« Poker Pundit Talks Trash To Trivia Champ | Main | FTP Software Thread »
December 18, 2006
David Sklansky Is A Douchebag, Part 2
Not to flog a dead horse here, but I find Sklansky's latest blowup pretty interesting. In the comments to my last post a reader wrote:
I think the point Sklansky is making is a bit more subtle than "Christian evangelicals are bad at math." I think the point he really wants to make is that anyone with a reasonable amount of logical ability doesn't truly believe in the resurrection and that belief in Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven.
I think it's actually even a bit more subtle than that. David has written a little bit before about a couple things known as the problem of Hell and the problem of evil, though I don't know if he's aware that these are ages old topics of debate. The second of his polygraph tests make me think that the real meat of his proposition is that nobody of sound logical ability could give any serious thought to the problem of Hell and come to the conclusion necessary to pass that part.
I will admit that I agree with David that the belief that an omnibenevolent being would consign people to hell for not believing in Christ is pretty hard to rationally justify, given that the vast majority of all humans who have ever lived, and even the majority of humans who have lived since Christ, have never even heard of him. It would make no sense to create people, give them no opportunity to save themselves, and then punish them, especially if you buy into the whole free will thing. How can you have free will if you are never introduced to Christ and therefore have no possible fate other than damnation? So I'll grant him that the belief is an absurd one for any intelligent person to have.
Still, his wager is very unsound. First of all, as many have pointed out, there are the technical issues. Polygraphs are notoriously unreliable and theoretically could be beaten. Even if nobody intentionally cheated there are enough people who've read that challenge that if all of them who excel at math took those polygraphs a decent number would pass just due to errors in the system.
Also the SAT and GRE math sections are both very, very easy. I'm pretty sure I could reliably ace them in half the allotted time. It would take me a little effort, my math skills are a little rusty, but neither of them has anything more advanced than what I studied in high school so I'm pretty sure that with a week or two of preparation I could do it.
And the best part is, I could find out if I'm correct about that or not. You can get all of the tests from the last decade and simply try it yourself in half the time. So anyone who thought they could pass the polygraphs, honestly or otherwise, would effectively know going in whether or not they could be beaten. I would be surprised if anyone who could actually lose would take the bet.
And even if you ignore the technical aspects of the wager, there's still the fact that plenty of intelligent people believe absurd things. Sometimes they simply haven't thought them through. Sometimes they simply choose to believe something absurd. David is assuming total objectivity, which is never the case, and even near-total objectivity is only rarely the case.
A lot of people simply want to believe what they are told. And a lot of people are told that anyone who doesn't believe in Christ goes to Hell. There are loads of people with Ph.D's in math, engineering, or science from prestigious universities like MIT who believe in creationism, and that we didn't evolve from another species. That's totally ridiculous, yet they're certainly capable of wrecking the SAT math section. And they undoubtedly have sound logical ability. They're the minority in the scientific community, and probably looked down upon (and rightly so) by the majority, but that doesn't change the fact that they're good at science and math. They simply choose (probably subconsciously) not to use their ability all of the time.
So I have no doubt that there are people who excel at math and logic (some moreso than Sklansky) who could pass those polygraphs honestly, and lots of them. If David sincerely believes otherwise he is a fool.
There are some other gems in that thread too. I mentioned that someone brought up Ken Jennings. A blogger named Elaine Vigneault (who appears to be Ed Miller's wife) said "If this is for real, I’m betting on the God guy." Me too, should he and Sklansky compete on an overall SAT or GRE score. A lot of people mention that Jeopardy is only a test of knowledge, but that isn't entirely true. But even if it were, and even if you missed his lightning-fast wit on his Jeopardy appearances, you can read Jennings (I enjoyed Braniac and read his blog daily) or listen to him speak and you'll realize instantly that he's a very smart guy.
Sklansky apparently read that quote from Elaine and replied with:
Makes me use every ounce of my willpower not to reissue the challenge to every non Asian American female.
Umm, wow. Should that last ounce of willpower evaporate and David ever actually does issue that challenge, I'm calling dibbs on the first 10 shots. I don't personally know any women I'd back, largely because I don't know many women at all, but I bet I can find them pretty easily. I have many friends who attend or attended prestigious math programs all around the country, and I guarantee I could dig up a few non-Asian American women who could ace that thing in half the allotted time with ease. And we all know how broke college students are. They'd gladly do it for $10k. I'll be more than ecstatic to put half a million together, escrow it, and line up ten challengers.
And also in that thread, well-known online poker player Sheets weighed in, offering to accept the challenge. I was hoping something would happen there, figuring he was a serious contender, but then he said this:
Let me share with you true genius....one of my best friends growing up became very successful at several businesses, one of them being 900 numbers and also long distance...At one point he hired a psychic and paid her 100k a year. Why? Because, according to him, it was worth it, in case he was wrong about all of it being bs. THIS is genius, because it accepts that there may be things that we DONT know, and it is THIS view that leads to scientific advances, NOT the view that...'OMFG IF THIS GUY REALLY BELIEVES THAT....I BET I CAN BEAT HIM IN A MATH TEST BWAHAHAHAHHA I AM SO SMART"
That may be the single dumbest thing I've ever heard. That's one of those statements that, as Lewis black would say, when you hear it, causes your left brain to look at your right brain and say "Fuck, it's dark in here. I'm going to take a nap."
Even if you ignore the abominable English (why do morons love the ellipsis and capitals so much? They all do, and I just don't get it.) there's the fact that that is still the most retarded thing anyone has ever said. I agree that there are things that we don't know, or as people with third grade writing skills would say, "things that we DONT know", but one of them is not whether or not psychics are phony. Spending money on them (for any purpose other than recreation) is retarded. It's not genius because there are things that we do know, and one of them is that spending $100k on a psychic because they might be real is fucking stupid. Period.
Unbeknownst to him, Sheets actually illustrates why Sklansky is wrong. Someone who excelled at business did something retarded. On a stupidity scale of 1-10, believing that everyone who isn't Christian is eternally punished by an omnibenevolent deity might be a 9, but paying a psychic $100k a year is undoubtedly a 10. If someone able to make enough money to waste $100k does something like that, I think it proves that anyone can believe something irrational if they try hard enough.
Posted by themaroon at December 18, 2006 7:18 AM
Comments
Awesome post, Matt.
Given the degree to which he's walked himself out on a limb here, I wonder what he would say if he was honestly beaten badly on the bet, say he missed three questions and the believer missed zero. Because as logical as DS tries to be, it's not obvious what he would consider the logical implication of his losing. Given his statements, it could be as much as him admitting that there is evidence the smartest, most logical people, believe in god sending non-christians to hell.
But, of course, this only highlights the ridiculousness of his claims, namely that his bet can prove the opposite of that.
Posted by: Matt Glassman at December 18, 2006 9:31 AM
Did you happen to catch this comment on Elaine's blog?
"Rusty my butt. Sklansky writes books that contain very advanced math. He can do the SAT in his sleep."
Comedy gold.
Posted by: scott at December 18, 2006 9:42 AM
Remember, to an idiot algebra is advanced math. Bill Chen and Jerrod Ankawhatever wrote about some advanced math, David Sklansky wrote how to figure out the odds of hitting your flush draw.
Posted by: Matthew Maroon at December 18, 2006 10:00 AM
I haven't read what Sklansky wrote, but here is how Ken summarizes it: "In broad strokes: he’ll wager $50,000 that no Bible-believer (someone who can pass a polygraph test as a believer that Jesus was resurrected, and that non-Christians won’t go to heaven) can beat his score at the math SAT or GRE."
If this is in fact the bet, then Sklansky wins for a trivial reason: All he has to do is get a perfect score.
Posted by: Paul at December 18, 2006 10:03 AM
First off, Sklansky is pretty foolish, but we all know that. You don't have to look to hard to find smart christians.
2nd, I thought I might respond to some of what you said about Christianity and God. I am a poker player, a christian, and I would like to think I'm not an idiot. I believe in Jesus because at one point in my life I asked him to show me if he was real, and he did.
The reason that God created people and allows them to go to hell is because he wants friends. He doesn't need pets or puppets, he wants companionship.
For anyone interested, here is the breakdown of history according to God.
-God wants friends, so he makes people in his own image.
-Satan is jealous so he tricks man into sinning. Man becomes imperfect and can no longer be with God, who is perfect.
-God still loves man, so he sends Jesus to die in our place. Those who receive this can return to being with God.
I hope you don't mind a little preaching on your blog, but I thought you might be interested in hearing the other side of it.
As far as people going to hell that have never heard about jesus, I don't fully understand this. I do know that there are a few mysterious verses in the bible that talk about Jesus going to hell to preach to the dead, so who knows.
I do know that God is real, and have even seen him face to face.
I would challenge you with this:
If God is real and really does love you, he is quite capable of showing you himself. You might even want to pray a brave prayer that I did a few years ago:
"God, if you are real show me"
You have nothing to lose and everything to gain by praying that.
Posted by: Bryan Black at December 18, 2006 6:21 PM
Doesn't he mean any female who is not asian?
Posted by: Mike H at December 18, 2006 6:47 PM
I gave it a shot. Nothing yet. If he popped up in front of me, I'd believe it too. Until then I'll just assume he either doesn't exist or doesn't want to invite me to the party.
Posted by: Matthew Maroon at December 18, 2006 9:00 PM
Sorry, your completely wrong about Sheets, I know him personally and he happens to be one of the smartest guys I have ever met, ran a hedge fund and made millions and now is an extremely successful player online.
You have to know him to understand that his statement was half a joke.
Posted by: Mike at December 18, 2006 10:52 PM
If that statement was a joke, it was a perfect one, because it looked exactly like something that your average internet idiot with a 3rd grade reading level would say. So if that's the case then bravo Sheets.
Posted by: Matthew Maroon at December 18, 2006 11:10 PM
Been reading your blog for awhile, but never posted a comment before now, but this post was just so damn enjoyable and funny - great stuff dude.
Posted by: Mike at December 19, 2006 12:36 PM
If you haven't seen this, I assume you'll be interested...Ken Jennings responds!:
http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
hillarious.
Posted by: Mat at December 19, 2006 4:26 PM
Has dementia set in with Sklansky? It sure appears that he has gone off the grid.
Posted by: Michael at December 20, 2006 8:24 PM
Just to get it out there, the Greek scriptures commonly referred to as the New Testament contain a clear and unmistakable prohibition against concerning one's self with who will ascend and who will descend. Disobeying this command is referred to as "sin against the holy spirit" - not a desirable thing for an Xian to do. This prohibition is in fact directly attributed to Jesus himself in at least three of the four synoptic gospels. Sorry, I don't have a Bible handy to locate the exact chapter and verse.
Posted by: Tim at December 22, 2006 12:18 AM
Sklansky has posted on Jennings' message board, and actually comes off as very reasonable, unlike many of the morons replying to his post.
He explains how Jennings doesn't qualify for the challenge as Mormons don't believe you go to hell if you don't believe Jesus was resurrected.
I think the challenge was a bad idea, but I think the insults directed at Sklansky in this thread are a bit over the top.
Posted by: Phil at December 22, 2006 3:16 PM
Doesn't Sklansky's proposition suffer from a self-weighting problem?
Sheets may be smart, but he sure as hell can't write.
Remind me to read your damn blog more often.
Posted by: Howard Treesong at December 24, 2006 1:43 PM
Yes, Elaine Vigneault is Ed Miller's wife. She ran up a post total of around 4,000 in about a year before getting banned from the site for being incredibly annoying.
A few days later Ed Miller decided that he would no longer post on 2+2 anymore and resigned from the 2+2 magazine's editor position. He denies that this decision had anything to do with his wife getting banned from the site.
Posted by: Eric at December 26, 2006 3:50 PM