The 2017 Election Thread

[TheDemonLord]

Not at all. Bias can exist without impediment.

Okay - name a Bias that does not have some form of basis in a real world deficiency.

I'll grant you that some biases take a very small deficiency and blow it out disproportionately - however there was a study (which for the life of me I can't remember the title) that indicates that almost all stereotypes are based on some form of observation.

I should note for fairness sake, there's been a fair amount of literature that shows that negative experiences are more strongly remembered than positive ones.

You can measure some points, but require faith to extrapolate that beyond them.

Yeah. No. I don't need Faith to know that a society that stones a woman to death for allowing herself to be raped has more societal bias than the society that doesn't.

As I said - we've got some pretty hard metrics, therefore it's not a faith based proclamation. A society's Biases are made manifest by their actions. Actions that can be objectively measured.

Somewhere in between, I certainly don't consider it to be a fact, which clearly fucks your strawmanning of it, so maybe just let it go eh!

I'll let it go when you make an argument that isn't predicated on it being true.

The IQ thing shows nothing of the sort. Stop missapplying stats to suit your own sexist ideals; it could just as easily show that a societal bias is a thing.

It's not misapplied and it's been repeated across cultures numerous times (Oops there goes your Societal bias...), in each attempt the results pretty much the same: Median IQ is the Same, Men had a greater SD than Women.

And your continued implication of any difference between the sexes is bad for women's performance is clearly a sexist notion.

Except I've not said that...

I've said that when it comes to purely physical attributes: Men (on average) hold all the advantages when it comes to pure performance (Faster, Stronger, Fitter, bigger, taller, denser bone structure etc. etc.)

When it comes to the business world: various personality traits (such as disagreeableness) are weighted in favor of Men and these traits are causal to long term business success. Couple that with the IQ distribution - and we see what we would expect given those 2 data points - most of the people at the top are Men.

When it comes to the creative domains: that high end skewed ratio for IQ means that most of the most creative people are also Men

When it comes to 'world firsts': That men are twice as likely to take risks than Women also means that a huge proportion (if not all) of the outright world firsts - were done by Men.

When it comes to reproductive Biology, Men can leave it till their 90s - which gives them time to pursue whatever fancies them

These are all objective observations and their real world implications of differences between the Sexes.

But hell - if you think this means that I think Men are some kind of Superbeing, then perhaps you should also look at the flipside of the coin:

Higher physical performance comes with the cost that Men die earlier than Women.
High Disagreeability: also means that most of the Prison Population is Men.
Creative Domain:, the world is littered with the Men who gambled on making a creative living, and lost.
Risk Taking: We kill ourselves doing stupid shit waaaaay more often than Women.
Reproductive Biology: Paternity fraud, Paternity rights etc. etc.

In various environments (such as Sports or the business world) it is clear from the objective data that most of the biological advantages favor Men have - but those domains don't encompass all of society.

Edit - However, those domains are some of the easiest to measure, if you look at a trait where women outweigh the Men (such as sensitivity to negative Emotion) - you can see it manifest in career choice (The Nursing profession) but how do you objectively measure 'caring'?

Couldn't hurt to have more than a quick look then.

Thus far, haven't found any concrete legislation or anything from a govt.nz source that pertained specifically to the PM.

I'd hazard a guess there are internal procedures, but back to my point - given the vested interest, can we be sure that they would be dutifully followed?

[Graystone]

Okay - name a Bias that does not have some form of basis in a real world deficiency.

I'll grant you that some biases take a very small deficiency and blow it out disproportionately - however there was a study (which for the life of me I can't remember the title) that indicates that almost all stereotypes are based on some form of observation.

I should note for fairness sake, there's been a fair amount of literature that shows that negative experiences are more strongly remembered than positive ones.



Yeah. No. I don't need Faith to know that a society that stones a woman to death for allowing herself to be raped has more societal bias than the society that doesn't.

As I said - we've got some pretty hard metrics, therefore it's not a faith based proclamation. A society's Biases are made manifest by their actions. Actions that can be objectively measured.



I'll let it go when you make an argument that isn't predicated on it being true.



It's not misapplied and it's been repeated across cultures numerous times (Oops there goes your Societal bias...), in each attempt the results pretty much the same: Median IQ is the Same, Men had a greater SD than Women.



Except I've not said that...

I've said that when it comes to purely physical attributes: Men (on average) hold all the advantages when it comes to pure performance (Faster, Stronger, Fitter, bigger, taller, denser bone structure etc. etc.)

When it comes to the business world: various personality traits (such as disagreeableness) are weighted in favor of Men and these traits are causal to long term business success. Couple that with the IQ distribution - and we see what we would expect given those 2 data points - most of the people at the top are Men.

When it comes to the creative domains: that high end skewed ratio for IQ means that most of the most creative people are also Men

When it comes to 'world firsts': That men are twice as likely to take risks than Women also means that a huge proportion (if not all) of the outright world firsts - were done by Men.

When it comes to reproductive Biology, Men can leave it till their 90s - which gives them time to pursue whatever fancies them

These are all objective observations and their real world implications of differences between the Sexes.

But hell - if you think this means that I think Men are some kind of Superbeing, then perhaps you should also look at the flipside of the coin:

Higher physical performance comes with the cost that Men die earlier than Women.
High Disagreeability: also means that most of the Prison Population is Men.
Creative Domain:, the world is littered with the Men who gambled on making a creative living, and lost.
Risk Taking: We kill ourselves doing stupid shit waaaaay more often than Women.
Reproductive Biology: Paternity fraud, Paternity rights etc. etc.

In various environments (such as Sports or the business world) it is clear from the objective data that most of the biological advantages favor Men have - but those domains don't encompass all of society.

Edit - However, those domains are some of the easiest to measure, if you look at a trait where women outweigh the Men (such as sensitivity to negative Emotion) - you can see it manifest in career choice (The Nursing profession) but how do you objectively measure 'caring'?



Thus far, haven't found any concrete legislation or anything from a govt.nz source that pertained specifically to the PM.

I'd hazard a guess there are internal procedures, but back to my point - given the vested interest, can we be sure that they would be dutifully followed?

Consumer choice, apple vs samsung etc. Familial bias, whole families supporting the same rugby team.

No society in which women do not give birth exists, so their are no actions that can be measured, so you are most certainly extrapolating.

What argument have I made that is predicated on it being true? Certainly none to do with Jacinda.

Which society wrote the IQ test? When was it applied to a society in which women no longer give birth? Your faith that it is universally applicable despite having only a few data points which allegedly show a local trend is just that, faith. My faith that men and women are inherently equals is also just that, faith; I know damn sure why I chose mine, do you?

No, you just heavily impy it. I think IQ is enough red herrings to deal with in the moment, so I'll ignore the rest of your post.

[TheDemonLord]

Consumer choice, apple vs samsung etc. Familial bias, whole families supporting the same rugby team.

Almost all of them have a basis in some form of perceptual deficiancy:

Consumer choice: Product A doesn't suit my needs (is deficient), whereas product B does
Apple vs Samsung: The Apple UI and design choices to me is Deficient compared to Android
Familial Bias: There are various biological and societal covenants between close relations that don't exist for the general population (therefore the general population is deficient to the familial) - the rugby example - That is loyalty to the family in order not to be cast into the group of general population (Disownment - which goes all the way back to when our ancestors lived in large familial groups)

No society in which women do not give birth exists, so their are no actions that can be measured, so you are most certainly extrapolating.

That simply means we can't have an agreed zero-point, doesn't mean we can't have a verified continuum by comparing societies - so nice try, but No.

What argument have I made that is predicated on it being true? Certainly none to do with Jacinda.

All of them, hence Why I've been banging on about it.

Which society wrote the IQ test? When was it applied to a society in which women no longer give birth? Your faith that it is universally applicable despite having only a few data points which allegedly show a local trend is just that, faith. My faith that men and women are inherently equals is also just that, faith; I know damn sure why I chose mine, do you?

Right, so now your implication is that the test is corrupt...

'A few data points' with hundreds of thousands of Samples, Repeated across Time and repeated across cultures. Then there is the real world datapoints which reinforce the validity.

My 'Faith' if it pleases you, is that there are a large number of biological differences between Men and Women - and saying/acting as if there aren't, is wrong. Now, acknowledging differences is not the same as not having equality under the law or equality of oppertunity.

No, you just heavily impy it. I think IQ is enough red herrings to deal with in the moment, so I'll ignore the rest of your post.

Oh Lawl - consider how much you've tried to rake me over the coals for saying what you imply (although, in your case, you've outright stated it...) - that's a bit rich.

What I heavily imply is that at the extremes of Human Endeavor - it is almost all Men - there's a reason for that. I didn't make the reason, nor did I enforce it - that's all Biology.

To say otherwise is objectively wrong.

And of course you are going to ignore it - there's that underlying premise again....

[Crasherfromwayback]

.....................

[TheDemonLord]

.....................

Indeed, I found the notion in line with Antidisestablishmentarianism, however a quick electroencephalographically analysis shows that the conclusion to be completely supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.

[Graystone]

Almost all of them have a basis in some form of perceptual deficiancy:

Consumer choice: Product A doesn't suit my needs (is deficient), whereas product B does
Apple vs Samsung: The Apple UI and design choices to me is Deficient compared to Android
Familial Bias: There are various biological and societal covenants between close relations that don't exist for the general population (therefore the general population is deficient to the familial) - the rugby example - That is loyalty to the family in order not to be cast into the group of general population (Disownment - which goes all the way back to when our ancestors lived in large familial groups)



That simply means we can't have an agreed zero-point, doesn't mean we can't have a verified continuum by comparing societies - so nice try, but No.



All of them, hence Why I've been banging on about it.



Right, so now your implication is that the test is corrupt...

'A few data points' with hundreds of thousands of Samples, Repeated across Time and repeated across cultures. Then there is the real world datapoints which reinforce the validity.

My 'Faith' if it pleases you, is that there are a large number of biological differences between Men and Women - and saying/acting as if there aren't, is wrong. Now, acknowledging differences is not the same as not having equality under the law or equality of oppertunity.



Oh Lawl - consider how much you've tried to rake me over the coals for saying what you imply (although, in your case, you've outright stated it...) - that's a bit rich.

What I heavily imply is that at the extremes of Human Endeavor - it is almost all Men - there's a reason for that. I didn't make the reason, nor did I enforce it - that's all Biology.

To say otherwise is objectively wrong.

And of course you are going to ignore it - there's that underlying premise again....

Perceptual deficiency is different from real world deficiency.

What it means is your local 'continuum' cannot give global conclusions.

Funny how you fail to list even onee then. It's also interesting to note all of your arguments are predicated on it being false, not just unproven, but proven to be false; which you have utterly failed to do.

Not corrupt persay; imperfect, absolutely. It is just somewhat interesting that you are drawings such extrapolations from a single test.

Objectively wrong? only if you class sexism as a result of human biology. It is not wrong to say that given equal opportunities and no societal bias, we could see women do just as well as men at the extremes of human endeavor.

See how my premise, although now discussed since you persist with this red herring; actually has nothing to do with how well Jacinda will perform her job? That's the thing about premise's, they infer a conclusion, they're not to be picked up on as some strawman when no inference is drawn.

[TheDemonLord]

Perceptual deficiency is different from real world deficiency.

I get what you are implying here, but you are trying a bait and switch here - People have perception - therefore perceptual deficiencies matter - whether or not they are 'real world deficiencies' doesn't make them any less real to the people observing them.

What it means is your local 'continuum' cannot give global conclusions.

Hogwash:

Assume for the moment, there are 3 people, Me, You and Usain Bolt, we can all run - I'm a Fat Cunt, so I'm the slowest, and Usain Bolt is the faster, which leaves you in the middle - you are implying that because none of us can't run - our local continuum can't tell you who is the fastest.

Which is clearly BS

Funny how you fail to list even onee then.

Fine:

"It is not wrong to say that given equal opportunities and no societal bias, we could see women do just as well as men at the extremes of human endeavor."

- inferring no biological difference

"If we removed societal bias we would see equal representation as well."

- inferring no biological difference

"All of which have societal bias. Don't conflate societal bias with equal opportunities."

- inferring that Societal bias is the reason for differing outcomes, which presumed there to be no biological difference

"that occurred when men had an unfair advantage over women in terms of education prejudices, then lets see how many are left."

- inferring that corruption was the only reason for their advancement, which in turn implies no biological difference.

etc. etc.

It's also interesting to note all of your arguments are predicated on it being false, not just unproven, but proven to be false; which you have utterly failed to do.

How would you know? You've just dismissed all the evidence as Irrelevant...

But for clarity sake - I've said at best, that underlying notion is unproven, at worst it's disproven by multiple different (not just IQ, there's personality traits as well) studies, conducted across disparate cultures, across time and with sample sizes of thousands and above.

Not corrupt persay; imperfect, absolutely. It is just somewhat interesting that you are drawings such extrapolations from a single test.

And how is it Imperfect to the point that it invalidates the conclusions drawn from it? Cause that's quite a claim you got there, which would require quite the evidence.

Furthermore - it's not one single Test, it's been repeated with different IQ tests multiple times - with the results showing the same pattern.

Objectively wrong? only if you class sexism as a result of human biology.

I'd put forward that quite a lot of Sexism has some very deep roots in Human Biology, Gender roles for example are probably rooted about 80-20 in favor of Biology. This is not to say that Society can't choose to either aggressively reinforce it or try to nullify it - but certainly a large chunk of sexist behaviors have some form of biological basis.

It is not wrong to say that given equal opportunities and no societal bias, we could see women do just as well as men at the extremes of human endeavor.

Every data point currently available on the differences between Men and Women indicate that it IS wrong to say that:

To be at the Extremes requires risk taking - who take the most and biggest Risks? Men
To be at the Extremes requires exceptional Intelligence- who are the most exceptionally Intelligent? Men
To be at the Extremes requires hyper-competitiveness - who are the most competitive? Men

All you have to do, is take a look at any so-called 'Elite' group - almost all of them are all Men. Whether it's Business Elites, Military Elites, Sporting Elites, Scientific Elites, Artistic Elites, etc.

At the very best - that is an entirely faith based proposition. but as per above - it does not tally at all.

See how my premise, although now discussed since you persist with this red herring; actually has nothing to do with how well Jacinda will perform her job? That's the thing about premise's, they infer a conclusion, they're not to be picked up on as some strawman when no inference is drawn.

And if the Premise is wrong, then the Conclusion is not a certainty.

As previous - my position is that there are differences between the Sexes, especially when it comes to pregnancy- and some of those may effect her ability to do her job.
Your rebuttal was that there's no imposition for a Man, so why should there be for a Woman - which is predicated on said premise - so as a refutation to that, I brought IQ into it.

Which is why it was never a Red Herring.

Furthermore - Have you decided whether the studies are valid yet? You keep trying to imply that they aren't - yet the evidence to back this implication up is noted for it's absence...

[husaberg]

Hogwash:
Assume for the moment, there are 3 people, Me, You and Usain Bolt, we can all run - I'm a Fat Cunt, so I'm the slowest, and Usain Bolt is the faster, which leaves you in the middle - you are implying that because none of us can't run - our local continuum can't tell you who is

Only thing is a few pages ago you insinuated that due to biology you would be second fastest because of your mixed pair of chromosones.

[BuzzardNZ]

Only thing is a few pages ago you insinuated that due to biology you would be second fastest because of your mixed pair of chromosones.

1st fastest to the Smörgåsbord

[TheDemonLord]

Only thing is a few pages ago you insinuated that due to biology you would be second fastest because of your mixed pair of chromosones.

Come now Husa, you know what I mean - Put it this way:

The world record for the Womens 100m sprint is 10.49 seconds (set in 1988) - which wouldn't even qualify for the Mens 100m Olympic event (which was 10.16 seconds for Athens)

[Crasherfromwayback]

The world record for the Womens 100m sprint is 10.49 seconds (set in 1988) - which wouldn't even qualify for the Mens 100m Olympic event (which was 10.16 seconds for Athens)

World record for women giving birth is 100 gazzilion, men zero. And?

[TheDemonLord]

World record for women giving birth is 100 gazzilion, men zero. And?

*insert witty observation about trans-men giving birth*

[Brian d marge]

Don't matter how ya dress it up....or what ya call it , BLT ... Whatever
When push comes to shove...... ( Some call that foreplay)

Shaggin a bird is still top of the pops on my books

Whatever they do after that is their business.



Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[jasonu]

That's where you're wrong. She hasn't told multiple fucking retards to mind their own fucking business about her pregnancy as yet. That's impressive.

So successful in not saying summat..... Maybe Trump should take notice

[jasonu]

I equate winning the election and winding up as PM as a success - after all, Bill English hasn't managed that yet.

As a Govt, they've done more in their first 100 days than your man Trump has in a year. Have you read the NYT analysis of his SOTU speech yet ?

But she didn't win the election and pretty soon a guy that no one voted for will be PM.