Front Office Football Central - View Single Post

sabotai · 06-20-2007, 01:52 PM

Well, the first and most obvious problem is that "Global (Economic) Depression should be under both "yes" options. The money and resources are still being spent, so the Depression happens either way.

Also, in his "worst case scenario", he assumes that other castastrophes wouldn't happen (Political, Social, etc.) under both "yes" options as well. I mean, a global depression would probably cause at least poltical and social catastrophes as well since hordes of people would try to go where the money is, what little of it there is.

Basically, he doesn't really think out the "yes" column. The results in the "yes"/"False" box should be the same as the "yes"/"True" option, since essentially the same outcome is reached. In the "yes"/False" option, Global Climite Change doesn't happen since humans weren't causing it but we spent all of our money to prevent it, and in the "yes"/"True" option, Global Climite Change doesn't happen because we spent all of our money to prevent it. The end result is the same, GCC doesn't happen and we spent all of our money, so the "worst possible outcome" should be the same for both boxes.

But having said all of that, there are also plenty of other problems with it. For instance, he is assuming that all of the "worst possible" outcomes all have the same chance of occuring. The only way using a logic chart in this way makes sense is if all possible outcomes for all 4 options had the same chance of occuring.

06-20-2007, 01:52 PM	#3
sabotai General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Satellite of Love	Well, the first and most obvious problem is that "Global (Economic) Depression should be under both "yes" options. The money and resources are still being spent, so the Depression happens either way. Also, in his "worst case scenario", he assumes that other castastrophes wouldn't happen (Political, Social, etc.) under both "yes" options as well. I mean, a global depression would probably cause at least poltical and social catastrophes as well since hordes of people would try to go where the money is, what little of it there is. Basically, he doesn't really think out the "yes" column. The results in the "yes"/"False" box should be the same as the "yes"/"True" option, since essentially the same outcome is reached. In the "yes"/False" option, Global Climite Change doesn't happen since humans weren't causing it but we spent all of our money to prevent it, and in the "yes"/"True" option, Global Climite Change doesn't happen because we spent all of our money to prevent it. The end result is the same, GCC doesn't happen and we spent all of our money, so the "worst possible outcome" should be the same for both boxes. But having said all of that, there are also plenty of other problems with it. For instance, he is assuming that all of the "worst possible" outcomes all have the same chance of occuring. The only way using a logic chart in this way makes sense is if all possible outcomes for all 4 options had the same chance of occuring.