Author Topic: EP350: Observer Effects  (Read 16676 times)

eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #50 on: July 30, 2012, 11:30:00 AM
BTW, not understanding people often has nothing to do with not being able to predict what they will do in a given situation. More frequently it has to do with predicting up to *thousands* of things that people might do in a given situation and then not being able to figure out which of those is most likely. Given that, the Liberator should have seen all of the many ways his plan could have gone wrong...

That's a very good point.


Well, that's *a* way to not understand people. Liberator had more of another issue, which once he formed an idea of what will happen, he didn't stop to think whether it actually made sense. And mostly, I think the liberator had the opinion that it doesn't matter what happens since everything can be fixed.

I think the liberator wasn't so much clever as he was a really effective brute-force technician. He would form an idea, and test it. If it worked, great, if not, he would then tweak it and test again. You can get quite a lot of inventing done like that if you have enough resources and a good understanding of the material you are working with, and especially, when mistakes are low stake - just throw away the bad parts of your work and start again. That doesn't really work for large scale social experiments, though.



Unblinking

  • Sir Postsalot
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 8729
    • Diabolical Plots
Reply #51 on: July 30, 2012, 03:03:28 PM
Well, that's *a* way to not understand people. Liberator had more of another issue, which once he formed an idea of what will happen, he didn't stop to think whether it actually made sense. And mostly, I think the liberator had the opinion that it doesn't matter what happens since everything can be fixed.

I think the liberator wasn't so much clever as he was a really effective brute-force technician. He would form an idea, and test it. If it worked, great, if not, he would then tweak it and test again. You can get quite a lot of inventing done like that if you have enough resources and a good understanding of the material you are working with, and especially, when mistakes are low stake - just throw away the bad parts of your work and start again. That doesn't really work for large scale social experiments, though.

Ah, makes even more sense!  And sounds like Thomas Edison.  Rather than Nikola Tesla, who probably would've started with a viable solution.



CryptoMe

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1143
Reply #52 on: August 07, 2012, 03:10:50 AM
BTW, not understanding people often has nothing to do with not being able to predict what they will do in a given situation. More frequently it has to do with predicting up to *thousands* of things that people might do in a given situation and then not being able to figure out which of those is most likely. Given that, the Liberator should have seen all of the many ways his plan could have gone wrong...
That's a very good point.

Well, that's *a* way to not understand people. Liberator had more of another issue, which once he formed an idea of what will happen, he didn't stop to think whether it actually made sense. And mostly, I think the liberator had the opinion that it doesn't matter what happens since everything can be fixed.

I think the liberator wasn't so much clever as he was a really effective brute-force technician. He would form an idea, and test it. If it worked, great, if not, he would then tweak it and test again. You can get quite a lot of inventing done like that if you have enough resources and a good understanding of the material you are working with, and especially, when mistakes are low stake - just throw away the bad parts of your work and start again. That doesn't really work for large scale social experiments, though.

Interesting take on the Liberator there eytanz.  But, he didn't come across that way to me at all.



hardware

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 192
Reply #53 on: September 19, 2012, 07:03:43 AM
This was my favorite story of superhero month, possibly since it felt more Science Fiction than superhero (usual superhero stories would fit better in a fantasy podcast), in that it was more of a 'what-if' and story of ideas  than anything. It also really tapped into the greek mythology aspect of superheroes, with these almost omnipotent but fatally human figures watching humanity from above and wreaking havoc on their lives. I agree that it was lacking in emotional resonance, which prevented me from really involving myself, but at least it was intriguing. 



Fenrix

  • Curmudgeonly Co-Editor of PseudoPod
  • Editor
  • *****
  • Posts: 3996
  • I always lock the door when I creep by daylight.
Reply #54 on: December 11, 2012, 09:46:04 PM
I expected this thread to be more full of praise. There were a lot of interesting points raised here, and other than the scientific flaw with naming, I didn't see anything in this thread to diminish my appreciation. Like was previously brought up, if Stan Lee can attribute everything to Gamma Rays and my appreciation is not diminshed, I'll give this the same pass. This one's going in my "to re-listen" pile for sure.

All cat stories start with this statement: “My mother, who was the first cat, told me this...”


Unblinking

  • Sir Postsalot
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 8729
    • Diabolical Plots
Reply #55 on: December 13, 2012, 03:07:44 PM
Like was previously brought up, if Stan Lee can attribute everything to Gamma Rays and my appreciation is not diminshed, I'll give this the same pass.

Only the Incredible Hulk was created by Gamma Rays.  That is totally different than cosmic rays, radioactive spider bites, natural mutation, or my personal favorite--being electrocuted WHILE being doused in hazardous chemicals (used more than once).   

So I don't think your point of comparison is fair at all.  ;)