Quick test to determine whether you're tribal: Did you secretly hope that Trump's talks with Kim would go badly wrong and make him look like a twit? If yes, the chances are you're tribal. If no, you might not be. (You probably still are though).
-
-
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
Bad take. While a lot of people are parroting the trope that liberals want the talks to go badly wrong, there’s no evidence of a single person who thinks that way. Think about what it would mean that the talks “go badly wrong”. We get incinerated.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @svenosaurus
How does any of that make it a bad take? I'd say it makes it an extremely good take!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
At best, it’s a test with zero power. But also, mentioning it propagates a bullshit meme.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @svenosaurus
Well, I've not seen the meme, and anyway don't care it propagates it. And secondly, it's not a test with zero power. It's absolutely explicitly (see the way the second choice is phrased) a test with only very small amount of power. Third, you're taking it way too seriously!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
First, I used the word “meme” in its original (Dawkins) meaning, so “I’ve not seen the meme” doesn’t make sense in response to it. The meme here is the idea that liberals want Trump to fail in everything, including diplomacy and peace talks. 1/
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @svenosaurus @PhilosophyExp
Second, it literally is a test with zero power if we agree on what I said previously (to which you at least agreed arguendo, as you responded “how does that make it...”). It has zero probability of rejecting H0 (non-tribal) if H1 (tribal) is true. 2/
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @svenosaurus
My test doesn't have zero power if people are honest with themselves. It's a classic test - low power, high certainty. And you're still taking this way, way, way too seriously! :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
That’s still assuming that there are such people, for which you have no evidence (unless you are one). And given the high concentration of anti-Trump people in cities that are likely nuclear targets, appealing to common human flaws still wouldn’t make their existence likely.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Plus, it's not designed as a poll. It's a self-administered test. It makes no claim as to numbers. I cannot believe we're having this conversation about a stupid tweet! 


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.