Your argument’s application of risk is targeted to her and her movement selectively as if they have some kind of known inherent risk when they do not.
lol, did you forget the part where she is part of a group that tried to hold the Democratic nomination hostage?
This version of the person your argument is about is invented for your argument.
YES! AND THAT’S THE POINT! I don’t know this person, you don’t know this person. We have both invented possible versions. Except you seem unable to realize that there is a chance, however small, that your version is incorrect and that there are risks associated.
Look, I do forget my own privilege. A probabilistic worldview is difficult and not everyone has the cognitive capacity to do so. Making things binary (yes/no) is easy but not a very good way of looking at the world. Here’s an article that kind of outlines probabilistic thinking in fairly simple terms, it might help:
lol, did you forget the part where she is part of a group that tried to hold the Democratic nomination hostage?
People were protesting the DNC. No one was being held hostage. In the US, people have the First Amendment right to assemble.
We have both invented possible versions.
My argument is based on the evidence about her status as an elected representative. It is not based on bias involving her inherent characteristics of being a Palestinian woman. The risk of her speaking was no greater than any of the people who got to speak at the DNC. There was no risk associated with anyone who spoke at the DNC.
Come on. A movement doesn’t announce serious policy change via a single interview to a news site.
They did though. There is no reason not to. The point of the news is to inform the public.
A probabilistic worldview is difficult and not everyone has the cognitive capacity to do so.
can you explain what you think probabilistic thinking is?
This is a self-help article designed to help with anxiety related to life being uncertain. It’s not a worldview or even a way to justify bias of any kind. If this helps some people that’s great, but it’s not implying anyone actually calculates the probabilities in their head. Humans aren’t calculators. It’s a collection of linguistic tricks to help manage uncertainty that anyone can do.
Update your probabilities.
Be open to new information and consider emerging facts that might inform an updated view of your probabilities. This involves challenging and interrupting your biases.
If your argument is that this is a justification for racial profiling then the source cited undermines that position.
The point of sharing this speech on lemmy was to give people a tool for arguing in favor in of both the Palestinian people and Democratic Party’s ticket. The goal was to discuss useful strategies. As long as your argument is about excluding people based on inherent characteristics, racial profiling, we have nothing further to discuss. Racial profiling is not a useful way to view reality because it is not based on reality.
The horrible truth? In our culture, ‘uncertainty’ is a dirty word.
In most situations, it’s common, perhaps even expected, that you approach and explain the world with Binary Thinking — where options, choices and everything is either black or white; yes or no; on or off.
Binary Thinking will suffice for some things, sometimes. But for the most part, in the reality of our uncertain, complex world, this simply won’t cut it.
A more useful approach is Probabilistic Thinking, which helps to inform decision making by considering the odds, or likelihood, of various outcomes.
FROM POKER TO BUSINESS.
As poker champion and author Annie Duke explained: “Poker players and entrepreneurs both embrace the probabilistic nature of decisions. When you make a decision, you’ve defined the set of possible outcomes, but you can’t guarantee that you’ll get a particular outcome.”
FORECASTING.
This model is particularly important given findings from behavioural economics that we tend to be overly optimistic and overconfident in predictions. For example, one way to improve forecasts involves researching past cases and assigning probabilistic outcomes to those cases.
BEFRIENDING UNCERTAINTY.
Part of Probabilistic Thinking involves befriending uncertainty, which is incredibly hard. And, as a result, finding the confidence to act by understanding probable outcomes, based on your current knowledge, while accepting the fact that you might always be wrong.
Your immediate inclination might be to focus Probabilistic Thinking on how you understand the world, that’s wonderful, but also consider how you might apply it to your own development — see the Actionable Takeaways below for more.
IN YOUR LATTICEWORK.
Consider how to apply this Probabilistic Thinking to understanding Correlation vs Causation, Split Testing, Cynefin Framework, the Risk Matrix and even Second-Order Thinking all of which, in a variety of ways, help to understand and/or predict events in complex situations.
Actionable Takeaways
Acknowledge and befriend uncertainty.
Be okay with saying ‘I’m not sure’. Accept that you are never going to know all the facts in any given situation and that there will be no guarantees of a specific outcome.
Ask yourself, ‘what else might happen?’
Investing time and effort to consider more possible options will help to inform the actual chances of the desired or expected outcome.
Decouple notions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ decisions from outcomes.
Uncertainty and complexity means there is always a degree of luck involved in any situation, so it’s possible to make a ‘bad’ decision that leads to a positive outcome. Instead of focusing on results, reflect on past decisions from a probabilistic point of view.
Express levels of confidence and avoid claiming 100% certainty.
Get in the habit of assigning levels of certainty to predicted outcomes, rather than claiming that something simply ‘will happen’, estimate the percentage chance it will happen based on your available facts.
Update your probabilities.
Be open to new information and consider emerging facts that might inform an updated view of your probabilities. This involves challenging and interrupting your biases.
Apply Probabilistic Thinking to understanding yourself to be adaptable and grow.
Rather than just pointing this mental model outwards, to help you understand the world, consider how it can help you to understand, manage and develop yourself. When expressing an emotion or thought, practice using the term ‘part of me…’. For example, rather than saying ‘I’m anxious about that’, try saying ‘part of me is anxious about that’. Not only is it more accurate, but it also gives room for you to acknowledge that other parts of you might be excited or happy at the same time. After all, you’re as complicated as the rest of the world :).
Kid, the entire point of the article is that things are not will/won’t happen. It’s that there are a range of probabilities.
This nonsense of claiming the person representing a movement explicitly about withholding support for the Democrat nominee has the exact same risk of deviation from the other speakers is, at best, foolish.
Then ignoring that movement and saying I’m only seeing a risk because of her race is either impressively dumb or disingenuous. I’m not sure which is worse.
The rational or adult way to look at the issue is to think about the probability of an event vs the rewards of the action. That’s a conversation worth having. Your position would be worth respect if you could have the sanity to admit “sure, there’s a chance that she’d go off script but here’s what I think are the odds, rewards and costs.” That’s a reasonable discussion. What you are doing is just saying over and over again that there is zero risk and any notion of such risk is racist.
That’s just petulant child shit.
As you grow up, hopefully you’ll learn that things that you assume will happen, may not happen and vice versa. Part of being an adult is learning to think about that sort of uncertainty, it’s tricky but a worthwhile excercise.
My argument’s central point is supported by evidence. Your argument’s central point is to invent risk with racial bias. Your argument is fundamentally flawed because it is not based in reality. Racial profiling will only lead to unjustly excluding people.
The reason I know it would be safe for her to speak is that I’m not a racist. When I grow up, I hope to help build systems that include everyone and exclude intolerance.
Jesus, the self righteousness of ignorance, it’s impressive.
Race has nothing to do with the fact that the movement she represents has explicitly argued against the Democratic nominee and the **only **place where that position changes was to be the speech.
The Uncommitted in Uncommitted Movement referred to marking the uncommitted option on Democratic Party primary ballots in certain states. The Uncommitted Movement did this. It was never their intention to contest the DNC ticket in the general election.
Wiki is a good place to start if you would like to learn more!
lol, did you forget the part where she is part of a group that tried to hold the Democratic nomination hostage?
YES! AND THAT’S THE POINT! I don’t know this person, you don’t know this person. We have both invented possible versions. Except you seem unable to realize that there is a chance, however small, that your version is incorrect and that there are risks associated.
Look, I do forget my own privilege. A probabilistic worldview is difficult and not everyone has the cognitive capacity to do so. Making things binary (yes/no) is easy but not a very good way of looking at the world. Here’s an article that kind of outlines probabilistic thinking in fairly simple terms, it might help:
https://modelthinkers.com/mental-model/probabilistic-thinking
Come on. A movement doesn’t announce serious policy change via a single interview to a news site.
Just to demonstrate this conversation is worth having, after you’ve read the article, can you explain what you think probabilistic thinking is?
People were protesting the DNC. No one was being held hostage. In the US, people have the First Amendment right to assemble.
My argument is based on the evidence about her status as an elected representative. It is not based on bias involving her inherent characteristics of being a Palestinian woman. The risk of her speaking was no greater than any of the people who got to speak at the DNC. There was no risk associated with anyone who spoke at the DNC.
They did though. There is no reason not to. The point of the news is to inform the public.
This is a self-help article designed to help with anxiety related to life being uncertain. It’s not a worldview or even a way to justify bias of any kind. If this helps some people that’s great, but it’s not implying anyone actually calculates the probabilities in their head. Humans aren’t calculators. It’s a collection of linguistic tricks to help manage uncertainty that anyone can do.
If your argument is that this is a justification for racial profiling then the source cited undermines that position.
The point of sharing this speech on lemmy was to give people a tool for arguing in favor in of both the Palestinian people and Democratic Party’s ticket. The goal was to discuss useful strategies. As long as your argument is about excluding people based on inherent characteristics, racial profiling, we have nothing further to discuss. Racial profiling is not a useful way to view reality because it is not based on reality.
Clearly you need to re-read the article.
This is a self-help article on a self-help website. It’s not a justification for racial profiling.
https://modelthinkers.com/playbook/welcome-to-modelthinkers
https://modelthinkers.com/mental-model/probabilistic-thinking
Kid, the entire point of the article is that things are not will/won’t happen. It’s that there are a range of probabilities.
This nonsense of claiming the person representing a movement explicitly about withholding support for the Democrat nominee has the exact same risk of deviation from the other speakers is, at best, foolish.
Then ignoring that movement and saying I’m only seeing a risk because of her race is either impressively dumb or disingenuous. I’m not sure which is worse.
The rational or adult way to look at the issue is to think about the probability of an event vs the rewards of the action. That’s a conversation worth having. Your position would be worth respect if you could have the sanity to admit “sure, there’s a chance that she’d go off script but here’s what I think are the odds, rewards and costs.” That’s a reasonable discussion. What you are doing is just saying over and over again that there is zero risk and any notion of such risk is racist.
That’s just petulant child shit.
As you grow up, hopefully you’ll learn that things that you assume will happen, may not happen and vice versa. Part of being an adult is learning to think about that sort of uncertainty, it’s tricky but a worthwhile excercise.
My argument’s central point is supported by evidence. Your argument’s central point is to invent risk with racial bias. Your argument is fundamentally flawed because it is not based in reality. Racial profiling will only lead to unjustly excluding people.
The reason I know it would be safe for her to speak is that I’m not a racist. When I grow up, I hope to help build systems that include everyone and exclude intolerance.
Jesus, the self righteousness of ignorance, it’s impressive.
Race has nothing to do with the fact that the movement she represents has explicitly argued against the Democratic nominee and the **only **place where that position changes was to be the speech.
Just… Wow kid, wow.
I already commented this but FYI:
Wiki is a good place to start if you would like to learn more!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncommitted_National_Movement
Okay, I’ll bite. Beyond the speech, what is your source for this?
Or do you literally not understand the strategic point of marking those ballots uncommitted?