![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
while carl barks did coin the phrase flipism, its not been used by others as far as i can tell. thus using it to title an article on this subject is using it as a neologism, and may be original research. not tagging it yet, but i will. i also removed references that were invalid. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 21:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I hope you can. We need all the informed help we can get. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 22:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Stan
check the listing for Robert Coovers novel universal baseball association, which features a version of baseball where every decision is made with roll of dice. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 15:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The professor in one Futurama episode created a gateway to another dimension that differed by all past coin flips had the reverse outcome. It might be interesting to include this in the popular culture section, with a proper reference, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.40.215 ( talk) 02:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
in his book confessions of a raving nut... paul flips a coin to make a major decision about how to perceive the universe, and it lands on its edge. photo included. dont trust him, though... Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 04:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
why is this a see also? It would be equally appropriate to say see also: coin, or see also: rock that's dry on one side and has spit on the other side, or see also: odds or evens. How about see also: eenie meenie minie moe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romaniantruths ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Any Two-option random decision making construct will be right half the time. Does this system show a greayer than 50/50 performance in the story? In order to be "suprising efficiency" it would have to be substantially better. so just how efficient is it? Romaniantruths ( talk) 21:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Why is "Nash Equilibrium" in the See Also Section? This does not seem to relate to Flipism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyr2 ( talk • contribs) 05:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The last two paragraphs of the "In decision making" section have no citations. STUART ( talk) 05:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I've never liked the name given for this article and philosophy. ive tried to think of others, but of course if i think of it its likely to be creative interpretation. Here, however, is a source for a possible alternate name: Joan Didion, in her essay collection The White Album, on page 18, writes about the "chance" sequence of events which brought Linda Kasabian eventually to prison for involvement in the Tate-LaBianca murders: " "Everything was to teach me something." Linda said. Linda did not believe that chance was without pattern. Linda operated on what I later recognized as dice theory, and so, during the years I am talking about, did I." This sounds like she means she let random choice lead her through those years, which in essence is what a lot of people at that time did, just "going with the flow". however, since she doesnt explicitly state that is the meaning, i am simply placing this here as another piece of the puzzle. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 00:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I think (at least one other editor disagrees) that the vague list of "other ways of making a decision" - astrology, dice, whatever - does not belong in this article, which is about a very specific and rather odd decision-making technique, not a general discussion of how to make decisions. It belongs in Decision making but not here - as an example, you won't find similar lists in articles about game theory, negotiations, nuclear deterrence, diplomacy etc. etc. etc.
Kill it, I say - it's a distraction and inappropriate. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 14:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
reference 4 is dead, but here is another version: http://lfs.org/newsletter/029/02/Prometheus_2902.pdf Sorry, not time to convert to proper format.
Above romaniantruths suggests that the line about flippism showing "surprising efficiency" is inappropriate. From the link I agree that the article does not support that conclusion, and it could also be mis-interpreted that flipism shows surprising efficiency in the world, not just the story. Stainless316 ( talk) 12:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Not sure on what this claim rests. Clearly if you have a simplified vision of rationality that excludes the costs of making decisions, then you could justifiably describe this as failing descriptions of rationality. However, you would be demonstrably be missing both crucial aspects of rationality and of the proposal.
Clearly if engaging in informed decision making requires costs (time of learning, etc) then just flipping a coin may indeed be very rational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.100.114 ( talk) 19:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flipism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
What more is needed for the reference in House of Cards? Frank Underwood literally mentions both Donald Duck, the name of the story Flip Decision, and the word flipism itself, in a long monologue to the viewers at the start of the episode to explain to them how come he's still President several months after the election which turned out a tie. -- 46.93.158.170 ( talk) 12:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
while carl barks did coin the phrase flipism, its not been used by others as far as i can tell. thus using it to title an article on this subject is using it as a neologism, and may be original research. not tagging it yet, but i will. i also removed references that were invalid. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 21:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I hope you can. We need all the informed help we can get. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 22:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Stan
check the listing for Robert Coovers novel universal baseball association, which features a version of baseball where every decision is made with roll of dice. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 15:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The professor in one Futurama episode created a gateway to another dimension that differed by all past coin flips had the reverse outcome. It might be interesting to include this in the popular culture section, with a proper reference, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.40.215 ( talk) 02:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
in his book confessions of a raving nut... paul flips a coin to make a major decision about how to perceive the universe, and it lands on its edge. photo included. dont trust him, though... Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 04:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
why is this a see also? It would be equally appropriate to say see also: coin, or see also: rock that's dry on one side and has spit on the other side, or see also: odds or evens. How about see also: eenie meenie minie moe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romaniantruths ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Any Two-option random decision making construct will be right half the time. Does this system show a greayer than 50/50 performance in the story? In order to be "suprising efficiency" it would have to be substantially better. so just how efficient is it? Romaniantruths ( talk) 21:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Why is "Nash Equilibrium" in the See Also Section? This does not seem to relate to Flipism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyr2 ( talk • contribs) 05:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The last two paragraphs of the "In decision making" section have no citations. STUART ( talk) 05:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I've never liked the name given for this article and philosophy. ive tried to think of others, but of course if i think of it its likely to be creative interpretation. Here, however, is a source for a possible alternate name: Joan Didion, in her essay collection The White Album, on page 18, writes about the "chance" sequence of events which brought Linda Kasabian eventually to prison for involvement in the Tate-LaBianca murders: " "Everything was to teach me something." Linda said. Linda did not believe that chance was without pattern. Linda operated on what I later recognized as dice theory, and so, during the years I am talking about, did I." This sounds like she means she let random choice lead her through those years, which in essence is what a lot of people at that time did, just "going with the flow". however, since she doesnt explicitly state that is the meaning, i am simply placing this here as another piece of the puzzle. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 00:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I think (at least one other editor disagrees) that the vague list of "other ways of making a decision" - astrology, dice, whatever - does not belong in this article, which is about a very specific and rather odd decision-making technique, not a general discussion of how to make decisions. It belongs in Decision making but not here - as an example, you won't find similar lists in articles about game theory, negotiations, nuclear deterrence, diplomacy etc. etc. etc.
Kill it, I say - it's a distraction and inappropriate. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 14:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
reference 4 is dead, but here is another version: http://lfs.org/newsletter/029/02/Prometheus_2902.pdf Sorry, not time to convert to proper format.
Above romaniantruths suggests that the line about flippism showing "surprising efficiency" is inappropriate. From the link I agree that the article does not support that conclusion, and it could also be mis-interpreted that flipism shows surprising efficiency in the world, not just the story. Stainless316 ( talk) 12:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Not sure on what this claim rests. Clearly if you have a simplified vision of rationality that excludes the costs of making decisions, then you could justifiably describe this as failing descriptions of rationality. However, you would be demonstrably be missing both crucial aspects of rationality and of the proposal.
Clearly if engaging in informed decision making requires costs (time of learning, etc) then just flipping a coin may indeed be very rational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.100.114 ( talk) 19:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flipism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
What more is needed for the reference in House of Cards? Frank Underwood literally mentions both Donald Duck, the name of the story Flip Decision, and the word flipism itself, in a long monologue to the viewers at the start of the episode to explain to them how come he's still President several months after the election which turned out a tie. -- 46.93.158.170 ( talk) 12:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)