The nice thing about using economic thinking and game theory is that when actions don't match up with words - like in your case - you can reliably detect deception. Has little to do with intelligence other than that I'm smart enough to understand game theory and you aren't
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @JimDMiller
“Muh game theory” lol The only action I’ve taken here is to consistently say that Presidents shouldn’t undermine democratic norms by making light of them. Classic Type 1 error.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @UtilityMonster2 @JimDMiller
You really do like throwing out terms you don't understand, don't you? False rejection of a true hypothesis - doesn't apply here at all. This is a very strong mark of a midwit in over his head.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @JimDMiller
Hahaha. You didn’t even know what a Type I error is, did you? It’s the false rejection of a true *null* hypothesis. In other words, you’re finding false positives. You’re seeing ghosts where there are none. Even midwits know what Type I errors are.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @UtilityMonster2 @JimDMiller
Yes, midwits can know what lots of things are - they just can't apply concepts in ways that make sense.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @JimDMiller
My claim is that your “reliable detections” are false positives. The concepts make perfect sense, to people who aren’t dimwits. Pro tip: while your IQ will never be as high as mine, getting off reactionary Twitter and reading books would do your brain some good.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @UtilityMonster2 @JimDMiller
You began this by failing to understand a refutation by jumping into exactly the trap set for you by someone you presumably call low IQ. Functionally or biologically you're cognitively impaired and you know it because the first thing you go to is accusations that everyone is.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @JimDMiller
“You began this by failing to understand a refutation by jumping into exactly the trap set for you by someone you presumably call low IQ.” No, you thought you’d set a trap. I bypassed the “trap”. You then insisted that I’d fallen into the trap anyway by engaging in mind-reading.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @UtilityMonster2 @JimDMiller
Covfefe Anon Retweeted Covfefe Anon
You're utterly trapped here and no one can or does take your position seriously - it's a transparent lie because of the mismatch.https://twitter.com/CovfefeAnon/status/1308854041594810369 …
Covfefe Anon added,
Covfefe Anon @CovfefeAnonReplying to @UtilityMonster2 @JimDMillerWait, so your position isn't "vote by mail is secure" it's just "candidates shouldn't openly say supporters should vote twice - meant seriously or not"? That's funny since the statement doesn't exist in a vacuum - "I'm not pro-election fraud, I'm merely anti-anti-fraud"1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @JimDMiller
Now you’re just repeating yourself, again. “Vote by mail is secure” (as the President and the military know) and “Presidents shouldn’t say ‘vote twice’, even if people won’t be able to vote twice in practice”, are not mutually exclusive positions by any means. The end.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
They're not mutually exclusive - the former is false, the latter is absurd because it ignores why he said that. The only way you can hold that position is to ignore the reason for saying it. Even then it's a pathetically weak argument unless voting by mail *isn't* secure.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.