The 2017 Election Thread

[TheDemonLord]

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

Because you are deliberately ignoring the distribution of results.

a data set of 1 and 10 have an average of 5.5
a data set of 5 and 6 also have an average of 5.5

You are trying to claim they are the same. They are not.

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

I'm not, You are.

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.

Relatively no change, and certainly not the degree of change needed for your "plausable" extrapolation to be true (because it isn't)

[Graystone]

You made the claim.
You back it up.



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



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.



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



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.




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.



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

I'm only to happy to, but you refuse to tell me which claim I need to back up.

I'm saying you don't understand and explaining why.

Actually no, I can ask for proof as many times as I like and you should provide it each time, you really need to get a fucking education about how the whole science thing works mate.

Still, it remains an opinion, he has no authority. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...l-to-Authority

Steven Pinker, Jordan Peterson have not published papers concluding what you do.

See first sentence, you refuse to show that which you quoted or referred to. It seems a lot more likely that you are the one doing the lying, so refuse to back yourself up since it would only expose your lies.

[Graystone]

Because you are deliberately ignoring the distribution of results.

a data set of 1 and 10 have an average of 5.5
a data set of 5 and 6 also have an average of 5.5

You are trying to claim they are the same. They are not.



I'm not, You are.



Relatively no change, and certainly not the degree of change needed for your "plausable" extrapolation to be true (because it isn't)

So it is correct then; nowhere do I claim they are the same in anything but average.

I'm not using a study showing change in average to try and draw conclusions about change in variance

So where are your gender based studies showing a higher causal change? Occams razor dude, we know social bias can change IQ due to isolation of variables, we've not seen gender do the same... You place a much higher burden of proof on the outcome you do not wish to see, then conclude it must have been the other one by elimination; fuck that is unscientific in the extreme!

[TheDemonLord]

I'm only to happy to, but you refuse to tell me which claim I need to back up.

I'm sorry - from such a pre-eminent master of the English language, I expected a bit of reading comprehension.

Your original claim is that I didn't quote you in full.
I'm saying I did and that to claim otherwise is a lie
You then try and muddy the waters and claim "You probably forgot"

I'm saying back up your original claim.

I'm saying you don't understand and explaining why.

And I'm saying you are incorrect (see above for details)

Actually no, I can ask for proof as many times as I like and you should provide it each time, you really need to get a fucking education about how the whole science thing works mate.

You can ask for proof, and you have an expectation to have it provided.

I've fulfilled my obligation, now the burden falls on you.

Still, it remains an opinion, he has no authority. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...l-to-Authority

According to you, not according to his peers.

You don't get to decide Authority, Peers do.

This is the part you are ignoring.

Steven Pinker, Jordan Peterson have not published papers concluding what you do.

No, that's not what I'm asking - look if you want to stop the debate - by all means, just reply and bow out. I won't lord it over you, but you are better than this disingenuous nonsense.

They have (on numerous occasion) made speeches, in reference to IQ and gender Variability - now, I'll concede, I'm not as learned as they are, nor do I have a tenured professorship, nor have I dedicated decades to the study of such phenomena.

But - If I'm referencing Studies they have referenced, and I have come to the same conclusions as they have - is their interpretation of the Science wrong? If so, write a thesis on it, collect your Nobel prize and claim victory.

See first sentence, you refuse to show that which you quoted or referred to. It seems a lot more likely that you are the one doing the lying, so refuse to back yourself up since it would only expose your lies.

See, you are extremely quick to demand proof from me for a claim I made, yet you are curiously defensive and reticant to provide proof for a claim you made....

Why is that...

[Katman]

The astute may have noticed mine has gone the other way

Hardly.

You sound as autistic as him.

[Graystone]

I'm sorry - from such a pre-eminent master of the English language, I expected a bit of reading comprehension.

Your original claim is that I didn't quote you in full.
I'm saying I did and that to claim otherwise is a lie
You then try and muddy the waters and claim "You probably forgot"

I'm saying back up your original claim.



And I'm saying you are incorrect (see above for details)



You can ask for proof, and you have an expectation to have it provided.

I've fulfilled my obligation, now the burden falls on you.



According to you, not according to his peers.

You don't get to decide Authority, Peers do.

This is the part you are ignoring.



No, that's not what I'm asking - look if you want to stop the debate - by all means, just reply and bow out. I won't lord it over you, but you are better than this disingenuous nonsense.

They have (on numerous occasion) made speeches, in reference to IQ and gender Variability - now, I'll concede, I'm not as learned as they are, nor do I have a tenured professorship, nor have I dedicated decades to the study of such phenomena.

But - If I'm referencing Studies they have referenced, and I have come to the same conclusions as they have - is their interpretation of the Science wrong? If so, write a thesis on it, collect your Nobel prize and claim victory.



See, you are extremely quick to demand proof from me for a claim I made, yet you are curiously defensive and reticant to provide proof for a claim you made....

Why is that...

In which instance? I can give you plenty where you didn't quote me in full.

But not adding the why part, nullius en verba!

Incorrect, the burden of proof remains on the one making the claim, to back up that claim as many times as required, that's how references work. How stupid are you to not get that?

Have his peers given him authority on the cause of that variation then? or are you trying to extend his authority to cover that based on his primary area of expertise? Because the latter is near textbook definition of argument form authority fallacy.

They have not published science on it, thus it is only opinion. Opinion does not make science fact, publishing it does. Get the education mate, you're really lacking here.

See first sentence, the proof you ask for remains ambiguous, thus I ask for clarification, no need to get your knickers in a knot

[Graystone]

Hardly.

You sound as autistic as him.

Luckily for us, our resident crayola kid is not regarded as an authority in matters of autistry, or any fucking thing else

[TheDemonLord]

So it is correct then; nowhere do I claim they are the same in anything but average.

No, because you are trying to frame it in the incorrect context.

I'm not using a study showing change in average to try and draw conclusions about change in variance

Neither am I.

It's about the degree of change - one shows only a few points, the other shows a much much much wider change.

If I take the Maximum changes listed in that study, they are not great enough to explain the differences we see on large scale IQ testing between the Genders.

So where are your gender based studies showing a higher causal change?

You're still quibbling about word games on it...

Occams razor dude, we know social bias can change IQ due to isolation of variables, we've not seen gender do the same...

That's not Occams Razor... It's that the explanation with the fewest (or smallest) assumptions is normally correct.

Your assumption is that there is some mythical Social factor that can influence IQ to a degree that is far greater than what the results show.
I don't have an assumption

You place a much higher burden of proof on the outcome you do not wish to see, then conclude it must have been the other one by elimination; fuck that is unscientific in the extreme!

No, there is no tampering with the burden of proof - I'm saying that if your statements were true, the predictive model would look vastly different from the real world data. Since it doesn't resemble what we do know, the statement must be false.

[Graystone]

No, because you are trying to frame it in the incorrect context.



Neither am I.

It's about the degree of change - one shows only a few points, the other shows a much much much wider change.

If I take the Maximum changes listed in that study, they are not great enough to explain the differences we see on large scale IQ testing between the Genders.



You're still quibbling about word games on it...



That's not Occams Razor... It's that the explanation with the fewest (or smallest) assumptions is normally correct.

Your assumption is that there is some mythical Social factor that can influence IQ to a degree that is far greater than what the results show.
I don't have an assumption



No, there is no tampering with the burden of proof - I'm saying that if your statements were true, the predictive model would look vastly different from the real world data. Since it doesn't resemble what we do know, the statement must be false.

So debate the context, don't call the facts incorrect, it makes you look silly.

So what do you think that study shows to help your cause?

Ah, more diversion.

Your assertion is that biology is the causal factor for those IQ differences, there's a lot more assumptions made along that route! What you don't have is a clue about scientific methods

What predictive model? and what real world data?

[TheDemonLord]

In which instance? I can give you plenty where you didn't quote me in full.

The context was clear, given the discussion - you are just trying to Weasel out of it.

This is beneath you.

But not adding the why part, nullius en verba!

You want me to take your interpretation seriously, when you can't even get the context above right.... The "Why" as you put it, does not apply in this instance, since the original interpretation was wrong.

Incorrect, the burden of proof remains on the one making the claim, to back up that claim as many times as required, that's how references work. How stupid are you to not get that?

The burden has been met. And it has been referenced. You now have a duty to look it up. If you don't want to do that - it's fine, but stop trying to shift the Burden, ain't going to work.

Have his peers given him authority on the cause of that variation then? or are you trying to extend his authority to cover that based on his primary area of expertise? Because the latter is near textbook definition of argument form authority fallacy.

There is that word "The latter" - that would be your interpretation, which is why it's not the fallacy. Glad you've finally acknowledged it isn't the fallacy.

They have not published science on it, thus it is only opinion. Opinion does not make science fact, publishing it does. Get the education mate, you're really lacking here.

That isn't the question though. And you know it.

See first sentence, the proof you ask for remains ambiguous, thus I ask for clarification, no need to get your knickers in a knot

It really isn't - since I multi-quote you and put my comments in line, to remove ambiguity, all it needs is a little English Comprehension, and since you've been trying to pontificate about my lack thereof - it should be easy for one, with such a command of the english language as you ascribe to yourself, to reply to.

So which is it?

Either your word game waffle is just that - Waffle and you need me to point it out.
or
You're being disingenuous as fuck

[Graystone]

The context was clear, given the discussion - you are just trying to Weasel out of it.

This is beneath you.



You want me to take your interpretation seriously, when you can't even get the context above right.... The "Why" as you put it, does not apply in this instance, since the original interpretation was wrong.



The burden has been met. And it has been referenced. You now have a duty to look it up. If you don't want to do that - it's fine, but stop trying to shift the Burden, ain't going to work.



There is that word "The latter" - that would be your interpretation, which is why it's not the fallacy. Glad you've finally acknowledged it isn't the fallacy.



That isn't the question though. And you know it.



It really isn't - since I multi-quote you and put my comments in line, to remove ambiguity, all it needs is a little English Comprehension, and since you've been trying to pontificate about my lack thereof - it should be easy for one, with such a command of the english language as you ascribe to yourself, to reply to.

So which is it?

Either your word game waffle is just that - Waffle and you need me to point it out.
or
You're being disingenuous as fuck

Post 1743, your first quote of me. Clipped and taken out of context. Good enough?

I explained why your original interpretation was wrong, you read 'and' as determinant, not as a grouping term.

But it is not referenced where it can be followed, where it is required and asked for. In this you clearly have no idea how science and its transparency works.

Is english you second language? latter refers to the second part of the sentence, it does not infer it is my opinion only.

It is precisely the question, you claim science has proven causality, yet since it has not been published your claim is a false one.

See first sentence then showing how you quote only part of my post.

[Katman]

You're being disingenuous as fuck

I'm convinced you cunts are twins.

[TheDemonLord]

So debate the context, don't call the facts incorrect, it makes you look silly.

The context has already been provided - for the last 70 pages or so. You tried the old bait and switch - I called it.

So what do you think that study shows to help your cause?

That the best case societal input does not show anywhere near the degree of change required.

Your assertion is that biology is the causal factor for those IQ differences,

Correct

there's a lot more assumptions made along that route! What you don't have is a clue about scientific methods

Okay - let's play them out:

Assumption 1: Humans are a Sexually dimorphic species with differences between the Male and Female

Not really an assumption is it...

Assumption 2: Males in both Humans and other species display far more variability for multiple traits compared to Females

You could potentially call this an assumption, when applied to Neurology, but as per one of the articles linked - this variability has been shown to extend to the neurological level in animals.

As opposed to your mystery societal factor that has to manifest itself at measures far larger than what the practical data shows

What predictive model? and what real world data?

One where you say that Societal factors are the cause, and then factor into that explanation the real world shifts in IQ due to society (which is very small) - that predictive model looks nothing like the IQ scores I linked to.

[husaberg]

I'm convinced you cunts are twins.

Thats likely because you have a tenious grasp of reality, plus long really history of being rather stupid.
Maybe people might take you more serious if you posted that as Cassina next time.

[Graystone]

The context has already been provided - for the last 70 pages or so. You tried the old bait and switch - I called it.



That the best case societal input does not show anywhere near the degree of change required.



Correct



Okay - let's play them out:

Assumption 1: Humans are a Sexually dimorphic species with differences between the Male and Female

Not really an assumption is it...

Assumption 2: Males in both Humans and other species display far more variability for multiple traits compared to Females

You could potentially call this an assumption, when applied to Neurology, but as per one of the articles linked - this variability has been shown to extend to the neurological level in animals.

As opposed to your mystery societal factor that has to manifest itself at measures far larger than what the practical data shows



One where you say that Societal factors are the cause, and then factor into that explanation the real world shifts in IQ due to society (which is very small) - that predictive model looks nothing like the IQ scores I linked to.

Next time call it as a 'bait and switch' instead of calling it incorrect then.

That is not the best case societal input.

Assumption one, equals perform differently in inequal circumstances.
Assumption two, is not required...

Don't be absurd, that is not a predictive model. And at the risk of more unscientific diversion, what results did you link to earlier?