The 2017 Election Thread

[sidecar bob]

Yeah, I tend to state I'm only having a wild stab in the dark when I don't know something is a fact. I leave that to fuckwits like yourself. And hey, just because you'd rather suck the pony tail pulling fuckwits cock, not really my problem either.

I think you forgot, I recently put my feet up, I think the new govt was perfect timing for me. More hand outs for us lazy fucks.:msn-wink:

[Graystone]

Well, you can look at it multiple ways.

First off - We are a Sexually dimorphic species - so on a purely principled point- you could reasonably argue that given that data point alone, it's an irrational belief.

Secondly - what is your standard for 'Comprehensively'? Especially when considering your previous comment:



Then you've got the anthropomorphic argument, and I'm going to quote Wikipedia here:

"Most anthropologists hold that there are no known anthropological societies that are unambiguously matriarchal, but some authors believe exceptions may exist or may have"

When you package that with the fact there are civilizations, that are on opposite sides of the world, that have never had any form of contact, either in their recent history OR in their oral traditions, that all have arranged themselves into "patriarchal" societies - that is a strong empirical argument for there being differences.

Then you've got the various Neurological arguments - There seems to be a fairly uniform consensus that the average ratios of Grey/White matter between the Genders differs Link - and oh - look at that, it also points out it aligns with the Gender/IQ disparity, and even links to yet ANOTHER study showing the same result - same average, but greater male variability (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/study-finds-some-significant-differences-brains-men-and-women) - there's also the work done in regards to mapping the connections within the brain - with men showing a more linear structure, isolated within each hemisphere, whereas women showing more inter-connected structure - this was theorised (going from memory here) that the more linear structure resulted in faster reaction times and split-decision making, suggested to be an evolutionary advantage for combat.

Then you've got the differences that Testosterone has - the preference for things vs people - again has been fairly well documented, with studies done to account for societal bias (so using New borns) and also this has been replicated in other mamallian primates.

With that all said, let me return to my previous point about Malicious Equality (which you epicly fumbled your interpretation of):

If we were to remove all Gender segregation in sports - this would be a perfect example of Malicious Equality - in fact the result would look something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2QgDWSfQik Namely the worlds best Female Kickboxer Lucia Rijker (who was/is an absolute monster in the ring - going undefeated her entire career with only 1 draw against female opponents - with a massive KO ratio - She's a Badass) gets man-handled, then Knocked out by some no-name journeyman who doesn't even have a wikipedia page in the second round.

It is most certainly equality, but it is enforced in such a way to cause harm to the other gender.

A flipside example would be the trend of discouraging rough-and-tumble play in schools (such as banning bullrush/british bulldog, or even banning tag etc.) where the equity is trying to force young boys into more 'feminine' behavior - stopping them from indulging in 'boisterous' play (which, typically, are more popular amongst males than females).

And I'd say that enforcing a certain kind of Equality can absolutely be done for Sexist reasons (such as above)

That's nice dear, but it's still all (apart from the physical ability red herring) just...


A belief

Equality is not irrational. We're the same species, we do the same things, we have the same rights, why should we not be thought as equals? It certainly hasn't been proven in terms of mental aptitude that we are not.

It is unethical (therefor irrational) for equality not to be the default state, I mean where do you draw the line? Racial profiling? Eugenics? Demographics? Belief systems? Neurological disorders? At what point do you say, these people must be treated as equals as those attributes mean nothing compared to their actions and abilities?

[jasonu]

I think you forgot, I recently put my feet up, I think the new govt was perfect timing for me. More hand outs for dole bludgers, women that spit out kids cause it is easier and more profitable than actually working, other various benefit spongers, those that were here first that can't be bothered working because they were here first, lifetime uni students and any other lazy cunt that would rather get paid by the tax payers than be a contributing member to society :msn-wink:

Yep it is going to be a fucking field day for some.

[Katman]

I mean where do you draw the line?

Neurological disorders?

That would be a good place to start.

[Graystone]

That would be a good place to start.

I'm sure nobody would begrudge TPTB sending free crayons your way every now and then, just stop eating all the purple ones eh!

[Crasherfromwayback]

I think you forgot, I recently put my feet up, I think the new govt was perfect timing for me. More hand outs for us lazy fucks.:msn-wink:

A country without welfare is not a place I'd like to live. So yeah, having Jacinda and a government that actually wants to do something to help people, instead of lining their rich mates pockets, a-la JK, is a wonderful thing indeed. So if that makes it seem like I want to crawl up her arse, so be it. Ps: My Mrs is way hotter than Jacinda, so no, I don't actually want to fuck the PM.

[husaberg]

Okay then - how many Political leaders have committed suicide?

Hundreds more than any of the anologies you raised.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Politicians_who_committed_suicide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_state_and_government_who_committe d_suicide

I see you only refer to 1 or about 6 things that i highlighted.
So How many political leaders have failed due to them having a baby?
Also how many female leaders have needed to run a 100m faster than a male olympic athlete?



Furthermore, there is a growing mound of evidence that shows the Male suicide rate (in the west) has a relationship to some of the inequities that are levied against Men.
Yet Elite Women athletes run the 100 metres slower than male elite athletcs due to a male having
physiological advantage.




To that end - if any politician was to show signs of being suicidal, regardless of Gender, I'd want them stood down from their post and treatment sought.What you refer to is at the essence of the stigma that is attached to depression and is why people tend to not ask for help.

Lastly - it's a misinterpretation of my line of reasoning.
I don't agree, it resonable interpretation considering you consider the pm ability to run the 100m is relevent as well as her pregnancy.

[Grumph]

I don't agree, it resonable interpretation considering you consider the pm ability to run the 100m is relevent as well as her pregnancy.

At this point I'm forcibly reminded of the old quote from Ginger Rogers "I did everything that Fred Astaire did - but backwards and in heels"

[husaberg]

At this point I'm forcibly reminded of the old quote from Ginger Rogers "I did everything that Fred Astaire did - but backwards and in heels"
For less money too.

[Brian d marge]

This thread needs a bit of

Hot chocolate.....

https://youtu.be/J-GkwIRbLw8

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[AllanB]

I really don't understand why people get so passionate about politics.

Particularly in NZ

No one is every go to stray too far from the popular vote.

[TheDemonLord]

That's nice dear, but it's still all (apart from the physical ability red herring) just...

"Belief" as you say - that is backed by evidence.


Equality is not irrational. We're the same species, we do the same things, we have the same rights, why should we not be thought as equals? It certainly hasn't been proven in terms of mental aptitude that we are not.

Whoa!

Hold your horses there. That's a bait and switch if ever I saw one - your original statement was:


So do you consider my belief that 'men and women are equals in all areas unless comprehensively proven otherwise', to be an irrational belief, held against one particular gender?

To which I stated that there are multiple dimensions (all backed by evidence) that a logical and rational argument could be made that it is Irrational.

Then you talk about Equality - so which Equality? Equality of Oppertunity? Well, that's certainly not what you are referring to in the above statement. Perhaps you mean Equality under the law? But again, that is not what you said. you said that "Men and Women ARE equals in ALL areas" - There is a difference between BEING equal and being TREATED as equal.

Case in point - if myself and Mr Bolt end up before a Judge - in theory we will be treated as equals (as is right and proper to do) but that is a world away from saying Myself and Mr Bolt ARE equals.


It is unethical (therefor irrational) for equality not to be the default state, I mean where do you draw the line? Racial profiling? Eugenics? Demographics? Belief systems? Neurological disorders? At what point do you say, these people must be treated as equals as those attributes mean nothing compared to their actions and abilities?

Just because something is unethical, does not mean it is irrational.

Equality under the Law is the starting point, followed by Equality of Opportunity. However, with any group, trends appear - and some of them should be taken into account - for example, there's some data to suggest that a lot of Indigenous populations have such problems with Alcoholism due to the missing enzymes and mutable genes - do we ignore the group data?

What about the absolute domination of people from African decent in Track and Field? We know that the prevalence of fast-twitch muscle fibres gives them an edge in the sprinting event.

You see, there is a subtle difference:

I say that there is a group trait, that is well documented - and should be considered as a possibility
Whereas the Sexist you are trying to label me as says that since they belong to this group they MUST have this trait.

2 different statements.

[TheDemonLord]

Hundreds more than any of the anologies you raised.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Politicians_who_committed_suicide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_state_and_government_who_committe d_suicide

I see you only refer to 1 or about 6 things that i highlighted.
So How many political leaders have failed due to them having a baby?
Also how many female leaders have needed to run a 100m faster than a male olympic athlete?



So I looked first at the Politicians list, skipping to the NZ page - and interestingly enough - not one instance past the 1930s
Looking through the heads of State list there are a number of curious trends - namely those that killed themselves to avoid disgrace and those that killed themselves following or impending Military defeat.

How many Political leader have failed? well there's only been one political leader - Benazir Bhutto - who seemed to have quite a few issues with corruption during her tenure.

When you compare to the wider demographic of highly paid Women professionals - this is where we see that many of them opt for a more balanced home/work life, pass up oppertunities for advancement that would negatively impact this balance. As a perfect example - I point you again to Toni Street and her decision to step down from Seven Sharp, despite it being her dream job (according to her) because she wanted a more balanced life.

As for Female leaders needing to run 100 meters - it might have helped Benazir....


Yet Elite Women athletes run the 100 metres slower than male elite athletcs due to a male having
physiological advantage.


For sure - but this was a refutation to the statement made by Graystone (or variants of it) that Men and Women ARE equals. which was a foundational premise. Since you agree that there is a Physiological advantage, do you think that there are any Neurological advantages? It's not a huge leap from one to the other - and you can pick either way that you fancy - there are definitely a few areas that Women have an advantage (Linguistics I think is one) but there are others where Men have an advantage (such as Competitiveness)


What you refer to is at the essence of the stigma that is attached to depression and is why people tend to not ask for help.

I'm going to quote Star Trek here:

"Regulation 619: The commanding officer must relieve themselves of command if their current mission leaves them emotionally compromised and unable to make rational decisions"

If your mental state is impacting your ability to do your job, then the ONLY responsible option is to step down and seek help. Stigma or not. To put it another way - is it right that you would risk the lives and livelihoods of others due to your own issues?


I don't agree, it resonable interpretation considering you consider the pm ability to run the 100m is relevent as well as her pregnancy.

Can you quote me where I've said as such?

[husaberg]

So I looked first at the Politicians list, skipping to the NZ page - and interestingly enough - not one instance past the 1930s
Looking through the heads of State list there are a number of curious trends - namely those that killed themselves to avoid disgrace and those that killed themselves following or impending Military defeat.
How many Political leader have failed? well there's only been one political leader - Benazir Bhutto - who seemed to have quite a few issues with corruption during her tenure.
When you compare to the wider demographic of highly paid Women professionals - this is where we see that many of them opt for a more balanced home/work life, pass up oppertunities for advancement that would negatively impact this balance. As a perfect example - I point you again to Toni Street and her decision to step down from Seven Sharp, despite it being her dream job (according to her) because she wanted a more balanced life.

As for Female leaders needing to run 100 meters - it might have helped Benazir....



For sure - but this was a refutation to the statement made by Graystone (or variants of it) that Men and Women ARE equals. which was a foundational premise. Since you agree that there is a Physiological advantage, do you think that there are any Neurological advantages? It's not a huge leap from one to the other - and you can pick either way that you fancy - there are definitely a few areas that Women have an advantage (Linguistics I think is one) but there are others where Men have an advantage (such as Competitiveness)



I'm going to quote Star Trek here:

"Regulation 619: The commanding officer must relieve themselves of command if their current mission leaves them emotionally compromised and unable to make rational decisions"

If your mental state is impacting your ability to do your job, then the ONLY responsible option is to step down and seek help. Stigma or not. To put it another way - is it right that you would risk the lives and livelihoods of others due to your own issues?



Can you quote me where I've said as such?
Every Pakistani leader has faced corruption allegations
Note Benazir Bhutto served twice including after the initial corruption allegations
Not one NZ leader on the list you say, but yet 41 males and zero females................ you ignore the math.
As for the relevance of what you suggest about 100m times and where look above.
ps quoting star trek FAF

[Brian d marge]

I really don't understand why people get so passionate about politics.

Particularly in NZ

No one is every go to stray too far from the popular vote.Cause the lying cnts that run the show are ruining my day....

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Brian d marge]

Every Pakistani leader has faced corruption allegations
Note Benazir Bhutto served twice including after the initial corruption allegations
Not one NZ leader on the list you say, but yet 41 males and zero females................ you ignore the math.
As for the relevance of what you suggest about 100m times and where look above.
ps quoting star trek FAFSo the Pakistani press has more balls than RNZ.
They are all as bad as each other

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Berries]

At this point I'm forcibly reminded of the old quote from Ginger Rogers "I did everything that Fred Astaire did - but backwards and in heels"

For less money too.
Let's not get carried away. That was not because she was a woman, or weaker, or anything else that has been mentioned in the many incoherent ramblings above.




She was ginger.

[mashman]

Cause the lying cnts that run the show are ruining my day....

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa. It's the only way they can help you bring the best out in yourself. Stop being so selfish, everyone else is fine :wari:

[Banditbandit]

Cause the lying cnts that run the show are ruining my day....

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

You let them do that - YOU - you give them space in your head

If you ignore them they don't ruin your day.

Yeah - they are all fucking power junkies ... and yeah, they are rubbish ... so fuck it. I don't give them space in my head at all ...

[oldrider]

You let them do that - YOU - you give them space in your head

If you ignore them they don't ruin your day.

Yeah - they are all fucking power junkies ... and yeah, they are rubbish ... so fuck it. I don't give them space in my head at all ...

But they still do it to you (and everybody else) the only difference is that you are ecstatic about it rather than pissed off - that is the extent of your control. :( . :D

[Graystone]

"Belief" as you say - that is backed by evidence.



Whoa!

Hold your horses there. That's a bait and switch if ever I saw one - your original statement was:



To which I stated that there are multiple dimensions (all backed by evidence) that a logical and rational argument could be made that it is Irrational.

Then you talk about Equality - so which Equality? Equality of Oppertunity? Well, that's certainly not what you are referring to in the above statement. Perhaps you mean Equality under the law? But again, that is not what you said. you said that "Men and Women ARE equals in ALL areas" - There is a difference between BEING equal and being TREATED as equal.

Case in point - if myself and Mr Bolt end up before a Judge - in theory we will be treated as equals (as is right and proper to do) but that is a world away from saying Myself and Mr Bolt ARE equals.



Just because something is unethical, does not mean it is irrational.

Equality under the Law is the starting point, followed by Equality of Opportunity. However, with any group, trends appear - and some of them should be taken into account - for example, there's some data to suggest that a lot of Indigenous populations have such problems with Alcoholism due to the missing enzymes and mutable genes - do we ignore the group data?

What about the absolute domination of people from African decent in Track and Field? We know that the prevalence of fast-twitch muscle fibres gives them an edge in the sprinting event.

You see, there is a subtle difference:

I say that there is a group trait, that is well documented - and should be considered as a possibility
Whereas the Sexist you are trying to label me as says that since they belong to this group they MUST have this trait.

2 different statements.

Being thought of as equals. You and Bolt are individuals, and should be judged by your actions (as should Jacinda), now if you'd said a man and another man were before a judge, then they should be thought of as equals of course, as should a woman and a man; that's my case in point, thank you for underscoring it.

In each of those cases, it promotes a bias based on what group they belong to. Fine if it meets the burden of proof and becomes factually correct as in the case of separate sports classes (though it is telling how men's sports are simple called the name of said sport, and women's ones are nearly always preceded by "women's"), but when it falls far short of the burden of proof like your IQ claims, that makes it a sexist belief.

[RDJ]

This thread needs a bit of

Hot chocolate.....

https://youtu.be/J-GkwIRbLw8

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Damn good beat to that song, never gets old!

[sidecar bob]

Damn good beat to that song, never gets old!

Agreed, although it's hard to beat a bit of brown girl in the ring.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GiX2PbrBXCQ

[Brian d marge]

Agreed, although it's hard to beat a bit of brown girl in the ring.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GiX2PbrBXCQI get a boney M .

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[mashman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD2o1cYhQoI

[Brian d marge]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD2o1cYhQoIIf I watch it ...will my sex life improve?...?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[mashman]

If I watch it ...will my sex life improve?...?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

I showed it to the missus before. She smiled. So whilst I dunno about you, mine has potential. Mind you, show a woman that video and that heart pic you've got, and I don't see how you can lose.

[Brian d marge]

I showed it to the missus before. She smiled. So whilst I dunno about you, mine has potential. Mind you, show a woman that video and that heart pic you've got, and I don't see how you can lose.I did on Facebook.....it was popular...but no offers

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[TheDemonLord]

Being thought of as equals. You and Bolt are individuals, and should be judged by your actions (as should Jacinda), now if you'd said a man and another man were before a judge, then they should be thought of as equals of course, as should a woman and a man; that's my case in point, thank you for underscoring it.

Except being thought of and being treated as are 2 distinct concepts.

You keep chopping and changing between the two as it suits your purpose.



In each of those cases, it promotes a bias based on what group they belong to. Fine if it meets the burden of proof and becomes factually correct as in the case of separate sports classes (though it is telling how men's sports are simple called the name of said sport, and women's ones are nearly always preceded by "women's"), but when it falls far short of the burden of proof like your IQ claims, that makes it a sexist belief.

So you agree, Nature itself is biased...

Maybe cause almost all sports were invented by men, for men?

However - I see you still haven't got anything refuting the gender differences in IQ.

Tell me, what IS the level of proof you would accept?

[Graystone]

Except being thought of and being treated as are 2 distinct concepts.

You keep chopping and changing between the two as it suits your purpose.



So you agree, Nature itself is biased...

Maybe cause almost all sports were invented by men, for men?

However - I see you still haven't got anything refuting the gender differences in IQ.

Tell me, what IS the level of proof you would accept?

Not really, think of them as equals so treat them as such. I'm sure you can find some edge case contrived example bullshitery to be the exemption to prove the rule, so to speak.

Nature's bias is one of semantics.

Just some run of the mill causal proof, none of this correlative sexist garbage that completely fails to establish causality.

[husaberg]

However - I see you still haven't got anything refuting the gender differences in IQ.



What you are referring to as a Gender IQ difference is a variation in the min and the max IQ of males.
which when looks real only if one looks at it without properly understanding, that this variation a greater variation of IQ is easily explained as being a result of the greater variation of body size of the males thus leading to a greater range of IQs.
Thus it is not believed by most to be a true reflection of an actual gender IQ difference but more a simple anatomical difference.
That is not to say womans brains are not different to mens and visa versa.

Womans and mens brains are of course different, but they are equal.But getting back to your context.
Anyone who believes that someone should be prejudged on a ability to preform a job as you did with the PM solely based on their sex as you did is wrong. Feel free to judge her performance after having a baby though, at least that way it will appear that you are using actual evidence.

[Berries]

Womans brains are different but equal still can be different and anyone who believes that someone should be prejudged on a ability to preform a job as you did with the PM solely based on their sex is wrong.
I know we have given up with English as the PM but it still helps to use it when typing.

[TheDemonLord]

Not really, think of them as equals so treat them as such.

No. They aren't the same. It's why we have different words for them.


I'm sure you can find some edge case contrived example bullshitery to be the exemption to prove the rule, so to speak.

No need to. See above.


Nature's bias is one of semantics.

More like application - and those are very different concepts.


Just some run of the mill causal proof,

You mean like multiple experiments run cross-culturally and on large scales where the only variable that was changed was Gender? Backed up by further Empirical evidence? I've given you that:


In nearly all cases, establishment of causality relies on repetition of experiments and probabilistic reasoning. Hardly ever is causality established more firmly than as more or less probable. It is often most convenient for establishment of causality if the contrasting material states of affairs are fully comparable, and differ through only one variable factor, perhaps measured by a real number.

I've given you 4 or 5 different sets of data that all show the exact same pattern: Same average IQ, greater variability.

I've even provided you with one of the theories that provides both a predictive model and a proposed reason for the differences.


none of this correlative sexist garbage that completely fails to establish causality.

If it was just "correlative sexist garbage" then you'd have posted some form of rebuttal to the evidence (problem with the Study, variables not adequately controlled for etc. etc.)

But.
You.
Haven't.

And the more you froth and foam at the mouth screaming "Sexist!", the more you demonstrate you've lost the intellectual debate, by resorting to Ad Hominems.

[Ocean1]

Womans and mens brains are of course different, but they are equal.

Oxymoron central around here lately.


anyone who believes that someone should be prejudged on a ability to preform a job as you did with the PM solely based on their sex as you did is wrong. Feel free to judge her performance after having a baby though, at least that way it will appear that you are using actual evidence.

Mate, I've worked with female fencers, and based on the resulting evidence I'd not hire a female to do that job. And given that it's my money that's paying for the job I'll make whatever choice I please.

[TheDemonLord]

Every Pakistani leader has faced corruption allegations

Lol - fair point.


Note Benazir Bhutto served twice including after the initial corruption allegations

True, but then she was assassinated, which tends to suggest not everyone was happy with her.


Not one NZ leader on the list you say, but yet 41 males and zero females................ you ignore the math.

Not at all, I'm saying you are drawing a false conclusion, of the world leaders that committed suicide - none were due to mental health, broadly speaking, all were to avoid further persecution (be it legal, military, etc.)

If you are going to play that game - do I need to reference Cleopatra?


As for the relevance of what you suggest about 100m times and where look above.
ps quoting star trek FAF

Except I didn't, I made a crude joke about an assassination - which is not the same thing.

Star Trek is also a bountiful well of knowledge - there are some stellar episodes which explore various philosophical concepts.

We tell stories to explain concepts that we fully don't understand yet.

[husaberg]

Star Trek is also a bountiful well of knowledge - there are some stellar episodes which explore various philosophical concepts.



That's illogical

[TheDemonLord]

What you are referring to as a Gender IQ difference is a variation in the min and the max IQ of males.
which when looks real only if one looks at it without properly understanding, that this variation a greater variation of IQ is easily explained as being a result of the greater variation of body size of the males thus leading to a greater range of IQs.
Thus it is not believed by most to be a true reflection of an actual gender IQ difference but more a simple anatomical difference.
That is not to say womans brains are not different to mens and visa versa.

Mate.

If its caused by an anatomical difference (and FYI I reject that notion) and the anatomical difference is related to gender, you can't say it's not a true reflection of actual gender differences....


Womans and mens brains are of course different, but they are equal.

Depends on what you mean by 'Equal'? Average IQ wise - yeah, they are equal, but even within that, there are areas that Women tend to excel at (such as language) and there are areas that Men tend to excel at (such as spacial related tasks)



But getting back to your context.
Anyone who believes that someone should be prejudged on a ability to preform a job as you did with the PM solely based on their sex as you did is wrong. Feel free to judge her performance after having a baby though, at least that way it will appear that you are using actual evidence.

Except I didn't prejudge her, did I? I never said she couldn't - I pointed to several risks associated with Pregnancy and birth that are born (heh) solely by Women and I pointed to several trends in choices that are 100% applicable to this scenario.

My greater concern was what it means if she does have to take extended time off - namely we get a PM who IMO doesn't have a mandate of the people.

[TheDemonLord]

That's illogical

Not sure if witty pun or scathing retort...

[TheDemonLord]

Oxymoron central around here lately.



Mate, I've worked with female fencers, and based on the resulting evidence I'd not hire a female to do that job. And given that it's my money that's paying for the job I'll make whatever choice I please.


I'll just leave this here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html

[husaberg]

Oxymoron central around here lately.



Mate, I've worked with female fencers, and based on the resulting evidence I'd not hire a female to do that job. And given that it's my money that's paying for the job I'll make whatever choice I please.

Change the word female to black Maori or Arab and see if its a racist statement.
You got to vote and the Nats didn't get into power.

[husaberg]

Not sure if witty pun or scathing retort...
Well give it all shes got then.

[TheDemonLord]

Well give it all shes got then.

I cannae change the laws of physics!

[husaberg]

Except I didn't prejudge her, did I? I never said she couldn't - I pointed to several risks associated with Pregnancy and birth that are born (heh) solely by Women and I pointed to several trends in choices that are 100% applicable to this scenario.

My greater concern was what it means if she does have to take extended time off - namely we get a PM who IMO doesn't have a mandate of the people.

I beg to differ You said she should step down based on her being pregnant.

[YellowDog]

Change the word female to black Maori or Arab and see if its a racist statement.
You got to vote and the Nats didn't get into power.

Some excellent strong & fit female workers around. Some lazy good for nothing white male ones around too. Just saying :shutup:

[TheDemonLord]

I beg to differ You said she should step down based on her being pregnant.

Care to back that up with a Citation?

I've stated on at least 5 different occasions in this thread the complete opposite.

[Brian d marge]

I beg to differ You said she should step down based on her being pregnant.She would need to incubate the egg for a while. Do reptiles incubate eggs ...
Who would run the country if she did?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[husaberg]

She would need to incubate the egg for a while. Do reptiles incubate eggs ...
Who would run the country if she did?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
She's not a shapeshifting lizard, they all in the National and Act party.

[Brian d marge]

She's not a shapeshifting lizard, they all in the National and Act party.Unless she shifted.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[jim.cox]

Who would run the country if she did?

Unfortunately for us, that falls to the deputy prime minister - Winnie The Shit :(

[Ocean1]

Change the word female to black Maori or Arab and see if its a racist statement.
You got to vote and the Nats didn't get into power.

Why the fuck would I do that? We're discussing the differences between the sexes, not races.

Which, while a hilarious commentary on the farcical concepts embedded in our electoral system is also completely irrelevant.

So what's your point again?

[Graystone]

No. They aren't the same. It's why we have different words for them.



No need to. See above.



More like application - and those are very different concepts.



You mean like multiple experiments run cross-culturally and on large scales where the only variable that was changed was Gender? Backed up by further Empirical evidence? I've given you that:



I've given you 4 or 5 different sets of data that all show the exact same pattern: Same average IQ, greater variability.

I've even provided you with one of the theories that provides both a predictive model and a proposed reason for the differences.



If it was just "correlative sexist garbage" then you'd have posted some form of rebuttal to the evidence (problem with the Study, variables not adequately controlled for etc. etc.)

But.
You.
Haven't.

And the more you froth and foam at the mouth screaming "Sexist!", the more you demonstrate you've lost the intellectual debate, by resorting to Ad Hominems.

Semantics... x3

Those are correlative studies, not causal. Do you even understand the difference? That is the rebuttal. Stop showing off your lack of scientific literacy and realise that.

The theory paper is just that, a theory, not proven through causal data/tests.

There is no reason for a rebuttal of the science since you are misapplying it, that is what I'm addressing, your misapplication of science.

Nah, the more I point out your sexism, the more it is countered. I'm not going to let your sexist bullshit go unchallenged and not call it what it is simply because you play the 'ad hominem' card, grow up.

[husaberg]

Why the fuck would I do that? We're discussing the differences between the sexes, not races.

Which, while a hilarious commentary on the farcical concepts embedded in our electoral system is also completely irrelevant.

So what's your point again?

Because what you are doing is the same as racism. In this case, you are making generic assumptions based on sex rather than individually assessing an individual’s performance.

[Ocean1]

Because what you are doing is the same as racism. In this case, you are making generic assumptions based on sex rather than individually assessing an individual’s performance.

No, I'm afraid it's not the same as racism. And anyone claiming that males and females should be deemed to be equally capable in any given regard until proven otherwise is a fucking idiot.

But you go right ahead and spend your hard earned money in hiring any Hermaphrodite, Agender, Androgyne, Pangender, or Queer etc etc etc with a fashionably rigid lack of consideration for their suitability for whatever duties you'll require of them. Just keep your trendy left-wing authoritarianism to yourself, though eh? that's nasty shit.

[husaberg]

No, I'm afraid it's not the same as racism. And anyone claiming that males and females should be deemed to be equally capable in any given regard until proven otherwise is a fucking idiot.

But you go right ahead and spend your hard earned money in hiring any Hermaphrodite, Agender, Androgyne, Pangender, or Queer etc etc etc with a fashionably rigid lack of consideration for their suitability for whatever duties you'll require of them. Just keep your trendy left-wing authoritarianism to yourself, though eh? that's nasty shit.

You just don't get it now do you. You should asses an individual on their merits not their gender, their religon, colour, sexual preference hair colour etc etc.




Anyone who believes that someone should be prejudged on a ability to preform a job as you did with the PM solely based on their sex as you did is wrong. Feel free to judge her performance after having a baby though, at least that way it will appear that you are using actual evidence.


Mate, I've worked with female fencers, and based on the resulting evidence I'd not hire a female to do that job. And given that it's my money that's paying for the job I'll make whatever choice I please.

[TheDemonLord]

Semantics... x3

Those are correlative studies, not causal. Do you even understand the difference? That is the rebuttal. Stop showing off your lack of scientific literacy and realise that.

The theory paper is just that, a theory, not proven through causal data/tests.

There is no reason for a rebuttal of the science since you are misapplying it, that is what I'm addressing, your misapplication of science.

Nah, the more I point out your sexism, the more it is countered. I'm not going to let your sexist bullshit go unchallenged and not call it what it is simply because you play the 'ad hominem' card, grow up.

Okay then - given that I've quoted the definition of causal in a scientific sense, and all of the studies conform to it's requirements - exactly what requirements for causality are you saying are not being met?

You've simply stated it as fact, yet failed yet again to provide anything to prop up your tower of babel.

You are beginning to sound like Katman when pressed into a corner that you lack the evidence to get out of.

[TheDemonLord]

Care to back that up with a Citation?

I've stated on at least 5 different occasions in this thread the complete opposite.

So Husa, would you like to retract your statement? You've posted in this thread since, and no citation has been forthcoming.

[Graystone]

Okay then - given that I've quoted the definition of causal in a scientific sense, and all of the studies conform to it's requirements - exactly what requirements for causality are you saying are not being met?

You've simply stated it as fact, yet failed yet again to provide anything to prop up your tower of babel.

You are beginning to sound like Katman when pressed into a corner that you lack the evidence to get out of.

The studies fail it's requirements, most notably in the isolation of changed variables. Thus it fails to establish any sort of relative likelihood. The proposed theory one is obviously failing that definition as well. It would also behoove you to cite the source of said definition.

What have I stated as fact?

[husaberg]

So Husa, would you like to retract your statement? You've posted in this thread since, and no citation has been forthcoming.No. You care for tennis?:bleh:
I have been working away, i will need time to go through the 50 odd (likely more) pages of your rather long winded posts to find it.

[Crasherfromwayback]

And anyone claiming that males and females should be deemed to be equally capable in any given regard until proven otherwise is a fucking idiot.

t.

Why? And we're not talking 100m sprints here right? Are you just that bitter and twisted about Jacinda becoming PM, that you've totally lost your shit?

[TheDemonLord]

Semantics... x3


Not really, think of them as equals so treat them as such. I'm sure you can find some edge case contrived example bullshitery to be the exemption to prove the rule, so to speak.

So these statements really irked me, and i couldn't put my finger on what it was that bothered me, until now.

Western civilization is predicated on the notion of the individual - it's why we stopped the practice of slavery and enacted human rights.

The notion of the individual requires that people be thought of as different. Not different but equal, but wholly different. It's why we have things like Job Interviews and tests.

Now, contrast this with the Law, that requires each individual to be treated as an equal - in this case, we set out the barest minimum of unacceptable behavior that everyone (who isn't otherwise impaired) can attain.

Likewise with education - we provide a bare minimum level of schooling so that everyone has a base level of opportunity.

And from that it should be patently clear, this is not semantic differences but separate concepts.

[TheDemonLord]

No. You care for tennis?:bleh:
I have been working away, i will need time to go through the 50 odd (likely more) pages of your rather long winded posts to find it.

It starts at about page 70, and I had a check (incase I'd missed a word or biff typed something) - you can't cite it, cause I didn't say it.

[TheDemonLord]

The studies fail it's requirements, most notably in the isolation of changed variables. Thus it fails to establish any sort of relative likelihood. The proposed theory one is obviously failing that definition as well. It would also behoove you to cite the source of said definition.

What have I stated as fact?

The only variable that was changed was Gender.

Try again.

[Ocean1]

You just don't get it now do you. You should asses an individual on their merits not their gender, their religon, colour, sexual preference hair colour etc etc.


A lot more than that, in fact. Skill, diligence, training, childishly rabid socialist beliefs, and gender.

This, in the certain knowledge that in the real world men and women are very different, have different abilities, behaviour. Believe otherwise all you like, I'm done here.

[Ocean1]

Why? And we're not talking 100m sprints here right? Are you just that bitter and twisted about Jacinda becoming PM, that you've totally lost your shit?

If the job involves sprinting then why would you ignore the ability to sprint?

I have no problem whatsoever with a female head of state. Slightly miffed at a minority socialist outfit though.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Slightly miffed at a minority socialist outfit though.

Someone needs to look up the word *minority*.

[Swoop]

Are you just that bitter and twisted about Jacinda becoming PM, that you've totally lost your shit?

Anyone is entitled to be.
The left whine incessantly when they don't get their way (democrats in Murica still going after a whole year) and after national got in there were the same levels of bleating from NZ's socialist/communist groups here.

Sad to see the vindictive brigade are pulling labour's strings now, with charter schools getting attention from the teacher's union. So much for "helping the kids" though.

Keep a good eye on all those promises the made to buy votes... "Fixing the housing crisis" is not looking good for them.

[Crasherfromwayback]

. "Fixing the housing crisis" is not looking good for them.

Yeah well, at least they aim to try. National said there wasn't one, so bit hard to fix with that attitude eh?

[husaberg]

A lot more than that, in fact. Skill, diligence, training, childishly rabid socialist beliefs, and gender.

This, in the certain knowledge that in the real world men and women are very different, have different abilities, behaviour. Believe otherwise all you like, I'm done here.
As i said on their individual merits. So what you have already said, is that no mater how good an individual is at their job if they don't fit your particular preconcieived gender defined rules. They are clearly in your opinion no good.




Mate, I've worked with female fencers, and based on the resulting evidence I'd not hire a female to do that job. And given that it's my money that's paying for the job I'll make whatever choice I please.
Yeah that clearly showed no bias on your part:laugh:
So you are taking boring old Bills falling on the sword a bit tuff Ocean.

[Swoop]

Yeah well, at least they aim to try. National said there wasn't one, so bit hard to fix with that attitude eh?

Work was progressing on it. Why would anyone hold onto 1/4 acre sections with a small state house (2, perhaps 3 bedrooms?) on it? Madness. The same thing when a state house is occupied with one person when the rest of the family has grown up and moved away. They then get their whine happening when told to move out so another family can live there ("it's MY house!!!" is all you hear).
Reinvest properties into something that can accommodate more people.
Sadly there is a mentality that everyone "needs" a large section, when we need to be providing roofs over heads for those in need.

As for the nonsensical approach of "freeing up more land for housing"? How stupid. Councils need to build UPwards, not outwards, but they don't like that because they miss out on raping ratepayers for land value.
Secondly is the affect of public transport. Denser housing combines to justify improving public transport systems like light rail or eventually underground rail.

The long term planning ability of government and council is pathetic.


As for Twyford demanding "more Hobsonvilles" goes to show how silly he is. Hobsonville is seeing people wanting to get the hell out of there because it isn't what was planned (for over a decade's worth of planning!).

[Graystone]

The only variable that was changed was Gender.

Try again.

That's my point, they did not isolate causal variables, so they cannot conclude anything about the cause. This is basic scientific principals mate, correlation does not equal causation. Nullius in verba.

[jasonu]

Work was progressing on it. Why would anyone hold onto 1/4 acre sections with a small state house (2, perhaps 3 bedrooms?) on it? Madness. The same thing when a state house is occupied with one person when the rest of the family has grown up and moved away. They then get their whine happening when told to move out so another family can live there ("it's MY house!!!" is all you hear).
Reinvest properties into something that can accommodate more people.
Sadly there is a mentality that everyone "needs" a large section, when we need to be providing roofs over heads for those in need.

).

Dam straight. You want a big section then buy one yourself. Sell all the Remuera and Epsom million dollar state houses and buy 3 (or more) for one new properties in Otara. They can fuck off down there and if they don't like it, tough titties.

[Crasherfromwayback]

So you National Sad Sacks accuse Jacinda of being a liar. Didn't I hear Old Billy Boy, just the other day, categorically state he was NOT going to stand down? :killingme

Bye bye Billy!!! Ya fucking sad sack loser!!:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:ki llingme:killingme:killingme

[Ocean1]

Yeah that clearly showed no bias on your part:laugh:

Correct. It shows the benefit of evidence from experience in the ability of female fencers. Which isn't really anything like bias at all, is it?

But, and I can't stress this enough: you go hire a whole slew of females and get out there and make a killing in the fencing line, dude. Back your shit up with your own money. I suggest you pay them according to their productive output. :laugh:

[husaberg]

Correct. It shows the benefit of evidence from experience in the ability of female fencers. Which isn't really anything like bias at all, is it?

But, and I can't stress this enough: you go hire a whole slew of females and get out there and make a killing in the fencing line, dude. Back your shit up with your own money. I suggest you pay them according to their productive output. :laugh:
So as you have stated you have no bias, then you have experienced the quality of work from every female fencer then.
Otherwise ....... (actually, I sincerly doubt you are able to join the dots on that one either)
Ps fencers (like shearers) are paid on the quantity of work, if you knew f-all about fencing in the first place.
You would have actually known that.


Thus it mght be better to stick to stuff you know well, like feeling aggrieved that a female is running the country again instead of Bill English.
You should be well used to that its not like its the first time its happened.
So have you been on the phone to Don Brash yet? Hes traditionally next in line when Bill quits after losing an election isn't he?

[Grumph]

Correct. It shows the benefit of evidence from experience in the ability of female fencers. Which isn't really anything like bias at all, is it?

But, and I can't stress this enough: you go hire a whole slew of females and get out there and make a killing in the fencing line, dude. Back your shit up with your own money. I suggest you pay them according to their productive output. :laugh:

Well, two things here....

One - the daughter of an old friend represented NZ in fencing - I wouldn't have liked to go against her even with a longer foil....

Two - the main local fencing contractor is a husband and wife team - and she's the driving force. I wouldn't go against her in any circumstance. If pinetree had been up against her carting posts in the classic ad, she'd have shown him up.

[TheDemonLord]

That's my point, they did not isolate causal variables, so they cannot conclude anything about the cause. This is basic scientific principals mate, correlation does not equal causation. Nullius in verba.

Gender is the Causal Variable, and it was isolated.

Edit: also, It seems like you are trying to setup a catch 22:

"It's not an isolated causal variable, so there's no causal link
There's no causal link, therefore it's not a causal variable."

Unless, of course - you want to make an argument about the infinite number of social variables that in ANY social science experiment are impossible to perfectly control for - then by all means, go ahead - you'll just have to invalidate several entire branches of science to make that argument.

But then, I'd simply retort with "That's why we use large sample sizes, to average out those infinite social variables" - and we've run the experiment multiple times, with the same result.

[sidecar bob]

So you National Sad Sacks accuse Jacinda of being a liar. Didn't I hear Old Billy Boy, just the other day, categorically state he was NOT going to stand down? :killingme

Bye bye Billy!!! Ya fucking sad sack loser!!:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:ki llingme:killingme:killingme

Why are labour supporters always so angry?
He's off to enjoy his own free time now. Wouldn't that just be a treat.:niceone:

[Voltaire]

Why are labour supporters always so angry?
He's off to enjoy his own free time now. Wouldn't that just be a treat.:niceone:

They are angry because they think the Govt will make their lives better, only the person in the mirror can do that.

Be interesting to see what miracles Labour can achieve in 3 years.

[Grumph]

I see Crusher Collins has declared as a candidate for leader....I reckon if I was in national caucus, I'd step back and let her have it.

Better out front where you can see her than biting you from behind....

And she'd only be a caretaker leader anyway.

[TheDemonLord]

They are angry because they think the Govt will make their lives better, only the person in the mirror can do that.

Be interesting to see what miracles Labour can achieve in 3 years.

It's funny that you used the word "Miracles"... (https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/opinion-jacinda-may-not-able-walk-water-yet-anyway-but-give-her-time)

[Crasherfromwayback]

Why are labour supporters always so angry?
He's off to enjoy his own free time now. Wouldn't that just be a treat.:niceone:


They are angry because they think the Govt will make their lives better, only the person in the mirror can do that.

Be interesting to see what miracles Labour can achieve in 3 years.

Funnily enough, I'm not angry in the slightest. I'm really happy in fact, as the change I voted for happened. Not that much will change for me, but I simply wanted the self serving look after ya rich mates group of cunts gone. Top result all round for me. It's actually the national crowd that foolishly thought for sure Old Winnie would swing their way that seem the angry ones. :baby:

[sidecar bob]

It's funny that you used the word "Miracles"... (https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/opinion-jacinda-may-not-able-walk-water-yet-anyway-but-give-her-time)

Don't get your butt kissing & your miracles mixed up.;)

[TheDemonLord]

Don't get your butt kissing & your miracles mixed up.;)

Lawl - I dunno - the Walking on Water isn't mere butt kissing, That's full on ass-to-mouth, 2 girls, one cup action.

[Voltaire]

Walking on Water.....the Media do enjoy meaningless headlines.

[nerrrd]

As for the nonsensical approach of "freeing up more land for housing"? How stupid. Councils need to build UPwards, not outwards, but they don't like that because they miss out on raping ratepayers for land value.

It may be just that it's much easier and cheaper to build new infrastructure than upgrade the existing (which is already overloaded).

[Graystone]

Gender is the Causal Variable, and it was isolated.

Edit: also, It seems like you are trying to setup a catch 22:

"It's not an isolated causal variable, so there's no causal link
There's no causal link, therefore it's not a causal variable."

Unless, of course - you want to make an argument about the infinite number of social variables that in ANY social science experiment are impossible to perfectly control for - then by all means, go ahead - you'll just have to invalidate several entire branches of science to make that argument.

But then, I'd simply retort with "That's why we use large sample sizes, to average out those infinite social variables" - and we've run the experiment multiple times, with the same result.

Your data doesn't tell us if it is a societal cause, biological, or one of many other options though. You can't just tell me averaging makes it the one you want it to be, science and stats just don't work that way. Nullius in verba.

[Graystone]

So these statements really irked me, and i couldn't put my finger on what it was that bothered me, until now.

Western civilization is predicated on the notion of the individual - it's why we stopped the practice of slavery and enacted human rights.

The notion of the individual requires that people be thought of as different. Not different but equal, but wholly different. It's why we have things like Job Interviews and tests.

Now, contrast this with the Law, that requires each individual to be treated as an equal - in this case, we set out the barest minimum of unacceptable behavior that everyone (who isn't otherwise impaired) can attain.

Likewise with education - we provide a bare minimum level of schooling so that everyone has a base level of opportunity.

And from that it should be patently clear, this is not semantic differences but separate concepts.

What convoluted bullshit. You think of and treat someone as an equal until they are a known individual and a sound judgement can be made, it's that simple. You're trying to go halfway and think of someone as inferior because of their group membership, instead of their individual merits. Western civilisation is defined by not doing that.

[Katman]

What convoluted bullshit.

I think you're finally starting to figure out our DemonLard.

[Graystone]

I think you're finally starting to figure out our DemonLard.

Had you pegged from about day one though.

https://www.kenlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/stupid-crayon.png

[mashman]

Had you pegged from about day one though.

Ladies and gentlemen. Indoctrination 101. Run with the crowd and you can never go wrong.

[TheDemonLord]

Your data doesn't tell us if it is a societal cause, biological, or one of many other options though.

Now, you are just being deliberately obtuse.

We've run it across multiple societies - same result - there's you societal factor ruled out.

Ah yes, the mythical 'many other options' - frequently employed when you don't like the result.

Just like you dismiss the empirical evidence, cause you don't like the conclusion either.


You can't just tell me averaging makes it the one you want it to be, science and stats just don't work that way. Nullius in verba.

Good, cause that's not what I'm telling you. I'm well aware of how Science and Stats work - that's why I'm able to cite the studies that inform my views and defend their methodology from dogmatic attacks.

[TheDemonLord]

Ladies and gentlemen. Indoctrination 101. Run with the crowd and you can never go wrong.

Precious, coming from the chief Propagandist.

[TheDemonLord]

What convoluted bullshit.

No.


You think of and treat someone as an equal

yes, you can do both - but they are separate and distinct actions. As demonstrated, they are different in both form and function.


until they are a known individual and a sound judgement can be made, it's that simple. You're trying to go halfway and think of someone as inferior because of their group membership, instead of their individual merits. Western civilisation is defined by not doing that.

Again, I'm not saying that.

Firstly - I'm not saying someone is or isn't inferior based on Group identity.
I'm looking at the objective data and assigning a possibility or probability based on their group identity.

It's a small, but rather important difference. And here's the thing - You do it too.

Case in point - look at your responses to Katman, Mashie et al.

You've picked up on key attributes of their personality from their posts - given them membership to a particular group and then formed a possibility of them sharing even more characteristics with said group.

Then you started to look for them, and found them.

Does that mean you are any one of the pervasive and despicable "-ist"s that you've called me?

Likewise - there is a trend of choices that free individuals have made over the last 30-40 years, and based on that trend, we form a predictive model. At no point do we say that a person must have those attributes, but we are considering the increased (or decreased) possibility of them having them, as the case may be.

[Graystone]

Now, you are just being deliberately obtuse.

We've run it across multiple societies - same result - there's you societal factor ruled out.

Ah yes, the mythical 'many other options' - frequently employed when you don't like the result.

Just like you dismiss the empirical evidence, cause you don't like the conclusion either.



Good, cause that's not what I'm telling you. I'm well aware of how Science and Stats work - that's why I'm able to cite the studies that inform my views and defend their methodology from dogmatic attacks.

So was another controled variable the amount of societal bias? Or are you just telling me that shit averages out?

[Graystone]

No.



yes, you can do both - but they are separate and distinct actions. As demonstrated, they are different in both form and function.



Again, I'm not saying that.

Firstly - I'm not saying someone is or isn't inferior based on Group identity.
I'm looking at the objective data and assigning a possibility or probability based on their group identity.

It's a small, but rather important difference. And here's the thing - You do it too.

Case in point - look at your responses to Katman, Mashie et al.

You've picked up on key attributes of their personality from their posts - given them membership to a particular group and then formed a possibility of them sharing even more characteristics with said group.

Then you started to look for them, and found them.

Does that mean you are any one of the pervasive and despicable "-ist"s that you've called me?

Likewise - there is a trend of choices that free individuals have made over the last 30-40 years, and based on that trend, we form a predictive model. At no point do we say that a person must have those attributes, but we are considering the increased (or decreased) possibility of them having them, as the case may be.

More semantics...

A difference only in semantics and self justification. Katman frequently demonstrates his stupidity so I judge him for that action; mashman, his need for attention to be given to his whiny bullshit. What groups or demographics they belong to is as irrelevant to me as as their opinions are.

[TheDemonLord]

So was another controled variable the amount of societal bias? Or are you just telling me that shit averages out?

We've been through this - there are countries with more bias, countries with less bias.

If your critique had a drop more water than death Valley, then it would stand to reason that with a change in societies, we would see a noticeable change in the results.

But.
We.
Don't.

So, nice try, but back to school with ye.

[TheDemonLord]

More semantics...

A difference only in semantics and self justification.

Uh Huh.

'Cause you say so.
'Cause Reasons.
(with no supplementary proof)

What was the latin you were fond of quoting?

Ah yes.... Nullius in verba.


Katman frequently demonstrates his stupidity so I judge him for that action; mashman, his need for attention to be given to his whiny bullshit.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

You have judged them on the ideas and the groups they belong to.


What groups or demographics they belong to is as irrelevant to me as as their opinions are.

Except you immediately picked up the whiff of conspiratorial manure, pegged them into their respective holes and called them on it.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Anyone is entitled to be.
The left whine incessantly when they don't get their way (democrats in Murica still going after a whole year) and after national got in there were the same levels of bleating from NZ's socialist/communist groups here.

Sad to see the vindictive brigade are pulling labour's strings now, with charter schools getting attention from the teacher's union. So much for "helping the kids" though.

Keep a good eye on all those promises the made to buy votes... "Fixing the housing crisis" is not looking good for them.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1981335848851932&id=100009266095704

[TheDemonLord]

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1981335848851932&id=100009266095704

Well, I must be doing something wrong then - I bought a house in Auckland as a "Young New Zealander" and have 20% equity in my home.

If I could be bothered - it would be interesting to dig into each one of those claims, I suspect on at least a few of them, you will find the policies predated National.

[Graystone]

We've been through this - there are countries with more bias, countries with less bias.

If your critique had a drop more water than death Valley, then it would stand to reason that with a change in societies, we would see a noticeable change in the results.

But.
We.
Don't.

So, nice try, but back to school with ye.

More and less are not quantities, the variable has not been evaluated. These assumptions you make are what drives new science, not ones that conclusions can be formed from; tell me, how many of the studies you refer to concluded it was due to biology?

[Graystone]

Uh Huh.

'Cause you say so.
'Cause Reasons.
(with no supplementary proof)

What was the latin you were fond of quoting?

Ah yes.... Nullius in verba.



Quod Erat Demonstrandum

You have judged them on the ideas and the groups they belong to.



Except you immediately picked up the whiff of conspiratorial manure, pegged them into their respective holes and called them on it.

Its semantics, exactly what proof are you looking for? They don't do studies for that...

Incorrect, where have I judged them based on their group membership?

That's judging them on their actions, in the same way that your opinions are sexist so I group you with the other sexist pieces of shit. Cause and effect, learn which is which eh!

[sidecar bob]

Well, I must be doing something wrong then - I bought a house in Auckland as a "Young New Zealander" and have 20% equity in my home.

If I could be bothered - it would be interesting to dig into each one of those claims, I suspect on at least a few of them, you will find the policies predated National.

Possibly, people such as you & I that have led quite successful lives under the former govt & feel they have played a part in that success. People that have struggled in the same period may have the opposite feeling & believe the govt has somehow contributed to that hardship & blame them for it in part. Therefore you are never going to convince the other party of your point of view.
I'm not too concerned either way, red shirt, blue shirt doesn't really matter much which one looked the most kissable on Election Day.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MKFB5GBulE8

[TheDemonLord]

More and less are not quantities, the variable has not been evaluated. These assumptions you make are what drives new science, not ones that conclusions can be formed from; tell me, how many of the studies you refer to concluded it was due to biology?

So Social Science is completely invalid then.

Cool.

Write your thesis, collect your Nobel Prize, Job done.

Well, here's one (which is 1 more than you've put up):

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/322/5906/1331

In it, they confirm that Boys show greater variance than Girls and "that gender differences in the variance of test scores are an international phenomenon"

Since Gender is a function of Biology - there's your conclusion.

[TheDemonLord]

Its semantics, exactly what proof are you looking for? They don't do studies for that...

You keep saying it's semantics, but have you demonstrated it's semantics? Cause I've demonstrated in a practical application why it isn't. The proof part was simply to point out that you demand proof for the points made against you, but when submitting your own proof, it is absent.


Incorrect, where have I judged them based on their group membership?

See below


That's judging them on their actions, in the same way that your opinions are sexist so I group you with the other sexist pieces of shit. Cause and effect, learn which is which eh!

Did you give either of them time to give a fully nuanced accounting of any of their points of view? I've argued with both of them at far greater length than you, and for all the points of disagreement I have with them, I've not characterized them as rapidly as you did:

Person says "X"
You reason that because they say X, the belong to group "Y"
Because of their membership of group "Y", you don't need to listen to anything further they say, because of that group membership.

Just like you keep trying to misrepresent what I've said in terms of me saying "There's a probability" and you trying to paint it as "It's a certainty"

Case in point - You've called me a Sexist, therefore you don't need to look at any of the evidence I put forward to support any viewpoint, because I'm a Sexist, right?

[husaberg]

Possibly, people such as you & I that have led quite successful lives under the former govt & feel they have played a part in that success. People that have struggled in the same period may have the opposite feeling & believe the govt has somehow contributed to that hardship & blame them for it in part. Therefore you are never going to convince the other party of your point of view.
I'm not too concerned either way, red shirt, blue shirt doesn't really matter much which one looked the most kissable on Election Day.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MKFB5GBulE8
What part do you consider the former Gov play in your success?
I am pretty sure successful people tend to make their own luck. Don't you agree?
335225
Or do you believe
That the wants of a few outweight the needs of the many.

[jasonu]

Possibly, people such as you & I that have led quite successful lives under the former govt & feel they have played a part in that success. People that have struggled in the same period may have the opposite feeling & believe the govt has somehow contributed to that hardship & blame them for it in part. Therefore you are never going to convince the other party of your point of view.
I'm not too concerned either way, red shirt, blue shirt doesn't really matter much which one looked the most kissable on Election Day.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MKFB5GBulE8

Mate there are plenty of those that will blame National, Labour, the dog or the weather for their miscalculations, misfortune and or shitty life decisions.

[Woodman]

That the wants of a few outweight the needs of the many.

Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it is right.

[husaberg]

Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it is right.

Well you can't please all the people all the time, but what is politics if its not a popularity contest.



Mate there are plenty of those that will blame National, Labour, the dog or the weather for their miscalculations, misfortune and or shitty life decisions.
But they would have been different people, the ones that were not praising labour for their 9 years of unprecended ecomomic growth and repayment of overseas debt. the ones that alos ignored the massive decreases in the waiting lists for heath care and decreases in unemployment that they enjoyed under last Labour led government.
335240335241335236335237335238335239<strike>
</strike>

[Swoop]

It may be just that it's much easier and cheaper to build new infrastructure than upgrade the existing (which is already overloaded).
I was having a very interesting meeting today and the topic of the new "intensive housing/future slum areas" of Whenuapai came up. Massive holes in the infrastructure planning were discussed as well as the incompetence of design.
Isn't it nice to get socialist designers so intent on public transport options that they simply forget about the residents who have to commute to areas not covered by PT, that they then deem garages unnecessary and street parking only needs to provide for a bare minimum of cars. The Hobsonville point development is a classic example of this.


https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1981335848851932&id=100009266095704
Isn't it odd that the professional whiners of Mt Albert Electorate, bitched so much that the motorway design of "cut and cover" had to be changed to appease the wee darlings, into a full underground tunnel system. This cost NZ a lot of money.
Doubt it stopped any whining from the capital of Leftism though.

[jasonu]

Well you can't please all the people all the time, but what is politics if its not a popularity contest.



But they would have been different people, the ones that were not praising labour for their 9 years of unprecended ecomomic growth and repayment of overseas debt. the ones that alos ignored the massive decreases in the waiting lists for heath care and decreases in unemployment that they enjoyed under last Labour led government.


Na bullshit mate. Doesn't matter who is in the drivers seat. Whiny cunts will always be whiny cunts.

[Graystone]

So Social Science is completely invalid then.

Cool.

Write your thesis, collect your Nobel Prize, Job done.

Well, here's one (which is 1 more than you've put up):

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/322/5906/1331

In it, they confirm that Boys show greater variance than Girls and "that gender differences in the variance of test scores are an international phenomenon"

Since Gender is a function of Biology - there's your conclusion.

That, right there is what's wrong with your 'science'. I've said nothing to completely invalidate social science, yet you draw that conclusion. The study has said nothing about biology being causal, yet you draw that conclusion. Get an education mate.

[Graystone]

You keep saying it's semantics, but have you demonstrated it's semantics? Cause I've demonstrated in a practical application why it isn't. The proof part was simply to point out that you demand proof for the points made against you, but when submitting your own proof, it is absent.



See below



Did you give either of them time to give a fully nuanced accounting of any of their points of view? I've argued with both of them at far greater length than you, and for all the points of disagreement I have with them, I've not characterized them as rapidly as you did:

Person says "X"
You reason that because they say X, the belong to group "Y"
Because of their membership of group "Y", you don't need to listen to anything further they say, because of that group membership.

Just like you keep trying to misrepresent what I've said in terms of me saying "There's a probability" and you trying to paint it as "It's a certainty"

Case in point - You've called me a Sexist, therefore you don't need to look at any of the evidence I put forward to support any viewpoint, because I'm a Sexist, right?

One of your justifications was that there were two words for a thing so it must be two concepts and thus not semantics. You really think that is a 'proof' which deserves rebuttal? Don't be absurd :laugh:

It's cos they said X that I don't listen to them further. Cause and effect, learn the difference.

I've explained multiple times I don't look at your evidence because it is an irrelevant red herring. Stop trying to use being sexist as an excuse to hide behind, you're not the fucking victim here, trying to play the victim card while being sexist is just more evidence of how ingrained your sexism is. It's worse than the classic "nah you're sexist cos you should let them defend themselves" or variants thereof.

[Voltaire]

Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it is right.

Hang on.....there are no dogs or riding schools here.:laugh:

[TheDemonLord]

That, right there is what's wrong with your 'science'. I've said nothing to completely invalidate social science, yet you draw that conclusion.

Yah kinda have been. When there is a result you don't like, you invalidate it by inferring an infinite number of variables that exist within a society, that haven't been controlled for, are grounds for dismissing something you don't like.


The study has said nothing about biology being causal, yet you draw that conclusion. Get an education mate.

"gender differences in the variance of test scores are an international phenomenon"

It's the Gender (biology) that causes (there's your causal link) the variance and that it is across cultures.

Then add in that the results have been replicated umpteen times, the empirical evidence etc. etc.

[Katman]

When there is a result you don't like, you invalidate it by inferring an infinite number of variables that exist within a society, that haven't been controlled for, are grounds for dismissing something you don't like.

Much like yourself.

[TheDemonLord]

One of your justifications was that there were two words for a thing so it must be two concepts and thus not semantics. You really think that is a 'proof' which deserves rebuttal? Don't be absurd :laugh:

One, but not the main one - which you are ignoring, namely that the form and function of the concepts is different.

I'm just pointing out you've spoken highly of evidence, demanding it others, but yours is not forthcoming.


It's cos they said X that I don't listen to them further. Cause and effect, learn the difference.

That's not the cause and effect I'm referring to.

There's a layer underneath that statement - and that is the one where you've stereotyped them, based on a very short interaction.


I've explained multiple times I don't look at your evidence because it is an irrelevant red herring.

Of course, it wouldn't be awfully inconvenient if it disproved some of your (clearly) deeply held notions...


Stop trying to use being sexist as an excuse to hide behind, you're not the fucking victim here, trying to play the victim card while being sexist is just more evidence of how ingrained your sexism is.

Wow. Dat Projection. I must really by scraping a nerve.


It's worse than the classic "nah you're sexist cos you should let them defend themselves" or variants thereof.

Well, that would be equality, letting the individual defend themselves - are you saying you aren't for equality?

[TheDemonLord]

Much like yourself.

Sure Mr. "We don't have all the data so it could be controlled demolition"

[Graystone]

Yah kinda have been. When there is a result you don't like, you invalidate it by inferring an infinite number of variables that exist within a society, that haven't been controlled for, are grounds for dismissing something you don't like.



"gender differences in the variance of test scores are an international phenomenon"

It's the Gender (biology) that causes (there's your causal link) the variance and that it is across cultures.

Then add in that the results have been replicated umpteen times, the empirical evidence etc. etc.

So what part of social science am I dismissing?

I'm certainly dismissing your conclusions, but they are ones you erroneously infer from the studies, not those that the study makes itself, so I have no quarrel with social science. You are confusing correlation with causation. Gender (group membership) arguably causes the variance, but nothing shows it is biology that causes the variance, biology is only correlated with the variance. Social bias is another factor with high gender correlation, though you keep telling me isn't a thing because it averages out or something? You are kind of sketchy on the details there and have offered no science to back that up. Perhaps you should get an education?

[husaberg]

...
You are indeed right it wasn't you that said Jacinda should imediately step down for becoming it was RDJ.

[Katman]

Sure Mr. "We don't have all the data so it could be controlled demolition"

The evidence supporting the controlled demolition theory far outweighs any evidence supporting the official story.

But you don't like that, so you choose to ignore that evidence.

[Graystone]

One, but not the main one - which you are ignoring, namely that the form and function of the concepts is different.

I'm just pointing out you've spoken highly of evidence, demanding it others, but yours is not forthcoming.



That's not the cause and effect I'm referring to.

There's a layer underneath that statement - and that is the one where you've stereotyped them, based on a very short interaction.



Of course, it wouldn't be awfully inconvenient if it disproved some of your (clearly) deeply held notions...



Wow. Dat Projection. I must really by scraping a nerve.



Well, that would be equality, letting the individual defend themselves - are you saying you aren't for equality?

Are they though? In a semantical sense sure, but in a practical one, nope. You want me to spell out exampular evidence though? theres this stranger who I consider my equal, so what I do, and here's the rub, is I treat them as my equal. Tricky concept, you may need to sleep on it.

Ah, so now you claim to know why I am doing things... yeh, that means your point is lost.

See previous post, you are not scientifically literate enough to know what the studies even mean; let alone apply them to disprove my notions.

Projection? Of what? I'm neither sexist nor a victim.

Oh dear, one can only hope you're taking the piss :facepalm:

[TheDemonLord]

The evidence supporting the controlled demolition theory far outweighs any evidence supporting the official story.

But you don't like that, so you choose to ignore that evidence.

https://cdn-enterprise.discourse.org/fiverr_forum/uploads/default/original/2X/c/cb41cac8ffe50e623504fdd0b1ce9ebdcbf419d8.gif

[Katman]

You're the one who mentioned controlled demolition, shitforbrains.

[Graystone]

You're the one who mentioned controlled demolition, shitforbrains.

I kind of feel like we ditched the tracks and threw on some mud tyres quite a few pages before that anyway...

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/17/29/88/172988cd65ec3b611162c52acf209f91--train-truck-electric-locomotive.jpg

[TheDemonLord]

So what part of social science am I dismissing?

Part of it's core methodology.


I'm certainly dismissing your conclusions, but they are ones you erroneously infer from the studies, not those that the study makes itself, so I have no quarrel with social science.

And the conclusions made by the the Authors of the paper, and the conclusions made by people such as Steven Pinker (who is recognized as preeminent in this field)


You are confusing correlation with causation. Gender (group membership) arguably causes the variance, but nothing shows it is biology that causes the variance, biology is only correlated with the variance.

Gender isn't a group membership.
It's a biological property.
In case there is any confusion: If your 23rd chromosome is XX - your Gender is Female, if they are XY, then it's Male.

So I'm glad that you agree gender causes the Variance - that's what I've been saying all along.


Social bias is another factor with high gender correlation, though you keep telling me isn't a thing because it averages out or something?

I never said it wasn't a thing, at least Husa can admit when he's falsely attributed something to me.

I said, in relation to IQ, that if your objection was to have any weight, then it the expected results would be that in societies with the most amount of Social bias, we would see the greatest variance, and those societies that have the least, we would see more equality.


You are kind of sketchy on the details there and have offered no science to back that up. Perhaps you should get an education?

It's pretty clear, you are just being deliberately obtuse to avoid conceding the point. And I've offered the exact same amount of science to backup that statement (even though it's not a scientific statement at all) that you have to back up your assertion that it's a relevant factor.

[TheDemonLord]

Are they though? In a semantical sense sure, but in a practical one, nope. You want me to spell out exampular evidence though? theres this stranger who I consider my equal, so what I do, and here's the rub, is I treat them as my equal. Tricky concept, you may need to sleep on it.

Are all strangers your equal?
Do you consider every single person you don't know as equal?
Given that a quick glance at the purely physical traits would dispel this notion, then no, your examplar is anything but practical.


Ah, so now you claim to know why I am doing things... yeh, that means your point is lost.

No, I'm inferring from your actions, a motive. And every action since has done nothing to dispel that motive.


See previous post, you are not scientifically literate enough to know what the studies even mean; let alone apply them to disprove my notions.

By that rationale, the various leading authorities on that subject must also not be scientifically literate.

I'll call them up to let them know that you will be revoking their PHDs, their cited studies, their critically acclaimed books.

all on your say-so.

With still no evidence to the contrary presented.


Projection? Of what? I'm neither sexist nor a victim.

I'll give you a hint, I've not played the victim, and yet out of the blue, you throw out that accusation.


Oh dear, one can only hope you're taking the piss :facepalm:

Are you saying that Women are weak and feeble and need Men to protect them?

That's a rather sexist notion, don't you think?

[Graystone]

Part of it's core methodology.



And the conclusions made by the the Authors of the paper, and the conclusions made by people such as Steven Pinker (who is recognized as preeminent in this field)



Gender isn't a group membership.
It's a biological property.
In case there is any confusion: If your 23rd chromosome is XX - your Gender is Female, if they are XY, then it's Male.

So I'm glad that you agree gender causes the Variance - that's what I've been saying all along.



I never said it wasn't a thing, at least Husa can admit when he's falsely attributed something to me.

I said, in relation to IQ, that if your objection was to have any weight, then it the expected results would be that in societies with the most amount of Social bias, we would see the greatest variance, and those societies that have the least, we would see more equality.



It's pretty clear, you are just being deliberately obtuse to avoid conceding the point. And I've offered the exact same amount of science to backup that statement (even though it's not a scientific statement at all) that you have to back up your assertion that it's a relevant factor.

And which part might that be?

I've not seen those conclusions then, perhaps you should post one or two.

An equally valid supposition then, is that biology causes gender, gender causes group membership, bias is applied against group membership, and bias causes iq variation. You're just trying to skip a few steps to make it seem like biology has a direct affect on IQ variance.

Have they quantified and isolated social bias as a control or measured variable in these studies then? You seem to infer it averages out or something which is clearly not the case.

Concede what point exactly? Perhaps if you cannot respond to 'deliberate obtuseness', your point is poorly made, and poorly backed up anyway.

[TheDemonLord]

You're the one who mentioned controlled demolition, shitforbrains.

And you swallowed the bait.

Hook.
Line.
Sinker.

[TheDemonLord]

I kind of feel like we ditched the tracks and threw on some mud tyres quite a few pages before that anyway...

I'm not gonna lie - that looks like a shit load of fun.

[Graystone]

Are all strangers your equal?
Do you consider every single person you don't know as equal?
Given that a quick glance at the purely physical traits would dispel this notion, then no, your examplar is anything but practical.



No, I'm inferring from your actions, a motive. And every action since has done nothing to dispel that motive.



By that rationale, the various leading authorities on that subject must also not be scientifically literate.

I'll call them up to let them know that you will be revoking their PHDs, their cited studies, their critically acclaimed books.

all on your say-so.

With still no evidence to the contrary presented.



I'll give you a hint, I've not played the victim, and yet out of the blue, you throw out that accusation.



Are you saying that Women are weak and feeble and need Men to protect them?

That's a rather sexist notion, don't you think?

Yes and Yes. Physical traits are the same old bullshitery red herrings they've always been.

Semantics.

Perhaps you need to show their conclusions to which you think i disagree? I would have thought that was only fair...

Out of the blue? Did you miss the quoted bit where you went all "you only dismiss my evidence cos you think I'm sexist"

No, I'm saying I have enough of a moral compass to stand against unjustified prejudices. Why should it matter who they are against, we're all equals, after all.

[TheDemonLord]

And which part might that be?

RCTs


I've not seen those conclusions then, perhaps you should post one or two.

Already have but as you said:


I've explained multiple times I don't look at your evidence


An equally valid supposition then, is that biology causes gender, gender causes group membership, bias is applied against group membership, and bias causes iq variation.

Actually, it's not an equally valid supposition - From Whence does the Bias come? I'll grant you an in-group/out-group dynamics, but you have to explain how and why the bias takes the form it does to support your conclusion that the bias itself causes the variation.

You also have to prove that the bias does not have any basis in Biology - no matter how small or large.

Then you have the problem of trying to unify that statement with our current understanding of IQ, insofar that all attempts to artificially raise IQ via external means have failed.

Of course, if you looked at some of the evidence, you might know that...


You're just trying to skip a few steps to make it seem like biology has a direct affect on IQ variance.

No, the studies are what drive that conclusion. But even if I grant you what you claim - Occams razor applies - that between the 2 explanations, yours requires far more assumptions than mine.


Have they quantified and isolated social bias as a control or measured variable in these studies then?

What part of 'cross culturally' are you not understanding? That's the Social bias isolation.


You seem to infer it averages out or something which is clearly not the case.

I don't know where you got that from, except if you read every-other sentance I've written, as opposed to what I've actually written.


Concede what point exactly? Perhaps if you cannot respond to 'deliberate obtuseness', your point is poorly made, and poorly backed up anyway.

If, in an argument, the opposition simply responds with "no" - that's being deliberately obtuse, regardless of how eloquent and reasoned (or not) the proposition is put forward.

The actual point I made, not the one you mangled in an attempt to argue against your own projection.

[TheDemonLord]

Yes and Yes. Physical traits are the same old bullshitery red herrings they've always been.

There's a reason why we have Weight classes in various sports.

It's cause Physical traits matter in various scenarios. But since you've asserted you don't believe me - go up to someone who is over 6ft 6 and of a muscular build - pick a fight with them.

Let me know if they were equal.


Semantics.
Reality


Perhaps you need to show their conclusions to which you think i disagree? I would have thought that was only fair...

A: Already done
B: You said you didn't look at it anyway.


Out of the blue? Did you miss the quoted bit where you went all "you only dismiss my evidence cos you think I'm sexist"

Do you think that is a victim statement? Especially when considering you've stated multiple times you don't look at the evidence. That is called an observation - and cutting one at that, which is why I'm calling projection.


No, I'm saying I have enough of a moral compass to stand against unjustified prejudices. Why should it matter who they are against, we're all equals, after all.

Are they incapable of standing by themselves? If we are all equal, why do they need you?

Unless, of course, we aren't all equal....

[Graystone]

RCTs



Already have but as you said:





Actually, it's not an equally valid supposition - From Whence does the Bias come? I'll grant you an in-group/out-group dynamics, but you have to explain how and why the bias takes the form it does to support your conclusion that the bias itself causes the variation.

You also have to prove that the bias does not have any basis in Biology - no matter how small or large.

Then you have the problem of trying to unify that statement with our current understanding of IQ, insofar that all attempts to artificially raise IQ via external means have failed.

Of course, if you looked at some of the evidence, you might know that...



No, the studies are what drive that conclusion. But even if I grant you what you claim - Occams razor applies - that between the 2 explanations, yours requires far more assumptions than mine.



What part of 'cross culturally' are you not understanding? That's the Social bias isolation.



I don't know where you got that from, except if you read every-other sentance I've written, as opposed to what I've actually written.



If, in an argument, the opposition simply responds with "no" - that's being deliberately obtuse, regardless of how eloquent and reasoned (or not) the proposition is put forward.

The actual point I made, not the one you mangled in an attempt to argue against your own projection.

Tell you what, if they conclude that iq variance is directly due to biological differences, I'll read the whole article.

Until then, your evidence is all red herring and worth as much as I've put forward (or not put forward as the case may be).

Everything else in there is just semantics, sexism, and scientific illiteracy so I can't be arsed...

[Graystone]

There's a reason why we have Weight classes in various sports.

It's cause Physical traits matter in various scenarios. But since you've asserted you don't believe me - go up to someone who is over 6ft 6 and of a muscular build - pick a fight with them.

Let me know if they were equal.


Reality



A: Already done
B: You said you didn't look at it anyway.



Do you think that is a victim statement? Especially when considering you've stated multiple times you don't look at the evidence. That is called an observation - and cutting one at that, which is why I'm calling projection.



Are they incapable of standing by themselves? If we are all equal, why do they need you?

Unless, of course, we aren't all equal....

I would prefer others stand by me if I were being prejudiced against, incapability has nothing to do with it, morality does though.

[YellowDog]

There's not much change to see, since the new government came in. Seems like 'same old, same old'.

Do we need to wait for the next budget announcement?

She better do something soon, before maternity leave gets in the way :yes:

[TheDemonLord]

I would prefer others stand by me if I were being prejudiced against, incapability has nothing to do with it, morality does though.

Why do you need others to stand with you? Maybe there is some value in self actualization...

I'll give you a real life example: I've got bitchin long hair and a Beard - kinda like this: http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Metal+Hammer+Awards+2013+LYqikVttuq3x.jpg

I was once told by a GM of a company that if I cut my hair and had a shave, he'd promote me on the spot. I should point out (for relephancy) that I don't work in a customer facing capacity.

I could have kowtowed, I could have complained and "got others to stand with me" - or I could do what I actually did: Told him in no uncertain terms to get fucked and it was never going to happen.

And FYI - I was promoted less than 6 months later.

Back to the original point - if everyone is equal, then there is no reason that they require or need your help, it might be nice - but there is no imperative.

If, however, not everyone is equal - then absolutely it is right to help people stand on their feet.

And I'm saying you are trying to have your cake and eat it with your 2 semi-contradictory statements.

And here's the bonus kicker: Sometimes, if you don't stand back and let people struggle and sort it out on their own, they will never attain a level of parity (or equality if you will) with those around them.

[TheDemonLord]

Tell you what, if they conclude that iq variance is directly due to biological differences, I'll read the whole article.

Catch 22.

you claims the article doesn't prove causality, without reading the article
You'll only read the article, if it proves causality.


Until then, your evidence is all red herring and worth as much as I've put forward (or not put forward as the case may be).

At least you admit, you ain't got shit to back up any of your viewpoints, glad we could agree.


Everything else in there is just semantics, sexism, and scientific illiteracy so I can't be arsed...

And with a wave of the magic dismissal wand, you get to maintain your viewpoint, ignore any and all evidence and prove that you've lost the debate.

[Katman]

And with a wave of the magic dismissal wand, you get to maintain your viewpoint, ignore any and all evidence and prove that you've lost the debate.

Oh, the irony.

[TheDemonLord]

Oh, the irony.

Because you never dismiss anything out of hand....

I'd suggest stepping out of the artificial tropical climate area, before engaging in ballistic activities with small, hardened mineral deposits.

[Banditbandit]

W I've got bitchin long hair and a Beard - kinda like this: http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Metal+Hammer+Awards+2013+LYqikVttuq3x.jpg



Fuck - you're Rick Wakeman's son ???

[TheDemonLord]

Fuck - you're Rick Wakeman's son ???

Nah, Prog rock isn't my jam, I can just about stand Dream Theatre though...

[Katman]

Nah, Prog rock isn't my jam...

Yeah, it'd be a drag having to learn a fourth chord.

[TheDemonLord]

Yeah, it'd be a drag having to learn a fourth chord.

You are still stuck on Chords?

I shouldn't tell you about Modes then....

[Graystone]

Why do you need others to stand with you? Maybe there is some value in self actualization...

I'll give you a real life example: I've got bitchin long hair and a Beard - kinda like this: http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Metal+Hammer+Awards+2013+LYqikVttuq3x.jpg

I was once told by a GM of a company that if I cut my hair and had a shave, he'd promote me on the spot. I should point out (for relephancy) that I don't work in a customer facing capacity.

I could have kowtowed, I could have complained and "got others to stand with me" - or I could do what I actually did: Told him in no uncertain terms to get fucked and it was never going to happen.

And FYI - I was promoted less than 6 months later.

Back to the original point - if everyone is equal, then there is no reason that they require or need your help, it might be nice - but there is no imperative.

If, however, not everyone is equal - then absolutely it is right to help people stand on their feet.

And I'm saying you are trying to have your cake and eat it with your 2 semi-contradictory statements.

And here's the bonus kicker: Sometimes, if you don't stand back and let people struggle and sort it out on their own, they will never attain a level of parity (or equality if you will) with those around them.

Here's another one, slavery used to be a thing, then not just the slaves stood against it (on the principal that they were equals), now it isn't a thing.

[Graystone]

Catch 22.

you claims the article doesn't prove causality, without reading the article
You'll only read the article, if it proves causality.



At least you admit, you ain't got shit to back up any of your viewpoints, glad we could agree.



And with a wave of the magic dismissal wand, you get to maintain your viewpoint, ignore any and all evidence and prove that you've lost the debate.

Yup, you point out an article which shows causality by highlighting the authors conclusions to that effect and I'll read it, fucking simple task if you have the evidence you claim to have...

So I'm asking to see your evidence, and you are refusing to provide it, you said something about losing the debate? Perhaps since I've explained how burden of proof and causality works you realise you have fuck all so wish to hide it?

[TheDemonLord]

Yup, you point out an article which shows causality by highlighting the authors conclusions to that effect and I'll read it, fucking simple task if you have the evidence you claim to have...

Already done that.
Multiple times.



So I'm asking to see your evidence, and you are refusing to provide it, you said something about losing the debate? Perhaps since I've explained how burden of proof and causality works you realise you have fuck all so wish to hide it?

Look at my previous posts.

Problem is, you've explicitly stated you are ignoring the evidence I post.

If you genuinely want proof, look back at my previous posts.

If you instead want to grandstand, then continue as you are.

[Katman]

Problem is, you've explicitly stated you are ignoring the evidence I post.

It's probably marginally better than automatically digging for some perceived 'dirt' on the author of the evidence.

[TheDemonLord]

Here's another one, slavery used to be a thing, then not just the slaves stood against it (on the principal that they were equals), now it isn't a thing.

So, you are saying that people aren't equal, and that the slaves needed other people to first make the rational argument, then the legal one, then finally someone to back up the law with Force.

So as you demonstrate, it's irrational to think of people as equal, but it's right to treat them as equal.

Oops. There goes your semantic quibbles. Again.

[TheDemonLord]

It's probably marginally better than automatically digging for some perceived 'dirt' on the author of the evidence.

Part of evaluating evidence is checking for biases.

If you used unbiased sources, I wouldn't be able to find any Dirt...

And that door swings both ways: "of course that's what the Govt/big pharma/jews woukd say"

[Katman]

If you used unbiased sources, I wouldn't be able to find any Dirt...

The only bias is in your perception and interpretation.

[Graystone]

Already done that.
Multiple times.



Look at my previous posts.

Problem is, you've explicitly stated you are ignoring the evidence I post.

If you genuinely want proof, look back at my previous posts.

If you instead want to grandstand, then continue as you are.

Citation needed. Stop obfuscating thee evidence you claim to have.

[Swoop]

...the slaves stood against it (on the principal.

Damn. If I knew that standing on the head of the school would have freed all of the pupils...

Revolution!!!
Emancipation in the classrooms!

[Graystone]

So, you are saying that people aren't equal, and that the slaves needed other people to first make the rational argument, then the legal one, then finally someone to back up the law with Force.

So as you demonstrate, it's irrational to think of people as equal, but it's right to treat them as equal.

Oops. There goes your semantic quibbles. Again.

No, I'm saying there is strength in numbers.

[Graystone]

Damn. If I knew that standing on the head of the school would have freed all of the pupils...

Revolution!!!
Emancipation in the classrooms!

That's just a sneak peak of what's to come...

[TheDemonLord]

Citation needed. Stop obfuscating thee evidence you claim to have.

Scroll up - there's the citation.

I'm not obfuscating - it's in this thread, in the manner which you've prescribed.

Problem is, you've systematically refused to look at it, preferring to call me names.

Now, if you are genuine - you'd look at what has already been provided.

If you are disingenuous, then you'll ignore all proof then claim it was never prese....

Oh wait....

[Graystone]

Scroll up - there's the citation.

I'm not obfuscating - it's in this thread, in the manner which you've prescribed.

Problem is, you've systematically refused to look at it, preferring to call me names.

Now, if you are genuine - you'd look at what has already been provided.

If you are disingenuous, then you'll ignore all proof then claim it was never prese....

Oh wait....

Not how science goes, citations are put where they are required, you never refer to another citation instead of the reference directly.

Show me one time I've called you names.

[TheDemonLord]

No, I'm saying there is strength in numbers.

Certainly in a physical confrontation - but a single person, with a single coherent, irrefutable argument is the catalyst for change.

And because people aren't equal only a select few get to be that one person.

[Graystone]

Certainly in a physical confrontation - but a single person, with a single coherent, irrefutable argument is the catalyst for change.

And because people aren't equal only a select few get to be that one person.

So do the semantics thing and think of it like I've been catalysed, now there is strength in numbers as everyone is equal.

The one is an individual who is judged on their individual merits, obviously. These contrived examples just show how futile your point really is :laugh:

[TheDemonLord]

Not how science goes, citations are put where they are required,
.

And I have done so.



you never refer to another citation instead of the reference directly.

I'm not doing that. I'm saying look at what has already been given.



Show me one time I've called you names.

Let's start with all those Ad Hominems.

[TheDemonLord]

The only bias is in your perception and interpretation.

That would be projection....

[Graystone]

And I have done so.



I'm not doing that. I'm saying look at what has already been given.



Let's start with all those Ad Hominems.

Whereabouts?

[TheDemonLord]

Whereabouts?

Scroll up.

[Graystone]

Scroll up.

None there, which post?

[TheDemonLord]

So do the semantics thing and think of it like I've been catalysed, now there is strength in numbers as everyone is equal.

No, you are the one who needs to play semantics.

Do I need to cite the Pareto distribution at you to show why you collorary is:

A: Not valid
B: is a Non-sequitur.


The one is an individual who is judged on their individual merits, obviously. These contrived examples just show how futile your point really is :laugh:

The only contriving, is your attempts to backflip out of the logical corner:

Either everyone is equal, so there is no requirement to provide any assistance
or
Not everyone is equal and therefore I'm right.

[TheDemonLord]

None there, which post?

Try page 107.

That's as far as I can be arsed, considered how deliberately disingenuous you are being.

Scroll up was meant a little more metaphorically....

[Graystone]

No, you are the one who needs to play semantics.

Do I need to cite the Pareto distribution at you to show why you collorary is:

A: Not valid
B: is a Non-sequitur.



The only contriving, is your attempts to backflip out of the logical corner:

Either everyone is equal, so there is no requirement to provide any assistance
or
Not everyone is equal and therefore I'm right.

Cite whatever you like, it'd be a nice change from the obfuscation.

What an absurdly contrived choice. Are you conflating equality as a concept with equality of performance? do you think the notion that everyone is equal means that we should expect everyone to play the piano like Beethoven?

[Graystone]

Try page 107.

That's as far as I can be arsed, considered how deliberately disingenuous you are being.

Scroll up was meant a little more metaphorically....

The author concludes nothing about biological differences directly causing the disparity in distribution. No wonder you were obfuscating if that is what you have as 'evidence'.

"These results imply that gender differences in the variance of test scores are an international phenomenon and that they emerge in different institutional settings"

Have you even read the paper?

[TheDemonLord]

Cite whatever you like, it'd be a nice change from the obfuscation.

The only obfuscation is the deliberately self-inflicted one, on your part.


What an absurdly contrived choice. Are you conflating equality as a concept with equality of performance? do you think the notion that everyone is equal means that we should expect everyone to play the piano like Beethoven?

Depends on what you mean by Equal.

You've said explicitly that you think of everyone of Equal, in a direct contradiction to my statements that people aren't equal, but they should be treated as such (thus demonstrating the 2 concepts aren't mere semantics).

[Graystone]

Depends on what you mean by Equal.

You've said explicitly that you think of everyone of Equal, and they should be treated as such

Fixed, see how when I take you opinion out of it, it makes perfect sense?

[husaberg]

Depends on what you mean by Equal.
You've said explicitly that you think of everyone of Equal, in a direct contradiction to my statements that people aren't equal, but they should be treated as such (thus demonstrating the 2 concepts aren't mere semantics).
As the thread is about politics.
Are men better than women in politics?
Are mens votes worth more?
:bleh:

[TheDemonLord]

The author concludes nothing about biological differences directly causing the disparity in distribution. No wonder you were obfuscating if that is what you have as 'evidence'.

"These results imply that gender differences in the variance of test scores are an international phenomenon and that they emerge in different institutional settings"

Have you even read the paper?

Gender is the Biological difference.

Even if you want to quibble about the word "Imply" - then fine - do so honestly, problem is that this isn't an isolated study and it's results has been replicated multiple times.

Then I also referenced the works of people such as Steven Pinker, JBP etc.

https://youtu.be/2Iw72EahZLE?t=57

[TheDemonLord]

Fixed, see how when I take you opinion out of it, it makes perfect sense?

So, by that statement - can you play a rendition of Flight of the Bumblebee for me?

[Graystone]

Gender is the Biological difference.

Even if you want to quibble about the word "Imply" - then fine - do so honestly, problem is that this isn't an isolated study and it's results has been replicated multiple times.

Then I also referenced the works of people such as Steven Pinker, JBP etc.

https://youtu.be/2Iw72EahZLE?t=57

Gender causes social bias, which in turn causes the difference in IQ variance. Nothing in that study refutes that statement.

Have you got anything better?

[TheDemonLord]

As the thread is about politics.
Are men better than women in politics?

Certainly more men are more disagreeable - and when that comes to things such as arguing (such as a political debate) you will get more men who are more prepared to argue.

Does that mean they are better? Well define better?

My thoughts on the subject is that Women can and do perform just as admirably in the field, but the ratios are skewed - For every Margaret Thatcher, there's a Churchill, Mandela, Lincoln etc.


Are mens votes worth more?
:bleh:

Depends on how you quantify worth - if we were to talk about Tax generation and consumption of services, then a Male vote has a greater $ value, if we are talking about MMP, then a Mans vote is worth infinitely more*









*If you happen to be Winston Peters.

[TheDemonLord]

Gender causes social bias, which in turn causes the difference in IQ variance. Nothing in that study refutes that statement.

Have you got anything better?

Occams Razor

Where does the Bias come from if not rooted in a Biological difference?
Furthermore, How do you unify that statement with every attempt at externally increasing IQ has failed?

For your statement to be true, you must prove that it is possibly to increase IQ through an artificial means.

[Graystone]

So, by that statement - can you play a rendition of Flight of the Bumblebee for me?

So you are confusing equality as a concept with equality of performance.

Within the concept of equality, individuals who have known performance/attributes/merits can be judged on these (either directly compared to another individual or compared to population as a while), yet unknown people (those who only have group membership etc) should be treated as equals. Is this helping at all? or is it still a concept you are really going to struggle with?

[husaberg]

Certainly more men are more disagreeable - and when that comes to things such as arguing (such as a political debate) you will get more men who are more prepared to argue.

Does that mean they are better? Well define better?

My thoughts on the subject is that Women can and do perform just as admirably in the field, but the ratios are skewed - For every Margaret Thatcher, there's a Churchill, Mandela, Lincoln etc.Got any stats on that.
Last time i looked polititians are all equal.
Using historics context is rather silly of you considering when woman got the vote in most countries.
Last time i looked this is a 2017 election thread so please try to keep on topic.



Depends on how you quantify worth - if we were to talk about Tax generation and consumption of services, then a Male vote has a greater $ value, if we are talking about MMP, then a Mans vote is worth infinitely more*

A vote is a vote a mans vote is holds the same value as a womans.
Unless you can come up with sats to say otherwise.

[TheDemonLord]

So you are confusing equality as a concept with equality of performance.

Within the concept of equality, individuals who have known performance/attributes/merits can be judged on these (either directly compared to another individual or compared to population as a while), yet unknown people (those who only have group membership etc) should be treated as equals. Is this helping at all? or is it still a concept you are really going to struggle with?

So, since we know that everyones performance and attributes are different, it's not rational to think of them as the same.

At no point does this preclude treating them the same.

Cause these are 2 different concepts (you see how easy it is when you aren't mixing them up)

[Graystone]

Occams Razor

Where does the Bias come from if not rooted in a Biological difference?
Furthermore, How do you unify that statement with every attempt at externally increasing IQ has failed?

For your statement to be true, you must prove that it is possibly to increase IQ through an artificial means.

Occam's Razor is not a proof.

There are a number of proofs for that statement, but it is not my aim to prove it as I know enough science to recognise it has not been done, as you would for yours if you had a proper education in scientific methodology and principles. So instead I only seek to open your eyes to it's plausibility; no science I have seen has proven it to be a direct biological cause, thus other scenarios (as above) are still plausible.

[TheDemonLord]

[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
Got any stats on that.
[LEFT][COLOR=#FFFFFF][FONT=Verdana]

Knock yerself out (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/)


Last time i looked polititions are all equal.

Are they? Are there not back benchers, cabinet ministers, ministers with ministerial portfolios, prime ministers?


Using historics context is rather silly of you considering when woman got the vote in most countries.

Joan of Arc, Boudicea, Elizabeth 1st, Cleopatra, Catherine de Medici, Countess Bathory.


Last time i looked this is a 2017 election thread try to keep on topic.

It sure is, never said it wasn't.


A vote is a vote a mans vote is holds the same value as a womans.

Again, depends on how you define value - if it is in pure polling power, then sure, but my point was that the contribution to the government and country are not even.

[Graystone]

So, since we know that everyones performance and attributes are different, it's not rational to think of them as the same.

At no point does this preclude treating them the same.

Cause these are 2 different concepts (you see how easy it is when you aren't mixing them up)

Semantics, I consider everyone to be equal so treat them as such, until they are known as individuals an inequalities identified, you consider everyone to be unequal based on everyone being an individual when you get to know them, and then (fucking allegedly based on your sexism shown) treat them as equals when you don't know them.

Equality and individuality are different concepts; the rest, semantics.

[TheDemonLord]

Occam's Razor is not a proof.

Never said it was, I'm saying your statement requires far more assumptions than mine.


There are a number of proofs for that statement, but it is not my aim to prove it as I know enough science to recognise it has not been done, as you would for yours if you had a proper education in scientific methodology and principles. So instead I only seek to open your eyes to it's plausibility; no science I have seen has proven it to be a direct biological cause, thus other scenarios (as above) are still plausible.

The other scenarios you have outlined aren't plausible as they directly contradict other known data points.

And whilst looking at something related - I stumbled across this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4330791/


Some of these may be socially induced, but scientists have showed on intact animals that other factors such as genetics and gender itself are mostly responsible forthe sex differences in behavior and cognition.

Sounds like a Biological causal link...

[TheDemonLord]

Semantics, I consider everyone to be equal so treat them as such, until they are known as individuals an inequalities identified, you consider everyone to be unequal based on everyone being an individual when you get to know them, and then (fucking allegedly based on your sexism shown) treat them as equals when you don't know them.

Equality and individuality are different concepts; the rest, semantics.

That's some grade A mental Backflips.


you consider everyone to be unequal based on everyone being an individual

Correct. No two people are alike, so I don't think of them as alike.

But that doesn't preclude this:


treat them as equals when you don't know them.

It's really simple.

But in order to try make your semantics argument valid, you've got to inject all this other shit in.

[Graystone]

Never said it was, I'm saying your statement requires far more assumptions than mine.



The other scenarios you have outlined aren't plausible as they directly contradict other known data points.

And whilst looking at something related - I stumbled across this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4330791/



Sounds like a Biological causal link...

What other known data points? Do try to be scientific and cite this stuff eh!

You don't even bother to read the shit you post do you?

"While fMRI results bring interesting data and knowledge on behavioral traits and spatial abilities in relation to testosterone levels and sex differences, the result obtained can show only association or correlation but not causal relationship of testosterone effect on behavior. "

That was literally the first sentence in their conclusion section. Game, set, match. :laugh:

[Graystone]

That's some grade A mental Backflips.



Correct. No two people are alike, so I don't think of them as alike.

But that doesn't preclude this:



It's really simple.

But in order to try make your semantics argument valid, you've got to inject all this other shit in.

Yeh, semantics then. No mental backflips required, just a different way to think essentially the same thing, do try and be more tolerant of other's opinions will you!

[TheDemonLord]

What other known data points? Do try to be scientific and cite this stuff eh!

You don't even bother to read the shit you post do you?

"While fMRI results bring interesting data and knowledge on behavioral traits and spatial abilities in relation to testosterone levels and sex differences, the result obtained can show only association or correlation but not causal relationship of testosterone effect on behavior. "

That was literally the first sentence in their conclusion section. Game, set, match. :laugh:

Did you read the next sentance:


Nevertheless, also according to the numerous published studies and animal experiments, testosterone seems to affect brain functions.

And there's a very interesting paragraph:


However, to be able to publish such research, journals should accept manuscripts based on the design and not on the results. Otherwise, the publication bias that is obvious in the so far published literature will continue to be a big issue. Many researchers in this field complain about negative results that are very difficult to publish in the relevant journals. The number of such unpublished observations and experiments is unknown. But based on our humble experience, the negative results will probably be more common than the published positive ones. And if the contradictory published findings are added, the picture gets even more confusing.

It's almost like some of the research in this field has been stiffled - maybe because people get called "Sexist" whenever the results don't conform to idealism...

Edit: Not to mention, the main quote I pulled from that paper was the bit about Animals. But, I'll concede, I did make a sloppy point there - I should have been more focussed.

[TheDemonLord]

Yeh, semantics then. No mental backflips required, just a different way to think essentially the same thing, do try and be more tolerant of other's opinions will you!

Except you, yourself have demonstrated, they aren't semantics.

In order to make the Semantic argument, you have to add additional things in.

[Graystone]

I'll concede, I did make a sloppy point there - I should have been more focussed.

A good start, now the next concession should be that you realise your point about science proving biology is the direct cause of differing IQ variance is also wrong.

[Graystone]

Except you, yourself have demonstrated, they aren't semantics.

In order to make the Semantic argument, you have to add additional things in.

Not at all. Nothing additional was added in, just different ways to think about the same concepts, which is, by definition, just semantics.

[husaberg]

Knock yerself out (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/)

Are they? Are there not back benchers, cabinet ministers, ministers with ministerial portfolios, prime ministers?

Joan of Arc, Boudicea, Elizabeth 1st, Cleopatra, Catherine de Medici, Countess Bathory.

It sure is, never said it wasn't.



Again, depends on how you define value - if it is in pure polling power, then sure, but my point was that the contribution to the government and country are not even.
Your link is nothing to do with the question, So produce a stat or admit you are clearly wrong.
Yes they are equal men or women in goverment your continuied avoidence of this.
shows you are not intested in actually adimitting this fact.
Your examples how many were voted into goverment.

Joan of Arc, Boudicea, Elizabeth 1st, Cleopatra, Catherine de Medici, Countess Bathory.
you are just trying to avoid admitting your point of view is completly wrong.
Hense you avoidence of the fact its only very late in the piece in a histroical scale that women actually got to vote.


More smoke and mirrors.
A value of a vote is pretty easy to define for anyone expect you. its worth one vote no mater what sex the voter is.

[TheDemonLord]

Not at all. Nothing additional was added in, just different ways to think about the same concepts, which is, by definition, just semantics.

Except as you correctly showed - they aren't the same concept at all. Therefore no semantics.

[Graystone]

Except as you correctly showed - they aren't the same concept at all. Therefore no semantics.

You use two concepts to cover what I do in one, still sounds like semantical difference to me.

[TheDemonLord]

A good start, now the next concession should be that you realise your point about science proving biology is the direct cause of differing IQ variance is also wrong.

Sure, And I can admit when I've made a bad argument, I was pointing more to the causal link in Animals and since we are animals, it can follow as a reasonable argument.

But that was but one point - I've made reference to others, such as Steven Pinker:

https://www.edge.org/event/the-science-of-gender-and-science-pinker-vs-spelke-a-debate


Finally there's a sex difference in variability. It's crucial here to look at the right samples. Estimates of variance depend highly on the tails of the distribution, which by definition contain smaller numbers of people. Since people at the tails of the distribution in many surveys are likely to be weeded out for various reasons, it's important to have large representative samples from national populations. In this regard the gold standard is the Science paper by Novell and Hedges, which reported six large stratified probability samples. They found that in 35 out of 37 tests, including all of the tests in math, space, and science, the male variance was greater than the female variance.

One other data set meeting the gold standard is displayed in this graph, showing the entire population of Scotland, who all took an intelligence test in a single year. The X axis represents IQ, where the mean is 100, and the Yaxis represents the proportion of men versus women. As you can see these are extremely orderly data. In the middle part of the range, females predominate; at both extremes, males slightly predominate. Needless to say, there is a large percentage of women at both ends of the scale — but there is also large sex difference.

And in the second paragraph - his conclusion:


The only issue is whether the contribution of biology is greater than zero. I think that there are ten kinds of evidence that the contribution of biology is greater than zero, though of course it is nowhere near 100 percent.

You are saying it's zero, I'm saying it's not.

[Graystone]

You are saying it's zero, I'm saying it's not.

Incorrect, I'm saying it is possibly zero, as is Stephen Pinker, while you are saying it's not. Why do you continually draw different conclusions to the authors?

[TheDemonLord]

Your link is nothing to do with the question, So produce a stat or admit you are clearly wrong.

You asked for proof that Men are more disagreeable - I provided it.


Yes they are equal men or women in goverment your continuied avoidence of this.

By what measure of Equality are you using?

Equality of output?


Your examples how many were voted into goverment.

Joan of Arc, Boudicea, Elizabeth 1st, Cleopatra, Catherine de Medici, Countess Bathory.
you are just trying to avoid admitting your point of view is completly wrong.

I should have clarified - my point was that even without the vote, there were still Women who through force of personality and political savvy were able to influence world events



More smoke and mirrors.
A value of a vote is pretty easy to define for anyone expect you. its worth one vote no mater what sex the voter is.

Sure, but the value you are talking about is purely polling. a flipside example would be in the US, the Right to vote for men comes with the cost of having to sign up for the Draft - so tell me, are the values in that example equal?

[TheDemonLord]

Incorrect, I'm saying it is possibly zero, as is Stephen Pinker, while you are saying it's not. Why do you continually draw different conclusions to the authors?

Literally this line:


I think that there are ten kinds of evidence that the contribution of biology is greater than zero,

Is the opposite of what you just said.

He's considered the possibility that it is zero and based on Evidence has found that not to be true.

[husaberg]

You asked for proof that Men are more disagreeable - I provided it.

By what measure of Equality are you using?

Equality of output?

I should have clarified - my point was that even without the vote, there were still Women who through force of personality and political savvy were able to influence world events

Sure, but the value you are talking about is purely polling. a flipside example would be in the US, the Right to vote for men comes with the cost of having to sign up for the Draft - so tell me, are the values in that example equal?
Citation required i asked nothing of the sort.





Depends on what you mean by Equal.

You've said explicitly that you think of everyone of Equal, in a direct contradiction to my statements that people aren't equal, but they should be treated as such (thus demonstrating the 2 concepts aren't mere semantics).


As the thread is about politics.
Are men better than women in politics?
Are mens votes worth more?

I clearly stated the measure i used.
Its obvious what i asked its also obvious whyyou avoided answering.

[Graystone]

Literally this line:



Is the opposite of what you just said.

He's considered the possibility that it is zero and based on Evidence has found that not to be true.

Why did you omit the rest of the sentence where he explains he does not think that is even close to proving it 100%? Ie, showing that I believe as he does, and not you? It's really poor form to take shit out of context in order to change its meaning to suit your own agenda mate. That you have to do so shows just how shit your point is. More game, set, match. Would you care for another serve?

[TheDemonLord]

Citation required i asked nothing of the sort.


Sure:

I said


Certainly more men are more disagreeable - and when that comes to things such as arguing (such as a political debate) you will get more men who are more prepared to argue.

You said:


Got any stats on that.

And I provided.



I clearly stated the measure i used.
Its obvious what i asked its also obvious whyyou avoided answering.

Okay, clarify the Question, and I'll answer it.

[TheDemonLord]

Why did you omit the rest of the sentence where he explains he does not think that is even close to proving it 100%? Ie, showing that I believe as he does, and not you? It's really poor form to take shit out of context in order to change its meaning to suit your own agenda mate. That you have to do so shows just how shit your point is. More game, set, match. Would you care for another serve?

It's not out of context at all.

I've never made the claim it's 100%.

No Hypothesis is ever 100%.

You've said there is no biological causal link - that's the Zero percent referred to, he points out that the evidence we have shows that to be wrong. Biology does have a causal link to Male Variability, and this extends to IQ.

And he doesn't say "even close to" - that's adding in your own agenda...

[BuzzardNZ]

utter shite


Why don't you just become an MP? You're smart enough and everyone hates you, so you'd probably get a few votes.

[husaberg]

Sure:

I said
You said:
And I provided.
Okay, clarify the Question, and I'll answer it.
You are talking utter crap.
I am not sure why but you have turned yourself into katman.

[TheDemonLord]

Why don't you just become an MP? You're smart enough and everyone hates you, so you'd probably get a few votes.

Cause I like actually accomplishing something with my Job :laugh::laugh:

[TheDemonLord]

You are talking utter crap.
I am not sure why but you have turned yourself into katman.

Katman would just refuse to answer the question - I've asked for clarification - either I'm missing your train of thought or you've missed out some words here and there.

[husaberg]

Katman would just refuse to answer the question - I've asked for clarification - either I'm missing your train of thought or you've missed out some words here and there.
Incorect katman would just as you have done attempt to create a diversion and gish gallop, just as you are doing.
basically refusing to answer simple questions, for what is a very simple reason.

[TheDemonLord]

Incorect katman would just as you have done atempt to create a diversion and gish gallop, just as you are doing.
basically refusing to answer simple questions, for what is a very simple reason.

Nope.

No Gish Galloping here.

I've answered what I believe to be the question you are asking.

You say I haven't answered it. Fair enough, So I've requested that you clarify the question, so that I can answer it.

Katman would simply pack a sulk and tell you to go do your own research and complain about spoon-feeding it to you.

[Graystone]

It's not out of context at all.

I've never made the claim it's 100%.

No Hypothesis is ever 100%.

You've said there is no biological causal link - that's the Zero percent referred to, he points out that the evidence we have shows that to be wrong. Biology does have a causal link to Male Variability, and this extends to IQ.

And he doesn't say "even close to" - that's adding in your own agenda...

Turns out when I bothered to click that link, it's not even published, peer reviewed science. I should have picked up on that when the sentence started with 'I think..." so disregard my previous posts on that, and disregard that shit you posted as it contains no scientific conclusions.

Nullius in verba.

[TheDemonLord]

Turns out when I bothered to click that link, it's not even published, peer reviewed science. I should have picked up on that when the sentence started with 'I think..." so disregard my previous posts on that, and disregard that shit you posted as it contains no scientific conclusions.

Nullius in verba.

So, Expert opinion isn't valid evidence then....

That's a real slippery slope you're about to slide down.

[Graystone]

So, Expert opinion isn't valid evidence then....

That's a real slippery slope you're about to slide down.

Of course it isn't (in a scientific sense, I'm sure you've got contrived examples for other irrelevancies). To think otherwise shows you are at the wrong end of a slope already. The whole point of peer review, of "Nullius in verba" is to ensure that science is not formed by opinion, but by reproducible evidence and proven fact.

[Katman]

I am not sure why but you have turned yourself into katman.

In his dreams, fuckface.

[Katman]

So, Expert opinion isn't valid evidence then....

That's a real slippery slope you're about to slide down.

What's that you like to say........?

Ahh, that's right........ argumentum ad verecundiam.

[Brian d marge]

What's that you like to say........?

Ahh, that's right........ argumentum ad verecundiam.I think your thinking of
From memory

Pies lesu domine
Eis requiem
.
Holy grail...

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[TheDemonLord]

What's that you like to say........?

Ahh, that's right........ argumentum ad verecundiam.

Except, not a fallacy if the person is held to be an expert in the field...

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority


Appealing to authority is valid when the authority is actually a legitimate (debatable) authority on the facts of the argument.

[TheDemonLord]

In his dreams, fuckface.

My Dreams are much more interesting.

[TheDemonLord]

Of course it isn't (in a scientific sense, I'm sure you've got contrived examples for other irrelevancies). To think otherwise shows you are at the wrong end of a slope already.

Certainly in the softer sciences, expert opinion is valid, on the proviso that it is backed by some form of evidence.

In fact, There have been numerous peer reviewed and published scientific papers that are essential opinion on a topic, with reference to the available evidence.


The whole point of peer review, of "Nullius in verba" is to ensure that science is not formed by opinion, but by reproducible evidence and proven fact.

You mean like multiple IQ tests across large scale populations all showing Males have a greater test variation?

[Crasherfromwayback]

Suck it up boys.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/101581173/labour-and-prime-minister-jacinda-ardern-take-the-lead-in-new-poll

[jasonu]

Suck it up boys.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/101581173/labour-and-prime-minister-jacinda-ardern-take-the-lead-in-new-poll
And tomorrow there will be a poll that says the opposite.

[Crasherfromwayback]

And tomorrow there will be a poll that says the opposite.

Nah. That'll take a week.

[TheDemonLord]

Suck it up boys.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/101581173/labour-and-prime-minister-jacinda-ardern-take-the-lead-in-new-poll

Would that be the same polling institution that said Hilary was ahead in the Polls, that Brexit would never happen?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

[Graystone]

Certainly in the softer sciences, expert opinion is valid, on the proviso that it is backed by some form of evidence.

In fact, There have been numerous peer reviewed and published scientific papers that are essential opinion on a topic, with reference to the available evidence.



You mean like multiple IQ tests across large scale populations all showing Males have a greater test variation?

Soft science is not fit for purpose here.

Yet all you've posted is some stats which do not support your causality conclusion, a paper which actively denies it, and an opinion article. Why don't you instead post one of these peer reviewed and published 'essential opinions' to support your belief?

Exactly like that, none of that numerous evidence tells us there is a direct causal link between the IQ variance and gender biology. Stop trying to shoehorn your unscientific sexism into their real science you fucking charlatan.

[TheDemonLord]

Soft science is not fit for purpose here.

You've repeatedly affirmed that there is a social science aspect, and social science is definitely a softer science.


Yet all you've posted is some stats which do not support your causality conclusion

There is no other explanation, that explains the repeated results of multiple, large scale test results.


a paper which actively denies it

Eh, not quite. It certainly says they haven't proved the Causal link - and I even conceded that point (cause that is part of being intellectually honest) however - it did mention that:

1: "Scientists have showed on intact animals that other factors such as genetics and gender itself are mostly responsible forthe sex differences in behavior and cognition." - and that since we are part of the animal kingdom, it is not unreasonable that the above should hold true for us as well

2: "Nevertheless, also according to the numerous published studies and animal experiments, testosterone seems to affect brain functions." - Which has been at the core of my argument all along. We are not the same, so expecting the same performance isn't reasonable

3: "Many researchers in this field complain about negative results that are very difficult to publish in the relevant journals." It seems that experiments that don't conform to a certain ideological narrative are being suppressed.


and an opinion article.

By one of the leading authorities in this field.


Why don't you instead post one of these peer reviewed and published 'essential opinions' to support your belief?

I've referenced the Scottish experiment (which is considered one of the Gold Standards in this area) and a couple of papers that did an analysis of this. I've also referenced a paper that indicates that the results support the Male Variability theory.


Exactly like that, none of that numerous evidence tells us there is a direct causal link between the IQ variance and gender biology.

Even if I grant you that statement, you are still left with a large body of evidence that points to a singular conclusion of there being a biological component.


Stop trying to shoehorn your unscientific sexism into their real science you fucking charlatan.

So is Steven Pinker a Charlatan who is sexist?

[Graystone]

You've repeatedly affirmed that there is a social science aspect, and social science is definitely a softer science.



There is no other explanation, that explains the repeated results of multiple, large scale test results.



Eh, not quite. It certainly says they haven't proved the Causal link - and I even conceded that point (cause that is part of being intellectually honest) however - it did mention that:

1: "Scientists have showed on intact animals that other factors such as genetics and gender itself are mostly responsible forthe sex differences in behavior and cognition." - and that since we are part of the animal kingdom, it is not unreasonable that the above should hold true for us as well

2: "Nevertheless, also according to the numerous published studies and animal experiments, testosterone seems to affect brain functions." - Which has been at the core of my argument all along. We are not the same, so expecting the same performance isn't reasonable

3: "Many researchers in this field complain about negative results that are very difficult to publish in the relevant journals." It seems that experiments that don't conform to a certain ideological narrative are being suppressed.



By one of the leading authorities in this field.



I've referenced the Scottish experiment (which is considered one of the Gold Standards in this area) and a couple of papers that did an analysis of this. I've also referenced a paper that indicates that the results support the Male Variability theory.



Even if I grant you that statement, you are still left with a large body of evidence that points to a singular conclusion of there being a biological component.



So is Steven Pinker a Charlatan who is sexist?

I've repeatedly affirmed its plausibility.

There's no other explanation? Isn't that the god of the gaps argument? Pretty difficult to conclude causality based on what isn't there, try using what is instead.

It actively denies your conclusion that causality has been proven.

So do any of those analysis's or indications make the conclusion you are?

Who the fuck is Stephen Plinker and why should I care?

[TheDemonLord]

I've repeatedly affirmed its plausibility.

That makes no sense given what it is in response to.


There's no other explanation? Isn't that the god of the gaps argument? Pretty difficult to conclude causality based on what isn't there, try using what is instead.

Not really a god of the gaps, more like deductive reasoning - when the impossible (or in this case, contradictory) has been eliminated, the improbable (or in this case, socially taboo) must remain.

In this case, every other explanation for the differences (such as social conditioning etc.) fails because it is invalidated by other studies.


It actively denies your conclusion that causality has been proven.

On that one paper, it says it's not a Causal link - and I conceded that, however when I cited it, I was referencing that in Animals, Causal differences have been found, so it is not a stretch, since we are Animals.


So do any of those analysis's or indications make the conclusion you are?

There is this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270278/


Studies of young infants and children (Matsuzawa et al., 2001), and especially longitudinal studies (Giedd et al., 1999), may help explain the causal direction and the development of sex differences in the relation between brain neuroanatomy and cognitive performance.


Who the fuck is Stephen Plinker and why should I care?

I dunno who Steven Plinker is either.

Steven Pinker on the other hand is only a leading authority on evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind.

But that still doesn't answer the question - is he a Sexist Charlatan too?

[Graystone]

That makes no sense given what it is in response to.



Not really a god of the gaps, more like deductive reasoning - when the impossible (or in this case, contradictory) has been eliminated, the improbable (or in this case, socially taboo) must remain.

In this case, every other explanation for the differences (such as social conditioning etc.) fails because it is invalidated by other studies.



On that one paper, it says it's not a Causal link - and I conceded that, however when I cited it, I was referencing that in Animals, Causal differences have been found, so it is not a stretch, since we are Animals.



There is this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270278/





I dunno who Steven Plinker is either.

Steven Pinker on the other hand is only a leading authority on evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind.

But that still doesn't answer the question - is he a Sexist Charlatan too?

I've repeatedly affirmed that is is plausible there is a social bias (social science aspect), I haven't repeatedly affirmed there definitely is one.

Except it has not been eliminated, there is just a lack of evidence for it, ie, a gap.

It is most definetly a stretch, that is why they specifically said it did not prove a causal link.

That conclusion is nowhere near the same as the one you try to draw, highlight the "may help explain" bit.

So, no reason I should care, leading authorities in scientific field get there by letting their science do the talking. I don't know him, nor do I follow his work, so I'm not sure how you expect me to answer that question? Or why it should be relevant?

[Katman]

Or why it should be relevant?

Something to do with autism.

[TheDemonLord]

I've repeatedly affirmed that is is plausible there is a social bias (social science aspect), I haven't repeatedly affirmed there definitely is one.

Yet, you explicitly reject any notion that there ISN'T a Social Bias - which is effectively stating you believe that there definitely is one.

You can't claim an uncertainty, then reject out of hand anything that goes against a singular explanation


Except it has not been eliminated, there is just a lack of evidence for it, ie, a gap.

you are conflating 2 separate things.

Of all the theories that explain the Gender differences in tests, a Biological one is the only one that is not invalidated by other known phenomena. Hence there is no Gap.


It is most definetly a stretch

Not a wholly unreasonable stretch, since you know, we share a crap tonne of attributes with the Animal kingdom.


That conclusion is nowhere near the same as the one you try to draw, highlight the "may help explain" bit.

So you agree there is a Causal link, that such research "may help Explain".

Glad we got that cleared up.


So, no reason I should care, leading authorities in scientific field get there by letting their science do the talking.

So, in order to get to a position, such as he occupies - you assert that he had to get there by letting his science do the talking.

Since he occupies that position, it is reasonable (based on your assertion) that his research is both:

Original
Valid


I don't know him, nor do I follow his work, so I'm not sure how you expect me to answer that question? Or why it should be relevant?

He's a leading authority in this area - and based on the above, he must have attained that position through a combination of doing original and correct research.

In his speech - he references 10 different sets of evidence, and comes to the conclusion that the biological influence of the gender differences "Is not Zero"

Now, if I bend over backwards to accommodate your viewpoint as much as possible - we could certainly discuss how much is "not Zero" - be it 100%, all they way down to 0.(0)1%

But, the fact remains - there is a biological component and ever metric that has been done on this subject repeatedly re-affirms that.

[TheDemonLord]

Something to do with autism.

At the rate you go on, I'm beginning to think that calling people Autistic has some form of aphrodisiac effect on you.

Maybe that explains why you tell them to suck your cock after you've called them Autistic....

[Graystone]

Yet, you explicitly reject any notion that there ISN'T a Social Bias - which is effectively stating you believe that there definitely is one.

You can't claim an uncertainty, then reject out of hand anything that goes against a singular explanation



you are conflating 2 separate things.

Of all the theories that explain the Gender differences in tests, a Biological one is the only one that is not invalidated by other known phenomena. Hence there is no Gap.



Not a wholly unreasonable stretch, since you know, we share a crap tonne of attributes with the Animal kingdom.



So you agree there is a Causal link, that such research "may help Explain".

Glad we got that cleared up.



So, in order to get to a position, such as he occupies - you assert that he had to get there by letting his science do the talking.

Since he occupies that position, it is reasonable (based on your assertion) that his research is both:

Original
Valid



He's a leading authority in this area - and based on the above, he must have attained that position through a combination of doing original and correct research.

In his speech - he references 10 different sets of evidence, and comes to the conclusion that the biological influence of the gender differences "Is not Zero"

Now, if I bend over backwards to accommodate your viewpoint as much as possible - we could certainly discuss how much is "not Zero" - be it 100%, all they way down to 0.(0)1%

But, the fact remains - there is a biological component and ever metric that has been done on this subject repeatedly re-affirms that.

I reject any conclusion there isn't one, which is completely in line with both maintaining the plausibility there is, as well as the definitive conclusion there is. You're getting confused with causality even in this most narrow and simple of applications :laugh:

Social bias has not been invalidated. You are leaping to conclusions not made by actual science. Clearly there remains a gap.

But a stretch nonetheless.

No, I agree that such science may help explain a causal direction. The direction is not specified. Perhaps you should get an education in order to properly interpret scientific language?

Don't be fucking stupid, arguments from authority have no place in showing proof. It matters not what he says outside of published science (in the same, proof context), and we know you lack the ability to correctly interpret scientific findings so there's no point me judging his character based on two or three word snippets you put into your own context. There's no point me judging his character at all tbh...

[TheDemonLord]

I reject any conclusion there isn't one, which is completely in line with both maintaining the plausibility there is, as well as the definitive conclusion there is. You're getting confused with causality even in this most narrow and simple of applications :laugh:

Right.... Except you've completed contradicted yourself.

Which is it?

Either there's a Definitive Conclusion (in which case my assessment of your position is 100% correct)
or
You are maintaining plausibility (in which case you've contradicted yourself)


Social bias has not been invalidated. You are leaping to conclusions not made by actual science. Clearly there remains a gap.

Every experiment thus far in an attempt to increase IQ by social means has failed in it's goal. This was a popular position in about the 80s-90s - where the prevailing thought was that Social Bias had an impact on IQ, therefore a number of large scale attempts were made, by which people from low socio-economic back grounds were put in numerous accelerator/high-performance schooling systems.

The theory being - that if they got the same calibre of Education that the private school kids got, they would be just as smart, would be able to lift themselves out of poverty, thus solving the problem of hereditary poverty.

Except, that isn't what happened. In order for Social Bias to be a factor, Societal Influence needs to have both a negative and a positive impact on IQ.

Thus, it's not a leap to a conclusion - we've done that experiment, it didn't work.


But a stretch nonetheless.

Sure, but not an unreasonable one.


No, I agree that such science may help explain a causal direction. The direction is not specified. Perhaps you should get an education in order to properly interpret scientific language?

The direction is specified - that there is a Biological Causal element.


Don't be fucking stupid, arguments from authority have no place in showing proof. It matters not what he says outside of published science (in the same, proof context), and we know you lack the ability to correctly interpret scientific findings so there's no point me judging his character based on two or three word snippets you put into your own context. There's no point me judging his character at all tbh...

Why is it everyone misunderstands what an Argument from Authority is?

The exception to this fallacy is if the person in question is an accepted Authority on a Subject. For example - if Person A is a verified expert on the Treaty of Waitangi - and they state an opinion X about an aspect of the Treaty, it is NOT a fallacy to refer to their opinion as evidence.

The Fallacy occurs when either Person A is not a verified expert in that field - for example - If Person B holds a Doctorate in Media studies and gives an opinion on Gun Crime in the US, then this is an argument from Authority.

But back to the question - Is he a Sexist?

Either he is - and you prove my critique that you're arguing from a quasi-religious position - that any deviation from Dogma is Heresy (sexism).
Or
He isn't, and therefore - neither am I.

[Banditbandit]

I reject any conclusion there isn't one, which is completely in line with both maintaining the plausibility there is, as well as the definitive conclusion there is. You're getting confused with causality even in this most narrow and simple of applications :laugh:

Social bias has not been invalidated. You are leaping to conclusions not made by actual science. Clearly there remains a gap.

But a stretch nonetheless.

No, I agree that such science may help explain a causal direction. The direction is not specified. Perhaps you should get an education in order to properly interpret scientific language?

Don't be fucking stupid, arguments from authority have no place in showing proof. It matters not what he says outside of published science (in the same, proof context), and we know you lack the ability to correctly interpret scientific findings so there's no point me judging his character based on two or three word snippets you put into your own context. There's no point me judging his character at all tbh...Z

You haven't been here long have you ..

Won't take you long to figure out that the only reason to argue the His Demonness is for your own amusement .. and that gets tiring after a while ..

[husaberg]

Z

You haven't been here long have you ..

Won't take you long to figure out that the only reason to argue the His Demonness is for your own amusement .. and that gets tiring after a while ..
I used to agree with a lot TDL said but i cant understand his logic it the moment.
He hasn't been the same since John Key minced off overseas
https://i.imgur.com/BC6eoqn.gif (https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjEp_-86LrZAhWGipQKHbo9BAEQjRx6BAgAEAY&url=https%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2Fgallery%2FFKasi&psig=AOvVaw0VzTt88dRV1fB9y-GKnjE8&ust=1519433333215618)

[TheDemonLord]

I used to agree with a lot TDL said but i cant understand his logic it the moment.
He hasn't been the same since John Key minced off overseas

Does that mean I'm off the Christmas Card list?






I'll let you into a secret - we may agree on a lot of things....

but there are also things we disagree on

Lord knows you probably more than most know my Disagreements with Katman on just about anything, and yet, when it comes to matters of Motorcycle riding, I tend to agree with Katman

And if I may for a moment take paint a broad picture of the current cultural climate - this cuts to the very heart of the problem:

People seem to have forgotten that it is okay for people you like and agree with (on most things), to disagree with you on others. And I'd say the reverse is true - People don't seem to be able to bring themselves to agree with someone they dislike and disagree with on most things.

If you don't agree with my reasoning, or the evidence I use to support my views, that's fine.

[husaberg]

Does that mean I'm off the Christmas Card list?


I'll let you into a secret - we may agree on a lot of things....

but there are also things we disagree on

Lord knows you probably more than most know my Disagreements with Katman on just about anything, and yet, when it comes to matters of Motorcycle riding, I tend to agree with Katman

And if I may for a moment take paint a broad picture of the current cultural climate - this cuts to the very heart of the problem:

People seem to have forgotten that it is okay for people you like and agree with (on most things), to disagree with you on others. And I'd say the reverse is true - People don't seem to be able to bring themselves to agree with someone they dislike and disagree with on most things.

If you don't agree with my reasoning, or the evidence I use to support my views, that's fine.

None of what you said was a secret other than the xmas card list.
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Screen-Shot-2016-12-11-at-3.27.46-pm.png (https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwidqfbt7brZAhUBmZQKHbKkCpwQjRx6BAgAEAY&url=https%3A%2F%2Fthedailyblog.co.nz%2F2016%2F12%2 F23%2Fnew-zealand-political-awards-2016%2F&psig=AOvVaw00TLWtWTAHZd5DQ7HIXYyz&ust=1519434740121596)

[TheDemonLord]

Z

You haven't been here long have you ..

Won't take you long to figure out that the only reason to argue the His Demonness is for your own amusement .. and that gets tiring after a while ..

Oh Bandit,

Flattery will get you everywhere.

[Banditbandit]

Oh Bandit,

Flattery will get you everywhere.

At least you're more intelligent than that dingbat idiot .. whose name escapes me .. Hang about ...

[Banditbandit]

At least you're more intelligent than that dingbat idiot .. whose name escapes me .. Hang about ...


Yokel .....

[Graystone]

Right.... Except you've completed contradicted yourself.

Which is it?

Either there's a Definitive Conclusion (in which case my assessment of your position is 100% correct)
or
You are maintaining plausibility (in which case you've contradicted yourself)



Every experiment thus far in an attempt to increase IQ by social means has failed in it's goal. This was a popular position in about the 80s-90s - where the prevailing thought was that Social Bias had an impact on IQ, therefore a number of large scale attempts were made, by which people from low socio-economic back grounds were put in numerous accelerator/high-performance schooling systems.

The theory being - that if they got the same calibre of Education that the private school kids got, they would be just as smart, would be able to lift themselves out of poverty, thus solving the problem of hereditary poverty.

Except, that isn't what happened. In order for Social Bias to be a factor, Societal Influence needs to have both a negative and a positive impact on IQ.

Thus, it's not a leap to a conclusion - we've done that experiment, it didn't work.



Sure, but not an unreasonable one.



The direction is specified - that there is a Biological Causal element.



Why is it everyone misunderstands what an Argument from Authority is?

The exception to this fallacy is if the person in question is an accepted Authority on a Subject. For example - if Person A is a verified expert on the Treaty of Waitangi - and they state an opinion X about an aspect of the Treaty, it is NOT a fallacy to refer to their opinion as evidence.

The Fallacy occurs when either Person A is not a verified expert in that field - for example - If Person B holds a Doctorate in Media studies and gives an opinion on Gun Crime in the US, then this is an argument from Authority.

But back to the question - Is he a Sexist?

Either he is - and you prove my critique that you're arguing from a quasi-religious position - that any deviation from Dogma is Heresy (sexism).
Or
He isn't, and therefore - neither am I.

What's the contradiction of maintaining plausibility?

So far... remember how absence of proof is not proof of absence. Not that I necessarily believe your claims no studies have affected IQ through social means.

The direction is not specified, read what you quoted again.

But it is a fallacy to refer to their opinion as fact.

How am I supposed to know if he is sexist or not? I don't follow his opinions, beliefs, or his work.

[Graystone]

Yokel .....

Yeh that cunt is fooooked beyond belief.

This other amusing cunt is just a little bit sexist by comparison, the word ROI is through the roof though!

[husaberg]

Yokel .....
Yokel went missing in action after his mail order bride had a baby.
A suspicious person might think she laid down the law and he was then forced to tow the line.:msn-wink:
Reminds me of the expression, a lion online yet a pussy at home.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/8a/0a/1a/8a0a1a7856f96e68d1c845468cccdc8a.jpg (https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwixz-bUrLvZAhXETbwKHdKtBuoQjRx6BAgAEAY&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnl.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F1951325 96324954493%2F&psig=AOvVaw1SsfKPGgyKrBNWYCSBcwX9&ust=1519451643505948)

[Graystone]

Every experiment thus far in an attempt to increase IQ by social means has failed in it's goal. This was a popular position in about the 80s-90s - where the prevailing thought was that Social Bias had an impact on IQ, therefore a number of large scale attempts were made, by which people from low socio-economic back grounds were put in numerous accelerator/high-performance schooling systems.

The theory being - that if they got the same calibre of Education that the private school kids got, they would be just as smart, would be able to lift themselves out of poverty, thus solving the problem of hereditary poverty.

Except, that isn't what happened. In order for Social Bias to be a factor, Societal Influence needs to have both a negative and a positive impact on IQ.

Thus, it's not a leap to a conclusion - we've done that experiment, it didn't work.

And yet, a cursory search with the first article I picked reads:

"The IQ of an individual is multifactorial and is determined by a multitude of factors. Nature and nurture work together in determining human intelligence. Even though the genetic susceptibility plays a crucial role on the IQ of the individual, various modifiable environmental factors like education, premature birth, nutrition, pollution, drug and alcohol abuse, mental illnesses, and diseases can have an influence on an individual’s IQ. These modifiable factors can reinforce or weaken genetic susceptibility [63,64]." Oommen, Arun. (2014). Factors Influencing Intelligence Quotient. Journal of Neurology & Stroke. 1. . 10.15406/jnsk.2014.01.00023.

Notice how it is not concluding they definitely do have an influence, only that it is plausible. Do you see the difference in the way I interpret scientific findings to you?

[TheDemonLord]

At least you're more intelligent than that dingbat idiot .. whose name escapes me .. Hang about ...

With talk like that, you'll barely have to buy me Dinner first...

[TheDemonLord]

What's the contradiction of maintaining plausibility?

Because you reject any other possibility, because as you say:


the definitive conclusion there is.


So far... remember how absence of proof is not proof of absence. Not that I necessarily believe your claims no studies have affected IQ through social means.

So Far... Okay, fine if you want to assume the mantle that any and all science is merely the best-fit predictive model for reality around us, until such time as a more accurate model can be generated, then sure - but then that means your "definitive conclusion" must also be treated with the same derision

As for the latter part - I'll deal with that in a later post.


The direction is not specified, read what you quoted again.

Given the context, the direction is clear.


But it is a fallacy to refer to their opinion as fact.

Well, that isn't strictly true, especially in the speech he gives multiple examples that lead to the conclusion.

Again, learn what the Fallacy actually is.


How am I supposed to know if he is sexist or not? I don't follow his opinions, beliefs, or his work.

Well, I linked to a speech of his, were he talks about the differences between the Sexes - based on that, is he Sexist?

[TheDemonLord]

And yet, a cursory search with the first article I picked reads:

"The IQ of an individual is multifactorial and is determined by a multitude of factors. Nature and nurture work together in determining human intelligence. Even though the genetic susceptibility plays a crucial role on the IQ of the individual, various modifiable environmental factors like education, premature birth, nutrition, pollution, drug and alcohol abuse, mental illnesses, and diseases can have an influence on an individual’s IQ. These modifiable factors can reinforce or weaken genetic susceptibility [63,64]." Oommen, Arun. (2014). Factors Influencing Intelligence Quotient. Journal of Neurology & Stroke. 1. . 10.15406/jnsk.2014.01.00023.

Notice how it is not concluding they definitely do have an influence, only that it is plausible. Do you see the difference in the way I interpret scientific findings to you?

Sure - all of those factors have an influence on IQ, but you've overlooked one teensy tiny detail. And I was very specific on including this details, mainly because you've done precisely what I thought you would do:


In order for Social Bias to be a factor, Societal Influence needs to have both a negative and a positive impact on IQ.

As you can see - I said Negative (which all those factors most certainly fall under) AND positive - and thus is where we get the problem:

First up: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-6129-9_19

The Study of the IQ of Twins raised in different environments:


The lack of a significant correlation (r = -0.15) between twin-pair means and twin-pair differences indicates that magnitude of differential environmental effects is not systematically related to intelligence level of twin pairs.

Then there is the Minnesota Adoption Study - I'd link the original article, but it's behind a paywall - so wikipedia will have to do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study


One of the studies' findings was the IQs of adopted black children reared by white families did not differ significantly from that of black children raised by their biological parents.

[Graystone]

Because you reject any other possibility, because as you say:





So Far... Okay, fine if you want to assume the mantle that any and all science is merely the best-fit predictive model for reality around us, until such time as a more accurate model can be generated, then sure - but then that means your "definitive conclusion" must also be treated with the same derision

As for the latter part - I'll deal with that in a later post.



Given the context, the direction is clear.



Well, that isn't strictly true, especially in the speech he gives multiple examples that lead to the conclusion.

Again, learn what the Fallacy actually is.



Well, I linked to a speech of his, were he talks about the differences between the Sexes - based on that, is he Sexist?

Do I? Where?

The suggestion is clear, but it isn't a conclusion. Learn to correctly interpret scientific conclusions.

And if they were valid, he could publish them. That is part of the fallacy, learn about that as well.

Didn't read fuck all of it then, can't be arsed going back to find it now. Perhaps that is because I hold the science itself in higher regard than opinions? something you should perhaps try...

[Graystone]

Sure - all of those factors have an influence on IQ, but you've overlooked one teensy tiny detail. And I was very specific on including this details, mainly because you've done precisely what I thought you would do:



As you can see - I said Negative (which all those factors most certainly fall under) AND positive - and thus is where we get the problem:

First up: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-6129-9_19

The Study of the IQ of Twins raised in different environments:



Then there is the Minnesota Adoption Study - I'd link the original article, but it's behind a paywall - so wikipedia will have to do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

What an utter crock of shit. Perhaps I've done as you thought since on some level you realised the futility of your point? How is education a negative influence instead of a positive one?

[TheDemonLord]

What an utter crock of shit. Perhaps I've done as you thought since on some level you realised the futility of your point? How is education a negative influence instead of a positive one?

Or, I know the position you are arguing from well enough to predict your counter...

How is Education a positive influence?

There are a few studies that suggest education shifts IQ a few points (at most), but in the one I'm thinking of, it shows that whilst there is a small shift in the pre-pubescant stage, any improvements seen in the test group average out and diminish relative to the control group after adolescence.

a few others that say it has very little to do with actual IQ.

This comes down to the foundational premise of (for example) the Minnesota experiment - that if we change the Environment, then the IQ should be positively increased.

But as per the results - it didn't.

[TheDemonLord]

Do I? Where?

Right where I pointed it out.


The suggestion is clear, but it isn't a conclusion. Learn to correctly interpret scientific conclusions.

The suggestion that the findings of the paper may help explain the Causal biological link....


And if they were valid, he could publish them. That is part of the fallacy, learn about that as well.

Again - it's not how the Fallacy works. Besides - if memory serves, he has published a variety of works and books on the subject.


Didn't read fuck all of it then, can't be arsed going back to find it now. Perhaps that is because I hold the science itself in higher regard than opinions? something you should perhaps try...

It's a simple question - is he a Sexist? you've got a few paragraphs to read to draw a conclusion.

[Graystone]

Or, I know the position you are arguing from well enough to predict your counter...

How is Education a positive influence?

There are a few studies that suggest education shifts IQ a few points (at most), but in the one I'm thinking of, it shows that whilst there is a small shift in the pre-pubescant stage, any improvements seen in the test group average out and diminish relative to the control group after adolescence.

a few others that say it has very little to do with actual IQ.

This comes down to the foundational premise of (for example) the Minnesota experiment - that if we change the Environment, then the IQ should be positively increased.

But as per the results - it didn't.

That is still debated, their original findings paint a different picture...

"Given the above-average IQ scores of black/interracial children adopted transracially, it may seem that we are endorsing the adoption of black children by white families as a social policy. There is no question that adoption constitutes a massive intervention, as noted earlier, and that it has a favorable impact on IQ scores"

and was re-iterated in their follow up: Weinberg, R. A.; Scarr, S.; Waldman, I. D. (1992). "The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study: A follow-up of IQ test performance at adolescence"

"Our original study (Scarr & Weinberg, 1976) was intended primarily to examine the effects of cross-fostering on the IQ scores of black/interracial children. The focus was on the relative effects of genetic background and social environment on IQ levels and variations among socially classified black children. The results of the longitudinal follow-up continue to support the view that the social environment maintains a dominant role in determining the average IQ level of black and interracial children and that both social and genetic variables contribute to individual variations among them. "

Both are published in respected scientific journals if you want to educate yourself, wikipedia is not such a great source I'm afraid.

And this is for a measurable increase, this is far, far more significant than a minor change in variance. If environmental factors can have a measurable increase on average IQ scores, it logically follows that they can have a measurable impact on variance as well. And as above, there is most certainly positive influences.

[Graystone]

Right where I pointed it out.



The suggestion that the findings of the paper may help explain the Causal biological link....



Again - it's not how the Fallacy works. Besides - if memory serves, he has published a variety of works and books on the subject.



It's a simple question - is he a Sexist? you've got a few paragraphs to read to draw a conclusion.

You have yet to point out where I reject any other possibility.

Suggestion. May. This does not a conclusion make.

Actually it is how the fallacy works. He does not have authority on the facts you say he presents.

Where?

[Katman]

Lord knows you probably more than most know my Disagreements with Katman on just about anything

It's like it's become an obsession for you.