Black Teen Shot by Neighborhood Watch

[Professor_X]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

This actually reminded me of another one of my main problems with statistics: They pick a small sample of a larger whole (say 10, 100, 1000, 10000, etc) subjects depending on how much time and money/resources available and use that data to make conclusions about the whole.

And IQs are pretty worthless as well. I have been teaching at the undergrad level since I was 18 and at the graduate level since I was 25 and I have had more than a few students with IQs above 160 fail out of my basic calculus based physics class and I have had more than a few students with IQs barely above 100 obtain a PhD or other graduate degree. The one thing my successful students seem to have in common is that they put in the time and effort needed to learn the material. They show up to class and take detailed notes, they go to the recitations, they come see me and my grad students about problems they can’t figure out and concepts they don’t understand, they do the homework problems I assign even though I don’t grade them. Yes, the students with higher IQs generally have to put in less time to understand the material than others which makes it easier, but that is it. There is nothing about having a high IQ that guarantees you will be great and successful at anything, and it certainly has nothing to do with a predisposition for criminal activity.
[/quote]

Agreed. Once again…this has actually been one of the better threads on this topic.

[groo]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
And we’re back to discussing the IQ of blacks vs the rest of the world… DEEP SIGH[/quote]

LOL…Mind you, have you ever been contacted for these massive studies done on all of us? I mean, I have been on the planet for a while now and not one person has tested my IQ for the purposes of collecting data on all blacks in the country.

Where are these stats coming from if I don’t know one black person who was tested?

I think discussing this shit more will just take the thread further off course. Tiger Time has issues. The thing is, had this been about 4 years ago when it was thought there weren’t many minorities here, this thread would be going way different by now.

This is actually the most civil race discussion I’ve seen.

I guess realizing they aren’t just fighting one black guy changes the responses.[/quote]

This actually reminded me of another one of my main problems with statistics: They pick a small sample of a larger whole (say 10, 100, 1000, 10000, etc) subjects depending on how much time and money/resources available and use that data to make conclusions about the whole.

And IQs are pretty worthless as well. I have been teaching at the undergrad level since I was 18 and at the graduate level since I was 25 and I have had more than a few students with IQs above 160 fail out of my basic calculus based physics class and I have had more than a few students with IQs barely above 100 obtain a PhD or other graduate degree. The one thing my successful students seem to have in common is that they put in the time and effort needed to learn the material. They show up to class and take detailed notes, they go to the recitations, they come see me and my grad students about problems they can’t figure out and concepts they don’t understand, they do the homework problems I assign even though I don’t grade them. Yes, the students with higher IQs generally have to put in less time to understand the material than others which makes it easier, but that is it. There is nothing about having a high IQ that guarantees you will be great and successful at anything, and it certainly has nothing to do with a predisposition for criminal activity.
[/quote]
In fact there are several studies that use statistical analysis that support your second paragraph…Which would of course be a very small subset of students for you to be able to base a conclusion on, the ones you have been personally involved with…just saying.

Generally to be successful in anything practice is the single biggest factor after a baseline ability is there.

[roybot]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
More gnats.

Blacks in America may just have the most diverse gene pool of any other country. That makes the entire discussion of “black genes” suspect and I have stated this many times before.

I am not African. My ancestors were French, Native American, Haitian, and African. If you see “black” when you see me and then base any judgments about my character or potential for any negative act on that color, you are a RACIST.

Accept it.

Deal with it.[/quote]

Its hard but the whole stat game is just that. A game. Its why the majority of them if not all of them are debated to death.

Most of these type of statistics are based off of police reports when crime is concerned. And as you can see thru this one MAY go down as Zimmerman self defense shooting.

Making this kid with Ice Tea and skittles the aggressor. So this is another STAT to add to the list.

Zimmerman who may be of Latin American decent. Is considered by the Police as a White Male of Hispanic descent. Since no state or Gov agency considers Hispanic or Latin American a race.

But when you look at a pic of Zimmerman what do you see?

Its all open to debate and even the Tiger kid who broke out the Stats to start this conversation can agree to that.[/quote]

Actually, most of the studies I’ve read come from the victim’s side, not the police side.

Personally, I think it’s more alarming, not less, that “white” homicide combined with “Latino” homicide is still much lower than the black homicide rates.

Yes, there’s room for debate, but not as much as I think most of you are hoping for. [/quote]

Impressive. They collect data on homicides from the victims. “Are you a victim of a homicide?”

“Yes. The murderer was black”.

[nunhgrader]

I guess I want to know why that police force did not arrest the shooter…

I guess the state law allows for the use of deadly force - period. Scary.

[groo]

[quote]nunhgrader wrote:
I guess I want to know why that police force did not arrest the shooter…[/quote]
They were a bit busy…

[Tex_Ag]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
And we’re back to discussing the IQ of blacks vs the rest of the world… DEEP SIGH[/quote]

LOL…Mind you, have you ever been contacted for these massive studies done on all of us? I mean, I have been on the planet for a while now and not one person has tested my IQ for the purposes of collecting data on all blacks in the country.

Where are these stats coming from if I don’t know one black person who was tested?

I think discussing this shit more will just take the thread further off course. Tiger Time has issues. The thing is, had this been about 4 years ago when it was thought there weren’t many minorities here, this thread would be going way different by now.

This is actually the most civil race discussion I’ve seen.

I guess realizing they aren’t just fighting one black guy changes the responses.[/quote]

This actually reminded me of another one of my main problems with statistics: They pick a small sample of a larger whole (say 10, 100, 1000, 10000, etc) subjects depending on how much time and money/resources available and use that data to make conclusions about the whole.

And IQs are pretty worthless as well. I have been teaching at the undergrad level since I was 18 and at the graduate level since I was 25 and I have had more than a few students with IQs above 160 fail out of my basic calculus based physics class and I have had more than a few students with IQs barely above 100 obtain a PhD or other graduate degree. The one thing my successful students seem to have in common is that they put in the time and effort needed to learn the material. They show up to class and take detailed notes, they go to the recitations, they come see me and my grad students about problems they can’t figure out and concepts they don’t understand, they do the homework problems I assign even though I don’t grade them. Yes, the students with higher IQs generally have to put in less time to understand the material than others which makes it easier, but that is it. There is nothing about having a high IQ that guarantees you will be great and successful at anything, and it certainly has nothing to do with a predisposition for criminal activity.
[/quote]

From what I can see in the social sciences, if your argument is based mainly on statistics it is generally discounted as guess work.

[Thomasm122]

[quote]LHT wrote:
Until about 600 years ago, the countries, and the populations, that are being portrayed on this thread (by some) as genetically superior, were pretty damned primitive.

Are we to assume that there was some enormous mutation that changed northern and western Europeans from disease-ridden, ignorant, impoverished, violent, completely inconsequential bumpkins of the planet, into the gleaming beacons of everything wonderful?
[/quote]

Evolutionary progress is in the eye of the beholder

[LHT]

[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:

[quote]LHT wrote:
Until about 600 years ago, the countries, and the populations, that are being portrayed on this thread (by some) as genetically superior, were pretty damned primitive.

Are we to assume that there was some enormous mutation that changed northern and western Europeans from disease-ridden, ignorant, impoverished, violent, completely inconsequential bumpkins of the planet, into the gleaming beacons of everything wonderful?
[/quote]

Evolutionary progress is in the eye of the beholder
[/quote]

Yes, with the ‘beholder’ in this particular case being the Tiger fella posting his evolutionary theories. Would you like to expand your statement at all, to be relevant to the discussion at hand?

Oh and could you PLEASE get that guy on the rug to stop staring at me?

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

Actually, most of these statistics are gathered from victim interviews, in order to control for police bias.

We aren’t talking about blacks committing 10% more homicides for their population, they’re committing 52% of total homicides. That much of a discrepancy cannot be brushed off as racial profiling. [/quote]

Damn it, I told myself I was done posting in this thread, and then I read this. Now, I have a low opinion of statistics as a mathematical discipline in general, and it is practically useless in many cases. Crime statistics is one of those cases. There are way too many unknowns to possibly be able. The only thing that those statistics have to go on is conviction rates. Think of all the unsolved murders in this country alone. Think about all the wrongful convictions that we do not know about. Think of all the missing people and others who may have been murdered but we don’t know because no bodies have been found. There is no real and reliable way of accounting for these unknowns. The only real piece of knowledge we can get from these statistics is that 52% of murder convictions are against black people.

Oh, and I agree with whoever said that genetic predisposition to crime based on race is a load of crap. There could, however be a cultural factor here but I don’t really know. I majored in physics, not African American studies, so I don’t really know much about African American culture except what I see in movies and television.[/quote]

I.got sucked back in as well. Have you ever looked.into complexity theory?[/quote]

I am familiar with Chaos Theory, which is very similar, and I think it could be a much better tool for determining a predisposition to criminal behavior than statistics. It is not used much in physics for a variety of reasons, but it should be great for things that have a lot of unknown/unmeasurable variables like predicting human behavior. I think this is what you are referring to anyway, if it isn’t please educate me.

For those not familiar with Chaos Theory, the basic premise is this: in certain systems that are highly dependent upon initial conditions (such as human behavior), even a small change in those initial conditions can have massive effects on the later outcome of a series of events, leading to what seems like chaotic behavior, even though in reality the events are deterministic. This is known as the Butterfly Effect. Chaos Theory postulates that identifying and accounting for these initial conditions can lead to a better (not perfect) way of determining/predicting certain events. It could be very useful in predicting human behavior, such as probability of committing a crime. I know there is some very promising research using Chaos Theory models to predict when seizures will occur in epilepsy patients.

Fun fact for anyone who cares, the term Butterfly Effect originates with the the 1952 short story A Sound of Thunder, NOT the shitty ass Ashton Kutcher movie.

EDIT: By initial conditions I don’t mean BS like racially based genetic predisposition, I mean things like living in poverty, having abusive parents, hanging out with the wrong crowd, etc.

[HoustonGuy]

Sounds like an interesting read for sure.[quote]LHT wrote:
Oh, and in response to some comments/q’s above re: why some populations progress faster than others.

Best book I’ve ever encountered on the topic is, “Guns, Germs, and Steel.” EXTREMELY honest, comprehensive, and detailed.

The most common reasons for one region to be technologically so far behind others becomes really obvious. No, it doesn’t explain 100% of things 100% of the time, but most of the progress of the world starts to make tremendous sense, including why the middle east, the Yangtze valley of China, & northeast Africa became the foundational point of what we at present call ‘civilization,’ and why northern India and Greece hit the world civilization scene some 2000 to 3000 years before places like Russia, Germany and Denmark.

The book is also very honest about the remaining question marks in history and doesn’t pretend to have a pat answer for everything.

• – oh, I know that a brief glimpse at the premise of this book might outwardly seem to be environmental determinism, but the book is very far from what one might assume.[/quote]

[HoustonGuy]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

Actually, most of these statistics are gathered from victim interviews, in order to control for police bias.

We aren’t talking about blacks committing 10% more homicides for their population, they’re committing 52% of total homicides. That much of a discrepancy cannot be brushed off as racial profiling. [/quote]

Damn it, I told myself I was done posting in this thread, and then I read this. Now, I have a low opinion of statistics as a mathematical discipline in general, and it is practically useless in many cases. Crime statistics is one of those cases. There are way too many unknowns to possibly be able. The only thing that those statistics have to go on is conviction rates. Think of all the unsolved murders in this country alone. Think about all the wrongful convictions that we do not know about. Think of all the missing people and others who may have been murdered but we don’t know because no bodies have been found. There is no real and reliable way of accounting for these unknowns. The only real piece of knowledge we can get from these statistics is that 52% of murder convictions are against black people.

Oh, and I agree with whoever said that genetic predisposition to crime based on race is a load of crap. There could, however be a cultural factor here but I don’t really know. I majored in physics, not African American studies, so I don’t really know much about African American culture except what I see in movies and television.[/quote]

I.got sucked back in as well. Have you ever looked.into complexity theory?[/quote]

I am familiar with Chaos Theory, which is very similar, and I think it could be a much better tool for determining a predisposition to criminal behavior. It is not used much in physics for a variety of reasons, but it should be great for things that have a lot of unknown/unmeasurable variables like predicting human behavior. I think this is what you are referring to anyway, if it isn’t please educate me.

For those not familiar with Chaos Theory, the basic premise is this: in certain systems that are highly dependent upon initial conditions (such as human behavior), even a small change in those initial conditions can have massive effects on the later outcome of a series of events, leading to what seems like chaotic behavior, even though in reality the events are deterministic. This is known as the Butterfly Effect. Chaos Theory postulates that identifying and accounting for these initial conditions can lead to a better (not perfect) way of determining/predicting certain events. It could be very useful in predicting human behavior, such as probability of committing a crime. I know there is some very promising research using Chaos Theory models to predict when seizures will occur in epilepsy patients.

Fun fact for anyone who cares, the term Butterfly Effect originates with the the 1952 short story A Sound of Thunder, NOT the shitty ass Ashton Kutcher movie.

[/quote]
Ya right, Ashton Kutcher coined that term.

[LHT]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

Actually, most of these statistics are gathered from victim interviews, in order to control for police bias.

We aren’t talking about blacks committing 10% more homicides for their population, they’re committing 52% of total homicides. That much of a discrepancy cannot be brushed off as racial profiling. [/quote]

Damn it, I told myself I was done posting in this thread, and then I read this. Now, I have a low opinion of statistics as a mathematical discipline in general, and it is practically useless in many cases. Crime statistics is one of those cases. There are way too many unknowns to possibly be able. The only thing that those statistics have to go on is conviction rates. Think of all the unsolved murders in this country alone. Think about all the wrongful convictions that we do not know about. Think of all the missing people and others who may have been murdered but we don’t know because no bodies have been found. There is no real and reliable way of accounting for these unknowns. The only real piece of knowledge we can get from these statistics is that 52% of murder convictions are against black people.

Oh, and I agree with whoever said that genetic predisposition to crime based on race is a load of crap. There could, however be a cultural factor here but I don’t really know. I majored in physics, not African American studies, so I don’t really know much about African American culture except what I see in movies and television.[/quote]

I.got sucked back in as well. Have you ever looked.into complexity theory?[/quote]

I am familiar with Chaos Theory, which is very similar, and I think it could be a much better tool for determining a predisposition to criminal behavior than statistics. It is not used much in physics for a variety of reasons, but it should be great for things that have a lot of unknown/unmeasurable variables like predicting human behavior. I think this is what you are referring to anyway, if it isn’t please educate me.

For those not familiar with Chaos Theory, the basic premise is this: in certain systems that are highly dependent upon initial conditions (such as human behavior), even a small change in those initial conditions can have massive effects on the later outcome of a series of events, leading to what seems like chaotic behavior, even though in reality the events are deterministic. This is known as the Butterfly Effect. Chaos Theory postulates that identifying and accounting for these initial conditions can lead to a better (not perfect) way of determining/predicting certain events. It could be very useful in predicting human behavior, such as probability of committing a crime. I know there is some very promising research using Chaos Theory models to predict when seizures will occur in epilepsy patients.

Fun fact for anyone who cares, the term Butterfly Effect originates with the the 1952 short story A Sound of Thunder, NOT the shitty ass Ashton Kutcher movie.

[/quote]

OMG you know what would be cool? A television show where some brainy mathematician guy uses complexity theory to help solve really difficult cases, and maybe his brother or something could be a cop or an FBI agent.

[Tex_Ag]

[quote]LHT wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

Actually, most of these statistics are gathered from victim interviews, in order to control for police bias.

We aren’t talking about blacks committing 10% more homicides for their population, they’re committing 52% of total homicides. That much of a discrepancy cannot be brushed off as racial profiling. [/quote]

Damn it, I told myself I was done posting in this thread, and then I read this. Now, I have a low opinion of statistics as a mathematical discipline in general, and it is practically useless in many cases. Crime statistics is one of those cases. There are way too many unknowns to possibly be able. The only thing that those statistics have to go on is conviction rates. Think of all the unsolved murders in this country alone. Think about all the wrongful convictions that we do not know about. Think of all the missing people and others who may have been murdered but we don’t know because no bodies have been found. There is no real and reliable way of accounting for these unknowns. The only real piece of knowledge we can get from these statistics is that 52% of murder convictions are against black people.

Oh, and I agree with whoever said that genetic predisposition to crime based on race is a load of crap. There could, however be a cultural factor here but I don’t really know. I majored in physics, not African American studies, so I don’t really know much about African American culture except what I see in movies and television.[/quote]

I.got sucked back in as well. Have you ever looked.into complexity theory?[/quote]

I am familiar with Chaos Theory, which is very similar, and I think it could be a much better tool for determining a predisposition to criminal behavior than statistics. It is not used much in physics for a variety of reasons, but it should be great for things that have a lot of unknown/unmeasurable variables like predicting human behavior. I think this is what you are referring to anyway, if it isn’t please educate me.

For those not familiar with Chaos Theory, the basic premise is this: in certain systems that are highly dependent upon initial conditions (such as human behavior), even a small change in those initial conditions can have massive effects on the later outcome of a series of events, leading to what seems like chaotic behavior, even though in reality the events are deterministic. This is known as the Butterfly Effect. Chaos Theory postulates that identifying and accounting for these initial conditions can lead to a better (not perfect) way of determining/predicting certain events. It could be very useful in predicting human behavior, such as probability of committing a crime. I know there is some very promising research using Chaos Theory models to predict when seizures will occur in epilepsy patients.

Fun fact for anyone who cares, the term Butterfly Effect originates with the the 1952 short story A Sound of Thunder, NOT the shitty ass Ashton Kutcher movie.

[/quote]

OMG you know what would be cool? A television show where some brainy mathematician guy uses complexity theory to help solve really difficult cases, and maybe his brother or something could be a cop or an FBI agent.[/quote]

Complexity theory does not work that way.

[Tex_Ag]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

Actually, most of these statistics are gathered from victim interviews, in order to control for police bias.

We aren’t talking about blacks committing 10% more homicides for their population, they’re committing 52% of total homicides. That much of a discrepancy cannot be brushed off as racial profiling. [/quote]

Damn it, I told myself I was done posting in this thread, and then I read this. Now, I have a low opinion of statistics as a mathematical discipline in general, and it is practically useless in many cases. Crime statistics is one of those cases. There are way too many unknowns to possibly be able. The only thing that those statistics have to go on is conviction rates. Think of all the unsolved murders in this country alone. Think about all the wrongful convictions that we do not know about. Think of all the missing people and others who may have been murdered but we don’t know because no bodies have been found. There is no real and reliable way of accounting for these unknowns. The only real piece of knowledge we can get from these statistics is that 52% of murder convictions are against black people.

Oh, and I agree with whoever said that genetic predisposition to crime based on race is a load of crap. There could, however be a cultural factor here but I don’t really know. I majored in physics, not African American studies, so I don’t really know much about African American culture except what I see in movies and television.[/quote]

I.got sucked back in as well. Have you ever looked.into complexity theory?[/quote]

I am familiar with Chaos Theory, which is very similar, and I think it could be a much better tool for determining a predisposition to criminal behavior than statistics. It is not used much in physics for a variety of reasons, but it should be great for things that have a lot of unknown/unmeasurable variables like predicting human behavior. I think this is what you are referring to anyway, if it isn’t please educate me.

For those not familiar with Chaos Theory, the basic premise is this: in certain systems that are highly dependent upon initial conditions (such as human behavior), even a small change in those initial conditions can have massive effects on the later outcome of a series of events, leading to what seems like chaotic behavior, even though in reality the events are deterministic. This is known as the Butterfly Effect. Chaos Theory postulates that identifying and accounting for these initial conditions can lead to a better (not perfect) way of determining/predicting certain events. It could be very useful in predicting human behavior, such as probability of committing a crime. I know there is some very promising research using Chaos Theory models to predict when seizures will occur in epilepsy patients.

Fun fact for anyone who cares, the term Butterfly Effect originates with the the 1952 short story A Sound of Thunder, NOT the shitty ass Ashton Kutcher movie.

EDIT: By initial conditions I don’t mean BS like racially based genetic predisposition, I mean things like living in poverty, having abusive parents, hanging out with the wrong crowd, etc.

[/quote]
Complexity theory differs quite a bit, less about predicting a particular outcome, deals.more in possibilities, but I think the most interesting aspect is the idea of emergent properties. This when, considering the system is actually complex and not just complicated (insert math stuff here) is when properties not expect given the constituent actors in the system, develop at different scales of the systems. It is, in many ways, trying to understand where and when the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. It’s tricky, especially philosophicly, when it is not so much about prediction and often is about what we do not understand. People usually do not pay people for this type of answer.

I brought it up as a possible topic for a thread to keep us out of this one. I do not get to discuss it often and thought you might be game.

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

Complexity theory does not work that way.[/quote]

I watched about 10 minutes of one episode of Numbers and turned it off. There was so much blatantly false crap that I couldn’t stand it. I get that the show is made for the general population, most of which do not know much about these things but they could at least try not to make up blatantly false information for their show.

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

Complexity theory differs quite a bit, less about predicting a particular outcome, deals.more in possibilities, but I think the most interesting aspect is the idea of emergent properties. This when, considering the system is actually complex and not just complicated (insert math stuff here) is when properties not expect given the constituent actors in the system, develop at different scales of the systems. It is, in many ways, trying to understand where and when the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. It’s tricky, especially philosophicly, when it is not so much about prediction and often is about what we do not understand. People usually do not pay people for this type of answer.

I brought it up as a possible topic for a thread to keep us out of this one. I do not get to discuss it often and thought you might be game.[/quote]

Sure, I’m up for a thread about it. I need to read up a bit on it, but it could make for some interesting conversation.

[Thomasm122]

[quote]LHT wrote:

[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:

[quote]LHT wrote:
Until about 600 years ago, the countries, and the populations, that are being portrayed on this thread (by some) as genetically superior, were pretty damned primitive.

Are we to assume that there was some enormous mutation that changed northern and western Europeans from disease-ridden, ignorant, impoverished, violent, completely inconsequential bumpkins of the planet, into the gleaming beacons of everything wonderful?
[/quote]

Evolutionary progress is in the eye of the beholder
[/quote]

Yes, with the ‘beholder’ in this particular case being the Tiger fella posting his evolutionary theories. Would you like to expand your statement at all, to be relevant to the discussion at hand?

Oh and could you PLEASE get that guy on the rug to stop staring at me? [/quote]

I can try to talk to him.

I wasn’t trying to sound confrontational. I realize that it sounded snide. I was just offhandedly commenting, somewhat irrelevantly, that I think it’s doubtful in the grand scheme of what’s possible in terms of evolutionary development we’re really far enough along to be expecting a lot out of our species- that we’re still pretty much primitive in our overall behavior to be analyzing our current state as a “peak”.

What I was trying to say could have been better phrased as:

If you take disease ridden peoples, move them to various less economically successful continental demographics, and take the percentage of peoples currently inhabiting the “developed” countries who would fit our current definition of “ignorant, dissatisfied, violent, completely inconsequential bumpkins of the planet”, and put them in bigger houses, is it really progress?

[DarkNinjaa]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

Hmm? You think my point is “Well-to-do” (whatever that means) blacks are violent psychopaths and criminals? I’m not the caricature you’d like me to be. [/quote]

Well-to- do, well-off, high earners, wealthy, rich. Since you seem to have time gathering ‘‘stats’’ on the Black race, a few seconds of googling a word shouldn’t be too hard for you to do, Far Right Boy.

You basically stated in that pile of shit you posted that, regardless of social status and, compared to other races, blacks are inferior, barbaric and criminals.

Now I ask you again: please, show me the statistics that prove…

Actually fuck it.

My bad. I admit it. Got my hands up. Replying to such magnitude of ignorance was a mistake.

[Tex_Ag]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

Complexity theory differs quite a bit, less about predicting a particular outcome, deals.more in possibilities, but I think the most interesting aspect is the idea of emergent properties. This when, considering the system is actually complex and not just complicated (insert math stuff here) is when properties not expect given the constituent actors in the system, develop at different scales of the systems. It is, in many ways, trying to understand where and when the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. It’s tricky, especially philosophicly, when it is not so much about prediction and often is about what we do not understand. People usually do not pay people for this type of answer.

I brought it up as a possible topic for a thread to keep us out of this one. I do not get to discuss it often and thought you might be game.[/quote]

Sure, I’m up for a thread about it. I need to read up a bit on it, but it could make for some interesting conversation.
[/quote]

I need a refresher as well. I will start one up in a couple of weeks. Sound good?

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

Complexity theory differs quite a bit, less about predicting a particular outcome, deals.more in possibilities, but I think the most interesting aspect is the idea of emergent properties. This when, considering the system is actually complex and not just complicated (insert math stuff here) is when properties not expect given the constituent actors in the system, develop at different scales of the systems. It is, in many ways, trying to understand where and when the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. It’s tricky, especially philosophicly, when it is not so much about prediction and often is about what we do not understand. People usually do not pay people for this type of answer.

I brought it up as a possible topic for a thread to keep us out of this one. I do not get to discuss it often and thought you might be game.[/quote]

Sure, I’m up for a thread about it. I need to read up a bit on it, but it could make for some interesting conversation.
[/quote]

I need a refresher as well. I will start one up in a couple of weeks. Sound good?[/quote]

Sure, that works for me.