The 2017 Election Thread

[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

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

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

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

[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.

[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.
Reminds me of the expression, a lion online yet a pussy at home.

[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?