‘From China with Love’: profile of a #volunteer. Kiki was born in China, an hour’s drive from Hong Kong. In 2016 she visited the UK for first time and was lost late at night one evening in London, not knowing how to get back to her accommodation. #volunteeringstory

If it doesn,t make sense...
something else is going on.....

#xrp
#xrpcommmunity

Expand your thinking

This thread is updated and can be approached from multiple perspectives.
That is how big Platform 2020 is
#TheGreatAwakeningWorldwide

Connect the dotes

Survivorship Bias 101

History is written by the victors. But if we exclusively focus on these successes, we allow survivorship bias to distort our understanding of the world.

But what is "survivorship bias" and how does it work?

Here's Survivorship Bias 101!

👇👇👇

1/ First, a few definitions.

Survivorship bias is the logical error of concentrating on survivors (successes) and ignoring casualties (failures).

When we do so, we miss the true "base rates" of survival (the actual probability of success) and arrive at flawed conclusions.

2/ When we completely ignore failures, we lose our ability to correctly identify the differences between successes and failures.

Put simply, exclusively focusing on successes may actually inhibit our ability to identify (and replicate) the actions that led to such success.

3/ Cicero wrote on the topic over 2,000 years ago.

An atheist named Diagoras is shown portraits of people who prayed and were saved from death at sea as proof of God's existence.

Diagoras replies, "I see those who were saved, but where are those painted who were shipwrecked?"

4/ Cicero cuts right to the point - we cannot conclude that prayer led to being saved from the sea if we ignore those who prayed and then drowned.

Survivorship bias can lead to a deeply-flawed understanding of cause-and-effect relationships.

Let's look at some examples.

Read through a forum thread on Chastity Mansion to see who is talking about the Edge-o-Matic and figure out what more to address regarding frequent questions, as well as scout out user feedback. Here's some thoughts you can carry back to the forums!

My website doesn't have any product reviews, but people scatter them everywhere else in forums, tweets, xtube vids, etc.

If you ARE a previous customer, and you like the thing, can you drop a review on my site to help others?

The price is steep, but that's the amount of coins I calculated to make these. I have several spreadsheets calculating every expense involved with this project.

The current cost sustains production and development of new tech, and is helping create jobs. We are 2 people now!!

It IS 3D printed, because injection molding is orders of magnitude more expensive for the initial tooling, and I am still making small revisions to the enclosures.

Injection molded plastics are a six thousand dollar commitment for fifteen cent parts. Great for mass mfg.

Also, if you didn't know, 3D printing technology allows for some shapes which would be difficult, expensive, or impossible on injection molding or milled parts!!

Undercuts, which I use in this design, require special lifters to mold that cost a tremendous fortune.

My morning thought. I think what's most incompatible about the way I think and the journal article format as a means of capturing and validating thought is that I have a completely different sense of the relation between tentativeness, rigor, and informatic compression.

The characteristic Pete thought is: wait a minute, this whole area is dominated by an assumption that no one seems to be questioning, and I've got two options to express that: i) outline the logic of the issue in a quick and compressed way, ii) write a small book with references.

The discipline seems to want something in between these poles every single time, and this makes me extremely anxious because I feel (with good reason) like any partially referential engagement with the issue will get instantly torpedoed by anyone outside its referential remit.

To repeat something I've said before: I'm actually quite good at being *concise*, I just find it very hard to be *brief*, because most of the thoughts I have don't permit brevity. Consider what your (referential) reactions are to this brief piece:

One of the main genres of publication I've actually excelled in over the years is dictionary articles, which I take a lot of joy in writing, and include some of the pieces of which I'm most proud. Consider this one on the crux of Meillassoux's project:

1) Dreaded thread on why I think the response to postcritique is so vitriolic. Short version: Because literary studies is a discipline in search of an application.

2) Before I go on, I'll say from the outset that many in lit studies explicitly reject the idea that the field *should* have an application. My opinion is that's fine if you want to do book clubs, but if you want an institution you can't ignore that difficult issue. But anyway...

3) The evidence by this point is overwhelming that when lit scholars talk about 'method' we're actually just talking about ourselves: 'ways of reading,' 'how we argue,' 'phenomenology of reading,' etc. etc.

4) David Kurnick nicely illustrates this phenomenon:

5) But none of this is method discussion. Talking about ourselves, how we approach our objects of study, our motives and objectives, our commitments, etc. would be the *beginning* of a method convo in every other discipline. In lit studies it's the *end*, or the whole convo!