This idea came to me a little while ago.

I tried to get rid of it (I really did, it's embarrassing to be seen with) but it won't bugger off so I'm dumping it here, it's yours now, do with it what you will.

Ok, everyone says yanks are dumb right & everyone says it so it must be true, but they all think they're brilliant & after all no one knows them better so they must be right.

I was musing on this little dichotomy when it came to me.

"All stereotypes are true"

If you just look long enough you can always find someone to fit whatever stereotype you like, so yanks can be both stupid and brilliant at the same time.

Sort of like Schrodinger's cat every yank is both stupid and brilliant.. until you meet one, and the wave form collapses into stupidity or brilliance.

I've tried finding a use for this, but I can't.
-- Skewed, Jun 27 2016

Bayesian Analysis http://mathworld.wo...yesianAnalysis.html
The mathematics of beleif [zen_tom, Jun 28 2016]

Bayesian Inference https://en.wikipedi.../Bayesian_inference
A bit more gumpf on the process by which you "collapse" the posterior waveform based upon observation [zen_tom, Jun 28 2016]

He's no dummy. color_20shifting_20sticky_20notes
Or if he is, he took a break for this idea. [doctorremulac3, Jul 02 2016]

What's the idea here?
-- ytk, Jun 27 2016


all known stereotypes of x (where x can be anything, your mum. my mum, dogs, welsh sheep... cabbages) are simultaneously true for each and every sample of x (regardless of how contradictory this may be) until it (x) is observed.

it's not really an idea, it needs an idea to hide behind.

I also need to find it a category but I'm off to bed now so later.
-- Skewed, Jun 27 2016


You might try other:general. It's a popular though vastly underutilized category.
-- whatrock, Jun 28 2016


.....and the idea is what? This is simply an observation and not an idea, so unless the author can explain what the actual idea is, then I suggest he or she deletes it, before it gets an mfd tag.
-- xenzag, Jun 28 2016


Aspects of this have already been documented - if you have a belief that say, all X=Y, then you can represent that belief as a probability curve. If you're sure, that X=Y, then that curve will be higher, and pointier, and centered about Y than if you're less sure. If you're not sure at all, then the curve will be flat and all values of X will have equal (or near equal) probability.

Then you go out and get a couple of data points and their X's are indeed Y. As a result, your belief is strengthened, and your belief-curve becomes narrower and more certain about Y. Or, conversely, you find some data-points that show that X is waaaay off Y, so the resulting shift in the belief curve should be skewed appropriately in that direction, and perhaps flattened a little to reflect the loss of certainty that follows from a belief not fitting the facts presented.

If you're equally sure of lots of things at once, that can be modelled by a near flat, or multi-modal curve. The maths are more tricky for that, but not impossible, it's just a case of defining the curves.
-- zen_tom, Jun 28 2016


// before it gets an mfd tag //

I'm sure it deserves that, it's just a silly idea I found amusing & hoped someone else might find something suitably daft to wrap around it, I'll probably knock it on the head after a bit myself

// that can be modelled by a near flat, or multi-modal curve //

that would be flat not near flat, all probabilities are all equally valid until observed

// This is more about set theory though. //

a venn diagram of this would be a big circle with all possible outcomes written inside it
-- Skewed, Jun 28 2016


Interestingly, the problem with the assertion that "Anything is true" is that it excludes the ability to perform any kind of inference or deduction - and without that, any fact or piece of information is isolated and disconnected from everything else and its utility drops to zero. It's like filling out a soduku puzzle with a dollop of porridge.

Is a Sven diagram a Swedish thing?
-- zen_tom, Jun 28 2016


damn !! multi tasking, let the auto correct have its way without proof reading ;D typo corrected
-- Skewed, Jun 28 2016


// like filling out a soduku puzzle with a dollop of porridge //

I know that's kinda the point were I hit a wall
-- Skewed, Jun 28 2016


So not some sort of juxtaposition of quantum mechanics and masturbation?
-- theircompetitor, Jun 28 2016


The idea of shutting yanks in sealed boxes with bottles of poison is not without certain attractions ...
-- 8th of 7, Jun 28 2016


If it's any help to the discussion, I am 50% American. I am generally fairly smart, but capable of breathtaking stupidity on occasion.
-- MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 28 2016


I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to discern which is which.
-- RayfordSteele, Jun 28 2016


If the reader (we have one?) finds out, can he or she please let me know?
-- MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 28 2016


//Ok, everyone says yanks are dumb right & everyone says it so it must be true, but they all think they're brilliant & after all no one knows them better so they must be right.//

I'm assuming from your atrocious punctuation and sentence structure that you're about 4 or 5 years old so I'll be kind.

Although it's fun write, sometimes you can write nasty things about large groups of people that make you look very ignorant. You wouldn't want somebody to write nasty ignorant things about the group of people that you belong to would you?

So keep up the work on your writing skills but put a little thought into what you're writing.

There's a good boy.
-- doctorremulac3, Jun 29 2016


//I am 50% American//If the other half is Mexican do you have the required dividing wall under construction?
-- xenzag, Jun 29 2016


If he's male. Females have less of a division.
-- RayfordSteele, Jun 29 2016


the composite nature of of lengthy thoughts as compared with a double slit causes this to be illusory, sort of like "although you could do a version of the schrodinger equation for every airplane, and airplane seat, sometimes the RMS averages would cause nonobservability of p=.5ness of the entire system.

you might be able to do something with the MWI, where anything you could ever say is instantly occurring at a particular universe. like these "yanks" you write of are simultaneously mentally amplified with an AI.
-- beanangel, Jul 01 2016


I couldn't have put it better myself, [Beany]. Whatever it meant.
-- MaxwellBuchanan, Jul 01 2016


MWI... M W I... hmmm

Ah! Many Worlds Interpretation.
-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Jul 02 2016


//the composite nature of of lengthy thoughts as compared with a double slit causes this to be illusory//

Admit it Beansie, you're an AI program written by a very clever computer programmer. The algorithm takes a general concept, scans various articles on the internet containing phrases associated with that concept then pastes them together in a pretty grammatically sophisticated, although completely random fashion. I'll try one.

"the application of ballistics and celestial mechanics" "gravitational lensing and the amount of bending" "Twin Quasar's two images are separated by 6 arcseconds" "Thus the SI unit is: m2·s−1."

The first few sentences are tied together, then juxtaposed to the last sentences written as a possible divergent view forming a third concept which is purported to be the idea, then a mathematical formula is thrown in, sort of like seasoning.

So you get:

"The application of ballistics and celestial mechanics with respect to gravitational lensing and the amount of bending, but in contradiction to formulas postulating twin Quasar's two images are separated by 6 arcseconds, thus the SI unit is: m2·s−1."

Am I right?

My other theory is that you're just really smart and I can't understand you being that I'm kind of dumb by comparison. Unfortunately, if that's the case I have no way of knowing it. I do know this, you're not dumb having come up with color changing sticky notes, which is absolutely brilliant. (see link)
-- doctorremulac3, Jul 02 2016



random, halfbakery