This statement shows just how smart (not) that you are. The issue betwen Palestine and Israel has been attacked by many knowledgeable thinking individuals and teams and governments for decades. No lasting solution has been developed. To believe that you on your own with all the knowledge currently available could find a workable solution to this issue is absurd and makes you appear silly.

leaponthis

????

Question marks? This fellow asked how you would resolve the Israel - Palestine conflict. Your answer, at least to me, implied that with the necessary availabe "knowledge" that given your "thinking ability" you could solve this problem. The truth is that you can't solve this issue and the way you most likley should address this question is as follows. "I have no clue nor do I believe that I am capable of resolving this issue". I think that it is pretty clear to someone with advanced "thinking ability" that you are not capable of resolving this issue.

leaponthis

People skills?

If you were willing to put $25,000,000 in escrow until the end of his life, I'm sure David would be willing to take you up on this.

At 25,000:1 odds, given that the time frame is the rest of his life, there's no way this is a positive expected value wager relative to just investing the money. Even if there was literally no chance of him winning. There's just too much money in the market for that to make sense for you.

Reading David's high op of himself, like possibly being a great baseball manager, makes one seriously wonder about holding this guy in such high regard. Looks can be deceiving but David looks like he never played sports in his life.

The more I read his own words about himself, the more this forum looks like a Jim Jones Kool Aid party. David, get a grip. I saw you say you "play to your audience". That's understandable. It'd be sad for all if you actually believed this stuff about yourself. Egomaniac is more fool than genius.

This is a subject David never seems to trouble himself with.

leaponthis

Someone asked him for his political opinion. David's point was without the knowledge, his thinking ability alone is not enough to warrant a valid opinion; he never suggested that he could necessarily "resolve the conflict" if he had one.

David makes his fair share of pompous statements. This is absolutely not one of them. This was actually quite humble on his part.

But his mathematical and thinking abilities make up for it.

Can't say the same for you.

David,

I agree that back a few years ago your math/common sense would have been enough to make you a highly effective baseball manager (despite your weaknesses in practice sessions, locker room psychology, etc.).

Football is a little different though. Football coaches do delegate a lot of stuff. You still couldn't do it.

You could certainly learn the types of plays that players are used to running and would have an intuitive understanding of the science behind them. But, having had no serious interest in football or coaching until this point in your life, you would process information far too slowly. You would watch game films and process the data in the way that someone who doesn't learn English until their adult life processes their new language. You could do it, but it'd be tough. You'd miss some stuff, and if nothing else, be way too slow. You could put 90 hours a week into analyzing film and developing a game plan, and a person who has a more instinctual understanding of football could be as productive in 10 hours, even if they weren't quite as smart as you. You wouldn't stand a shot.

Obviously you'd have no idea how to run a practice either. And sure you could learn the typical procedures, but that doesn't mean you'd be good at it.

And ya, you could just delegate all those things too. Hire someone to be in charge of game film, hire someone to be in charge of practices, etc. But then what exactly is your role? Why would any owner pay you the big bucks and give you the title of "head coach"? What exactly would you contribute? I mean, I could be a highly effective physics professor if I could delegate someone to do my research, plan my lessons, give my lectures, and grade my papers. What is it that you think you could actually *do* better than other football coaches to overcome your obvious weaknesses in the field?

I think you over-estimate how much of a difference the mathematical errors a coach might make will truly matter. And you certainly underestimate all that goes in to an optimal game strategy if you think things like knowing when to go for a 2-point conversion are all that critical.

What is realistic is that you could be an effective aid to a coach, as an on-field strategy consultant. Not that you could actually do his job, and be effective by just delegating the vast majority of everything.

Isn't there something about "it takes one to know one" sure does fit you.

leaponthis

English much? Me no sorry speak french.

i think we have our first Sklansky-forum troll.

David,

What is your level of baseball experience? Or is that irrelevant in your opinion to being a great manager?

Tony D

I believe that it is irrelevant to his opinion of HIMSELF. Just my opinion.

leaponthis

Well you certainly have my vote. No need thinking though, it doesn't suit you well.

leaponthis

David can you expand on this thought? Please define the "mathematical stupidity" that exists in MLB.

I'll take that bet. I'm going to have to ask that the $25,000,000 be put in escrow though (along with my $1K, of coarse).

oic, I read that wrong. okay- all bet's are off...

Read the thread on 2 point conversions and you'll see that he and many others believe the mathematical aspects of sports are as or more important than the human aspects. Eg. a belief of many here that given a couple of years of study/preparation they could be as effective a manager/coach as someone who has studied/played the game their entire lives, understand the human dynamics involved better than they understand the math (which is probably better than most give them credit for to start with) and have risen to the ranks of a pro coach. A ridiculous assertion imo, held by a lot of couch potatoes who have never played the game, but are great with 20 20 hindsight.

No you weren't. Don't say that because you weren't. You weren't looking out for "the minds of our youth" with your diatribe about "intelligence is as intelligence does".

Everyone is really offended at is the subtext of his post being, "I see these patterns and therefore I think Im better than most people." (when really he just said smarter...he just thinks he's smarter than most of us).

Anyway, I quoted you, put Im just kinda commenting on the whole thing. Its a bit lame. He just answered the question frankly and everyone took it personally.

There are currently more than 5,000 adult Americans who were "in the top 100 at age 14 in the U.S. in math, science," by whatever metric you've chosen. Account for child prodigies of similar intelligence who happen not to be on your particular top 100 list, account for different rates of intellectual development, the development of deeper analytical capacities than 14 year old prodigies have or are judged by, and the greater variety of intellectual endeavors in which an adult can specialize. Now the adult intelligence medal for which David is campaigning gains a great many more candidates.

I knew a lot of fourteen year old math prodigies because I was one, second-rate by your standards I suppose, but I assure you I'm fine with that. Most of them don't end up having the interest, dedication, or (adult, developed) pure intellectual talent to be MIT professors or Nobel Prize winners. This is acceptable to them because most of them develop the social skills and common sense to prioritize their life decisions according to their overall range of abilities and interests. They learn that placing first in intelligence contests is in fact an artifact of youth, not a purpose in life. Whatever skills David learned by "associating with more common people than the average child prodigy," he seems to have missed the fact that no one in the adult world gives a [censored] that he, or anyone else, was a child prodigy. Child prodigies are wonderful curiosities when they're young and great for a parent's ego, but not so much fun at cocktail parties forty years later if they haven't outgrown the role.

It is reasonable to judge a child on what he might become. It is far less reasonable for an adult to be wish to be judged on what he could have become rather than on what he is. An intelligent adult who listens to, appreciates, understands, and comments on the work of experts in fields he did not choose himself is infinitely more interesting than one who goes about reminding everyone he could have done better whatever it is they are doing. On the basis on what, exactly? Making the Math Olympiad forty years ago? A Westinghouse project?

That a sixty (?) year old who lived a successful life is worried about these things is sad. I'm 26 and got over it eight years ago.

this is a much less arrogant claim than it sounds. most major league managers consistently make terrible decisions.

a couple to get you started:

1) using your best relief pitcher when up by 3 runs in the 9th inning
2) having a leadoff man with "speed" and an obp barely above .300 (see juan pierre)
3)sacrifice bunting with a guy on first and no outs in the early innings of a game.
4)intentional walking
5)changing the order of your lineup when a player is slumping (a-rod batting 7th for example)

there are many, many others with simple mathematical explanations.

lol

david skalansky is One Funny Dude.

the best manager in baseball history

nobel piece prize winner, Etc.

this thread is hilarious, and people are getting mad too. lol