The 2017 Election Thread

[TheDemonLord]

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?

Incorrect.

Nice Try Cathy.

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?

There is no Gish Gallop here - I've not asked you to read entire books or watch entire long format videos - in all bits - I've posted the relevant excerpt and included a link OR pointed you to a time stamp.

Again - Go learn your Fallacies and what they mean.

But back to the original complaint - if the variance between men and women was a difference of only a few points (so the SD was much closer for each dataset) - you would have a point. But the higher up you go, the more the ratio tilts, which means a factor capable of a few points of adjustment does not explain that discrepency.

Thus, we are left with the Social factor being negligible at best, and irrelevant at worst - there is something else that must cause the difference in variation and this aligns exceptionally tightly with the Male Variability hypothesis.

[Crasherfromwayback]

So, Smarmy Simon is the new cheif eh? He won't help ya Nats.

[Katman]

Good 'ol Soimon knows just how to rort the system.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11154765

[TheDemonLord]

So, Smarmy Simon is the new cheif eh? He won't help ya Nats.

Interesting choice, maybe they are thinking that a youngish face might give them a bit of the Jacinda Effect?

[RDJ]

I think they've gone for a leader who can do conversations and pregnancy without bringing along intellect and effort. I.e. Jacindaclone.

[Swoop]

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

How would the person know how another voted?

[jasonu]

How would the person know how another voted?

What the fuck else do you talk about in the pub on election week?

[Grumph]

How would the person know how another voted?

In certain mid Canterbury polling booths, it's pretty clear when the figures come out, LOL.

Local to me, the group of rural women running the booth could tell you - if asked - just who the locals voting labour were likely to be - simply by saying who turned up to vote there.
Things like that are why I now vote early - and at a booth remote from where I live.

[Graystone]

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



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



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.



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

Where? you've failed to quote shit properly for so long we've both probably forgot that to which you referred...

Do you not understand the difference between inclusionary and determinant terms in the english language?

Post it again then, his authority does not stretch to his opinions being counted as or even based on facts; thus it is an argument from authority fallacy.

It's quite amusing watching your tone go from all high and mighty up on the science horse to this diversionary bullshit. The astute may have noticed mine has gone the other way

[Graystone]

Incorrect.

Nice Try Cathy.



There is no Gish Gallop here - I've not asked you to read entire books or watch entire long format videos - in all bits - I've posted the relevant excerpt and included a link OR pointed you to a time stamp.

Again - Go learn your Fallacies and what they mean.

But back to the original complaint - if the variance between men and women was a difference of only a few points (so the SD was much closer for each dataset) - you would have a point. But the higher up you go, the more the ratio tilts, which means a factor capable of a few points of adjustment does not explain that discrepency.

Thus, we are left with the Social factor being negligible at best, and irrelevant at worst - there is something else that must cause the difference in variation and this aligns exceptionally tightly with the Male Variability hypothesis.

Which part of that is incorrect?

The average was adjusted a few points, they mentioned nothing about the variance. It proves only that social factors can affect IQ. I still have no idea how you think that reinforces your point?

Drawing conclusions about variability from such a study which has not quantified it at all is fucking absurd dude, you really need to get an education.

[TheDemonLord]

Where? you've failed to quote shit properly for so long we've both probably forgot that to which you referred...

So, you admit that you are making shit up then, if you've forgotten to what it pertains to.

I, on the other hand, checked - which is why I say with confidence - you are straight up lieing.

Now, why would someone need to lie about being taken out of context in a debate... There is but one reason....

Do you not understand the difference between inclusionary and determinant terms in the english language?

The context is clear, you simply don't like it, hence the attempt at playing word games to minimise it.

Post it again then, his authority does not stretch to his opinions being counted as or even based on facts; thus it is an argument from authority fallacy.

Why? Its in this thread - you've got eyes and hands. If you clicked on it, it will be in your browser history.

Again, you fundamentally fail at using logical fallacies.

It is not 'just his opinion', in the excerpt he points to multiple data sets.

You see, this is why it's not a fallacy - think of a Legal Opinion - it has weight if it is given by someone who is recognized by their peers as having expertise in a field. The opinion isn't just given out of hand, various factors will be given as to why the opinion is such.

It's quite amusing watching your tone go from all high and mighty up on the science horse to this diversionary bullshit. The astute may have noticed mine has gone the other way

I've posted the bits of science I use for my opinions, I've cited those whose works best explain the empirical evidence. We've discussed the pros and cons for it - but as above - you are now resorting to flat-out lies to bolster your position, I'm just pointing it out.

[Graystone]

So, you admit that you are making shit up then, if you've forgotten to what it pertains to.

I, on the other hand, checked - which is why I say with confidence - you are straight up lieing.

Now, why would someone need to lie about being taken out of context in a debate... There is but one reason....



The context is clear, you simply don't like it, hence the attempt at playing word games to minimise it.



Why? Its in this thread - you've got eyes and hands. If you clicked on it, it will be in your browser history.

Again, you fundamentally fail at using logical fallacies.

It is not 'just his opinion', in the excerpt he points to multiple data sets.

You see, this is why it's not a fallacy - think of a Legal Opinion - it has weight if it is given by someone who is recognized by their peers as having expertise in a field. The opinion isn't just given out of hand, various factors will be given as to why the opinion is such.



I've posted the bits of science I use for my opinions, I've cited those whose works best explain the empirical evidence. We've discussed the pros and cons for it - but as above - you are now resorting to flat-out lies to bolster your position, I'm just pointing it out.

Not at all, I'm saying that we may disagree about to what it refers, so you should post that. I recall it refers to my description of three opinion states, none of which I stated were my own; thus your partial quote takes it out of context.

Word games? you don't understand how the word 'and' works; correcting you is not word games.

Nah, back your shit up or fuck off with this diversionary bullshit.

That example is why its a fallacy, legal opinion is based on proven facts that can be verified, his opinion remains an opinion only. Thus to present it in an argument espousing the facts, is an argument from authority fallacy.

I pointed out many times how you interpretation of such science is wrong (like the one where they actively contradicted your opinion in their conclusion), I've not lied at all, that is one thing you should certainly back up if you have shred of rational discourse left within you. I won't hold my breath, bigoted fuckwits often get quite irrational when their bullshit is called out and exposed for all to see.

[TheDemonLord]

Which part of that is incorrect?

Your misrepresentation of it.

The average was adjusted a few points, they mentioned nothing about the variance. It proves only that social factors can affect IQ. I still have no idea how you think that reinforces your point?

I never said they mentioned Variance.

I'll try an analogy - An air filter can add 5-10 hp on a Hayabusa, the base HP for that bike is 172 HP at the rear wheel. If there are now a bunch of Hayabusa's putting out 300+ HP, There is no way such a change can be due to JUST the Air filter.

Something else has to have been done to the bike to get such numbers.

And there is your problem - If your position is that there is no differences in variation between the sexes for biological reasons, and you point to a factor where the BEST change is less than 10 points, it does not explain why the gap widens as you progress up the IQ specrtrum, nor does it explain the degree to which the gap widens.

Such a claim would predict 2 things:

1: a Much more linear divergence between Male and Female
2: an upper limit of ~10 points difference between Male and Female

This is not what we see, since the prediction that such a claim infers is divorced from reality, the claim itself is false.

Then you run the same thought experiment again but with a Biological explanation, the prediction inferred from that claim fits perfectly with the real world data.

Drawing conclusions about variability from such a study which has not quantified it at all is fucking absurd dude, you really need to get an education.

Says the person who admits to making shit up because the position they are arguing from is crumbling from beneath them.

[Graystone]

Your misrepresentation of it.



I never said they mentioned Variance.

I'll try an analogy - An air filter can add 5-10 hp on a Hayabusa, the base HP for that bike is 172 HP at the rear wheel. If there are now a bunch of Hayabusa's putting out 300+ HP, There is no way such a change can be due to JUST the Air filter.

Something else has to have been done to the bike to get such numbers.

And there is your problem - If your position is that there is no differences in variation between the sexes for biological reasons, and you point to a factor where the BEST change is less than 10 points, it does not explain why the gap widens as you progress up the IQ specrtrum, nor does it explain the degree to which the gap widens.

Such a claim would predict 2 things:

1: a Much more linear divergence between Male and Female
2: an upper limit of ~10 points difference between Male and Female

This is not what we see, since the prediction that such a claim infers is divorced from reality, the claim itself is false.

Then you run the same thought experiment again but with a Biological explanation, the prediction inferred from that claim fits perfectly with the real world data.



Says the person who admits to making shit up because the position they are arguing from is crumbling from beneath them.

How is that a misrepresentation? The average IQ does not change between genders, but it does based on social bias.

That's a really shit analogy dude. Stop confusing a change in average, with a change in variance.

Social bias can change the IQ, that is proven, I believe earlier you said there was no change found for this, so there is no science in that article to support your opinion. Instead we can extrapolate plausibility of greater/different social bias causing greater/different changes.

[TheDemonLord]

Not at all, I'm saying that we may disagree about to what it refers, so you should post that. I recall it refers to my description of three opinion states, none of which I stated were my own; thus your partial quote takes it out of context.

You made the claim.
You back it up.

Word games? you don't understand how the word 'and' works; correcting you is not word games.

You are saying I don't understand and that is purely because it suits your argument to do so...

Nah, back your shit up or fuck off with this diversionary bullshit.

I have already done so. Hence why it is you that is being diversionary.

This is how standards of proof work - you ask me for proof, I provide it, you can't then continue to ask for it again.

That example is why its a fallacy, legal opinion is based on proven facts that can be verified, his opinion remains an opinion only. Thus to present it in an argument espousing the facts, is an argument from authority fallacy.

You've clearly never dealt with any lawyers....

But back to the point, the proven facts are that which is cited (just like those that were cited in the debate), Because he has:

A: Provided reference material for his opinion
B: Is recognised by his peers as being competent in this field

It is not a Fallacy. You can claim it is till the cows come home, but just like your cries of Strawman - it's not correct.

And for bonus irony points, you try and claim that I'm the one with comprehension trouble

I pointed out many times how you interpretation of such science is wrong (like the one where they actively contradicted your opinion in their conclusion),

So Steven Pinker, Jordan Peterson - their interpretation of such Science is also wrong yes? If so, publish your paper, collect your Nobel Prize, Prove me wrong.

But, I shall not hold my breath.

I've not lied at all, that is one thing you should certainly back up if you have shred of rational discourse left within you.

Which is it? Can you not remember what it was in reference to or did I not quote you in full?

These 2 statements alone are an attempt to muddy the waters, so as to escape the corner you've painted yourself into it.

I can assure you, I quoted you in full - so either you are lieing about that or you don't know what you are on about and are making things up - either way, you've lost.

I won't hold my breath, bigoted fuckwits often get quite irrational when their bullshit is called out and exposed for all to see.

You mean like lieing to bolster a position? Yes.... yes they do....