Markov chains, named after Andrey Markov, are mathematical systems that hop from one “state” (a situation or set of values) to another. For example, if you made a Markov chain model of a baby’s behavior, you might include “playing,” “eating”, “sleeping,” and “crying” as states, which together with other behaviors could form a ‘state space’: a list of all possible states.
In addition, on top of the state space, a Markov chain tells you the probabilitiy of hopping, or “transitioning,” from one state to any other state-Example: the chance that a baby currently playing will fall asleep in the next five minutes without crying first.
With two states (A and B) in our state space, there are 4 possible transitions (not 2, because a state can transition back into itself). If we’re at ‘A’ we could transition to ‘B’ or stay at ‘A’. If we’re at ‘B’ we could transition to ‘A’ or stay at ‘B’. In this two states example, the probability of transitioning from any state to any other state is 0.5.
It is mind boggling the extent to which people are utterly blind to probability, the butterfly effect, or to higher-order effects. Listen to the stupidity of the the Left: Let’s open national borders. It will help Noble People who are struggling for a better life. Why would you be against it!?
Let’s raise the minimum wage. You’d be helping poor people earn better wages. Why would you be against it?
Let’s have 30-year COVID lockdowns. You’d ensure that the virus goes extinct.
Much of this lunacy comes from Postmodernism, that posits that all viewpoints are welcome and none is privileged. So, it is apparently “arrogant” to think that psychiatrists, physicists, and epidemiologists might know more about their areas of expertise than say a delusional, narcissistic hack like Oprah.
We are treading on dangerous ground, because as you know, it’s racist to point out that mathematics yields right and wrong answers (2 + 96 = 98).
It is racist to openly support national borders, to, you know, support laws.
Take a good look. What you see is not Keats’ Gyre, but the abyss.
These poor fools fall victim to a widespread fallacy, first identified by economist Frederic Bastiat, of focusing on the seen and ignoring the unseen.
Bastiat’s theory, according to economist Henry Hazlitt noted the “persistent tendency of men to see only the immediate effects of a given policy, or its effects only on a special group, and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on that special group but on all groups.”
Hazlitt called this “the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences.”
Minimum wage advocates for example. They see only the nominal rise in workers’ weekly paychecks that a government-mandated wage increase can bring. Yet they fail to see beyond that. They fail to consider the future workers who will not be hired at all and the millions of minute price increases that would largely erase nominal wage gains regardless.
That’s why the “Fight for $15” minimum wage hike would hurt most the very same working Americans it’s meant to help. The costs of basics, and unintended consequences, will hit those struggling financially the hardest.