Hi guys, great meeting yesterday.
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Nubis
Feb 7, 2012, 10:54:15 PM2/7/12
to Singapore Ruby Brigade
It was fun, and I'm glad we've got to share the time. I really liked
the roids talk as far as the technology goes, but I also felt that it
was a bit ambiguous on the regard of interpretations that can be made
from it. If it's just roids going on the screen and we're having fun
watching them is one thing. Anyone who understands some processes in
the world and knows a bit about programming, can build a model that
helps explain to others how they see things. The model does not bring
in any new information, and it only serves as an aid to explain an
argument or particular position.
The intent of proving "why the rich get rich and the poor get poorer
unless the system is regulated" immediately evokes Framing and
Confirmation Bias, and I saw this nice poster about cognitive bias at
hackerspace once that suggests the intention of many is not to fall
for it.
With enough time, someone could build a simulation that includes
commerce and increases in production, or generation of wealth through
individuals voluntarily interchanging energy. And then have a
'redistribution of energy' agent or dimension which randomly puts
limits on exchanges and production and sends the gained energy to some
other particular roids. All this just to have some slides that use
sentences like "Equality doesn't matter, as It's better to be the poor
in a rich simulation than the rich in a poor simulation" or "The
simulation becomes richer the less the redistribution agent is
involved". These claims would be equally biased, of course. I would
love to build a simulation that results in them, or even in the
opposite, as I said yesterday. (I may consider it once I find a job
and get some time to focus on interesting side projects).
I guess what I'm saying is that as a humble participant and possible
customer, I love technology and I hate cognitive bias, and I
understood (maybe misunderstood?) the presentation as having both. In
my opinion presenting utopia and roids as 'A framework for building
simulations in order to explain an argument' is more realistic, cool,
and appealing. If reaching out is the goal, then maybe there's no need
to phrase pseudo conclusions in a way in which they sound too
political and bring concerns about the author really giving importance
to them or the framework being more suited to build simulations with
particular outcomes.
Again it was great to meet all of you guys and I hope to see Sau again
talking more about some other chapters in his book :)
cheers
----nubis :)
the roids talk as far as the technology goes, but I also felt that it
was a bit ambiguous on the regard of interpretations that can be made
from it. If it's just roids going on the screen and we're having fun
watching them is one thing. Anyone who understands some processes in
the world and knows a bit about programming, can build a model that
helps explain to others how they see things. The model does not bring
in any new information, and it only serves as an aid to explain an
argument or particular position.
The intent of proving "why the rich get rich and the poor get poorer
unless the system is regulated" immediately evokes Framing and
Confirmation Bias, and I saw this nice poster about cognitive bias at
hackerspace once that suggests the intention of many is not to fall
for it.
With enough time, someone could build a simulation that includes
commerce and increases in production, or generation of wealth through
individuals voluntarily interchanging energy. And then have a
'redistribution of energy' agent or dimension which randomly puts
limits on exchanges and production and sends the gained energy to some
other particular roids. All this just to have some slides that use
sentences like "Equality doesn't matter, as It's better to be the poor
in a rich simulation than the rich in a poor simulation" or "The
simulation becomes richer the less the redistribution agent is
involved". These claims would be equally biased, of course. I would
love to build a simulation that results in them, or even in the
opposite, as I said yesterday. (I may consider it once I find a job
and get some time to focus on interesting side projects).
I guess what I'm saying is that as a humble participant and possible
customer, I love technology and I hate cognitive bias, and I
understood (maybe misunderstood?) the presentation as having both. In
my opinion presenting utopia and roids as 'A framework for building
simulations in order to explain an argument' is more realistic, cool,
and appealing. If reaching out is the goal, then maybe there's no need
to phrase pseudo conclusions in a way in which they sound too
political and bring concerns about the author really giving importance
to them or the framework being more suited to build simulations with
particular outcomes.
Again it was great to meet all of you guys and I hope to see Sau again
talking more about some other chapters in his book :)
cheers
----nubis :)
Sau Sheong Chang
Feb 7, 2012, 11:49:26 PM2/7/12
to Singapore Ruby Brigade
Hi Nubis,
Thanks! I'm glad you liked it. I suppose it's an opinionated piece,
and definitely seen through my eyes. The book is actually less so,
because I deliberately kept away from it. Once I'm done with actually
writing, editing, proof-reading, reviewing and all that stuff I'll do
another piece on another chapter. Or another totally different
topic :)
Thanks! I'm glad you liked it. I suppose it's an opinionated piece,
and definitely seen through my eyes. The book is actually less so,
because I deliberately kept away from it. Once I'm done with actually
writing, editing, proof-reading, reviewing and all that stuff I'll do
another piece on another chapter. Or another totally different
topic :)
Gideon Simons
Feb 8, 2012, 2:11:10 AM2/8/12
to singap...@googlegroups.com
Hi Nubis,
Gideon Simons
I agree with you that there is much more to it when you look into these social phenomena.
But I think the simplicity of the experiment is also its strength, where as it does explain some kind over all trends that are neutral to a lot of details and economical complexities. I would say that most of the behavioral details on a whole are so unpredictable that just randomizing can be a good enough simulation.
Its also kind of quick way to play god without all the headaches!
One think I noticed that Sau mentioned that when females reach the age where they are able to give birth, instead of looking for food, they look for the nearest male. This should technically affect their life span and survival rate, but was not really projected in the graphs.
Gideon Simons
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Singapore Ruby Brigade" group.
To post to this group, send email to singap...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to singapore-rb...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/singapore-rb?hl=en.
Gideon
Fer Martin
Feb 9, 2012, 3:20:35 AM2/9/12
to singap...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Gideon Simons <gide...@gmail.com> wrote:
One think I noticed that Sau mentioned that when females reach the age where they are able to give birth, instead of looking for food, they look for the nearest male. This should technically affect their life span and survival rate, but was not really projected in the graphs.
I have a feeling they start looking for the nearest male as soon as they are hungry as well :)
Fer Martin
+65 9856 8891
http://www.linkedin.com/in/fermartin
Luther Goh Lu Feng
Feb 9, 2012, 3:45:53 AM2/9/12
to singap...@googlegroups.com
>________________________________
> From: Fer Martin <fernandoma...@gmail.com>
>To: singap...@googlegroups.com
>Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2012 4:20 PM
>Subject: Re: [SRB] Re: Hi guys, great meeting yesterday.
Oh look at this link since we are talking about females, males and food: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_cannibalism
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages