from experts but I don’t trust their judgments.
[/quote]

Sorry Carlsbad, you’re only kidding yourself here. Let’s go back and see what you wrote originally

[quote=carlsbadworker]The result is that experts are normally even not as good as non-experts. That’s because they don’t modify their forecasts in the light of new information, as they felt that they knew all the relevant facts. Such kind of over-confidence will blind them from making accurate prediction about the future.[/quote]

The above snippet is clearly a representation of the expert’s opinions. There is no way to prove that the failure to adjust to new information or that over-confidence are the causes of the experts being wrong. The snippet is the expert’s opinion, not scientific evidence or fact.

But hey, don’t take it so personally, I’m just pointing out the irony of what you did. Basically you want to convince people that experts are often wrong. Fine, I couldn’t agree more. But you did so by using an expert’s opinion to legitimize your argument. It’s actually pretty funny if you ask me, and I personally love making these kinds of arguments just to see if I can slide it past the person I’m arguing with. Course, that’s just my warped sense of humor. My only real suggestion is when you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, don’t try to deny it, just grin and offer the person who’s caught you 50% of the cookies. (Okay, I’ll settle for a 40/60 split…)

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=XBoxBoy]Ummmm…. wait a minute… are you basically relying on an expert to justify a particular view[/quote]

The key difference is I’m relying on expert’s research which contains facts and experiments. But I am not relying on expert’s opinion.
I trust scientific evidence from experts but I don’t trust their judgments.
[/quote]

Sorry Carlsbad, you’re only kidding yourself here. Let’s go back and see what you wrote originally

[quote=carlsbadworker]The result is that experts are normally even not as good as non-experts. That’s because they don’t modify their forecasts in the light of new information, as they felt that they knew all the relevant facts. Such kind of over-confidence will blind them from making accurate prediction about the future.[/quote]

The above snippet is clearly a representation of the expert’s opinions. There is no way to prove that the failure to adjust to new information or that over-confidence are the causes of the experts being wrong. The snippet is the expert’s opinion, not scientific evidence or fact.

But hey, don’t take it so personally, I’m just pointing out the irony of what you did. Basically you want to convince people that experts are often wrong. Fine, I couldn’t agree more. But you did so by using an expert’s opinion to legitimize your argument. It’s actually pretty funny if you ask me, and I personally love making these kinds of arguments just to see if I can slide it past the person I’m arguing with. Course, that’s just my warped sense of humor. My only real suggestion is when you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, don’t try to deny it, just grin and offer the person who’s caught you 50% of the cookies. (Okay, I’ll settle for a 40/60 split…)

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker]I actually think people shouldn’t trust experts too much, period. Philip Tetlock, a professor at Berkeley’s Haas School of Business once did a study…..[/quote]

Ummmm…. wait a minute… are you basically relying on an expert to justify a particular view???? I mean if he’s an expert, and experts are wrong more than non-experts, then how do we know his argument that experts are more often wrong isn’t wrong itself???

Just asking…

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker]I actually think people shouldn’t trust experts too much, period. Philip Tetlock, a professor at Berkeley’s Haas School of Business once did a study…..[/quote]

Ummmm…. wait a minute… are you basically relying on an expert to justify a particular view???? I mean if he’s an expert, and experts are wrong more than non-experts, then how do we know his argument that experts are more often wrong isn’t wrong itself???

Just asking…

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker]I actually think people shouldn’t trust experts too much, period. Philip Tetlock, a professor at Berkeley’s Haas School of Business once did a study…..[/quote]

Ummmm…. wait a minute… are you basically relying on an expert to justify a particular view???? I mean if he’s an expert, and experts are wrong more than non-experts, then how do we know his argument that experts are more often wrong isn’t wrong itself???

Just asking…

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker]I actually think people shouldn’t trust experts too much, period. Philip Tetlock, a professor at Berkeley’s Haas School of Business once did a study…..[/quote]

Ummmm…. wait a minute… are you basically relying on an expert to justify a particular view???? I mean if he’s an expert, and experts are wrong more than non-experts, then how do we know his argument that experts are more often wrong isn’t wrong itself???

Just asking…

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker]I actually think people shouldn’t trust experts too much, period. Philip Tetlock, a professor at Berkeley’s Haas School of Business once did a study…..[/quote]

Ummmm…. wait a minute… are you basically relying on an expert to justify a particular view???? I mean if he’s an expert, and experts are wrong more than non-experts, then how do we know his argument that experts are more often wrong isn’t wrong itself???

Just asking…

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=davelj]But, alas, he apparently was more concerned about losing his job than about protecting shareholder interests. In my view, for this reason alone he should be fired. [/quote]

I second this view. I mean where is this man’s integrity? I know, I know, integrity, how quaint.

And besides, what kind of negotiator can he be if he caved on the threat of losing his job? Seriously, if the man had any ability as a real negotiator he should have said the heck with you guys. Fire me if you like. How’s that gonna look when I give an interview to the Wall Street Journal telling my side of the story. Hey, sorry, I have a responsibility to my shareholders.

As it stands now, everyone knows he’s a poor negotiator without any integrity. Lots of luck in the future with that reputation.

XboxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=davelj]But, alas, he apparently was more concerned about losing his job than about protecting shareholder interests. In my view, for this reason alone he should be fired. [/quote]

I second this view. I mean where is this man’s integrity? I know, I know, integrity, how quaint.

And besides, what kind of negotiator can he be if he caved on the threat of losing his job? Seriously, if the man had any ability as a real negotiator he should have said the heck with you guys. Fire me if you like. How’s that gonna look when I give an interview to the Wall Street Journal telling my side of the story. Hey, sorry, I have a responsibility to my shareholders.

As it stands now, everyone knows he’s a poor negotiator without any integrity. Lots of luck in the future with that reputation.

XboxBoy

[Author]

Posts