The Best of Sklansky, December 2006
We should all share in the genius that is David Sklansky. I haven't seen stuff so consistently entertaining since Redpill stopped sharing his poker wisdom.
Best Sklanskyisms for the month of December, 2006:
"For instance anyone who is doing poorly [in life in general] while admitting they have never even tried to learn basic probability or logic goes almost automatically into the category of those that don't deserve our help, in my book."
"I would have been out of my element a little bit in Sociology or Psychology but not to the point that I couldn't have made up for it with sheer thinking ability."
"Up until the last few years I could easily have been a better baseball manager than anyone who had ever managed."
"It seems inpossible I would be the first to think of this but you never know.  The entities I am speaking of are the people you talk to while you are dreaming."
"I'm pretty sure that I have the jist of a proof that free will exists. Intuitively I am almost certain of it. But to turn this general idea into a rigorous proof would probably require a Godel type logician. Mere hi fallooin philosophers are probably not smart enough. I might be able to do it myself but I have got a poker tournament to deal with."
"With or without a patent, somebody out there should be able to transfer this idea, that should be simple to implement on a computer, onto something the size of a calculator. And then put my name on it, manufacture it for $10 a pop, and sell a couple of million of them for $39.95. That's fifty million bucks gross profit after subtracting my ten million endorsement fee."
"So I am left with poker and writing. As for impact on the world, there still a chance for me. Possibly by writing the most effective algebra book ever written."
"When Dan Bright asked for my opinion about whether he, a mildly nerdish 21 year old, had any chance of participating in a threesome with two hot female bisexual friends of his, I offered my standard insurance offer. $100 even money to be paid to him in a year if he fails and to be paid to me the moment he succeeds (with any two girls. Not just the two mentioned). He not only accepted, he offered to give a running commentary on his exploits on this forum while we cheered him on and offered advice. So I started that thread. Unfortunately as I was doing that, Dan got himself banned from this website. Maybe temporarily. Maybe indefinitely. That's off the subject.
But his bad luck is someone's good luck. Such a thread needs to be here. After all some of the best minds on the internet are coming to this forum and almost certainly there are others of you in a similar situation who would like access to those minds. I will entertain applications on this thread. The bet with me is optional."
"One of the problems with democracy is that some idiots vote and some genuises don't."
"It isn't really fair to defer to the majority in cases where a large minority have a STRONG reason to take the other side and the majority is close to neutral."
"In response to an open question about how a human UFC champion would fare in a fight against a 100-lb. chimpanzee: Assuming the chimpanzee knew it was in a fight from the git go, the answer would depend on whether there are some lethal or semi lethal blows that the human is aware of. I don't know about that. If there isn't, the chimpanzee is the dead nuts."
"NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO FORM A STRONG OPINION ABOUT ANY IMPORTANT SUBJECT IF THEY REALIZE THEY ARE CAPABLE OF CHANGING THEIR MIND UPON THE PRESENTATION OF FAIRLY UNSUPRISING NEW EVIDENCE." (Caps are Sklansky's.)
"So my question is were old time earthquakes that human science will never be able to investigate always on faults? And there is another question. Suppose there are some miscreants who deserve an earthquake now but don't live on a fault. Are we to assume thyat God used his omnipotence to forsee their sins and planned out the appropriate faults billions of years ago to punish them appropriately while still fooling the geologists?"
"In the baseball case I am speaking for any good gambler/mathmetician who also knows the game. I'm not just talking about myself. Meanwhile if a Mickey Appleman or me ever did achieve success, the present day managers would almost certainly crack open the books to reachieve superiority. So practically it means little.  As for my contention that I am potentially better in math and science than 95% of Phds, I only bring that up to justify the claim that my opinions should be given a lot of weight for reasons other than my poker books. That's not a big deal since, as luckyme would say, my words would speak for themselves. But my lack of credentials does sometimes make me feel like bringing up some other credential like stuff.  One thing I want to make very clear is that I don't talk about the possibility that I could have been one of the top 50 scientists or mathmeticians with regret. Even I strongly doubt that I could have been in the top five. You think I regret not being number 16? Find him and compare his Google hits or half his age girl hits to mine and tell me how they compare." (emphasis mine)
And of course, the finale:
"I expect to keep up this pace for about six days to see how well it goes out there and multiplies. Then I'm going to rest."