Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- 50 [2024/04/25 12:11] – ultracomfy
+++ 50 [2025/04/09 19:40] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 </WRAP>
-<fs xx-large>50%</fs> is a debating rule which states that in any conversation about a topic with differing opinions, disregarding expertise, knowledge and experience, a person is generally about 50% likely to be correct((Obviously both people can be wrong, in that scenario the standard is reduced to "50% likely to be less wrong than your 'opponent'".)). It's just statistics. Keep in mind that, in the real world, these odds are affected by expertise and many other factors, such as the generality of your claim (the more general the claim, the less likely you are to be correct, except in some exceptions), the temperament of an argument (the more emotional an argument, the less likely anyone is to be correct), and more. Keep in mind, 50% will be barely measurable in a one-on-one that only happens once, but becomes measurable quite well indeed when one talks to the same person several times and finds out that they //never// cede a point, //never// admit to be wrong on something, //always// make major, generalized claims.
+====== 50% ======
+% is a debating rule which states that in any conversation about a topic with differing opinions, disregarding expertise, knowledge and experience, a person is generally about 50% likely to be correct((Obviously both people can be wrong, in that scenario the standard is reduced to "50% likely to be less wrong than your 'opponent'".)). It's just statistics. Keep in mind that, in the real world, these odds are affected by expertise and many other factors, such as the generality of your claim (the more general the claim, the less likely you are to be correct, except in some exceptions), the temperament of an argument (the more emotional an argument, the less likely anyone is to be correct), and more. Keep in mind, 50% will be barely measurable in a one-on-one that only happens once, but becomes measurable quite well indeed when one talks to the same person several times and finds out that they //never// cede a point, //never// admit to be wrong on something, //always// make major, generalized claims.
 {{ :50_.png?nolink |}}
@@ Line 9: / Line 10: @@
 If a person never admits to being wrong, never backpedals on one of their claims, aggressively defends each and everything they say, even the most fringe and extreme things, there are some great odds that you are talking to someone who just doesn't admit to being wrong even when they are. It indicates that your argumentation isn't the fault (unless of course they do backpedal on their claims when talking to someone else, in which case they may be biased against you as a person, biased in favor of that other person, or your arguments really do just suck). Of course, this doesn't mean that you are //more correct// than them, it definitely cannot be used predictively to tell you exactly when you are wrong and when you are right, but it can be used as a general guideline to help understand whose criticisms to take serious, and how much so, even without having a single bit of expertise in any field of study.
-Remember that data can and will fluctuate in the real world and that this metric becomes more reliable as time goes on. The more arguments you have with a person, about more varied and different, non-interconnected fields, the more useful this number will be. When one side is a professional in anthropology and you conversations are a lot about tribal villages then these numbers will naturally stack towards 100%, but if you talk to someone about many different fields, especially fields that both of you are not literate in, these numbers should approach 50%. So, it is very suspicious if despite this, you or the other side act like their correctness approaches 100%. The problem is that we //should// be convinced by rational arguments, but we usually //are not//. You can present a person with a correct argument that //does// refute that person's claims, but more often than not they will keep going despite it. In reality, we often don't know very much about any one field ourselves - even experts only know as much as humanity has found out until then, which isn't very much - and don't actually //know// if what we present is definitive proof. We may think it is, but it's not like we are actually that knowledgeable.
+Remember that data can and will fluctuate in the real world and that this metric becomes more useful as time goes on. The more arguments you have with a person, about more varied and different, non-interconnected fields, the more useful this number will be. Then again, when one side is a professional in anthropology and you conversations are a lot about tribal villages then these numbers will naturally stack towards 100%, but if you talk to someone about many different fields, especially fields that both of you are not literate in, these numbers //**should**// approach 50%. So, it is very suspicious if despite this, you or the other side act like their correctness approaches 100%. The problem is that we //should// be convinced by rational arguments, but we usually //are not//. You can present a person with a correct argument that //does// refute that person's claims, but more often than not they will keep going despite it. In reality, we often don't know very much about any one field ourselves - even experts only know as much as humanity has found out until then, which isn't very much - and don't actually //know// if what we present is definitive proof. We may think it is, but it's not like we are actually that knowledgeable.
 On the other end, it helps you guide your understanding of yourself, recognize where, when and why you may be more wrong about topics than you expect, or primarily realize that you <fs xx-small>probably</fs> **are** wrong in the first place.
+{{ :50_origin_story.png?nolink&1000 |}}
+<WRAP centeralign>50% origin story. In all of our 3 or 4 years of talking to each other I haven't seen this guy ever admitting on being wrong about //anything//, and we debated a lot of things, even before Ukraine happened. On a different note, I don't think it was bioweapons, he wasn't quite //that// gullible (or was he?), but it was some pretty outlandish claims.</WRAP>