Sociopath Community

Edvard stated: source post

 

ThenFuckit stated: source post

 However an already genius is more valuable then a potential genius, just clarifying.

If I got you to admit that, then I won the argument. The probability of a random kid being a future genius is THE SAME as the probability of a random adult being a genius, which is what I have been saying, Inky has been saying, and you even agreed with. Which means, it makes more sense to value the adult more than the kid.

Ok, but as you age, your chance of being a genius gets smaller.
The chance gets smaller. I am not sure what you mean at this point, as there are too many variables used at random:
- someone being already a genius - A
- someone becoming a genius in the future - A
- fixed hidden probability to be a genius - X
- known probability to be a genius - A
- fixed maximum probability to be a genius - A
​- fixed minimum probability to be a genius - A
​- the current chance of a person to be a genius - B

If you use the variables which i marked as A you can calculate the variable i marked as B
Variable marked as X is unknown for each person. Its known for an entire group and its the same for children and adult groups.

But there is also variable marked as B that is known for an entire group and its different for children and adult groups.

ThenFuckit stated: source post

Ok, but as you age, your chance of being a genius gets smaller.
The chance gets smaller. I am not sure what you mean at this point, as there are too many variables used at random:
- someone being already a genius - A
- someone becoming a genius in the future - A
- fixed hidden probability to be a genius - X
- known probability to be a genius - A
- fixed maximum probability to be a genius - A
​- fixed minimum probability to be a genius - A
​- the current chance of a person to be a genius - B

If you use the variables which i marked as A you can calculate the variable i marked as B
Variable marked as X is unknown for each person. Its known for an entire group and its the same for children and adult groups.

But there is also variable marked as B that is known for an entire group and its different for children and adult groups.

Rename "the current chance of a person to be a genius" to "the current chance of a person to fulfill his potential to be a genius"

Inquirer stated: source post

 

ThenFuckit stated: source post

Inquirer stated: source post

Your way of thinking would make sense if we valued kids based on their known potential but that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing valuing children as a group more than adults, and the known potential of that group is 'average'. Just as it is for the adults. They cancel each other out.

An entire group of children, on average, has less known potential, therefor a higher % chance to be a great person, then an entire group of adults has.
Because each average child adds to the average group of children and each average child creates the entire group, and each child has a higher % chance to be a great person then one average adult, and each average adult adds to the average group of adults.

The known potential for a group of children (taken as an average) is the same as the discovered potential of the group of adults (taken as an average). You don't know the individual kid's potential (hidden value) but that is irrelevant.

Do you agree that on average the kid you randomly pick out will turn out to be 'identical' to the adult you picked out? If you do then how can you say that a kid is more valuable?

because while the average kid will turn into an identical average adult on average, the kid is not an adult, while its a kid.. obviously. And since its a kid, it has different variables then those of an adult.

kid -> adult -> genius : X% chance to happen
kid -> genius : less then X% chance to happen = Y%
adult -> genius : even less then Y% chance to happen(thought debatable, but definitely less then X%)

"Do you agree that on average the kid you randomly pick out will turn out to be 'identical' to the adult you picked out? If you do then how can you say that a kid is less or more valuable? Are they not the exact same?" They are not the exact same.

i dunno the thing transcended into seemingly an argument that chance=potential in this case where chance was more uhh skewed?towards probability than potential

i know that chance can be  potential but in this argument it was probability lol

uhh no i was saying that the term chance was synonymous with probability but not entirely potential in this argument,(not taking sides btw just saying it might have uhh skewed this argument into like both people arguing for different points or something)

ThenFuckit stated: source post

"Do you agree that on average the kid you randomly pick out will turn out to be 'identical' to the adult you picked out? If you do then how can you say that a kid is less or more valuable? Are they not the exact same?" They are not the exact same.

So if we tested this (two bowls with numbered marbles, say) you don't think after enough picks the average of each bowl's numbers would become statistically identical?

kid -> adult -> genius : X% chance to happen
kid -> genius : less then X% chance to happen = Y%
adult -> genius : even less then Y% chance to happen(thought debatable, but definitely less then X%)

Time is the variable weighted against potential and drive...

Under optimum circumstances, the child is the better bet...

However...in order to make sense ... assess value on the time line at a specific point in time...one adult the other child....the adult is of more value...at the one point in time..

Take the long view of potential for a child, and it reverses.

Yes, exactly. I think its very straightforward.

Inquirer stated: source post

 

ThenFuckit stated: source post

"Do you agree that on average the kid you randomly pick out will turn out to be 'identical' to the adult you picked out? If you do then how can you say that a kid is less or more valuable? Are they not the exact same?" They are not the exact same.

So if we tested this (two bowls with numbered marbles, say) you don't think after enough picks the average of each bowl's numbers would become statistically identical?

Depends on the numbers in each bowl... if the bowls have the same amount of numbers and the same distribution of numbers, then they would be statistically identical. Because they are identical then, as 2 groups.

Primal stated: source post

kid -> adult -> genius : X% chance to happen
kid -> genius : less then X% chance to happen = Y%
adult -> genius : even less then Y% chance to happen(thought debatable, but definitely less then X%)

Time is the variable weighted against potential and drive...

Under optimum circumstances, the child is the better bet...

However...in order to make sense ... assess value on the time line at a specific point in time...one adult the other child....the adult is of more value...at the one point in time..

Take the long view of potential for a child, and it reverses.

No, an average kid has more chance to fulfill their potential(to the max) at any given time, then an average adult has.