A new study shows people more likely to trust, cooperate if they can tolerate ambiguity - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14925475
Oxymandias wrote:@Thomasmariel

Not necessarily. To be parallel is for everything to occur in at the same time, not be the same concept. However you are right that difference cannot be real, since it is cosmic fake news perpetuate by God.


Difference being magic is magic being reality

magic being reality is magic being cities

magic being cities is cities being reality

cities being reality is cities being trust

Trust has the ability to be multiple cities, but perhaps not just one city
#14925490
Oxymandias wrote:
Don't click the hypertext, copy and paste the entire link. PoFo doesn't register pdfs when posting. I apologize, as I thought you meant something else.


For the record, you can upload PDF's as an attachment.

Like so:

(7.02 MiB) Downloaded 21 times
#14925614
Oxymandias wrote:Your claim is, unfortunately, false however only somewhat. Yes, the ambiguity attitudes were measured separately from the cooperation game and you’re right that the results measured trust and you’re right that they regressed the results to see a correlation between the experiments. What you missed is that the ambiguity attitudes were measured prior to the games. The goal of the study, in a nutshell, is to see whether the ambiguity attitudes of individuals or the participants effected how likely they were to cooperate or trust others in the face of unguaranteed success. If you have an issue with the study, it’s more productive to criticize how they measured the ambiguity attitudes instead of criticizing the results of the study which for all intents and purposes succeeds in verifying the hypothesis of the researchers.


Criticizing how they measure "ambiguity" is exactly what I did. My point is that they measure trust* instead of "ambiguity" (whatever that is supposed to be) with their 25%-75% lottery, and then compare it to the results of the cooperation games. Obviously you get a correlation.

*both risk and trust to be precise. The 50% lottery only measures risk.
#14925724
@Rugoz

You haven't truly criticized it since you only state that they measured trust and you tie this to the cooperation games. I have stated in my previous post that they measured this separately from the results of the games, the two or not tied together at all. They didn't use the cooperation games to measure ambiguity, they measured the ambiguity attitudes of the participants prior to the experiment.

Also, they define ambiguity as an unknown probabilistic outcome while risk as a known probabilistic outcome. I already posted a quote from the study which proved that what was measured was not risk but ambiguity in response to you. I also had an entire discussion with @Kaiserschmarrn about that exact quote as well. I highly recommend you look into my previous posts responding to you before you respond to this one.

How about Russia uses a battle field nuclear we[…]

@Tainari88 , @Godstud @Rich , @Verv , @Po[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 29, Friday Mackenzie King wins Canadian el[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]