Survivor bias

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is the use of the term survivor bias popular because of survivor bias?

It's certainly seems to be edging 'm no methodology' towards non survival.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunderer,

Is the use of the term survivor bias popular because of survivor bias?

It's certainly seems to be edging 'm no methodology' towards non survival.

No - it's just come up recently because it describes some bad thinking you're repeatedly attempting is all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Chunderer,

No - it's just come up recently because it describes some bad thinking you're repeatedly attempting is all.

Assertion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think there is a question over whether YOU understand Survivor bias.

[SqueakyVoice]

I think there is a question over whether YOU (bhs) understand Survivor bias.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

Since one of examples shown in the link has already been quoted by bhs it seems clear he's already got a much better grasp of it than yourself.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunderer,

I think there is a question over whether YOU understand Survivor bias.

As you keep blundering into it I think the answer must be a "yes".

[Jack Knave]

Could someone state what Vlad is getting at here as survivors bias counts against his Christianity in that they can claim it is true because their faith has survived by chance.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Could someone state what Vlad is getting at here as survivors bias counts against his Christianity in that they can claim it is true because their faith has survived by chance.

i thought the theory was that other ideas do not survive but that is hyperbole since ideas never die off. It assumes that all other ideas are overlooked or discounted because of lack of success. Such an assertion needs evidence surely for each time the religion is adopted. Does Hillside have this since the whole exercise of calling survivorship bias is to bypass evidence in favour of a general theory which is at best debatable.

It itself contains bias because it huffs on about planes getting shot down because they only studied planes which had been shot at but which didn't go down......yes I know..............surely a better example would be planes which don't fly not by chance
But because they are just not up to the job.

Survivorship bias is about making systems that work work better not about making them work in the first place. We can expect Hillside to continue to flog the dead horse though.

[Maeght]

Is the use of the term survivor bias popular because of survivor bias?

It's certainly seems to be edging 'm no methodology' towards non survival.

Popular? Never heard of it or heard anyone refer to it until now.

[Jack Knave]

i thought the theory was that other ideas do not survive but that is hyperbole since ideas never die off. It assumes that all other ideas are overlooked or discounted because of lack of success. Such an assertion needs evidence surely for each time the religion is adopted. Does Hillside have this since the whole exercise of calling survivorship bias is to bypass evidence in favour of a general theory which is at best debatable.

It itself contains bias because it huffs on about planes getting shot down because they only studied planes which had been shot at but which didn't go down......yes I know..............surely a better example would be planes which don't fly not by chance
But because they are just not up to the job.

Survivorship bias is about making systems that work work better not about making them work in the first place. We can expect Hillside to continue to flog the dead horse though.

The thing you claim about Hillside must stem from something from the past as he states nothing emphatic here and of which, therefore, I'm not certain of the discourse.

Lack of success (as you state it), as I understand it with regards to survivor's bias, is due to the process of being overlooked or left out of the picture, not because it has failed in anyway and is non-functionary and unusable, but because focus has been made on those aspects of the subject matter which are appealing and generally seen as being positive (which can be a bias process in itself). In effect this is saying that bad data has been missed out, for one reason or another, and, thereby, gives a 'rosier' outlook to things than they really are. This assessment of data etc. does not in itself give any validity or verity to the subject matter at hand, in the same way that postulating a logical form, though internally consistent, can't do this as it is only a grammatical structure. 

I am guessing that survivor's bias may be being missed used in this discussion as it can't provide any validity to a subject which has to be done by other means.

[Hope]

Could someone state what Vlad is getting at here as survivors bias counts against his Christianity in that they can claim it is true because their faith has survived by chance.

Do you have any evidence tht it has only survived 'by chance' Jack?

[Hope]

Lack of success (as you state it), as I understand it with regards to survivor's bias, is due to the process of being overlooked or left out of the picture, not because it has failed in anyway and is non-functionary and unusable, but because focus has been made on those aspects of the subject matter which are appealing and generally seen as being positive (which can be a bias process in itself). In effect this is saying that bad data has been missed out, for one reason or another, and, thereby, gives a 'rosier' outlook to things than they really are. This assessment of data etc. does not in itself give any validity or verity to the subject matter at hand, in the same way that postulating a logical form, though internally consistent, can't do this as it is only a grammatical structure.

The problem, if JK is correct in his explanation, with using the survivor bias arguement in the context of Christianity is twofold.  Firstly, as has often been pointed out here and elsewhere, Christianity as often been lost under the weight of Churchianity (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Churchianity; http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Churchianity) where church leaders have used the faith to promote tradition that fails to match Jesus' teachings over those teachings - so we can list events and institutions such as the Inquisition, slavery, the Crusades, the mistreatment of the environment and the poor in the hunt for ever greater personal and national wealth and apartheid.  As such, the idea that has survived hasn't been the one on which the "focus has been made on those aspects of the subject matter which are appealing and generally seen as being positive (which can be a bias process in itself)". 

Secondly, the very existence of many of the New Testament documents bears witness to the huge range of competing ideas that existed across the first century, often espoused by those who had never heard Jesus teach, or spoken with those who had.

[Jack Knave]

Do you have any evidence tht it has only survived 'by chance' Jack?

Do you have any evidence that JC will return?

Christianity has survived in name on only, I'll grant you that. Can you prove that your version is the exactly the same as the early Christians?

All empires think they will last forever but they never do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you have any evidence that JC will return?.

Non sequitur since it hasn't happened and it is a suggested future event.

You are alleging that Christianity has survived by chance......Got any evidence.

[Hope]

Do you have any evidence that JC will return?

Yes, I do, but as I and others have pointed out elsewhere, that evidence is based on an understanding that reality isn't limited to the naturalistic, physical world that science works in.

Christianity has survived in name on only, I'll grant you that. Can you prove that your version is the exactly the same as the early Christians?

I think you'll find that it has survived in a great deal more than name only, JK.  The fact that - despite the differences that do occur between denominations the core belief that salvation is through the death and resurrectin of Jesus that is common to all the main denominations suggests that this 'in name only' argument is pretty feeble.

All empires think they will last forever but they never do.

I'd agree, but then Christianity isn't an empire.  It may have an impact of politics, but then it has an impact on just about every aspect of life.

[Jack Knave]

The problem, if JK is correct in his explanation, with using the survivor bias arguement in the context of Christianity is twofold.  Firstly, as has often been pointed out here and elsewhere, Christianity as often been lost under the weight of Churchianity (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Churchianity; http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Churchianity) where church leaders have used the faith to promote tradition that fails to match Jesus' teachings over those teachings - so we can list events and institutions such as the Inquisition, slavery, the Crusades, the mistreatment of the environment and the poor in the hunt for ever greater personal and national wealth and apartheid.  As such, the idea that has survived hasn't been the one on which the "focus has been made on those aspects of the subject matter which are appealing and generally seen as being positive (which can be a bias process in itself)". 

Secondly, the very existence of many of the New Testament documents bears witness to the huge range of competing ideas that existed across the first century, often espoused by those who had never heard Jesus teach, or spoken with those who had.

And which one of those you choose to be the valid ones for you is based upon your confirmation bias. And how can you know what really does constitute the true Christian message, if it is a valid message and if there is one at all.

Ignoring the survivors bias in regard to the documents and thereby putting them all together in equal standing one if left with a mess of a message that makes no coherent sense at all.

[Jack Knave]

Non sequitur since it hasn't happened and it is a suggested future event.

You are alleging that Christianity has survived by chance......Got any evidence.

As you can not show or prove that your version of Christianity is that of the early churches and is only associated with it by name alone then one could call all the twists and turns that have eventually ended up with your particular version today, chance.

I heard some ridiculous claim that there are around 6000 protestant sects in the US. Who is to say which one twisted and turned into the right kind of Christianity? As for the Catholic church well at one time they were partying away that would have made some of the lighter porn today look saintly.

You tell me Vlad what wasn't chance with all these versions?

[Jack Knave]

Yes, I do, but as I and others have pointed out elsewhere, that evidence is based on an understanding that reality isn't limited to the naturalistic, physical world that science works in.

No, it is based on faith. The evidence you talk of was constructed 2000 years ago there is none of it today.

I think you'll find that it has survived in a great deal more than name only, JK.  The fact that - despite the differences that do occur between denominations the core belief that salvation is through the death and resurrectin of Jesus that is common to all the main denominations suggests that this 'in name only' argument is pretty feeble.

But that is also in name only. People chanting the same thing for 2000 years doesn't make a fact or truth. Just means people are good at chanting!!! What is needed is for all Christians to live in those times and experience those events, fully immersed in the times, ethos and culture - everything else is gas and whimsy.

What you have is something of these times and this present day culture and events.

I'd agree, but then Christianity isn't an empire.  It may have an impact of politics, but then it has an impact on just about every aspect of life.

I used the word empire in a broad sense. It is an empire in the sense it is trying to change everyone into what they are and to abide by their rules and customs, and to 'work for them' or their ideology.

[Hope]

No, it is based on faith. The evidence you talk of was constructed 2000 years ago there is none of it today.

And what do you mean by "there is none of it today"?  Jut because you haven't seen it or experienced it doesn't mean it isn't there.

But that is also in name only. People chanting the same thing for 2000 years doesn't make a fact or truth. Just means people are good at chanting!!! What is needed is for all Christians to live in those times and experience those events, fully immersed in the times, ethos and culture - everything else is gas and whimsy.

Whilst I would agree in part, JK - and there are millions of people who do live in "those times and experience those events, fully immersed in the times, ethos and culture" I would also suggest that, for all the advances that the West have made over the centuries, human nature is pretty well the same now as it was then.  We simply live in a rather more formalised way; so that the rich get richer through government design as opposed to government disinterest; and the poor get poorer through the same mechanisms.

What you have is something of these times and this present day culture and events.
I used the word empire in a broad sense. It is an empire in the sense it is trying to change everyone into what they are and to abide by their rules and customs, and to 'work for them' or their ideology.

You mean, like every philosophy does.  For instance, we are constantly being told by the Government, or Europe, or the World Bank, or the UN, ....  that we must change our eating habits, or exercise habits, our work/home balance habits, ... because they believe that this or that new regime will be for our benefit.


As a Christian, I believe that what God offers humanity is a fulfilled and worthwhile existence based on what I believe to be the purpose of the natural world.  You are at liberty to disregard that, but Christians don't force people to act in given ways - or at least they don't if they are following God's teachings as expressed by Jesus.

That is why I differentiate between Christianity and churchianity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As you can not show or prove that your version of Christianity is that of the early churches and is only associated with it by name alone then one could call all the twists and turns that have eventually ended up with your particular version today, chance.

I heard some ridiculous claim that there are around 6000 protestant sects in the US. Who is to say which one twisted and turned into the right kind of Christianity? As for the Catholic church well at one time they were partying away that would have made some of the lighter porn today look saintly.

You tell me Vlad what wasn't chance with all these versions?

I think you have been led to believe or at least there has been intent to lead to believe that any old religious narrative or doctrine will do and it's purely a matter of chance. That it has nothing to do with content.

I dispute that as being very much akin to saying the wright brothers just got luckier and it was pure chance that Icarus didn't  start the age of flight.

I was even being fair about it. The definition of survivor bias is that the losers or those who don't survivor are overlooked when success is analysed. I called for a comparison between Jesus resurrectionism and Elvis resurrectionism. I am not therefore guilty of survivorship bias and the accusation was a red herring.

Full marks to you Jack for pointing out whether any ''success'' of Christianity was due to chance or whether there are other factors.

Asserting chance or survivor bias is intellectual laziness designed to head off any further investigation of whether the claim of chance or consumer pressure are indeed the explanation for the survival of Christianity.

The Wikipedia article suggests the contexts where survival bias has an effect. Religion is not there. Again by calling for comparison between Elvis resurrectionism and Jesus resurrection I demonstrate that I am the one free from survivorship bias.

I think allsorts of arguments are getting tangled and confused and conflated but hey, That's Bluehillside for you.

[Jack Knave]

And what do you mean by "there is none of it today"?  Jut because you haven't seen it or experienced it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Evidence isn't proof, all it is is some form of data which can be in the form of someone claiming this or that but then there is a process of seeing if it is good, solid evidence which can be verified or not. That was my point, all Christianity has are these claims to faith which are nothing but rhetoric, which anyone could do, not solid verifiable data. Your most 'solid' evidence for your faith, which is decidedly 'gaseous', are you books/manuscripts of the Bible.

As for evidence of the none materialistic kind as I have pointed out above you don't really have any, none that will support your faith. As for me for having 'seeing' it; as you say, or not I have seen the phenomena of the Unconscious (i.e. of the Jungian school type) and it is from this that the secondary phenomena of religion stems from. Religion supervenes on the Unconscious and is merely symbolic. And you should also note, following this, that your approach to the evidence for your faith gives rise to every other religion that has shown its face on this planet whether extant today or defunct and no longer practiced.   

Whilst I would agree in part, JK - and there are millions of people who do live in "those times and experience those events, fully immersed in the times, ethos and culture" I would also suggest that, for all the advances that the West have made over the centuries, human nature is pretty well the same now as it was then.  We simply live in a rather more formalised way; so that the rich get richer through government design as opposed to government disinterest; and the poor get poorer through the same mechanisms.

"People do live in those time...."    You can only do that if you go back in time (and place) and be born into those days, 2000 years ago. No one can do that!!!

As for your claim of our natures being the same, it is about ideas, cultures etc. not the human nature in its more basic components. If it was that easy then we would have no trouble understanding ISIS and other cultures. This was more true in the past, because the internet etc. has homogenised our world more, and it was because of this that many wars started for the very fact of the differences and fears this creates. So you can have nearly absolutely no idea what it was like to live 2000 years ago or to understand how they thought or felt or perceived the world around them and themselves.

For example, people are living through a war in Syria today and even though you can see it on the news etc. you have no idea what it is like for them, even though it is happening in your life time. The only way you could really know what they are going through is to live in a war zone in your homeland, seeing your home and who life and culture being destroyed. Imagination and information is not enough only total experience of it is!!!

As a Christian, I believe that what God offers humanity is a fulfilled and worthwhile existence based on what I believe to be the purpose of the natural world.  You are at liberty to disregard that, but Christians don't force people to act in given ways - or at least they don't if they are following God's teachings as expressed by Jesus.

That is why I differentiate between Christianity and churchianity.

That is your culture and community ethos, and that is as far as it goes i.e. all those claims of heaven's rewards, JC coming back etc. etc. is just tacked on to add that numinous quality that all cultures and societies tend to do because of our relationship with the Unconscious, that include the instincts and our human nature etc.

[Jack Knave]

I think you have been led to believe or at least there has been intent to lead to believe that any old religious narrative or doctrine will do and it's purely a matter of chance. That it has nothing to do with content.

I dispute that as being very much akin to saying the wright brothers just got luckier and it was pure chance that Icarus didn't  start the age of flight.

I was even being fair about it. The definition of survivor bias is that the losers or those who don't survivor are overlooked when success is analysed. I called for a comparison between Jesus resurrectionism and Elvis resurrectionism. I am not therefore guilty of survivorship bias and the accusation was a red herring.

Full marks to you Jack for pointing out whether any ''success'' of Christianity was due to chance or whether there are other factors.

Asserting chance or survivor bias is intellectual laziness designed to head off any further investigation of whether the claim of chance or consumer pressure are indeed the explanation for the survival of Christianity.

The Wikipedia article suggests the contexts where survival bias has an effect. Religion is not there. Again by calling for comparison between Elvis resurrectionism and Jesus resurrection I demonstrate that I am the one free from survivorship bias.

I think allsorts of arguments are getting tangled and confused and conflated but hey, That's Bluehillside for you.

But the content (to the present today) is in part chance. It evolves over time from a given point, or specific content, but how it will end up at any given point is random due to the various twists and turns. People are then born into it and with varying degrees accept it as being the norm. Your Christianity is seen by you as the right Christianity because you were basically born into it in some manner; that is, you haven't taken on a version that never formed. But because of the twists and turns your Christianity isn't the original one of 2000 years ago but one that has evolved to fit in with changing times and cultural outlooks. Look at the gay marriage issue. Some Christians have accepted this others haven't but a 100 years or so ago it would have been a given to be wrong; no ifs no butts!!! This is Christianity in the act of evolution today and in a 100 years time or more most will accept it as being ok because our cultural times today is forcing the issue to be normal just as other issues in the past have given Christianity its various twists and turns.

The Wright brothers did what they did because of all the twists and turns in science before them that led to their attempts of flight. But if things had twisted and turned as they did then they wouldn't have done it and so they got to where they did by chance. Their success was not ordained and a given.

"I called for a comparison between Jesus resurrectionism and Elvis resurrectionism." - that argument could undermined your Christian faith, which further on you seem to acknowledge.

[wigginhall]

Jack Knave wrote:

As for evidence of the none materialistic kind as I have pointed out above you don't really have any, none that will support your faith. As for me for having 'seeing' it; as you say, or not I have seen the phenomena of the Unconscious (i.e. of the Jungian school type) and it is from this that the secondary phenomena of religion stems from. Religion supervenes on the Unconscious and is merely symbolic. And you should also note, following this, that your approach to the evidence for your faith gives rise to every other religion that has shown its face on this planet whether extant today or defunct and no longer practiced.

Interesting stuff, Jack, although I'm not sure about 'merely' symbolic, since you could argue that humans are intensely symbolic animals.   However, as you say, this argument partly explains every religion, although no doubt there are other factors.   The anthropologist Scot Atran has some interesting stuff on how tribal religions 'carry' cultural information, e.g. they encode stuff like agricultural and hunting techniques, issues to do with fertility, survival of the tribe and so on.   Presumably, industrialism gives a fatal shock to this kind of religion.

Christians tend to baffle me, when they want to say that their ideas are true and literally correct, and so on.  Why not say that it's my set of symbols?  I suppose it was meant to be universally applicable, which is obviously not correct.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But the content (to the present today) is in part chance. It evolves over time from a given point, or specific content, but how it will end up at any given point is random due to the various twists and turns. People are then born into it and with varying degrees accept it as being the norm. Your Christianity is seen by you as the right Christianity because you were basically born into it in some manner; that is, you haven't taken on a version that never formed. But because of the twists and turns your Christianity isn't the original one of 2000 years ago but one that has evolved to fit in with changing times and cultural outlooks. Look at the gay marriage issue. Some Christians have accepted this others haven't but a 100 years or so ago it would have been a given to be wrong; no ifs no butts!!! This is Christianity in the act of evolution today and in a 100 years time or more most will accept it as being ok because our cultural times today is forcing the issue to be normal just as other issues in the past have given Christianity its various twists and turns.

The Wright brothers did what they did because of all the twists and turns in science before them that led to their attempts of flight. But if things had twisted and turned as they did then they wouldn't have done it and so they got to where they did by chance. Their success was not ordained and a given.

"I called for a comparison between Jesus resurrectionism and Elvis resurrectionism." - that argument could undermined your Christian faith, which further on you seem to acknowledge.

If you are saying Christian culture has changed to fit circumstance you are mistaking Christianity for culture.  The central feature of Christianity is Christ and knowing him. That informs cultures but is never altered by them.

When the wright brothers decided to make a plane and not strapped wings to flap on themselves they were assured success. There was no chance about it.

Some things will always fly and somethings won't no matter what the breaks are.
Survivorhip bias is a new field and is not at all as Bluehillside described it.

[jeremyp]

Some things will always fly and somethings won't no matter what the breaks are.
Survivorhip bias is a new field and is not at all as Bluehillside described it.

How would you describe it?

I wouldn't describe it as a field at all, and the phenomenon has been known of at least since the Second World War.