ADVERTISEMENT

Mattis and Theranos

This is why mathematicians and logicians don't like each other.

Even if I grant you all your assumptions, your proof doesn't mean much if P(C) itself is an extremely low number. That's why you have to be careful about drawing logical deductions about specific individuals based on probabilities across a population. Put simply, unless P(C|T) = 1, then at least some of Trump's appointees are not corrupt. Ranger and I both think that evidence strongly suggests Mattis is one of those guys, so we aren't willing to go into attack mode unless genuine contrary evidence arises.

In other words, your math can be both technically correct and practically meaningless at the same time.
Well, I am neither mathematician nor logician. Your quip about the division fallacy gave me pause so I thought I would formalize things.
Actually, the exercise was kind of interesting. The value of the exercise is that at least you and I know pretty precisely what we disagree about. I wouldn't have gone to the trouble without your prompt and the condition P(T|C)>P(T|~C) is a bit stronger than I had thought. If P(T|C)<P(T|~C) for example then you would argue that working for Trump should IMPROVE someone's reputation for non-corruption! That strikes me as counter-intuitive. Your point about P(C) being low is precisely where prior reputation matters. The argument that P(C) is low in Mattis' case was something we all previously took for granted. The new information matters because it raises P(C). It would be interesting to look at the derivative of P(C|T) wrt P(C)...it is non-linear and might be interesting. My guess is that when P(C) is low and increase in P(C) has bigger effect on P(C|T) than if P(C) were large. Would be interesting to check.

I am not in "attack mode" on Mattis I think the proper response is to be in "alert mode". But there are full 5 alarm fires going on elsewhere...as has been pointed out. People, as a rule, don't learn enough from what is right before their eyes. They should be more Bayesian.
 
That’s too many words, so I’ll try this pretty much in the reverse order of your analysis.

Someone appointed by Trump is more likely to be corrupt than someone appointed by someone else because Trump does not try to screen out corrupt appointees as strenuously as others do.

(I don’t think Trump personally cares if people think he or his associates are corrupt in the first place and he apparently never installed a process that would screen out corruption as a matter of course without his involvement.)
So we disagree. I think Trump has a strong preference for the corrupt. He actively screens FOR it. gg
 
Well, I am neither mathematician nor logician. Your quip about the division fallacy gave me pause so I thought I would formalize things.
Actually, the exercise was kind of interesting. The value of the exercise is that at least you and I know pretty precisely what we disagree about. I wouldn't have gone to the trouble without your prompt and the condition P(T|C)>P(T|~C) is a bit stronger than I had thought. If P(T|C)<P(T|~C) for example then you would argue that working for Trump should IMPROVE someone's reputation for non-corruption! That strikes me as counter-intuitive. Your point about P(C) being low is precisely where prior reputation matters. The argument that P(C) is low in Mattis' case was something we all previously took for granted. The new information matters because it raises P(C). It would be interesting to look at the derivative of P(C|T) wrt P(C)...it is non-linear and might be interesting. My guess is that when P(C) is low and increase in P(C) has bigger effect on P(C|T) than if P(C) were large. Would be interesting to check.

I am not in "attack mode" on Mattis I think the proper response is to be in "alert mode". But there are full 5 alarm fires going on elsewhere...as has been pointed out. People, as a rule, don't learn enough from what is right before their eyes. They should be more Bayesian.
My "quip" was because it felt like you were in attack mode; i.e., it seemed to me you were deducing that Mattis was probably corrupt, and just sort of hiding it behind equivocal language. My fault for reading too much into your comments.
 
Well, I am neither mathematician nor logician. Your quip about the division fallacy gave me pause so I thought I would formalize things.
Actually, the exercise was kind of interesting. The value of the exercise is that at least you and I know pretty precisely what we disagree about. I wouldn't have gone to the trouble without your prompt and the condition P(T|C)>P(T|~C) is a bit stronger than I had thought. If P(T|C)<P(T|~C) for example then you would argue that working for Trump should IMPROVE someone's reputation for non-corruption! That strikes me as counter-intuitive. Your point about P(C) being low is precisely where prior reputation matters. The argument that P(C) is low in Mattis' case was something we all previously took for granted. The new information matters because it raises P(C). It would be interesting to look at the derivative of P(C|T) wrt P(C)...it is non-linear and might be interesting. My guess is that when P(C) is low and increase in P(C) has bigger effect on P(C|T) than if P(C) were large. Would be interesting to check.

I am not in "attack mode" on Mattis I think the proper response is to be in "alert mode". But there are full 5 alarm fires going on elsewhere...as has been pointed out. People, as a rule, don't learn enough from what is right before their eyes. They should be more Bayesian.
PS, since you're in a math mood, did you not see the puzzle I posted yesterday? I thought at least you would get in on that.
 
And a lot of times, there are a few board members who are nothing more than window dressing, and honestly don't have the first clue what's going on with the company.

I see no reason to believe Mattis did anything shady here until there is some actual suggestion that there is evidence of that.
But, regardless whether personally shady, directors don't get to avoid their fiduciary duties to investors, lenders and shareholders etc. by saying "I'm just window dressing and don't have the first clue about the company," do they? He could still have a lot of culpability for serving on the board but not acting with due diligence.

I've heard commentators say they asked to see some of Theranos' actual testing as it happened and Holmes refused to let them. It struck me at the time that there may be a lot of directors, officers and employees who also got stonewalled, but there could also be others who didn't even try to confirm that Theranos' claims about its business were true.
 
Let me guess, Yashar has 8 sources...

You guys simply don't understand what makes guys like Mattis and Kelly tick..., and neither does YA...
What does make Mattis and Kelly tick. Are they clocks? Do they tock too? What does ticking have to do with sources?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sglowrider
Let me guess, Yashar has 8 sources...

You guys simply don't understand what makes guys like Mattis and Kelly tick..., and neither does YA...
LOL

latest
 
  • Like
Reactions: sglowrider
You replace the words 'Kelly' or 'Mattis' with Trump and we are where we are at. The blind loyalty of it all.
It's like watching a repeat of history... The definition of Godwin's law was incorrect, not only will large masses of people on the internet eventually create an analogy about Nazis but if the internet is dumbed down enough that the most common people can get on it, and used properly, it will eventually create them.

The rise of fascism and effectiveness of propaganda in the early 20th century was driven by the technological advances of radio and film. Naziism probably could not have grown so powerful and large so quickly without them. We're seeing the same phenomena again.

Hitler used both very effectively to get his lies to his people with the target being those lacking the knowledge and/or education to determine lie from truth. Radio especially allowed him to talk directly to the less than intelligent. (Just like Twitter for Trump) He basically weaponized the stupid to do his bidding and spread his lies though technology.

Putin is using the exact same playbook, but unlike Hitler who only used it effectively on his own people, Putin has upped the game and is using it on foreign powers also and in combination with bribes and/or extortion to unscrupulous businessmen, government officials and media people, it's been extremely effective at creating an alternate truth and sowing division.

You have to give him credit. Though a huge dick move to weaponize these people into maddening ignorant parrots, it's been highly effective and the investment they made into social engineering through cybermedia years ago is paying off in spades. Probably more effective than he even imagined because like most of us, he probably underestimated just how stupid common Americans are.

Gonna broadstroke a little .. apologies ..

Most Trump supporters never discussed or considered politics before Trump, except to complain about things they never understood, like most common people do and have always done. When corrected they slinked away in their self realized ignorance. Now they have their arguments crafted for them and a huge validation network of other ignorant, or disgruntled, or just plain racist parrots giving validation to their "truths" just by repetition.

Even after being corrected constantly and shown they just don't know what they are talking about , they have now actually convinced themselves they are the well informed and smart. Even though most have never been that in their whole lives. That small detail goes right over their thick heads.

In a majority they've never been the smartest one in the room. They were never the best in their class or anywhere close. They are/were the people who barely got by and never did their homework. Even here there's a noticeable and glaring intelligence gap between the common Trumpster and the anti-Trumpster. .

Most of their lives they've been told and treated like they just weren't very smart. Especially by liberals when discussing politics. Now, propaganda, and their own delusion, combined with unmistakable spite, has convinced them they are the smart people in the room and instead of walking away from things they do not understand, they speak anyways.

They will and are fighting tooth and nail to hold on to that delusion.

We as a world banned chemical weapons because they're too heinous and evil. We eventually need to do the same with Weapons of Mass Ignorance.
 
Last edited:
But, regardless whether personally shady, directors don't get to avoid their fiduciary duties to investors, lenders and shareholders etc. by saying "I'm just window dressing and don't have the first clue about the company," do they? He could still have a lot of culpability for serving on the board but not acting with due diligence.

I've heard commentators say they asked to see some of Theranos' actual testing as it happened and Holmes refused to let them. It struck me at the time that there may be a lot of directors, officers and employees who also got stonewalled, but there could also be others who didn't even try to confirm that Theranos' claims about its business were true.
Depends on the state laws, but that's a good point. At the least, board members have various fiduciary duties to the corporation and to stockholders/investors. My comments about Mattis were more about his moral culpability, rather than his legal exposure. I'm not sure what his legal exposure would be in what I assume is California. But morally, I know it's a sad fact that many board members simply have very little idea what's going on in their companies.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT