ennui2 wrote:Whatever wrote:have you ever been banned from this site?
No.
Exactly as I figured. I was right. You work here.
ennui2 wrote:Whatever wrote:As to the Tempest in the Oildrum, I don't think I did anything wrong.
Nobody who gets banned ever thinks they did anything wrong.
You would say that.
ennui2 wrote:The one good thing doomerism did for me is send me on a whole bunch of knowledge paths. One of them was to try to get a better handle on human behavior. Some of the best OilDrum posts were essays on psychology. You know, Maslow's Hierarchy of needs, tragedy of the commons, and things like that. Maybe if I could do life over again I'd enter psychology. But what that does for me in a debate is to always lead by looking for cognitive biases.
I think even seemingly the most reasoned essay is peppered with some sort of cognitive bias.
I think you have developed a cognitive bias bias.
ennui2 wrote:The only universal constant is this murky cloud of hate towards anything BAU and TPTB.
Spoken like a true defender of all things BAU.
ennui2 wrote:It may not take the 300 years that Greer thinks it will, but doom still moves too slowly for the internet generation. On any given day the situation doesn't change enough to have that much to talk about. That's why I think people feel the need to link a news item (Iran Oil Bourse, Baltic Dry Index, etc...) as a "sign" of the impending fast-crash doom.
However long it takes to get there, a fast crash is the only possible crash. Civilization is a highly networked, complex non-linear system. Critical parts of that system cannot shrink without eventually failing.
A networked society behaves like a multicellular organism...random damage is like lopping off a chunk of sheep. Whether or not the sheep survives depends upon which chunk is lost....When we do the analysis, almost any part is critical if you lose enough of it....Now that we can ask questions of such systems in more sophisticated ways, we are discovering that they can be very vulnerable. That means civilization is very vulnerable.
~Yaneer Bar-Yam
New England Complex Systems Institute
Here is a simple experiment to try:
Plug your computer into a wall socket that is controlled by a dimmer switch. Now slowly turn down the power going to your computer. What is your hypothesis of what will happen?
1. The computer's CPU will begin to run slower and slower while the screen gradually dims.
2. The computer will suddenly shut down.
ennui2 wrote:Sites like this only really matter to people who feel they have some new item they can wave around like Paul Revere to warn people that doom is coming, doom is coming.
And you will always be waiting here to intercept them. How much do they pay you, Benedict Arnold?
ennui2 wrote:There's only so much of someone's writing you can read before their agenda starts to materialize. And that agenda is exactly what the source of their bias is.
Yes. Exactly. As familiarity has bred contempt, your agenda has also become transparent.
But since you think you are some kind of Sigmund Freud, what's my agenda exactly?
vtsnowedin wrote:By my count fifty different posters have had the last word on a thread sense the first of June. That would make quite a cocktail party if you got us all into the same apartment but a brawl would undoubtedly break out and the host would have to call the cops.
People tend to be very passionate about important issues. This thread is becoming an epic! It would make for a hell of a cocktail party. But since we are online and not at a cocktail party, we don't have to worry about the discussion becoming physically dangerous, do we? So why won't you discuss the Korowicz paper?
AdamB wrote:I made you an honest offer.
No, you made a me completely disingenuous offer. It wouldn't have mattered how I answered, you were not going to discuss the Korowicz paper. You were just trying to change the subject. I knew that going in and I said so at the time. I don't want to negotiate with you any more. If you don't want to talk about the Korowicz paper, I can't force you to.
AdamB wrote:Yes, as ennui said, when you project, and run from every objective comment because you are afraid of losing the argument, it just becomes more obvious that you CAN'T argue, you just repeat yourself over and over.
I am not the one who is afraid of losing the argument. Talk about projection! I just challenged you to a debate over the Korowicz paper. You ran away. Now you are trying to cover your trail.
AdamB wrote:It is a classic tell of those who either don't understand what they are talking about (in your case, 3 different particular specialties, as I've mentioned)...
I am a polymath. I understand what I am talking about.
AdamB wrote:...or lack any objectivity and are selling something.
Are you helping to sell or advertise this Hill report? Or are you them?
Dude, I am the Walrus.
I am not affiliated with The Hill's Group in any way. Around February of 2015, during a discussion on peakoilbarrel.com, I was shown a link to BWHill's site. Since then, I have read the Etp book and debated the model on several sites. Through this exhaustive process, I have become thoroughly convinced that the Etp model is valid.
---Futilitist