The 2017 Election Thread

[Graystone]

Only people have Biases... There is no movement of the Goalposts.



I'll take your word for that difference in meaning (it matters not) the underlying message though, is the same - we can tell the difference between more biased countries and less biased countries.



Yet, you argue as if it IS proven to be the case. If you made a single argument where that didn't form the foundational premise - then it would absolutely be a Strawmen, yet you don't.

Since you don't (and all the other statements you've made) - It's not a Strawman, despite you saying it is.



Especially if you artificially set it that high so as to not disprove your beliefs aye....



Those theories aren't competing theories, but complimentary

The great thing about something that is objectively true is that it tends to be proven as valid by multiple different analysis....



You're the one who tried to play a variant on the "God of the Gaps"....



No, and No.

Try much more Senior and no polytech courses.



IT represent.



I care a lot for the Scientific method - and that's a bit rich from someone who continually ignores that which they don't like, dismissing it out of hand.

But okay then - lets take your confirmation assertion for the moment:

First point - have any of the Theories I've cited or studies I've cited been invalidated by subsequent research or generally held to be 'fringe' science?
Second point - Are the conclusions I'm drawing from said science backed up by real world data?

It's a big accusation from someone who has stated a belief, and not presented a shred of evidence for it. Merely hand waving everything that counteracts it as "Societal Bias"

Then if I'm practicing Confirmation science - then so is most of the field of Evolutionary Biology, So is JBP etc.

And I'd pit their academic creds against any you can produce, any day of the week.

Right, so by your definition only people have bias, all choices are based on a bias, and you want me to find something which has no bias? Yeh, bit of an impossible task the way you define it then...

Do I? please point out where I do that...

I mean the cause in those theories is some different specific difference between the sexes, so it seems unlikely that all specific differences are causal. And extremely unlikely they back each other up.

I've never played god of the gaps, please stop strawmanning me.

Does IT have anything which isn't a technician or glorified variant thereof? And I guess no course is similar to polytech course.

You fail to understand the scientific method requires substandard or inappropriately applied findings be dismissed.

You also fail to understand that a belief does not require proof, only that it is not disproven. And none of your 'science' disproved the theory that societal bias still plays a significant part in women's careers. None of your science has proven that women are intellectually inferior to men.

https://youtu.be/z7ihNLEDiuM

[TheDemonLord]

Right, so by your definition only people have bias, all choices are based on a bias, and you want me to find something which has no bias? Yeh, bit of an impossible task the way you define it then...

That was the point....

People see a group as not being able to do something, they develop a bias towards it. Now, I grant you there is a wealth of literature about how negative experiences are much more strongly remembered than positive ones - so you might pass 100 drivers of Oriental persuasion, who are all driving fine - and then you get 1 who drives like a knob - and suddenly "Asian Driver!" - however, there was a study (and for the life of me, I can't remember the details of who or the title) that indicates that stereotypes (and the biases associated with them) had a basis in reality.

Do I? please point out where I do that...

Refer to previous Post(s)

I mean the cause in those theories is some different specific difference between the sexes, so it seems unlikely that all specific differences are causal. And extremely unlikely they back each other up.

Sounds like you've got some reading to do then....

I've never played god of the gaps, please stop strawmanning me.

You don't have all the Data points therefore your argument is invalid
You don't have all the answers therefore God.

Nope, still no strawmen.

Does IT have anything which isn't a technician or glorified variant thereof?

Depends on what you define as a Technician - but typically that refers to your lowest level of IT (the eponymous Helldesk 'Technician'), There's Devops (code Monkeys with delusions of Grandeur), IT Architects (Who connect Square pegs to round holes), Systems Administrators (who use sticky tape, colourful language and adhoc scripts to stop the wheels falling off), Network/Storage/Infrastructure Engineers (who create new and inventive ways of turning millions of dollars into blinking lights) etc. etc.

And I guess no course is similar to polytech course.

That made me laugh heartily - well played!

You fail to understand the scientific method requires substandard or inappropriately applied findings be dismissed.

Sure - but you don't simply go "I don't like this, therefore I dismiss it" - you critique the methodology, the Sample size, etc. etc. which you've steadfastly refused to do.

You also fail to understand that a belief does not require proof, only that it is not disproven.

So, you are saying you've got an irrational belief, not backed by proof...

And none of your 'science' disproved the theory that societal bias still plays a significant part in women's careers.

Depends on how you define significant, and how you define the effect of Bias - What I point to is some fairly robust studies about the choices women make, at the population level, where they sacrifice career for Home/Work balance. There's also the distribution of traits which produce advancement in a career (such as being disagreeable) that have an uneven distribution in favor of Men.

So, to rebut that - you say "But muh Societal Bias" - so I raised you the Nordic paradox - which is to say that if Societal bias was, as you say "A significant part", it follows that as Biases decreases, then equality should increase (in some fashion, not necessarily linear). Turns out we see the opposite, which speaks to another theory - that as you remove external pressure, biological differences maximize.

There is the complimentary theory of Things/People preference - which has been replicated in newborn Babies (so before any of that nasty Societal Bias can interfere), it's been replicated in Chimpanzees, and it explains neatly the distribution of people (by Gender) in certain occupations.

This is not to say there aren't some societal biases - but from my PoV it disproves that Societal bias is the most significant factor.

None of your science has proven that women are intellectually inferior to men.

So this is an actual Strawman - Please read what I've actually written carefully: I've said that Median IQ is about the same, but the SD for men is greater which means at the Extremes, there are more Men than Women.

Now, when we are talking about the Elite stratas of Society - then based on the above, it's partially correct to say that (but not fully correct), which in turns means we get an over-representation of Men in fields that require genius+ IQs to be competent.

https://youtu.be/z7ihNLEDiuM

I love NDT - but this is either Anecdotal evidence, or its an argument from Authority - he's not a Social Scientist.

You were saying something about Confirmation Science....

[Graystone]

That was the point....

People see a group as not being able to do something, they develop a bias towards it. Now, I grant you there is a wealth of literature about how negative experiences are much more strongly remembered than positive ones - so you might pass 100 drivers of Oriental persuasion, who are all driving fine - and then you get 1 who drives like a knob - and suddenly "Asian Driver!" - however, there was a study (and for the life of me, I can't remember the details of who or the title) that indicates that stereotypes (and the biases associated with them) had a basis in reality.



Refer to previous Post(s)



Sounds like you've got some reading to do then....



You don't have all the Data points therefore your argument is invalid
You don't have all the answers therefore God.

Nope, still no strawmen.



Depends on what you define as a Technician - but typically that refers to your lowest level of IT (the eponymous Helldesk 'Technician'), There's Devops (code Monkeys with delusions of Grandeur), IT Architects (Who connect Square pegs to round holes), Systems Administrators (who use sticky tape, colourful language and adhoc scripts to stop the wheels falling off), Network/Storage/Infrastructure Engineers (who create new and inventive ways of turning millions of dollars into blinking lights) etc. etc.



That made me laugh heartily - well played!



Sure - but you don't simply go "I don't like this, therefore I dismiss it" - you critique the methodology, the Sample size, etc. etc. which you've steadfastly refused to do.



So, you are saying you've got an irrational belief, not backed by proof...



Depends on how you define significant, and how you define the effect of Bias - What I point to is some fairly robust studies about the choices women make, at the population level, where they sacrifice career for Home/Work balance. There's also the distribution of traits which produce advancement in a career (such as being disagreeable) that have an uneven distribution in favor of Men.

So, to rebut that - you say "But muh Societal Bias" - so I raised you the Nordic paradox - which is to say that if Societal bias was, as you say "A significant part", it follows that as Biases decreases, then equality should increase (in some fashion, not necessarily linear). Turns out we see the opposite, which speaks to another theory - that as you remove external pressure, biological differences maximize.

There is the complimentary theory of Things/People preference - which has been replicated in newborn Babies (so before any of that nasty Societal Bias can interfere), it's been replicated in Chimpanzees, and it explains neatly the distribution of people (by Gender) in certain occupations.

This is not to say there aren't some societal biases - but from my PoV it disproves that Societal bias is the most significant factor.



So this is an actual Strawman - Please read what I've actually written carefully: I've said that Median IQ is about the same, but the SD for men is greater which means at the Extremes, there are more Men than Women.

Now, when we are talking about the Elite stratas of Society - then based on the above, it's partially correct to say that (but not fully correct), which in turns means we get an over-representation of Men in fields that require genius+ IQs to be competent.



I love NDT - but this is either Anecdotal evidence, or its an argument from Authority - he's not a Social Scientist.

You were saying something about Confirmation Science....

Fundamentally, your misapplication of science theory and the subsequent strawmanning of my points, is due to you not tolerating gray areas. This is an unknown, I am not playing god of the gaps since I know it is my belief and unproven; in fact you are playing god of the gaps since you are confusing your belief with proof simply because there is nothing else which has been proven.

The link to the video was again, misunderstood due to your lack of tolerance for gray areas. I am not asserting what NDT is correct and gospel, but it does show there is certainly not the scientific consensus you are trying to make out there is.

[Crasherfromwayback]

I find this to be true.

[TheDemonLord]

Fundamentally, your misapplication of science theory and the subsequent strawmanning of my points, is due to you not tolerating gray areas.

Okay, what specific grey area(s) do I not tolerate?

This is an unknown, I am not playing god of the gaps since I know it is my belief and unproven;

3 problems here though:

1: You are arguing as if your belief is True
2: You are the one that said, since we don't have all the data points therefore your belief (classic god of the gaps)
3: Any dissent from your belief is decried with chants of Heresy (Sexism)

in fact you are playing god of the gaps since you are confusing your belief with proof simply because there is nothing else which has been proven.

I think you need to go back to that University course of yours, and learn the difference between various fallacies.

I've submitted evidence for my belief - it therefore cannot, in any way, shape or form, be a God of the Gaps argument. Now, if you want to critique what I've submitted, or want to outline exactly why the conclusions I (and others) draw from it aren't valid - then sure - I'd love to have that conversation.

The link to the video was again, misunderstood due to your lack of tolerance for gray areas.

That's twice you've said it, with nothing supporting that view.

I am not asserting what NDT is correct and gospel, but it does show there is certainly not the scientific consensus you are trying to make out there is.

Except it dosen't show a Scientific consensus at all.

It's either a single piece of Anecdotal evidence - which as someone who's been championing the scientific method, you must know isn't valid to base a consensus on.
or
It's a classic argument from authority - yes NDT is a Scientist (and a fantastic one at that), but his field of expertise is not Social Science - he's done ZERO research in this field, so citing this as some form of Scientific consensus is a classic Fallacy.

The temperament differences between Men and Women, the relationship between those temperaments and long term success is fairly well documented and there is a consensus on that.
The IQ stuff - There is some debate about this, but from what I've read, most of it the critical side seems to be from the group that don't like the outcome (and insist that IQ is just another western phallogocentric patriarchal construct) - I've yet to see a study that doesn't replicate the results using unbiased methodology.
The effects of prenatal testosterone - There's little debate about the physical effects, the Mental ones are still somewhat contentious - but as above, the opposing viewpoint tends to be from that same crowd.

[Katman]

Fundamentally, your misapplication of science theory and the subsequent strawmanning of my points, is due to you not tolerating gray areas.

A classic trait of the Autistic.

[Graystone]

Okay, what specific grey area(s) do I not tolerate?



3 problems here though:

1: You are arguing as if your belief is True
2: You are the one that said, since we don't have all the data points therefore your belief (classic god of the gaps)
3: Any dissent from your belief is decried with chants of Heresy (Sexism)



I think you need to go back to that University course of yours, and learn the difference between various fallacies.

I've submitted evidence for my belief - it therefore cannot, in any way, shape or form, be a God of the Gaps argument. Now, if you want to critique what I've submitted, or want to outline exactly why the conclusions I (and others) draw from it aren't valid - then sure - I'd love to have that conversation.



That's twice you've said it, with nothing supporting that view.



Except it dosen't show a Scientific consensus at all.

It's either a single piece of Anecdotal evidence - which as someone who's been championing the scientific method, you must know isn't valid to base a consensus on.
or
It's a classic argument from authority - yes NDT is a Scientist (and a fantastic one at that), but his field of expertise is not Social Science - he's done ZERO research in this field, so citing this as some form of Scientific consensus is a classic Fallacy.

The temperament differences between Men and Women, the relationship between those temperaments and long term success is fairly well documented and there is a consensus on that.
The IQ stuff - There is some debate about this, but from what I've read, most of it the critical side seems to be from the group that don't like the outcome (and insist that IQ is just another western phallogocentric patriarchal construct) - I've yet to see a study that doesn't replicate the results using unbiased methodology.
The effects of prenatal testosterone - There's little debate about the physical effects, the Mental ones are still somewhat contentious - but as above, the opposing viewpoint tends to be from that same crowd.

The grey area around causality for men and women's different representation in different feilds.

1. No, I'm arguing that it is plausible.
2. No, I said that since we do not have all the data points, your conclusion is unfounded, and my belief remains plausible.
3. Don't be a sexist piece of shit then.

God of the gaps argumentors often submit their own 'evidence' too. I've explained many times why what you present is red herrings or otherwise irrelevant drivel.

Nor was I trying to show scientific consensus, on the contrary in fact, it was to illustrate the likeliness of you not having one.

Interesting to note re the scientific method; it is also characterised by the ability to pare down a problem to the core issue and address that, not inflate it out into millions of rebuttals heading off on tangents and complete red herrings.

[Graystone]

A classic trait of the Autistic.

I'd keep quiet and go play with your crayons if I were, you and him share a remarkable number of traits and mannerisms with regards to science, he can just words betterer. You might be a lot closer to him on that spectrum than you might wish.

[Graystone]

I find this to be true.

Dunning kruger also springs to mind, figure it takes little extra words to keep him busy and provide a modicum of entertainment here, and gives him less time to go spread such abhorent sexist notions elsewhere...

[TheDemonLord]

The grey area around causality for men and women's different representation in different feilds.

But the problem is - I've not dismissed any causal links - I've said that the explanation of Societal Bias doesn't stack with real world evidence, and that other explanations (prenatal testosterone, IQ distribution, temperamental differences) explain quite nicely the patterns we see.

Nice try, 3/10 - better luck next time.

1. No, I'm arguing that it is plausible.
2. No, I said that since we do not have all the data points, your conclusion is unfounded, and my belief remains plausible.
3. Don't be a sexist piece of shit then.

So, you've contradicted yourself rather nicely there.

If it is just a plausibility - then it is not Sexist to question it - it's just good Scientific enquiry.
If it is an absolute truth and fundamental belief - then it's heresy (oops - Sexism) to question it.

That is why I've said you argue as if it is true. Because if it is merely a possibility, then there is nothing sexist in questioning it.

God of the gaps argumentors often submit their own 'evidence' too. I've explained many times why what you present is red herrings or otherwise irrelevant drivel.

Sure, they present their own evidence for other claims - but those claims won't be a God of the Gaps fallacy.

I know you've said that you think its irrelevant, but as above - you keep arguing from a particular position, and so I keep arguing a refutation from it. If you don't like it - try making an argument that isn't founded on that premise.

Nor was I trying to show scientific consensus, on the contrary in fact, it was to illustrate the likeliness of you not having one.

BS - you posted it to try and play a classic Argument from Authority - you got called on it, and now you are trying to backpedal.

Interesting to note re the scientific method; it is also characterised by the ability to pare down a problem to the core issue and address that,

You mean like there being fundamental differences between the Sexes? So glad you've caught up...

not inflate it out into millions of rebuttals heading off on tangents and complete red herrings.

You know that something as complex as the Human species as millions of unique variables right? And so talking about a handful of them and the differences between the sexes is neither Tangential nor a Red Herring.

[Graystone]

But the problem is - I've not dismissed any causal links - I've said that the explanation of Societal Bias doesn't stack with real world evidence, and that other explanations (prenatal testosterone, IQ distribution, temperamental differences) explain quite nicely the patterns we see.

Nice try, 3/10 - better luck next time.



So, you've contradicted yourself rather nicely there.

If it is just a plausibility - then it is not Sexist to question it - it's just good Scientific enquiry.
If it is an absolute truth and fundamental belief - then it's heresy (oops - Sexism) to question it.

That is why I've said you argue as if it is true. Because if it is merely a possibility, then there is nothing sexist in questioning it.



Sure, they present their own evidence for other claims - but those claims won't be a God of the Gaps fallacy.

I know you've said that you think its irrelevant, but as above - you keep arguing from a particular position, and so I keep arguing a refutation from it. If you don't like it - try making an argument that isn't founded on that premise.



BS - you posted it to try and play a classic Argument from Authority - you got called on it, and now you are trying to backpedal.



You mean like there being fundamental differences between the Sexes? So glad you've caught up...



You know that something as complex as the Human species as millions of unique variables right? And so talking about a handful of them and the differences between the sexes is neither Tangential nor a Red Herring.

Which is simply your belief, don't state it as anything more than that.

Same again here, to conclude it is sexist, to question it is not.

You still fail to understand the premise, until you can do so, it is this sticking point that means your inflationary red herrings are irrelevant.

Thanks for you correction on why I posted what I posted, it is refreshing to see your strawmanning tactics so clearly on display.

[TheDemonLord]

Which is simply your belief, don't state it as anything more than that.

A belief (if it pleases you) backed up by multiple, independent data points that do not have the problem that your societal bias belief does.

Same again here, to conclude it is sexist, to question it is not.

And what if the questioning leads to the Conclusion? What then? Will you continue with your artificially inflated standard of Proof to protect your belief?

Or will you just call people Sexist and hope they back down?

You still fail to understand the premise, until you can do so, it is this sticking point that means your inflationary red herrings are irrelevant.

The only person failing with their Premise is you - as I've said - Make an argument that doesn't hinge on your belief being true and I'll retract every comment about it.

Thanks for you correction on why I posted what I posted, it is refreshing to see your strawmanning tactics so clearly on display.

Post Hoc isn't gonna fly here.

[Graystone]

A belief (if it pleases you) backed up by multiple, independent data points that do not have the problem that your societal bias belief does.



And what if the questioning leads to the Conclusion? What then? Will you continue with your artificially inflated standard of Proof to protect your belief?

Or will you just call people Sexist and hope they back down?



The only person failing with their Premise if you - as I've said - Make an argument that doesn't hinge on your belief being true and I'll retract every comment about it.



Post Hoc isn't gonna fly here.

'Supported by' is a better term, but either way, your having a sexist belief, means that all the times we call you sexist are completely valid.

Thanks for playing, you scored 11 out of 132; the ones represent 2 dicks, not the numerical score of eleven, so grab one in each hand and just flail about in a wildly worshipful fashion.

[TheDemonLord]

'Supported by' is a better term, but either way, your having a sexist belief, means that all the times we call you sexist are completely valid.

Thanks for playing, you scored 11 out of 132; the ones represent 2 dicks, not the numerical score of eleven, so grab one in each hand and just flail about in a wildly worshipful fashion.

So it's the latter option then - Ad Hominems....

But at least you agree that my beliefs are supported by Evidence...

So who is the Sexist? The person who has evidence for their beliefs or the person who doesn't....

[carbonhed]

So it's the latter option then - Ad Hominems....

But at least you agree that my beliefs are supported by Evidence...

So who is the Sexist? The person who has evidence for their beliefs or the person who doesn't....

Game, set and match to TDL.