I find that similar to the concept of fractal wrongness. What distinguishes an iceberg from a fractal is that you’re in situations where someone is resisting exposing the whole iceberg for one reason or another. In the dishonesty scenario, you realize one lie reveals many others but only because that person has left you a tidbit of information that cracks their facade and allows you to infer just how deeply they’ve lied to you—or in the case of attraction, an event or action that only would occur if they had a much greater level of attraction existing below the surface.
or in the case of attraction, an event or action that only would occur if they had a much greater level of attraction existing below the surface.
This seems misleading, à la Sherlock Holmes’ “Eliminating the impossible”. A charitable reading would parse as:
“or in the case of attraction, an event or action where the most probable world (as calculated with Bayes) in which it happens also requires a much greater level of attraction existing below the surface.”
Just wanted to make sure I’m not inventing new interpretations and that there’s no hidden inferential distance.
I find that similar to the concept of fractal wrongness. What distinguishes an iceberg from a fractal is that you’re in situations where someone is resisting exposing the whole iceberg for one reason or another. In the dishonesty scenario, you realize one lie reveals many others but only because that person has left you a tidbit of information that cracks their facade and allows you to infer just how deeply they’ve lied to you—or in the case of attraction, an event or action that only would occur if they had a much greater level of attraction existing below the surface.
This seems misleading, à la Sherlock Holmes’ “Eliminating the impossible”. A charitable reading would parse as:
“or in the case of attraction, an event or action where the most probable world (as calculated with Bayes) in which it happens also requires a much greater level of attraction existing below the surface.”
Just wanted to make sure I’m not inventing new interpretations and that there’s no hidden inferential distance.