Carousel Studio

Korobochka (コロボ) 🇦🇺✝️

@cirnosad

The Folly of Normie Psychology in the Context of Nuclear Explosion Analysis /📄🧵 Normies, especially those who think they know more than they do, usually have a one dimensional explanation for an event that cannot survive cross-discipline scrutiny. They don't use science, and I don't mean reading crap from a textbook but the method. They do not use Bayesian analysis and are unable to show any signs of neuroplasticity when it comes to their world view. They approach every question with a maximum likelihood expectation methodology that is based on their normie priors. They don't believe in a black and white truth as we autists do. We cannot really blame them here though, imagine what the world looked like if everyone was autistic. Let's take a look at this issue from an empathetic lens and try to think about what sets a normie off when encountering something seemingly ridiculous. For us, there are only three answers to a yes or no question: Yes, No or I don't know. There's no "oh well, I'll just go with the norm" answer, which means finding the average and expected possible answer and feeling some affinity to it, ignoring all the data in the process. This is followed up by attacking those who do not align, as it is an attack on the normie's priors which form the basis of his "pseudo-intelligence". Let's go through with the normie counter-arguments with respect to nuclear attacks in general. Dismissing the source: "You think every large explosion is nuclear". This is demonstrably false, but it doesn't matter to the normie. He will use insults and lies as an argument and this will impress and calm down the normies around him. I do not need to explain further why this is sub-room temperature IQ, feel free to immediately ignore anyone who yields this argument. I don't have much sympathy for these ones. Ignoring details, relying on domain-limited pattern as priors. Normies do not work on any kind of analysis but a probability system that likely serves them well in life, much like a trained animal. Complicate things a little bit and it all falls apart. For example, when analysing mushroom clouds, craters, damage patterns [implied overpressure and altitude of explosion] and so on, should we demonstrate discernment through multiple disciplines, normies will ignore this analysis and fall back on their irrelevant priors. Whatever they don't understand is "schizobabble" or whatever new thought terminating cliche they prefer. For example, they don't understand convection and the maximum temperature of explosive plumes and the nuclear mushroom cloud's temperature and related fluid dynamics. So to them the only thing that matters is the size of a mushroom cloud, not its shape or its dynamic behaviour. Not the conditions under which it was formed! Here I will admit my own fault to demonstrate the flaw in this thinking. Let's discuss drift: I proposed a model whereby any drift of the plume would indicate a low temperature gas and not a plasma, thus eliminating the possibility of a nuclear attack. But... this turned out to be false to my own shock. I initially dismissed the Engels attack as nuclear for this exact reason. We all saw the stem... literally drift and move. It turns out my model was indeed one dimensional -- I only considered a surface blast, or some kind of dive attack targeting the surface/maximising vertical velocity for maximum impact (bunker busters). This assumption did not in fact hold for low-yield airbursts from a high velocity delivery system (i.e. a subsonic/supersonic cruise missile). There is no reason for the plasma ball to immediately lose all the momentum of the missile, even if it expands in all direction. For higher yields, the stem will be so thick and the plume as to make this likely less perceptible, but in reality we don't have a complete model outside the simplified pattern we observed with the most typical use of nukes, and a few counter-examples (Toropets -- which was also launched by a cruise missile, but didn't really seem to drift). In this case, what is the truth? We can fall back on the fundamental physics involved which would involve a very costly analysis, or we can do something else -- find evidence that eliminates any alternate hypothesis to a nuclear explosion. In the case of Engels the ground damage pattern eliminated the idea of some kind of warehouse explosion. In this case we update our model and relax some conditions. This is an example of Bayesian inference, but with a hard threshold margin (almost 100% yes, almost 100% no or else I don't know). This also involves being humble enough to admit fault, and in a big way. But that is science, that is the process of gathering new data and being flexible. We must use every single observation to eliminate all alternative explanations or find some kind of ambiguity that forces us to give up and mark it as inconclusive. On the flip side, the normie cannot handle some details derived from advanced physics, for example, that eliminate their explanation. They will simply hang on to it because it "sounds right", even if its laid bare as false by a single contradictory observation. For example, "hairy" mushroom clouds -- something I've observed but never brought up as I didn't feel the distinction was yet necessary. They cannot explain why a putative hot plume of explosives going off all at once could reach a temperature that creates a plasma. Wisdom of the crowd: Relying on popularity of opinion Hey, if CNN isn't calling it a nuke, then it just isn't okay? I think most people aren't as affected by this after experiencing so many lies held as truth by the majority. But within cliques this is quite an obvious "out". They may even play up the audacity of the claim as a form of ridicule. Doesn't really change reality though does it? False inference: "If that happened then this would have happened!" Inference is very useful in life, and I use it all the time. Remember that Oreshnik strike on Dnipro? I said it couldn't have been an ICBM because I didn't observe anything that would indicate an elevation to DEFCON 1, what you would expect from an unscheduled (even alerted for) intercontinental missile launch. This is something you use immediately, but reflect on later. You cannot rely on it for deep analysis. It's a gut feeling. I cannot fault most normies for sticking to this knowing nothing else. In this context, the argument is simple: "If a nuke went off we would all be dead" This argument doesn't actually change whether it was a nuke or not. It is actually a test of the MAD model. If a nuclear explosion was confirmed, then, well, the MAD model was wrong and people should give it up. More on this mindset shortly. But who can confirm a nuclear explosion? Argument by authority Look for all intents and purposes, I am just a random sh*tposter who doesn't know anything about what he's talking about on the internet. For all you know I'm a 19 year old who writes well enough to attract an audience. To a normie, that should actually change whether what I say is true or not. But reality is different -- a perfect argument could be made by a completely anonymous person. Jim Cramer can make correct calls sometimes, especially if he backs what he says with a real analysis. In this context, we speak of a negated statement -- the fact that no authority spoke of a nuclear explosion or attack. Does this mean none happened? No. There is a likelihood of lie by omission for strategic reasons, or omission by ignorance/lack of capabilities. But to a normie, if the ever present (in their mind) "satellites" "do not pick it up", it never happened. Do they question whether they have direct access to these satellites or not? No, they rely on an authority figure to sound the alarm that doomsday has arrived. Yet that doesn't have any effect on whether an explosion is nuclear or not. It's simply an outer-complexity that has many other factors at play. Remember COVID? How the 'authorities' created a world wide panic based on fraudulent data? Remember how they faked satellite footage to disguise the damage Oreshnik did to Ukraine? The authorities are always willing to lie if it serves them. Why should we wait for them to speak up and say the truth? Inability to discard a prior after its eliminated by a posterior This is the absolute key cornerstone of why normies stay normies. They're unable to admit that they are stupid, just like me (though I assure you I'm the stupidest person of all). That is to say, they are unable to admit that something they've assumed was true for all time, is in fact not true. Let's take a look at a core example: The existence of a low-yield and very low residual/non-prompt radiation nuclear weapon. From high school, they remember that there are fission and fusion weapons, and no one has ever made a pure fusion weapon. The latter is actually false, pure fusion "weapons" have existed in a hypothetical extent before fission was even weaponised, but they are supposedly so large an impractical that at best they have the same weight-to-yield ratio as TNT. This simplistic idea is played as follows in a normie's mind: "Well, since pure fusion weapons cannot be created, you must use a fissile core, and thus it will always leave behind a lot of radiation that can be picked up by [some authority]". What if I proposed a hypothesis: Actually, they can minimise the fallout, to the extent where after the prompt radiation byproducts die down over a short period, nothing measurable outside of a soil sample remains. It is not quite as strict as a pure fusion weapon, but even this is rejected because -- as far as the open literature is concerned -- this isn't really a weapon whose analysis/design has been revealed. [Aside: Ironically from documents I shared earlier, everyone should now know these MRRs were at least tested in the US, thus could exist today as part of its arsenal.] But what if we analyse all the relevant data, and find that it was indeed a nuclear explosion by eliminating any other putative cause? And at the same time, we do not detect any radiation through open sources, at least not to a threshold desired by the normie? Obviously, since it cannot be anything but a nuclear weapon, then the prior is wrong. That means we have discovered a new piece of information: there can be nuclear explosions without detectable levels of fallout. But the normie will be stuck here, he cannot let go of priors, for priors form a chain that builds up his world -- much like ours. Let's be honest, we all have priors. We are all forced to question them sometimes. There are some of us who know how stupid humans are (like myself) and are able to laugh at themselves for believing something false their entire life, throw it out and also throw out anything that depends on it. It's a huge effort, but once you get into it, it's absolutely exhilarating. This is actually the root of science and why I fell so deeply in love with it as an 8 year old boy, when I vowed to become a scientist when I grew up. They just don't like what the conclusion implies I kind of sympathise with this. No one wants their entire world shattered. It's a psychogenic event for many people and most meet it with anger. Yet if we are to judge a fact by whether we like the inferred conclusion, we will never get to the truth, instead we will only stay within comfort. To the normie, a single nuclear explosion, anywhere, that is not responded to, that is not even reported, shatters their entire world. The normie isn't alone, and deep down I do not blame them for their often violent reaction: One of the only great philosophers of modern times, Jean Baudrillard, saw things in a manner that precluded any kind of limited nuclear war. I do not wish to put words in the mouth of a great man who has passed so I will simply quote him directly: "A gigantic involution that makes every conflict, every finality, every confrontation contract in proportion to this [nuclear] blackmail that interrupts, neutralizes, freezes them all. No longer can any revolt, any story be deployed according to its own logic because it risks annihilation. No strategy is possible any longer, and escalation is only a puerile game given over to the military. The political stake is dead, only simulacra of conflicts and carefully circumscribed stakes remain." - Simulacra and simulation, 1981 I like to think that Jean's eyes (may they rest in peace) would light up at the realisation that nuclear war is not only possible but was on-going during his life. That our world is not a nihilistic simulacrum without a political stake, without anything that can potentially consume all of humanity into an informational singularity ruled over by decrepit and foolish "leaders". That's how I stopped worrying and learned to love the clean bomb. ☢️ /End

Apply Image

Apply Image