/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13019372

179KiB, 1462x677, 1593047536178.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Why do YOU not use randomness to make decisions?

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 11:35:09 2021 No.13019372 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13019377 >>13019388 >>13019405 >>13019434 >>13019478 >>13019565 >>13020092 >>13020980 >>13021012 >>13021519 >>13021577 >>13024275

Premises:
1. Rational decisions lead to better outcomes
2. Better outcomes are preferable
3. All decisions are influenced by emotions
4. Decreasing said influence leads to more rational decisions
Conclusion:
5. Use randomness to decide.

Make a rational argument against it.
You CAN'T.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 11:36:11 No.13019377 Report

Quoted By: >>13019380

>>13019372
>4. Decreasing said influence leads to more rational decisions
Wrong.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1607552349541.png, 594KiB, 405x720

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 11:36:53 No.13019380 Report

Quoted By:

>>13019377
Great argument.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 11:39:43 No.13019388 Report

Quoted By: >>13019399 >>13022082 >>13024104

>>13019372
Sometimes the emotional decision is better than the rational one.
I do agree overall, whenever I can't decide I flip a coin instead of overanalyzing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 11:42:22 No.13019398 Report

Quoted By: >>13019411

Even if emotions decrease the rationale in your decisions it is still more rational than a truely random decision.
>Should I fuck an HIV infected hooker?
>RNG says yes.
Do you have down or are you capable of seeing why this is a bad idea.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 11:42:25 No.13019399 Report

Quoted By: >>13019413 >>13020408

>>13019388
It never is. If you aren't a retard and can construct appropriate IF-THEN statements, you always end up with a better result

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 11:43:30 No.13019405 Report

Quoted By: >>13019411

>>13019372
>randomness can never be rational in any capacity
>humans can be rational in a limited capacity
are you actually braindead?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 11:45:52 No.13019411 Report

Quoted By: >>13019419 >>13019455

>>13019398
>>13019405
This method relies on your intelligence. You don't make rolls on everything because you naturally gravitate towards certain things. There is no reason to make a roll on a decision that you are not conflicted about.
It may be bad for brainlets, but those shouldn't be reading my post anyways

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 11:46:40 No.13019413 Report

Quoted By: >>13019415 >>13022082

>>13019399
It sometimes is. We are emotional creatures, after all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 11:48:02 No.13019415 Report

Quoted By: >>13019420

>>13019413
We are emotional creatures because we evolved to live in a group. Your argument is inherently flawed

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 11:49:24 No.13019419 Report

Quoted By: >>13019450 >>13019455

>>13019411
but you're still assuming you can know when you're making a rational or irrational choice which if you did you could just use an RNG when you know you're about to make an irrational choice in which case using the RNG would be rational meaning you made a rational choice - so if we can know when we're making a rational/irrational choice then we never make an irrational choice and if we can't know when we're making an irrational choice then disregarding RNG for choice making is always the rational choice

if you'd like I could whip up a flowchart to help you understand this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 11:49:31 No.13019420 Report

Quoted By: >>13019450

>>13019415
I mean, so is yours. Like I said I agree with you, I just think there are exceptions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 11:53:59 No.13019434 Report

Quoted By: >>13019450 >>13019482

>>13019372
Flipping a coin helps you in the way that if you get one result rather than the other one you'll probably be like: 'but I actually don't want this'

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 11:58:31 No.13019450 Report

Quoted By: >>13019455

>>13019419
Rational decisions are such that they lead to the maximization of gain/welfare. Everyone can in the short-term determine which decisions are rational or not. RNG prevents the random fluctations from influencing your decision making. Over time it averages out, meaning that you are in the best possible state that you could be given your personal circumstances (genetics, &c.).
>>13019434
This just means that you have constructed a wrong IF-THEN statement
>>13019420
You haven't given any argument for why it's the case, even RNG won't help you.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1597658637510.png, 31KiB, 771x361

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:00:02 No.13019455 Report

Quoted By: >>13019469 >>13019483 >>13019539

>>13019419
>>13019411
There is never any reason to use RNG unless you can know when you're going to make an irrational choice and in using RNG when faced with that you've made a rational choice whilst being aware you ALMOST made an irrational one
>>13019450
>Rational decisions are such that they lead to the maximization of gain/welfare. Everyone can in the short-term determine which decisions are rational or not. RNG prevents the random fluctations from influencing your decision making. Over time it averages out, meaning that you are in the best possible state that you could be given your personal circumstances (genetics, &c.).
Why do you think randomness will lead to the best outcomes?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:05:34 No.13019469 Report

Quoted By: >>13019474

>>13019455
Humans have to make decision all the time. If you don't know which decision to make, then it's because those fluctuations are interrupting you from committing a rational decision (for example someone made you angry). To minimize those fluctations, just take a step back, construct IF-THEN statements (they are going to be somewhat skewed, but over time will average out), and just follow RNG

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:07:30 No.13019474 Report

Quoted By: >>13019475

>>13019469
>then it's because those fluctuations are interrupting you from committing a rational decision (for example someone made you angry). To minimize those fluctations, just take a step back, construct IF-THEN statements (they are going to be somewhat skewed, but over time will average out), and just follow RNG
this sounds almost like you're making a rational decison to use RNG anon

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:08:51 No.13019475 Report

Quoted By: >>13019483

>>13019474
Precisely - not using RNG is irrational

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:10:34 No.13019478 Report

Quoted By: >>13019492

>>13019372
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:11:03 No.13019482 Report

Quoted By:

>>13019434
This.
If i want to reflip the coin, it's that the other choice is better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:11:11 No.13019483 Report

Quoted By: >>13019492

>>13019475
only in situations that you're not acting rationally already please read through the flowchart and be sure to understand it I'm not sure how you're still not getting this
>>13019455
is english your second language if so I can try to explain it better if you tell me which parts you don't understand?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:13:31 No.13019492 Report

Quoted By: >>13019496 >>13019505

>>13019483
Fluctuations. I'm afraid you don't know the meaning of this word.
>>13019478
If you had actually read through Masler, you'd know that Nash equilibrium isn't applicable to this

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:14:53 No.13019496 Report

Quoted By: >>13019516

>>13019492
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_(game_theory)#Pure_and_mixed_strategies

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:16:23 No.13019505 Report

Quoted By: >>13019507 >>13019516

>>13019492
fluctuations are forms of change that're usually unpredictable and always occurring to some scale - fluctuations effecting an individuals decisions could be good or bad; Why would my understanding of this word matter?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:17:13 No.13019507 Report

Quoted By: >>13019516

>>13019505
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_(game_theory)#Pure_and_mixed_strategies
is result of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1600057197003.png, 304KiB, 1920x1080

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:20:30 No.13019516 Report

Quoted By: >>13019520 >>13019523

>>13019496
>>13019507
From Maschler.
>>13019505
Fluctuations are always bad because they skew the results. You know how to make rational decisions, you just fuck up in the short-term because of the fluctuations. Game Theory that the other guy obsesses over has been empirically proven to be false in short-term - the results predicted by it only appear in the long-term.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:22:08 No.13019520 Report

Quoted By: >>13019535

>>13019516
>Fluctuations are always bad because they skew the results.
as apposed to randomness that will offer consistent and predictable results?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:22:49 No.13019523 Report

Quoted By: >>13019535

>>13019516
>the results predicted by it only appear in the long-term.
what is probability?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:27:22 No.13019535 Report

Quoted By: >>13019539 >>13019546

>>13019520
The irony seems to be lost on you. You've made an argument for it.
>>13019523
Let me guess, you are also a technical analyst?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:28:34 No.13019539 Report

Quoted By: >>13019552

>>13019535
>You've made an argument for it.
I know I have, I'm in favor of replacing choices with RNG? did you look at the flowchart >>13019455

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:30:40 No.13019546 Report

Quoted By: >>13019552

>>13019535
>Let me guess, you are also a technical analyst?
not, just a milliner

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:32:46 No.13019552 Report

Quoted By: >>13019553 >>13019566

>>13019539
>Why do you think randomness will lead to the best outcomes?
> Should I use an RNG -> No = There is a chance you made a rational choice.
>I'm in favor of replacing choices with RNG
you are experiencing cognitive dissonance
>>13019546
not everything involves interaction

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:33:46 No.13019553 Report

Quoted By: >>13019556

>>13019552
>not everything involves interaction
so what?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:35:05 No.13019556 Report

Quoted By: >>13019561

>>13019553
just because game theory deals with decision making doesn't mean it is useful here

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:36:00 No.13019561 Report

Quoted By: >>13019563

>>13019556
>here
where?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:36:27 No.13019563 Report

Quoted By: >>13019567

>>13019561
you are wasting my time

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:37:00 No.13019565 Report

Quoted By: >>13019575

>>13019372
If all decisions are emotional then the decision to use a randomness generator is emotional, thus negating the premise to avoid making emotional decisions. This is a fallacy of the ego. No outcomes are favorable from the perspective of apathy. Your argument is disolved.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:37:12 No.13019566 Report

Quoted By: >>13019575

>>13019552
the graph lays out exactly when I'm in favor of using RNG, when it's the rational choice to, by chance is your first language french because if so I can put it into your native language to help you understand

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:37:30 No.13019567 Report

Quoted By:

>>13019563
lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 12:39:43 No.13019575 Report

Quoted By: >>13020357

>>13019566
If these fluctuations occur to a significant degree, then not using RNG is irrational - since you don't understand it, you are experiencing cognitive dissonance
>>13019565
I used the word 'minimize'

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 15:29:14 No.13020092 Report

Quoted By:

>>13019372
this but with 4chan post numbers

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 16:45:52 No.13020357 Report

Quoted By: >>13020384

>>13019575
>used the word minimize
If all decisions are based on emotions, you include all outcomes as based on emotions. You minimize nothing. Rationality is an illusion you've limited to an exclusive definition not based in reality. An emotional decision is a rational decision with the proper set of axioms based on the totality of an experience in the moment an action follows suit. You fail to comprehend that your definition of rationality is incoherent and you fail to see that rationality independent from emotion can not necessitate favorable outcomes. Your argument is not cogent.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 16:51:35 No.13020384 Report

Quoted By: >>13020448

>>13020357
This definition is used in the fields such as Economics. It is minimized because even though creation of IF-THEN statements is skewed, the very act of their creation encourages rationality, and their choice is random - preventing influence from emotions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 16:56:29 No.13020408 Report

Quoted By:

>>13019399
Unless you get an instant answer intuitively or derive one from theoretical models you're confident in, agonizing over some decision is basically just borked randomness. Might as well use RNG to avoid getting consistently fucked by some bias that happens to slant things against you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 17:06:11 No.13020448 Report

Quoted By: >>13020490

>>13020384
You don't actually believe that do you?
Implication on an unbounded environment is the opposite of rationality. It might work in something like finance because you could generate a counter probability to safely hedge risk over an assumption but keep in mind that these type of statements are in a scope that could never be constructed from random syllogisms.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 17:19:35 No.13020490 Report

Quoted By:

>>13020448
Why?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1612560897968.jpg, 6KiB, 275x183

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 18:59:16 No.13020980 Report

Quoted By:

>>13019372
I randomized if OP was right and got a no

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 19:07:43 No.13021012 Report

Quoted By:

>>13019372
One major problem is in line 4. You're assuming that all you're doing is reducing one irrational variable (emotion) but you're also increasing another irrational variable (chance). You need to prove that randomness is less damaging to rationality than emotions. Also you're assuming that emotions are always irrational.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 20:59:09 No.13021519 Report

Quoted By:

>>13019372
How the fuck did you arrive to the conclusion that giving away your power of choice is rational? If anything your cope is powered by emotions, faggot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 21:11:34 No.13021577 Report

Quoted By:

>>13019372
>3. All decisions are influenced by emotions
You got it right there, OP. The decision to use randomness to make decisions is emotional.

This is a shitty argument that contradicts itself. You cannot escape your emotions. Besides, (1) doesn't always hold water. Let's go beyond that and only focus on the conclusion. Do you really think deciding your choices via random.org is really going to improve the quality of your life?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 21:41:34 No.13021700 Report

Quoted By:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_(game_theory)#Pure_and_mixed_strategies
is result of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium
of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 21:45:45 No.13021714 Report

Quoted By:

even in deterministic world with lack of total information random decision making is rational choice

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 22:00:49 No.13021788 Report

Quoted By:

because I am not a computer playing a repeated game and/or guessing solutions to a problem millions of times a minute.

For most decisions worth analyzing I only get to make the decision once so I should try and make the best decision I can, which is very rarely a circumstance when randomness helps. For the other decisions, e.g. those that don't require detailed analysis, I guess you could call those random since they get left up to whim or surface-level thought, which while not random may as well be at a predictive level.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 69dd4f6bea4966df9c8d167c03c8c909 (...).jpg, 39KiB, 398x265

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 22:08:26 No.13021827 Report

Quoted By: >>13021914

>tfw stuck between "emushuns are bad so I roll dices" retards and "everything is an if-else statement" CS simpletons
>tfw too smart to not use irrational priors and update them based on a Bayesian optimization strategy

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 22:32:45 No.13021914 Report

Quoted By:

>>13021827
t. PussyMaster

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 22:42:24 No.13021942 Report

Quoted By:

OP actually expects a good answer on this topic from a forum who places great significance on whether a post number ends with 2 or more identical digits

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Apr 2021 23:40:02 No.13022082 Report

Quoted By:

>>13019413
>>13019388

account for your emotions and show your if-then's to someone else and tell them to decide for you. Also, make sure they think your logic is sound

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Apr 2021 10:33:22 No.13024097 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Apr 2021 10:36:33 No.13024104 Report

Quoted By: >>13024573

>>13019388
Absolute double digit IQ hands typed this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Apr 2021 11:27:23 No.13024275 Report

Quoted By: >>13024331

>>13019372
>Conclusion:
non igitur

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Apr 2021 11:46:44 No.13024331 Report

Quoted By: >>13024385

>>13024275
google returns nothing?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Apr 2021 12:09:15 No.13024385 Report

Quoted By: >>13024444

>>13024331
Conclusion doesn't follow the premises.
sage

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Apr 2021 12:22:51 No.13024444 Report

Quoted By: >>13024479

>>13024385
isn't it non sequitur?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Apr 2021 12:34:02 No.13024479 Report

Quoted By: >>13024517

>>13024444
quadriple of truth
Even though igitur and sequitur are synonyms, non sequitur it si.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Apr 2021 12:43:07 No.13024517 Report

Quoted By:

>>13024479
no idea what it means

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Apr 2021 12:57:07 No.13024573 Report

Quoted By:

>>13024104
142, but nice adhom.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches