Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Supply and Demand
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2 of 6 (895278)
06-19-2022 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
06-19-2022 6:12 PM


You misunderstood. I rhetorically asked why you insist on saying things that are completely untrue, commenting that supply and demand is a simple concept. I was referring to when you said that neither I nor few here could understand supply and demand. Here's the part I was responding to:
marc9000 writes:
I know you could never understand it, few posters here could, I'm surprised you only got 2 green dots.
This topic is unnecessary.
The subtopic I thought was beginning to draw the thread off-topic was not supply and demand, which had only been touched on in passing once by you in Message 1036. It was the Keystone Pipeline.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 06-19-2022 6:12 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by marc9000, posted 06-19-2022 9:37 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 4 of 6 (895282)
06-20-2022 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by marc9000
06-19-2022 9:37 PM


marc9000 writes:
If you were not responding to that part, you should not have quoted it, and said it was untrue.
If I had not quoted that portion anyone reading it wouldn't have known what "it" referred to, that it referred to supply and demand. Here's what you said: "I know you could never understand it, few posters here could, I'm surprised you only got 2 green dots." How would anyone know what "it" meant without the antecedent portion? They wouldn't, hence I had no choice but to include it.
My own words made clear the focus was supply and demaind:
Percy in Message 1041: writes:
Why do you insist on saying things that are patently untrue. Supply and demand is a simple concept understood by even young school children.
It must be close to 100% of your posts that you don't understand either the topic or the message you're responding to or both.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by marc9000, posted 06-19-2022 9:37 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 6 of 6 (895387)
06-25-2022 12:24 PM


Jumping to Conclusions
There's a math problem likely familiar to many that goes like this: A bat costs a dollar more than a ball, and a bat and ball together costs $1.10. How much is a bat?
Many people jump to the conclusion that this is a trivially simple problem and answer $1.00. They're wrong because it isn't a trivially simple problem. It's simple, but not trivially simple. You actually have to do some very simple math in your head, but here it is written out:
  • bat = ball + $1.00
  • bat + ball = ball + $1.00 + ball = $1.10
  • 2 × ball + $1.00 = $1.10
  • 2 × ball = $0.10
  • ball = $0.05
  • bat = ball + $1.00 = $0.05 + $1.00 = $1.05
This problem was mentioned in a recent Scientific American article as illustrative of the kinds of choices people have to make when problem solving or making decisions, like whether a problem is trivial or not. People who jump to conclusions rather than thinking things through are also more likely to accept conspiracy theories or unsupported claims based on how trustworthy they think someone is or how true the claim sounds.
--Percy

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024