The 2017 Election Thread

[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.

[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.

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

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-scien...pelke-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?