The 2017 Election Thread

[Graystone]

One, but not the main one - which you are ignoring, namely that the form and function of the concepts is different.

I'm just pointing out you've spoken highly of evidence, demanding it others, but yours is not forthcoming.



That's not the cause and effect I'm referring to.

There's a layer underneath that statement - and that is the one where you've stereotyped them, based on a very short interaction.



Of course, it wouldn't be awfully inconvenient if it disproved some of your (clearly) deeply held notions...



Wow. Dat Projection. I must really by scraping a nerve.



Well, that would be equality, letting the individual defend themselves - are you saying you aren't for equality?

Are they though? In a semantical sense sure, but in a practical one, nope. You want me to spell out exampular evidence though? theres this stranger who I consider my equal, so what I do, and here's the rub, is I treat them as my equal. Tricky concept, you may need to sleep on it.

Ah, so now you claim to know why I am doing things... yeh, that means your point is lost.

See previous post, you are not scientifically literate enough to know what the studies even mean; let alone apply them to disprove my notions.

Projection? Of what? I'm neither sexist nor a victim.

Oh dear, one can only hope you're taking the piss

[TheDemonLord]

The evidence supporting the controlled demolition theory far outweighs any evidence supporting the official story.

But you don't like that, so you choose to ignore that evidence.

[Katman]

You're the one who mentioned controlled demolition, shitforbrains.

[Graystone]

You're the one who mentioned controlled demolition, shitforbrains.

I kind of feel like we ditched the tracks and threw on some mud tyres quite a few pages before that anyway...

[TheDemonLord]

So what part of social science am I dismissing?

Part of it's core methodology.

I'm certainly dismissing your conclusions, but they are ones you erroneously infer from the studies, not those that the study makes itself, so I have no quarrel with social science.

And the conclusions made by the the Authors of the paper, and the conclusions made by people such as Steven Pinker (who is recognized as preeminent in this field)

You are confusing correlation with causation. Gender (group membership) arguably causes the variance, but nothing shows it is biology that causes the variance, biology is only correlated with the variance.

Gender isn't a group membership.
It's a biological property.
In case there is any confusion: If your 23rd chromosome is XX - your Gender is Female, if they are XY, then it's Male.

So I'm glad that you agree gender causes the Variance - that's what I've been saying all along.

Social bias is another factor with high gender correlation, though you keep telling me isn't a thing because it averages out or something?

I never said it wasn't a thing, at least Husa can admit when he's falsely attributed something to me.

I said, in relation to IQ, that if your objection was to have any weight, then it the expected results would be that in societies with the most amount of Social bias, we would see the greatest variance, and those societies that have the least, we would see more equality.

You are kind of sketchy on the details there and have offered no science to back that up. Perhaps you should get an education?

It's pretty clear, you are just being deliberately obtuse to avoid conceding the point. And I've offered the exact same amount of science to backup that statement (even though it's not a scientific statement at all) that you have to back up your assertion that it's a relevant factor.

[TheDemonLord]

Are they though? In a semantical sense sure, but in a practical one, nope. You want me to spell out exampular evidence though? theres this stranger who I consider my equal, so what I do, and here's the rub, is I treat them as my equal. Tricky concept, you may need to sleep on it.

Are all strangers your equal?
Do you consider every single person you don't know as equal?
Given that a quick glance at the purely physical traits would dispel this notion, then no, your examplar is anything but practical.

Ah, so now you claim to know why I am doing things... yeh, that means your point is lost.

No, I'm inferring from your actions, a motive. And every action since has done nothing to dispel that motive.

See previous post, you are not scientifically literate enough to know what the studies even mean; let alone apply them to disprove my notions.

By that rationale, the various leading authorities on that subject must also not be scientifically literate.

I'll call them up to let them know that you will be revoking their PHDs, their cited studies, their critically acclaimed books.

all on your say-so.

With still no evidence to the contrary presented.

Projection? Of what? I'm neither sexist nor a victim.

I'll give you a hint, I've not played the victim, and yet out of the blue, you throw out that accusation.

Oh dear, one can only hope you're taking the piss

Are you saying that Women are weak and feeble and need Men to protect them?

That's a rather sexist notion, don't you think?

[Graystone]

Part of it's core methodology.



And the conclusions made by the the Authors of the paper, and the conclusions made by people such as Steven Pinker (who is recognized as preeminent in this field)



Gender isn't a group membership.
It's a biological property.
In case there is any confusion: If your 23rd chromosome is XX - your Gender is Female, if they are XY, then it's Male.

So I'm glad that you agree gender causes the Variance - that's what I've been saying all along.



I never said it wasn't a thing, at least Husa can admit when he's falsely attributed something to me.

I said, in relation to IQ, that if your objection was to have any weight, then it the expected results would be that in societies with the most amount of Social bias, we would see the greatest variance, and those societies that have the least, we would see more equality.



It's pretty clear, you are just being deliberately obtuse to avoid conceding the point. And I've offered the exact same amount of science to backup that statement (even though it's not a scientific statement at all) that you have to back up your assertion that it's a relevant factor.

And which part might that be?

I've not seen those conclusions then, perhaps you should post one or two.

An equally valid supposition then, is that biology causes gender, gender causes group membership, bias is applied against group membership, and bias causes iq variation. You're just trying to skip a few steps to make it seem like biology has a direct affect on IQ variance.

Have they quantified and isolated social bias as a control or measured variable in these studies then? You seem to infer it averages out or something which is clearly not the case.

Concede what point exactly? Perhaps if you cannot respond to 'deliberate obtuseness', your point is poorly made, and poorly backed up anyway.

[TheDemonLord]

You're the one who mentioned controlled demolition, shitforbrains.

And you swallowed the bait.

Hook.
Line.
Sinker.

[TheDemonLord]

I kind of feel like we ditched the tracks and threw on some mud tyres quite a few pages before that anyway...

I'm not gonna lie - that looks like a shit load of fun.

[Graystone]

Are all strangers your equal?
Do you consider every single person you don't know as equal?
Given that a quick glance at the purely physical traits would dispel this notion, then no, your examplar is anything but practical.



No, I'm inferring from your actions, a motive. And every action since has done nothing to dispel that motive.



By that rationale, the various leading authorities on that subject must also not be scientifically literate.

I'll call them up to let them know that you will be revoking their PHDs, their cited studies, their critically acclaimed books.

all on your say-so.

With still no evidence to the contrary presented.



I'll give you a hint, I've not played the victim, and yet out of the blue, you throw out that accusation.



Are you saying that Women are weak and feeble and need Men to protect them?

That's a rather sexist notion, don't you think?

Yes and Yes. Physical traits are the same old bullshitery red herrings they've always been.

Semantics.

Perhaps you need to show their conclusions to which you think i disagree? I would have thought that was only fair...

Out of the blue? Did you miss the quoted bit where you went all "you only dismiss my evidence cos you think I'm sexist"

No, I'm saying I have enough of a moral compass to stand against unjustified prejudices. Why should it matter who they are against, we're all equals, after all.

[TheDemonLord]

And which part might that be?

RCTs

I've not seen those conclusions then, perhaps you should post one or two.

Already have but as you said:

I've explained multiple times I don't look at your evidence

An equally valid supposition then, is that biology causes gender, gender causes group membership, bias is applied against group membership, and bias causes iq variation.

Actually, it's not an equally valid supposition - From Whence does the Bias come? I'll grant you an in-group/out-group dynamics, but you have to explain how and why the bias takes the form it does to support your conclusion that the bias itself causes the variation.

You also have to prove that the bias does not have any basis in Biology - no matter how small or large.

Then you have the problem of trying to unify that statement with our current understanding of IQ, insofar that all attempts to artificially raise IQ via external means have failed.

Of course, if you looked at some of the evidence, you might know that...

You're just trying to skip a few steps to make it seem like biology has a direct affect on IQ variance.

No, the studies are what drive that conclusion. But even if I grant you what you claim - Occams razor applies - that between the 2 explanations, yours requires far more assumptions than mine.

Have they quantified and isolated social bias as a control or measured variable in these studies then?

What part of 'cross culturally' are you not understanding? That's the Social bias isolation.

You seem to infer it averages out or something which is clearly not the case.

I don't know where you got that from, except if you read every-other sentance I've written, as opposed to what I've actually written.

Concede what point exactly? Perhaps if you cannot respond to 'deliberate obtuseness', your point is poorly made, and poorly backed up anyway.

If, in an argument, the opposition simply responds with "no" - that's being deliberately obtuse, regardless of how eloquent and reasoned (or not) the proposition is put forward.

The actual point I made, not the one you mangled in an attempt to argue against your own projection.

[TheDemonLord]

Yes and Yes. Physical traits are the same old bullshitery red herrings they've always been.

There's a reason why we have Weight classes in various sports.

It's cause Physical traits matter in various scenarios. But since you've asserted you don't believe me - go up to someone who is over 6ft 6 and of a muscular build - pick a fight with them.

Let me know if they were equal.

Semantics.

Reality

Perhaps you need to show their conclusions to which you think i disagree? I would have thought that was only fair...

A: Already done
B: You said you didn't look at it anyway.

Out of the blue? Did you miss the quoted bit where you went all "you only dismiss my evidence cos you think I'm sexist"

Do you think that is a victim statement? Especially when considering you've stated multiple times you don't look at the evidence. That is called an observation - and cutting one at that, which is why I'm calling projection.

No, I'm saying I have enough of a moral compass to stand against unjustified prejudices. Why should it matter who they are against, we're all equals, after all.

Are they incapable of standing by themselves? If we are all equal, why do they need you?

Unless, of course, we aren't all equal....

[Graystone]

RCTs



Already have but as you said:





Actually, it's not an equally valid supposition - From Whence does the Bias come? I'll grant you an in-group/out-group dynamics, but you have to explain how and why the bias takes the form it does to support your conclusion that the bias itself causes the variation.

You also have to prove that the bias does not have any basis in Biology - no matter how small or large.

Then you have the problem of trying to unify that statement with our current understanding of IQ, insofar that all attempts to artificially raise IQ via external means have failed.

Of course, if you looked at some of the evidence, you might know that...



No, the studies are what drive that conclusion. But even if I grant you what you claim - Occams razor applies - that between the 2 explanations, yours requires far more assumptions than mine.



What part of 'cross culturally' are you not understanding? That's the Social bias isolation.



I don't know where you got that from, except if you read every-other sentance I've written, as opposed to what I've actually written.



If, in an argument, the opposition simply responds with "no" - that's being deliberately obtuse, regardless of how eloquent and reasoned (or not) the proposition is put forward.

The actual point I made, not the one you mangled in an attempt to argue against your own projection.

Tell you what, if they conclude that iq variance is directly due to biological differences, I'll read the whole article.

Until then, your evidence is all red herring and worth as much as I've put forward (or not put forward as the case may be).

Everything else in there is just semantics, sexism, and scientific illiteracy so I can't be arsed...

[Graystone]

There's a reason why we have Weight classes in various sports.

It's cause Physical traits matter in various scenarios. But since you've asserted you don't believe me - go up to someone who is over 6ft 6 and of a muscular build - pick a fight with them.

Let me know if they were equal.


Reality



A: Already done
B: You said you didn't look at it anyway.



Do you think that is a victim statement? Especially when considering you've stated multiple times you don't look at the evidence. That is called an observation - and cutting one at that, which is why I'm calling projection.



Are they incapable of standing by themselves? If we are all equal, why do they need you?

Unless, of course, we aren't all equal....

I would prefer others stand by me if I were being prejudiced against, incapability has nothing to do with it, morality does though.

[YellowDog]

There's not much change to see, since the new government came in. Seems like 'same old, same old'.

Do we need to wait for the next budget announcement?

She better do something soon, before maternity leave gets in the way