The 2017 Election Thread

[Grumph]

Bit of interesting hearsay locally. Reports of rural employees/subcontractors/sharemilkers etc being told by the property owner to vote National - or else...

I'd assume it's happened before but in todays' world, the media would lap it up.

[husaberg]

Casual, certainly. Causal, doubtful.

There was studies done with Irish that sugests the lower scores inittally were because of low level of preschool education that increased with urbanisation.
Once preschool education levels increased so did the IQ by a dramatic rate.

[TheDemonLord]

Which were taken completely out of context to suit your agenda.

Not at all - you said it, and you placed it in the Context.

I merely pointed out that you espouse one stance, then contradicted it moments later and that the contradictory statement is in line with your earlier utterances.

"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."

See how there is an 'and' between causal direction and the rest of the sentence. That is a separator of ideas, forget a scientific education, start with a BA or something and learn to read.

And is inclusionary, not exclusionary.

English 101.

They may be (as you are interpreting) separate concepts, but even if I take your interpretation - they are separate, but related.

He is not an authority for the facts you portray him as presenting, thus it is an argument from authority fallacy. It's a simple concept.

Ok - Here's the issue then - that is his field of work. He's recognized by his peers as a leader in his field. He's published works (both peer reviewed and popular science) on these subjects. His presence at the debate I linked shows that he has enough academic credibility to be asked to present his side of the argument.

You are merely saying he isn't an Authority.

So, nice try, but just like your attempt to cry Strawman, you are fundamentally misapplying the fallacy.

You're getting awfully diversionary and redirecty with no attempt to add anything new to thee discussion, this is not the scientific way, this is the way of one who knows he has lost the argument but lacks the humility to admit it.

There's that projection again - it's what you've been doing for the last 30 pages...

[TheDemonLord]

Sounds like it's up for debate. In any case, we now know social factors can contribute a few points to IQ, how many points are a factor in male/female scores again? Zero isn't it? Thus social factors are most definitely still a casual plausibility.

If I stretch to the hypothetical you are trying to paint - okay, sure - social factors can shift IQ by a few points only.

But you are now being exceptionally dishonest about the Male/Female scores - the Averages were the same, but the distribution was certainly not.

The problem is at both extremes, it's not a few points difference, and the higher up the IQ scale you go, the greater the ratio between Men and Women.

If your claim that "social factors are most definitely still a casual plausibility." had any validity, the difference at the extremes would be much smaller, even if I triple the results derived experimentally (to account for all that "sexism" you claim) - it is still nowhere near enough to explain the difference.

[Graystone]

Not at all - you said it, and you placed it in the Context.

I merely pointed out that you espouse one stance, then contradicted it moments later and that the contradictory statement is in line with your earlier utterances.



And is inclusionary, not exclusionary.

English 101.

They may be (as you are interpreting) separate concepts, but even if I take your interpretation - they are separate, but related.



Ok - Here's the issue then - that is his field of work. He's recognized by his peers as a leader in his field. He's published works (both peer reviewed and popular science) on these subjects. His presence at the debate I linked shows that he has enough academic credibility to be asked to present his side of the argument.

You are merely saying he isn't an Authority.

So, nice try, but just like your attempt to cry Strawman, you are fundamentally misapplying the fallacy.



There's that projection again - it's what you've been doing for the last 30 pages...

Incorrect, you had to take it out of context by selectively quoting only one part of the sentence. Try again and quote the whole thing to see how it works with actual context.

Exactly, it is inclusionary of a group of things that may be explained, it does not relate one to the other in a determinant fashion. You are putting the 'related' interpretation on it and calling it a conclusion, please do better with your english 101.

The argument from authority is not field based, that is simply common usage as it dumbs it down for people not to have to think too much. He is not an authority on the causes of IQ variance disparity because it is still being debated, there is no facts to be authoritative on.

Incorrect again, see first sentence in this post.

[Graystone]

If I stretch to the hypothetical you are trying to paint - okay, sure - social factors can shift IQ by a few points only.

But you are now being exceptionally dishonest about the Male/Female scores - the Averages were the same, but the distribution was certainly not.

The problem is at both extremes, it's not a few points difference, and the higher up the IQ scale you go, the greater the ratio between Men and Women.

If your claim that "social factors are most definitely still a casual plausibility." had any validity, the difference at the extremes would be much smaller, even if I triple the results derived experimentally (to account for all that "sexism" you claim) - it is still nowhere near enough to explain the difference.

So let me get this straight, social factors we know shift the average by a few points only, gender shifts it by none at all, correct? Just how do you get from there to concluding social factors causing greater variance is implausible? Did the study show something I missed, or are you gish galloping somewhere else now?

[Brian d marge]

What has all of this got to do with

Sex

Drugs

Or rock n roll

?????????

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[sidecar bob]

Bit of interesting hearsay locally. Reports of rural employees/subcontractors/sharemilkers etc being told by the property owner to vote National - or else...

I'd assume it's happened before but in todays' world, the media would lap it up.

Yep, that's old hat.
A massive local property developer had a staff meeting before the election, informing his staff of their obligation. He later became a National MP, but couldn't stand the bullshit, so very soon, went back to being "bob the builder"
I took a less direct approach & used to remind my staff where their money came from, usually over smoko. I'd tell them, "if I'm doing ok, you're doing ok, remember where your money comes from" & leave it at that.

[Grumph]

You'd have got on well with a guy I worked for. Big man in Rotary. Got a shock one day when I described Rotary as a right wing para-military organisation.
He couldn't deny that they were right wing - and the uniform of black slacks and white shirt was suspicious too....

But on the other hand, he had the balls to respond to Aussie customs at Sydney - Q "have you a prison record sir ?" A "is it still neccessary ?"

Strip searched immediately.

[sidecar bob]

You'd have got on well with a guy I worked for. Big man in Rotary. Got a shock one day when I described Rotary as a right wing para-military organisation.
He couldn't deny that they were right wing - and the uniform of black slacks and white shirt was suspicious too....

But on the other hand, he had the balls to respond to Aussie customs at Sydney - Q "have you a prison record sir ?" A "is it still neccessary ?"

Strip searched immediately.

Bear in mind, I barely give a toss now. The govt no longer has its hand in my pocket up to my nutsack anymore.

[husaberg]

Yep, that's old hat.
A massive local property developer had a staff meeting before the election, informing his staff of their obligation. He later became a National MP, but couldn't stand the bullshit, so very soon, went back to being "bob the builder"
I took a less direct approach & used to remind my staff where their money came from, usually over smoko. I'd tell them, "if I'm doing ok, you're doing ok, remember where your money comes from" & leave it at that.

Why hold elections at all.... afterall thats the next logical step isn't it

[Ocean1]

I took a less direct approach & used to remind my staff where their money came from, usually over smoko. I'd tell them, "if I'm doing ok, you're doing ok, remember where your money comes from" & leave it at that.

Everyone knows where their money comes from. The question is: was it given willingly.

[sidecar bob]

Why hold elections at all.... afterall thats the next logical step isn't it

Well when the economy turned to shit a few years ago, I had to dump a couple of them. I hope they weren't the makers of their own undoing, but then, why would I care, I still had a job.

[husaberg]

Well when the economy turned to shit a few years ago, I had to dump a couple of them. I hope they weren't the makers of their own undoing, but then, why would I care, I still had a job.

A few years ago, but would that put it in the era of the rock star economy.

[TheDemonLord]

Incorrect, you had to take it out of context by selectively quoting only one part of the sentence. Try again and quote the whole thing to see how it works with actual context.

I did quote the whole thing... Now you are just making shit up.

Exactly, it is inclusionary of a group of things that may be explained, it does not relate one to the other in a determinant fashion. You are putting the 'related' interpretation on it and calling it a conclusion, please do better with your english 101.

There is only one person putting a spin on what was posted...

The argument from authority is not field based, that is simply common usage as it dumbs it down for people not to have to think too much. He is not an authority on the causes of IQ variance disparity because it is still being debated, there is no facts to be authoritative on.

I've posted the definition of the Fallacy - you are trying to make an argumentum ad logicam.

He's recognised by his Peers as a leading expert in this field, if you don't like that - then tough titties OR get your doctorate in that field, conduct your research, get your works published and then challenge his position as an Expert.

Incorrect again, see first sentence in this post.

You mean the one were you assert something that is clearly not true? Good Job!