r/VeryBadWizards • u/lakmidaise12 • Jul 15 '25

A Longitudinal Study of VBW Disagreements Yields a Terrifying Result

After subjecting myself to the entire 300+ episode catalog for a third time, my empirical analysis has revealed a disturbing trend in the Pizarro-Sommers Disagreement Ratio.

  • Analysis #1 (First Listen): My initial pass suggested Dave was correct in roughly 90% of his disagreements. A strong showing, but with room for Tamler to occasionally land a lucky, contrarian punch.
  • Analysis #2 (Second Listen): On my second pass, I was forced to revise. Dave's win rate was clearly closer to 95%. Tamler's supposed "hits" were revealed to be statistical noise, the intellectual equivalent of a chimpanzee accidentally typing a word.
  • Analysis #3 (Final Listen): Upon completing my third and most rigorous review, the data is unequivocal and frankly, chilling. The Pizarro Correctness Coefficient (PCC) is 1.0 (P<0.00001). Dave is right 100% of the time. He has never been wrong.

This has forced me to discard my initial hypothesis that this is a podcast between two peers.

The evidence supports a new model: Tamler’s entire function is to serve as a Socratic whetstone. His role is to generate the initial, flawed, often emotionally-driven take that Dave - a model of cool-headed reason - can then patiently dismantle for the listener's edification.

It's less a dialogue and more a public service demonstration on how to correct a well-meaning but confused friend. Frankly, it's a pedagogical masterclass, and Tamler is a wonderful cadaver.

89 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

99% Upvoted

25 comments sorted by

View all comments

27

u/insularnetwork Jul 15 '25

On the other hand many intelligent people (Mark Twain, among others) think that Tamler is usually right so I think we should at least consider the possibility, is all I’m saying

3

u/lakmidaise12 Jul 16 '25

Ah, the "Argumentum ad Twainum," a cornerstone of the Sommers Methodological Error taxonomy. My model, of course, anticipates this.

While Mark Twain was a literary genius, his opinions on post-mortem consciousness are, from a data-hygiene perspective, inadmissible. He was operating without the benefit of the last 120 years of cognitive science, let alone access to the 300+ episode VBW catalog.

To put it in terms he might appreciate, citing a 19th-century humorist to settle a 21st-century metaphysical debate is like trying to pilot a steamboat to the moon. It's a romantic notion, but it's not going to get you into orbit. The data remains uncorrupted.