I like to make predictions.
I like to make them quickly, with scarce evidence, with accuracy, and with confidence.
As far as I’m concerned, this is the end goal of all knowledge. Knowledge is a conceptualization of habit, but whereas habits are formed only if they bring you repeated success over the same situations, knowledge ideally brings you success without having to practice the same situation ten thousand times. The stronger the knowledge, the more you can extrapolate what you have learned in the past to new situations in different fields in the future. Perhaps this is not “knowledge”, but “wisdom” or “learning” or whatever; the particular word doesn’t matter to me. The goal is perfect foresight: seeing the future. With it you have much more time to respond and elaborate on what you might do once the situation arises, or alternatively, avoid the situation entirely. Prevention is better than cure.
Most people’s idea of “evidence” does not enter the equation. I know people’s pet favorite Scientific Method says you need it and all, and the facetious rebuttal that if there’s no evidence then it’s the same as a fantasy in your head. It’s not like I’ve been living in a cave; we all went through approximately the same K-12 thanks to modern society. The difference is not that I “don’t know” what the scientific method is, it’s that I’ve decided to use something else. I don’t claim to red pill or tell people to wake up, I realize this is a strong marketing strat but I find it distasteful. I’m not in the business of satisfying the peanut gallery of Peer Reviews. I’m in the business of being correct. Actually, I’ll probably have to deal with it eventually; everything needs PR (the other PR) and marketing. But you can’t market a game without programmers. So I’ll focus on my department first.
If I am accurate in my predictions, have been, and continue to be, what does it matter what my methods are?
You knowing what my methods are is completely irrelevant to whether or not I’m correct. There are plenty of things in your life which you have no clue of the methods to (meat section of the supermarket, engine in your car, where your boss gets the money from, what your wife does when you’re not around), but work just fine anyways. You also trust them, based off of track record or some other criteria, so it’s not relevant to trust either. Fermat was shown correct in his last theorem, but he certainly didn’t use all the complicated math that Andrew Wiles used from more modern times to get to it. He never wrote the proof. But he was correct. This works the other way as well; just because you have an explanation doesn’t guarantee that it’ll be correct either. Financial/economic theory and PR moves are all calculated based on supposedly very intellectual and You Wouldn’t Be Able To Understand Unless You Paid A Million Dollars To A Certified Institution theory, but here we are in a depression anyways and no amount of “restoring confidence” these past five years has done jack squat.
It doesn’t matter why the prediction works, only that it does work.
I’ve found recently I’ve been extremely accurate at one kind of prediction:
If I damn someone twice, it is inevitable that they will be damned by the public.
In other words, a negative character judgement. I have generalized it to fit all the kinds of people I condemn; I usually have predictions about how they will screw shit up, but those differ from type to type. I have no prediction on the timeframe; I don’t believe this is necessary because I presume that most people never fundamentally change. “Twice” also has no timeframe; sometimes it takes two months, sometimes it takes two minutes. It is the fundamentals that I am reading, and it is the fundamentals that are the first order and thus most influential limiter on the set of possible actions they can take. I completely reject the notion of “Well, You Never Know”. I don’t think very highly of friends who ask me if I did something stupid, I respond with “Why would I do that”, and then they respond with that. We are friends; you should know “who I am”, alternatively, “what my character is”. I am very good at seeing negative characteristics, and by extension, negative characters.
In the past two years, every single one of my condemnations has been shown to be correct.
By “shown to be correct”, I mean either the person meets a bad situation of the same type one would stereotypically expect of a certain trait (i.e.: theft:police::cheating:reveal), or everyone comes to agree with me that the person is not worthy of respect. I agree with everyone, just the everyone-tomorrow and not the everyone-today – which has significant differences of course. But the fact that I got there earlier, and often significantly earlier, than everyone else gives me (and everyone who believes me) its own benefits as well. Namely, less drama and destruction. I can’t explain exactly how I got to the conclusion. They either disgusted me in a certain way or reminded me of someone else I had condemned in the past, so I condemned them too. And then I “happen” to be right again. Just like how ancient architects and engineers just kept “happening” to build structures that last longer than modern ones. With the help of books, the fact that they’re alive, and other things which help their relevance, architects and engineers today can make plenty of excuses about how their buildings today are made of shit, look like shit, and feel like shit. But if you’re looking for something sturdy, you don’t take their “advice”. For those who know just a little bit, it’s clear the new things from cars to houses to microwaves are only better in the sense that there are easier to find replacement parts.
Arguments, reason, the spoken and written word: people have forgotten these are only aids in making decisions. These are all things created by other people. There is also the evidence which “speaks for itself”, i.e., your own interpretation from your own experience. In terms of just your own opinion, you don’t have to fight back at all. As my dad likes to say, “Don’t need to waste saliva”. Or as everyone remembers from Reading Rainbow, “You don’t have to take my word for it”.
There were occasions where I gave people a second chance because people in the group wanted them there. Every time, I was asked to present reasons for eliminating them. Some of those occasions I had presented complete arguments detailing and linking to evidence; other times I had none at all. None of those second chances ended up showing that I was wrong; they were all condemned again in the end. Does this make me a bad debater? Absolutely.
Does this make my readings and judgement of people false?
When I was a kid, I told my mom I’d write a book on all the things that people don’t talk about. I’m not sure if I’m going to do that, but now I at least understand why something like this hasn’t been written: People don’t have any particular need to explain themselves. I’ve been right every single time, and I have confidence the next time I think badly of someone. Everyone knows the minigames that pure presenters play, from politicians to journalists to professors; this is the kind of stuff (and all the financial minigames) you have to deal with when you write for the public. In smaller groups like family friends or apprentices and master, the lead can simply say what he wants and leave it open and the idea will hold for itself due to common understanding or experience. Presenting to the public is different. More complex, probably, but it’s also probably a different skillset.
This is not to say that presenting is not an irrelevant skillset. It’s irrelevant if your aim is only to be correct. If your aim is only to present or persuade, then correctness doesn’t matter. What is relevant depends on what your goal is.
Keyword is not “goal”.
Keyword is “your”.
Last night, Travis was on /vg/ and there was a question to him about his opinion on TotalBiscuit. Both are in the realm of esports, Travis being a journalist and mostly in the region of LoL, while TotalBiscuit is a variety commentator and owner of a pro team in SC2. Recently TotalBiscuit has been looking into possibly commentating for DOTA2, as the SC2 scene looks fairly grim. He looked into LoL once, got a bunch of referrals and on LoL’s system was supposed to be able to design a champion for the game. He didn’t get to and got only a consumable named after him. General consensus is that this is why he doesn’t have very high opinions of LoL. TotalBiscuit has said that by this time next year, DOTA2 will surpass LoL in viewership count, among other praisings. At this time, 35,917 follow Travis and 208,535 follow TotalBiscuit on Twitter.
If something is not relevant, it doesn’t matter if it’s correct or not. Debaters love to point at their list of logical fallacies on wikipedia or whatever and cite “ad hominem” or whatever from it; “just because a thief said it doesn’t mean it’s wrong”. Well no one’s arguing that right? What’s being implicitly said is that it doesn’t matter what the thief says. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, it does not make a sound. I remember asking a judge when I was in high school debate, and I will remember this forever, what the point of a “Respect Kritik” was. I asked him, why does it matter whether or not someone’s case (their collection of arguments) is disrespectful to their opponent, if the argument he presents shows the resolution (the thing being debated) is true, then he should win. He said it matters because if he disrespects his opponent then there is no debate to begin with. While in the context of just being correct about a point this is stupid, in the context of being in the National Forensics League and going to tournaments and rounds to be judged to win over opponents, he is correct. You can be correct all you want about the point, but that’s not what debate is. Debate is about winning a certain thing, and that certain thing has its own smaller environment. Its own little minigame. TotalBiscuit’s minigame is completely different and separate from Travis’s minigame. I can agree with both Travis and TotalBiscuit because there is no conflict, and because my minigame is also different.
The PUA/Manosphere calls this “frame control”. They use it in the context of picking up girls, talking about how girls like a man who isn’t moved by their bullshit and knows how to make her want to do things for him. I think the phrase and concept are very useful, when given a greater background and support glossary outside of just talking to and fucking random strangers. It is the distilled version of the common wisdom “be yourself”, “don’t try to be someone else”; people just don’t know what it means or when it holds. There’s also common wisdom which says you are the average of the people you spend time with, and being nice and polite; these things can’t possibly all happen at the same time all the time.
I didn’t read the long one that he posted, because I knew it wasn’t going to be relevant. The timing of a long response of that order at that time given what had occurred both in the conflict sense and the attitude he had shown already could only have a certain kind of content, a kind which I would not be able to respond to if I had accepted the premises in any way. In my dad’s words: “You have already damned me in your heart; there is nothing to talk about.”. I wrote my response already and posted it the instant I saw he responded. Could I have been wrong about my prediction? Yes. Was I? I’m fairly certain I wasn’t. I have shown it in its entirety here, because this is a presentation context. I haven’t read it, and I never plan on reading it, because you are what you read and I’m not reading something I know is shit. I can smell it without seeing it. If all I see is smoke, can I scream “fire”?
Up until recently, I would’ve just ran with the premises given to me until I found an inconsistency. It was my strategy for the longest time, and I’d often be able to find them, whether or not they were there. My parents wouldn’t be able to answer why contradictory things happened, the religious would not be able to explain why their god worked “in mysterious ways”. This didn’t work so well for me once I got into high school, joined debate, and talked with people who were more into ideologies or politics than I was. I’d delve into their world, and then find that everything was internally consistent: at the very least, they had an explanation for everything. And yet, many other people of other beliefs would also be internally consistent, and many of them would disagree with one another. I never had a good run in debating; I’d always ask questions in cross-examination, they’d respond to it, and then occasionally I’d think “That actually makes sense, I like that a lot”… then I’d be forced to disagree with myself.
While I’ve not gotten any better at disagreeing with myself, I have gotten better at not being open to new and different things all the time. Shahbaz Shit certainly would’ve convinced me if I had an “open mind” and was “amenable to reason”. But just as I close my doors to strangers and open them to friends, I have nothing to say to those who want to hear nothing from me.
“If you’re so confident in your methods, it shouldn’t bother you to explain them.”
Trade secrets which make millions of dollars aren’t given to the masses just because they’re clearly profitable. I don’t treat my methodology on judging people as something which belongs in the public domain – at the very least, not in an unencoded form. We’ve already discussed how something working has no correlation to how thoroughly it can be explained. And of course, the existence of enemies. A general can be entirely sure that his strategy will work for the upcoming battle. Does that mean he explains each and every part to each and every soldier, much less show all of it to those he plans to eliminate? Perhaps his strategy is only effective on the premise that only certain people know about it. Sometimes it requires feeding the enemy certain false information, sometimes true information and then bait them in because they only know part of it, and fails completely if the bait isn’t taken. Truth has its own mechanics.
There are universal truths, yes. But to think truth only exists in the form of universals is naive.
To accept someone else telling you that your truth is fake because it’s not universal is more naive.
Link shared above is here. Story from the man himself is below.
“Respect” is a magical word, like “love” or “morality” or “justice”, but is slightly more grounded. There are two uses for respect: either as recognition to the fact that someone is in a more powerful position in the social hierarchy, or to lubricate interactions with strangers. Kelly Shitties is neither someone I want lubricated interactions with, nor someone who I recognize as more powerful than me. “But Alliance has won TI3 and she’s more rich than you” And? I read up on her and found that she’s a disgusting waste of carbon atoms, so I tweeted about it. How better to “make my voice heard” than by directly tagging the person in question? Am I relevant? No. Not by any measure, not to anyone except close friends that read this blog. By all means she should not have responded and I did not expect a response. But clearly the topic at hand was relevant enough.
She first told me off that I’m irrelevant, which in and of itself doesn’t work because I’m being responded to. I copied her tone, suggesting that her actions and the person she did it were also irrelevant to the point of nonexistence. She then recognizes their existence, claiming irrelevance for a different reason: that it was a “mistake”. It’s bad enough to give a reason for something being irrelevant; having one shot down and then replacing that reason with a completely different one is hilariously bad. I didn’t respond to the other random person because I found them irrelevant. Do I hate women? I don’t think I do.
What I hate are bitches. Whether or not you think of yourself as a bitch is not my concern. And then her boyfriend the big Alliance carry player tells me off,
I didn’t expect this. I also didn’t respond to it. He and what he had to say was irrelevant in terms of the conversation, and that he responded to me has tarnished his image even more than it already was.
The fact that they responded at all and in such a way indicates a certain expectation they have of people, and one I think is fairly accurate. Let us suppose that someone had the same reaction I did, but for them it was just an outburst and they forgot to rescind/delete their opinion before it stirred up a shitstorm. The average response to such, I imagine, would be at least guilt. The big PR systems work to please the masses when they go into damage control mode, meaning the more successful the PR department is, the more it imitates exactly what average person would do: apologize profusely. These are big people and big players in a bigger world than yours; who are you to judge them? Maybe kellymilkies sleeping around while having a couple of children she doesn’t see, walking offstage from a live commentating position is perfectly okay. Perhaps it actually is moral to dump someone on their first day of a big tournament and then hug another guy in front of them. Maybe it’s okay up there.
I’ll make it simple so this is easy to understand; the linked post is the long version. The counter to the accusation of uncertain knowledge is:
“That’s just your opinion.”
Kellymilkies I predicted with loads of evidence and people who share the same opinion. But to me, it’s just the same as any other prediction. I didn’t focus on the evidence, I focused on the character, and I was able to read it just as clearly as any other person I have judged. “Kudos to him for being clueless” Yes, thank you. No, I don’t care that I don’t know how many times she blows you a day. I like being good at my job: I’ll be correct regardless.
[1:37:01 PM] ML: I TOLD THEM ALL SHE WAS CRAZY
[1:37:04 PM] ML: I TOLD THEM FOR YEARS
[1:37:07 PM] ML: FINALLY THEY BELIEVE ME
[1:37:09 PM] KS: we are similar
[1:37:14 PM] KS: we predict early and accurately.
[1:37:24 PM] ML: yes
[1:37:27 PM] ML: then everyone thinks I am judgmental
[1:37:29 PM] ML: and I’m like
[1:37:29 PM] ML: okay
[1:37:31 PM] ML: call me when I’m wrong
[1:37:33 PM] ML: never happens
[1:37:34 PM] KS: LOL
[1:37:35 PM] ML: it’s very sad
[1:37:37 PM] KS: too good
[1:37:38 PM] ML: I wish people would just believe me at this point
[1:37:40 PM] ML: ._.
[1:37:42 PM] KS: im more like
[1:37:47 PM] ML: and if they don’t believe me at least trust that I have my reasons
[1:37:59 PM] KS: “I’m never wrong. you trust me or you don’t. you don’t, you will get fucked”
[1:38:13 PM] KS: not nearly as snarky
[1:38:16 PM] ML: if you want to wait for shit to visibly hit the fan you can do that
[1:38:21 PM] ML: but I see early signs so I’m
[1:38:21 PM] ML: gonna
[1:38:23 PM] ML: get out
[1:38:24 PM] ML: ._.
[1:38:38 PM] KS: i hate people who predict late, vaguely, with evidence, and without confidence
[1:38:38 PM] ML: and if that makes you feel like a better person then more power to you
[1:38:42 PM] KS: but those people are the ones who get paid
[1:38:43 PM] ML: I’m gonna be happy with my drama free life
[1:38:49 PM] KS: so maybe im doing it wrong by being the exact opposite of them.
[1:39:09 PM] KS: i also just hate this general jackoff to evidence
[1:39:14 PM] KS: SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE
[1:39:25 PM] KS: well sure i understand why evidence is important
[1:39:28 PM] KS: but we’re trying to read the future here
[1:39:31 PM] ML: funny
[1:39:37 PM] KS: I CANT SHOW YOU EVIDENCE OF SHIT THAT HASNT HAPPENED YET
[1:39:39 PM] ML: people who hire me say they like how cautious and drama-avoidant I am
[1:40:01 PM] ML: ikr I can show you small signs of things that make someone prone to shit
[1:40:03 PM] ML: butI am not
[1:40:05 PM] ML: about to WAIT for shit to happen
[1:40:17 PM] ML: I used to do that
[1:40:22 PM] ML: it never ended well because SHIT WOULD HAPPEN
[1:40:24 PM] ML: AND THATS
[1:40:25 PM] ML: NOT GOOD
[1:40:25 PM] ML: SO
[1:40:27 PM] ML: NO MORE WAITING
Of course, presenting it is important too. I don’t entirely enjoy being a son of Cassandra. But it is important that as a son of Cassandra I don’t distrust my foresight. It is one of the few things I have.
Do not throw away your gifts, and do not let people trick you into doing it.