Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dvdw© who wrote (128575)	1/18/2017 7:50:24 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	1 Recommendation Recommended By dvdw© Respond to of 218505

I've always been a big believer in the power of statistics, which is what makes up each layer of what they now call AI and I'm not a bad data miner. When I hear a psychologist say something like this about a large group of people: 1.) There are measurable defects in the structure of their thinking. 2.) Their decision making does not conform to the rules of logic as we know them. 3.) You cannot present arguments to them and expect them draw the same conclusions that you would. 4.) You cannot expect them to draw the same conclusions when presented the same arguments a second time. I am confident that the psychologist is missing input / data / signals or is analyzing the data wrong because I know humans make decisions for a reason, even if those reasons don't make sense to somebody else. Frank Luntz was clever enough to find the signal that "word choice" predicted whether people would agree with something or disagree with something - and I'm confident there's other triggers as well. Never say "drilling for oil" say instead "exploring for energy"; never say "foreign trade" say instead "international trade"; never say "globalization" say instead "free market economy" never say "private accounts" say instead "personal accounts" journalism.uoregon.edu Frank Luntz focus group work like this is amazing to me because it's not always obvious (at least not to me) but for his target group of authoritarians it makes all the difference in whether they like the concept - simply depending on the words you use to describe the exact same thing. He applied Madison Avenue techniques to politics. From a certain perspective you could say Luntz's work simply finds words which lie about their intent and are misinterpreted, but it's also avoiding words associated with bad feelings or bad experiences. Can a person home in on these word associations faster or better than using statistics? Certainly if they can do it. But it's a fallback for a psychologist who can't find the pattern. When Trump would get a chant going "Lock her up", it was meaningless in terms of his intent in the real world, but it triggered emotions which would drive people to vote. Were they voting to locker her up? Perhaps a small minority were, but most were voting because of the feeling that slogan gave them. It's classic Madison Avenue - sell the sizzle, not the steak. Advertisers have long used data mining and statistical analysis, in today's words AI, to find the right message. "Mad Men" presented a fictional character, Don Draper, who could intuit this on his own, but statistics helps out if your Don Draper is experiencing writers block.