Author Topic: EP178: Unlikely  (Read 39339 times)

Drakoniis

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Reply #75 on: October 25, 2008, 11:20:13 AM
I really liked this piece. I'm not a big fan of romance or statistics, but the characters made the story great. I think my favourite parts were the ending, and the random appearance of the bicycling old men. I wish more had been said about Barry's "side projects"... and for some reason, his literal interpretation of statistics reminds me of something I told a friend who was looking for a new apartment. "Well, as soon as they rebuild the one that burned down, you should just move into that one. After all, there's no fire insurance quite like Bayes' Law."



Bdoomed

  • Pseudopod Tiger
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5891
  • Mmm. Tiger.
Reply #76 on: October 27, 2008, 07:47:35 PM
catchin up on my backlog of EPs and PPs and PCs and etcs
loved this story, which is saying a lot since i normally detest anything mushy/love/etc. (well maybe not detest but i don like em)

I'd like to hear my options, so I could weigh them, what do you say?
Five pounds?  Six pounds? Seven pounds?


RinBird

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Reply #77 on: October 28, 2008, 03:08:56 AM
Just listened to the story.

It was a decent story, I'll know how good in a few days if I find myself thinking about it again.

I actually came on to give 2 thumbs up to the mandelbrot song. It made me smile more than the story. I discovered the song a while ago, and spent an afternoon browsing youtube for mandelbrot zoom-in videos. good time. I will ahve to buy that song some day.



sjg1978

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Reply #78 on: October 30, 2008, 07:44:03 PM
I liked this one well enough.  It was a very nice change of pace after listening to Usurpers. A bit unbelievable, but I think it was supposed to be that way.

But this is a story I'll share with my wife, since it is a cute love story.



Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #79 on: January 16, 2009, 09:12:10 AM
A little Threadromancy here for something I've been turning over in my mind for a while:

Cars get safer every year.  I'm not talking about crash survivability, but accident avoidance. Disc brakes, rack and pinion steering, tuned suspension*, anti-lock braking, and stability control have all made cars easier and safer to drive.  However, the rate of accidents hasn't changed.  The safer the car becomes, the more indestructible the driver feels, the dumber he drives. 

What happens in this story when people start to feel protected by these two being together?  Will they start doing dumber and dumber things?  Will they end up negating the good caused by these two being together?


*Not the best phrase for here, but I hope you get the point



Listener

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • I place things in locations which later elude me.
    • Various and Sundry Items of Interest
Reply #80 on: January 16, 2009, 01:44:15 PM
What happens in this story when people start to feel protected by these two being together?  Will they start doing dumber and dumber things?  Will they end up negating the good caused by these two being together?

I think this is similar to the argument against the HPV vaccine for teenage girls -- if you give them the vaccine, they'll be protected against cervical cancer, so they'll immediately go have more sex. That's probably not the way it's going to go, but it's the argument the detractors are using. Same as with this -- people will feel safer, but I don't think they'll stop using seatbelts or start running red lights and stop signs. I know I'm a safe driver (except that I, like almost everyone else, have a tendency to speed), but I still stop at stop signs and red lights even when there's no other cars in sight.

"Farts are a hug you can smell." -Wil Wheaton

Blog || Quote Blog ||  Written and Audio Work || Twitter: @listener42


stePH

  • Actually has enough cowbell.
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3906
  • Cool story, bro!
    • Thetatr0n on SoundCloud
Reply #81 on: January 16, 2009, 02:29:49 PM
A little Threadromancy here for something I've been turning over in my mind for a while:

Cars get safer every year.  I'm not talking about crash survivability, but accident avoidance. Disc brakes, rack and pinion steering, tuned suspension*, anti-lock braking, and stability control have all made cars easier and safer to drive.  However, the rate of accidents hasn't changed.  The safer the car becomes, the more indestructible the driver feels, the dumber he drives. 

I see differently.  All the safety features in the world to increase driveability won't help if there's an idiot at the wheel.

"Nerdcore is like playing Halo while getting a blow-job from Hello Kitty."
-- some guy interviewed in Nerdcore Rising


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #82 on: January 16, 2009, 02:58:18 PM
What happens in this story when people start to feel protected by these two being together?  Will they start doing dumber and dumber things?  Will they end up negating the good caused by these two being together?

I think this is similar to the argument against the HPV vaccine for teenage girls -- if you give them the vaccine, they'll be protected against cervical cancer, so they'll immediately go have more sex. That's probably not the way it's going to go, but it's the argument the detractors are using. Same as with this -- people will feel safer, but I don't think they'll stop using seatbelts or start running red lights and stop signs. I know I'm a safe driver (except that I, like almost everyone else, have a tendency to speed), but I still stop at stop signs and red lights even when there's no other cars in sight.

The sex and HPV argument is sooo stupid.  Kids will have sex, because it feels good.  

I wasn't thinking people would run traffic lights.  Have you ever looked at the cars off the side of the road after a bad snowstorm?  They're almost always four-wheel drive.  The drivers think they're invincible and don't do the one simple thing.  They don't slow down.  

My thought was that maybe people would move a little faster on the icy sidewalk or lean out a little farther when they're using a ladder to paint their house.  Stuff like that.

I see differently.  All the safety features in the world to increase driveability won't help if there's an idiot at the wheel.

That's my point.  Except I think the drivability features actually makes people more idiotic.



slic

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 727
  • Stephen Lumini
Reply #83 on: January 17, 2009, 07:10:21 PM
I think that Mr. Nash has a valid point - consciously or not I think people take their environment into account during their activities.  Whether they are wearing helmets or have 4 wheel drive, people make all kind of assumptions that "it will work out for them".  Related to this I also think that younger people have a greater sense of protectedness - whether it's in the form of parents or professionals (the doctor will be able to fix this). 

In terms of the story - yes, I think you would see "riskier" actions as people become complacent with the idea.  In "The Worthing Saga" there is story with the basic premise of god-like beings protecting all the people in a planet.  The people are unaware of who or why they are protected, and over time they develop rituals that test these protections (in one case the ritual for manhood is to be thrown outside naked into a winter storm - if they are stopped from throwing you out then you are accepted into the community).

Conversely, I'd also foresee people being very cautious if the couple ever broke up.  And as a result I could see tabloid-like interest in all the "groupings"  that the public knew about that came out of the study. 



FamilyGuy

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 241
Reply #84 on: January 17, 2009, 11:18:30 PM
The ultimate problem is that the safety features allow the idiots to procreate.  Thus drowning us in a sea of idiocy.  ;) 

Also an unintended consequence of warning labels.  On my gas water heater: Do not check for gas leaks with open flame.

When will all the rhetorical questions end?


eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #85 on: January 18, 2009, 05:37:52 PM
I'm wondering how pertinent all this discussion is to the story, however. Remember, the basic premise of this story involves divorcing cause and effect, and manipulating events by manipulating correlation rather than caring about causation. In other words, it's not important *why* bringing those two people together reduces accidents; it's sufficient to bring them together. So I don't think it matters how people's psyches work, or cars work, accidents will go down regardless.

There is the possibility, however, that accidents will increase dramatically whenever the two are seperate, as people will then not be protected by bizzaro probability and may well be conditioned to believe themselves safe.



slic

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 727
  • Stephen Lumini
Reply #86 on: January 18, 2009, 11:57:19 PM
There is the possibility, however, that accidents will increase dramatically whenever the two are seperate, as people will then not be protected by bizzaro probability and may well be conditioned to believe themselves safe.
no, I thought that was the point of having the other "groups".  So no single group was "relied" on to reduce probabilites.

In other words, it's not important *why* bringing those two people together reduces accidents; it's sufficient to bring them together. So I don't think it matters how people's psyches work, or cars work, accidents will go down regardless.
You said it yourself - we don't know what matters.  While this isn't a story about logic, i think it is fair to say that people's habits would impact the probability of accidents, and possibility overwhelm the "helpful factor".   Their habits could easily be changed if word got out that these studies made them safer.



eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #87 on: January 19, 2009, 12:18:44 AM
There is the possibility, however, that accidents will increase dramatically whenever the two are seperate, as people will then not be protected by bizzaro probability and may well be conditioned to believe themselves safe.
no, I thought that was the point of having the other "groups".  So no single group was "relied" on to reduce probabilites.

I thought the other groups (cyclists, etc.) were reducing the chances of other bad things, not traffic accidents. Though I guess the story never really says for sure.

Quote
In other words, it's not important *why* bringing those two people together reduces accidents; it's sufficient to bring them together. So I don't think it matters how people's psyches work, or cars work, accidents will go down regardless.
You said it yourself - we don't know what matters.  While this isn't a story about logic, i think it is fair to say that people's habits would impact the probability of accidents, and possibility overwhelm the "helpful factor".   Their habits could easily be changed if word got out that these studies made them safer.

My point was that given that this story postulates a radical change in how we understand causation, we cannot assume that *any* cause and effect chain based on the real world would apply. So, I don't think it is fair to say that people's habits will impact the probability of accidents. Maybe people's behaviors are actually being manipulated here in ways that are not fully understood by us? What if it is not unsafe driving that causes accidents, but rather accidents in the future that cause unsafe driving now? That makes no sense in our world, but who knows about theirs.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2009, 12:20:36 AM by eytanz »



Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #88 on: February 20, 2009, 07:06:51 PM
A little Threadromancy here for something I've been turning over in my mind for a while:

Cars get safer every year.  I'm not talking about crash survivability, but accident avoidance. Disc brakes, rack and pinion steering, tuned suspension*, anti-lock braking, and stability control have all made cars easier and safer to drive.  However, the rate of accidents hasn't changed.  The safer the car becomes, the more indestructible the driver feels, the dumber he drives. 

What happens in this story when people start to feel protected by these two being together?  Will they start doing dumber and dumber things?  Will they end up negating the good caused by these two being together?


*Not the best phrase for here, but I hope you get the point

A little evidence for my point here.  Berlin has had a lot of snow recently.  It's been just around freezing, so we have a lot of slush on ice.  Some of the smaller streets are really shitty.  During this whole time, I've only seen one car that looked like it had recently hit something.  It was a BMW 5-series with ABS.  All the old Golfs look great. 

If I wanted to really get some serious data, I'd do a survey of body repair shops.  I just thought this was interesting.



Unblinking

  • Sir Postsalot
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 8729
    • Diabolical Plots
Reply #89 on: April 08, 2010, 05:06:35 PM
McIntosh raised the bar high with Friction (one of my favorites on EP), and this one came nowhere near it.  The premise was interesting, but I found it a little hard to buy.  There just didn't seem to be any real evidence that their being together actually saved people from accidents.  The statistician didn't give a crap what caused it, which I found odd.  What's the point?  They didn't even seem to consider that they might have the same cause but not directly causing each other, like the ice cream and crime correlation.

But all of that I could have overlooked if the story itself wasn't so predictable.  From the first moment that their correlation is mentioned, I guessed that they would interpret this as fate bringing them together, they'd fall in love and live happily ever after.  And there are a million stories about men clinging to their rationality and finally giving it up to fall in love with the girl who believes in the mystic, and this didn't offer anything new to the mix.  I didn't predict the car accident, but that didn't really alter the course of either character.



Unblinking

  • Sir Postsalot
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 8729
    • Diabolical Plots
Reply #90 on: April 09, 2010, 05:08:37 PM
Alternate explanation for the accident-relationship correlation:

I think that Tuesday is just a REALLY BAD driver.

It sounds like he does the driving when they're together.  When they're apart she is driving at least some of the time, but when they're together she is driving none of the time.  So, by allowing him to drive, she is saving lives.  And instead of the city forcing them to be together, they could just revoke her driver's license.  :D



Talia

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2682
  • Muahahahaha
Reply #91 on: April 09, 2010, 05:11:24 PM
Incidentally, you may wish to check out Will McIntosh's 'Bridecicle' over on StarShipSofa - its been nominated for a Hugo this year, and I thought it was quite excellent.



DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #92 on: April 09, 2010, 05:33:19 PM
Incidentally, you may wish to check out Will McIntosh's 'Bridecicle' over on StarShipSofa - its been nominated for a Hugo this year, and I thought it was quite excellent.

Oooooo, thanks for the heads-up. I've been meaning to track down that story and give SSS a go.

(Also, he wrote the (IMHO) incredible "One Paper Airplane Graffito Love Note" which ran last year at PC.)