Total posts: 8,696
Posted in:
Added08.01.21 09:01PM-->@oromagiWhat? You agree that science is just following the facts but then you want to fault science for the 36% who don't want the facts? Why aren't the 36% to blame for preferring lies?Isn't that 36% pretty much exactly the 36% in Donald Trump's approval rating? who think the election was fraud and that white supremacists trying to assassinate the Vice President is just politics as usual? I don't think that it's SCIENCE's fault that 36% of people can't allow themselves the freedom to follow the facts- it's the 36% who have to believe Trump secretly did a good job with the pandemic and that Trump secretly won the election that can't afford to let facts creep in.the 36% are perfectly accepting of facts, one problem though- science, as an institution is being used against them. biden, democrats, and others are constantly creaming "believe in science" and other bullshit that would alienate the 36% and would lead them away from science as an institution.
- I'll take that as your concession that the people who distrust science are generally also the people who trust Trump when he claims that he won the election.
- Your Orwellian thought process is on display here: You are saying that because Democrats embrace facts, they are forcing Republicans to deny facts. Republicans need to re-learn how to discover facts absent any political bias.
another problem, many times the science is against the democrat agenda and yet they still spam the lie. Gender science and the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine is two examples of the scientific facts going against the democratic agenda.
- I don't know what scientific argument you intend when you say, "gender science" but
- Hydroxychloroquine is an excellent example. From March to May of 2020, we experimented with the use of hydroxychloroquine. When large scale studies started completing in late May, Science objectively determined to recommend against the use of hydroxychloroquine because;
- no benefit shown in speeding recovery, in fact
- patients on hydroxychloroquine were more likely to need intensive care, intubation than patients on standard care
- patients on hydroxychloroquine had longer hospital stays than standard care
- no benefit shown in reducing mortality, in fact
- patients on hydroxychloroquine died at higher rates than those receiving standard medical care.
- plus, there were known significant potential side effects including s ventricular fibrillation, low blood pressure, and blindness.
- Therefore, the FDA, WHO, NIH, etc all issued warnings are revoked authorizations as a treatment for COVID-19 in June of last year.
- So, the science is quite clear regarding the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine: the harms far outweigh the benefits and nobody should be taking hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for coronavirus. Those are the fact.
- The two major studies were both done outside of US, not as part of some Democrat agenda.
- Nevertheless, Democrats follow the careful recommendations of science. Republicans follow their dear leader.
- What you're probably thinking of is a highly anecdotal pre-print that came out at the end of May that observed 255 patients at one hospital in the first weeks of the epidemic, looking only at patients who were intubated. Out of these 255, 201 died. The study concluded that survivors who received a relatively higher cumulative dose of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin survived at 2.9 the rate of those who received smaller doses.
- Not peer reviewed.
- Did not control against people who took no hydroxychloroquine (who let's remember the had better survival rates than those who did in the much larger, controlled, peer reviewed international studies.
- The people who received smaller cumulative doses were either to sick for the dose or died before receiving the cumulative dose.
- Most of these patients also received the normally effective treatments- steroids, convalescent plasma, etc. Therefore, the observed effect tells us little more than the 20% who survived, lived long enough to receive a large cumulative dose. I does not tell us whether that cumulative dose helped anyone survive and the studies that do tell us that tell us that hydroxychloroquine kills more people than it helps.
- Importantly, Dr. Smith was and remains a frequent guest on FOX News. Smith failed to not the conflict of interest in his publication.
- Nevertheless, Trump, entirely ignorant regarding the science and entirely uncaring about the health consequences of COVID disinformation, issued a statement saying he was right all along, that hydroxychloroquine works after all. Trump hates science because science doesn't serve him and Trump hates everything that does not serve him.
- Therefore, FOX felt obligated to spread Trump's disinformation and now you feel obligated to believe it without bothering to read the study or make an evaluation for yourself. The only reason you believe that hydroxychloroquine has any therapeutic value against COVID is because Trump and FOX news have repeated that lie over and over until you believed it. There has been absolutely zero change in the science.
however, this science is ignored and ridiculed by the INSTITUTION of science, BUT IF THE INSTITUITON of science followed the principle of "facts rule", this science would not get ignored.
- Smith's study won't ever pass peer review but that's because it's not good science, not because it is ignored or ridiculed. Yes, the fact checkers have all been quick to explain why Trump's claim is false and why Smith's study is not good science (the study itself admits as much) but that is not ignoring those falsehoods or ridiculing them. It is taking disinformation seriously and correcting the record to reflect the facts.\
- So yes, science, democrats and the rest of the world and the facts are all one side of this debate. On the other side is Trump, who doesn't give a shit about the science and just refuses to admit that his early recommendations of hydroxychloroquine were irresponsible and with him all the people who feel obligated to believe Trump, including FOX news and you, apparently. There are zero facts supporting that side of the argument.
Wait, what happened to "indeed it is true" from last sentence? Science is hardly perfect but there's no human tradition that tries harder to base itself in facts than science.as an institution, science is not based on the facts, as demonstrated many times before
- Give me three examples, please
've already disproved BUZZ WORD. Either counter my argument or stop repeating your disproved argument.
buzzword:a word or phrase, often an item of jargon, that is fashionable at a particular time or in a particular context.
slogans such as "believe in science" is
- an item of jargon as it promoted by one group of people
False. The fact that Republicans feel threatened or uncomfortable about people saying they believe in science is revelatory. Saying "I believe in science" is just basic profession of one' creed. That such a creed makes for an effective political statement doesn't turn the creed into a buzzword, just like saying "Make America great again" isn't a buzzword.
- it is used to smear political opponents in a particular context
Sorry, just stating the facts should never be viewed as a political smear. If speaking the truth makes your political party look like a bunch of evil idiots (which it certainly does), that's on your party. We're not going to change the facts just because Trump demands it or it makes you feel better about yourself.
lease define "scientism."Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values.
Well, there's a wide chasm between saying "I believe in science" and "I believe in science as the only objective political value" I don't see any evidence that your accusation applies to the Democratic value.
Can you name some of these "enemies of science?"as an institution, science hates right wingers and anybody who has dissenting opinions
Science is objective. A science that hates is not science. The fact that science makes the right wing look foolish is because the right wing believes many objectively foolish things. Science is certainly far better at listening to dissenting opinions than the right wing- LIz Cheney, for example.
disproving false beliefs? I'll point you back to Galileo.thats part of science ok, therefore it is part of science's job to debunk transgender nonsense
I don't know what you're talking about when you say "debunk transgender nonsense" Seems to me, if anything, the science of transgenderism is pretty scarce because transgender people have only been trying to find a normal place in society in the last few years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
There is no supposed to be about Science- science just follows that facts.indeed that is true, and science can be divided and debated butis it supposed to be that 36% of people straight up dont trust it?
What? You agree that science is just following the facts but then you want to fault science for the 36% who don't want the facts? Why aren't the 36% to blame for preferring lies?
Isn't that 36% pretty much exactly the 36% in Donald Trump's approval rating? who think the election was fraud and that white supremacists trying to assassinate the Vice President is just politics as usual? I don't think that it's SCIENCE's fault that 36% of people can't allow themselves the freedom to follow the facts- it's the 36% who have to believe Trump secretly did a good job with the pandemic and that Trump secretly won the election that can't afford to let facts creep in.
but today, the science is not based on facts
Wait, what happened to "indeed it is true" from last sentence? Science is hardly perfect but there's no human tradition that tries harder to base itself in facts than science.
, its a buzz word used by
I've already disproved BUZZ WORD. Either counter my argument or stop repeating your disproved argument.
proponents of scientism
Please define "scientism."
to try and smear their enemies,
Can you name some of these "enemies of science?"
never before has science served this purpose.
disproving false beliefs? I'll point you back to Galileo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
-->@oromagiidk about fauci but the media certainly lied for this
OK, but the subject of your topic is SCIENCE- how SCIENCE lost the public's trust. If we're all on the same page now about how that statement is total bullshit, then shouldn't we shut this topic down and then you could start a new topic where you can try to blame the media for your discontents?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
-->@oromagithe philosophical definition of free will is not the cringe political definition of freedom
FREEDOM is "The lack of a specific constraint, or of constraints in general;"
FREE WILL is "The ability to choose one's actions,"
Seems to me one can't choose her own actions without first being free of constraints.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Interviews with him around the time, he did soften his stance during peak riots. It's not an attack on him personally though, but on the elites he works with that all gather around certain narratives, for the purposes of social engineering.
You believe that because FOX News brainwashed you into believing that - not because you have any evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
stAdded07.31.21 05:09PM-->@oromagiseriously why do you guys pretend like every media source was not echoing the exact same line. https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/3/21278340/protestors-coronavirus-spread-police-violence-health-racism
Seriously, why don't you engage in debate honestly?
You started out telling a lie, knowing it was a lie but telling it anyway:
people also lost trust in science when people like fauci came out and said that BLM protests could not spread covid19.
- The truth is people have not lost trust in science, and
- The truth is Fauci never said that shit that Jim Jordon tried to trick him into saying.
Instead of admitting that you are compulsively unable to tell the truth you just move on, "oh, well, I can find some other asshole who said something kind of similar to what I lied about Fauci saying so there!" Nobody is pretending that some asshole didn't tweet last summer that BLM was more important than social distancing, but we are denying that SCIENCE said that and that therefore SCIENCE is responsible for losing people's trust. Tellingly, you couldn't even come up with a different asshole than Dr.Franklin, both of you use Dr. Abraar Karan's tweets from last summer. He is a public health expert but mostly he's a writer trying to keep his columns interesting. He is not a government official and he is certainly not SCIENCE as you are here trying to hold him up to be.
I'd encourage you to debate topics more honestly in future.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Added07.31.21 02:58PM-->@oromagiFor Christ sake Covid isn't on the list, what is your obsession, pick from the list and then tell us what restrictions and mandates the govt should force on the people to reduce the numbers. Its a simple question.
Really? I think its incredibly complicated. I mean you could outlaw McDonald's tomorrow and probably bring those heart attack numbers down 20% but nobody's going to stand for it.
Look at coronavirus. All the government has asked is that you get a totally free, incredibly easy vaccine and practice good germ hygiene like wearing a mask around other people and half the country has spiraled into death cult suicidal madness over those incredibly simply non-invasive measures.
Here I'll do one and then maybe you will get the question. Accidental poisoning: The govt should mandate that all new homes and existing homes and businesses be outfitted with a lockable cabinet and any and all poisonous substances must be placed in said cabinet to prevent stupid people and children from having access to them. Furthermore the owner of said house or business is 100% fully liable for damages if anyone is poisoned in their said business or home for failure to lock up poisonous items. Failure to comply should result in a $100 a day fine until in compliance. A small price to pay if it saves a life in my opinion
Totally absurd. Almost all household cleaning and personal beauty products are poisonous. All herbicides and pesticides are poison. Half the plants that grow naturally in your yard are poison. Almost every drop of medicine, every pill you swallow, every vitamin is poison. There's poison in the little packets that come delivered with fresh food, poison fueling our engines which turn liquid poison into aerosolized poison. You would pass a law to make every person keep half their shit behind a locked door? Hell, we've tried that with just basic, obvious stuff like guns and ammo and half the people just howled and howled about their civil rights. Massachusetts is the only state that mandates that all firearms be stored with a locking device and also has be far the lowest number of accidental gun deaths in America because of the law but people still considers a few hundred dead children each year an acceptable price to pay for ready access to one's gun.
I don't think any legislation should be adopted willy-nilly in a democracy. You've got to gauge public reaction and public inconvenience and do a good job of establishing efficacy overall before tossing out mandates. States laws are an excellent resource for assessing which laws are effective and sustainable and which not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Added07.31.21 02:30PM-->@Wylted
I see... so now you've move the goalpost from "Dr. Fauci said X" to "some guy on twitter said X" and as long you can find somebody on twitter that said it then Dr. Fauci must have also said it?
This is not an honest argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
07.31.21 02:29PM-->@oromagiwhat i meant by controversy is that is is not supposed to divide the public, yes science theories come and go but it is proffessional and its hard to compare science to something like congress
Well, science has to stay on the side of the facts whether the public divides over those facts or not. When Copernicus showed that the Earth was not the center of the universe, the people were divided but science had no obligation to modify the truth to preserve unity. When science said that black people were just as human as whites, people divided violently and died by the hundreds of thousands on both sides of the issue but science had not obligation except to the observable facts and repeatable results. People divide over the efficacy of vaccines but science is not divided on that question and has no obligation to treat the skeptics as rational because they are not rational, by and large.
There is no supposed to be about Science- science just follows that facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Added07.31.21 02:17PM-->@oromagiyou legit Don't watch left wing news sources and are confused that any said that the riots were not a covid19 risk like visiting your friends are?
I can't tell what you're trying to say here. Can you restate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
CDC says COVID was the third leading cause of death in 2020 but it's not on your list
Your data is not current, is what I'm saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Added07.31.21 01:10PM-->@oromagiThe test claims to be the most accurate online IQ test in the United States. Although there is a free Demo IQ test on the site, there is a more in-depth Certified IQ Test that comes with a $20 fee.
I think its fairly obvious how and why any online IQ test is unreliable. There's a reason why scientists won't trust an online IQ test. There's a reason why Mensa won't accept the results of an online IQ test for membership.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Looks like old and unrepresentative data. We know COVID killed at least 600,000 Americans over the past year but its not on your list. We know flu deaths dropped to near nothing after quarantining kicked in. We know opioid overdoses surpassed car accidents last year but I don't see drug overdoses anywhere. Looks like homicide by gunshot gets printed twice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
-->@oromagiI don't know. Joe Rogan has an IQ of 127 based off his test results from the BMI Certified IQ Test he took. Maybe they are just capitalists?
Capitalism does absolve deception. You're still a liar even if you are only lying for money.
The BMI Certified IQ test is also only twenty questions. I'm sure that Mesmer would agree that just twenty questions is never sufficient to accurately assess cognitive integration. Whatever certifications BMI claims are easily dismissed just based on the claim of a 20 question IQ test. Furthermore, any test that doesn't conclude that Rogan's cognitive capacity is severely limited is likely to be inadequate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I legit have seen media say that shit
Can't tell what you are referencing here
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Discipulus_Didicitpeople also lost trust in science when people like fauci came out and said that BLM protests could not spread covid19.Fauci says "crowding together" does increase risk of spread.Fauci refuses to say "protests should be limited".
That is a lie. Fauci said all mass gatherings should be avoided, including political protests. Fauci refused to do Congress's job for them, which was to decide on reasonable limits.
Fauci said:
" I’m not going to opine on limiting anything ... I’m telling you what is the danger, and you can make your own conclusion about that. You should stay away from crowds, no matter where the crowds are.” I can tell you that crowds are known, particularly when you don't have a mask, to increase the acquisition and transmission, no matter what the crowd is
In exactly the same way Fauci did not tell Trump to cancel his super-spreader rallies but instead just explained that such behaviour substantially increased risks.
"We know that is asking for trouble when you do that. We’ve seen that when you have situations of congregate settings where there are a lot of people without masks, the data speak for themselves. And now is even more so a worse time to do that,”
Jim Jordan tweeted after this exchange:
" Even Dr. Fauci says protesting is dangerous"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Added07.31.21 12:05PM-->@oromagiAfter they asked the 20 questions.
So crooks, then. Or at least not to be trusted. How much did they pay Rogan to take that test, I wonder?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not to mention that the overwhelming number of articles published in "scientific journals" are utter hogwash.
Well, the definition of "scientific journals" has changed significantly in the age of the internet as has the definition of "publication" "peer review" but there is relatively unchanged core of scientific standard within all that noise, which, when sought out and trusted yields reliable although hardly perfect results.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
->@Wylted12% trust Congresseverything that you listed are supposed to be controversialscience aint supposed to be
Well, that's quite false and demonstrates a real ignorance about the nature of science. Science is inherently, perpetually controversial. As far as science is concerned, there is no such thing as an uncontroversial statement because science makes zero assertion of truth. Science does not state that gravity is a fact, science observes the consistent attraction of objects according to mass, calculates the relationship between mass and attraction and then successfully predicts the pull of objects like distant planets on objects like spaceships. Astonishingly powerful and reliable but if you ask a scientist to call it truth, a scientist will call it a theory, a law that defines a reliable relationship but not necessarily true in all circumstances or futures.
All science is always controversial. Both science and religion try to discover the nature of the universe but one of the main differences between the two is that religion always comes to some conclusion, which must be accepted as token of membership in the congregation. Science has no absolutes, everything is challengeable with sufficient proofs, everything is theory and no conclusion is absolute, only very consistent in outcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
->@Discipulus_DidicitWhat do you think about this quote in relation to your comments about his scientific literacy?"researchers from Tel Aviv University (TAU) have proven that the coronavirus can be killed efficiently, quickly, and cheaply using ultraviolet (UV) light-emitting diodes (UV-LEDs). They believe that the UV-LED technology will soon be available for private and commercial use.Tel Aviv University (TAU) is Israel's largest public institution of higher learning and is home to 30,000 students, including 2,100 international students from over 100 countries. The University encompasses nine faculties, 35 schools, 400 labs, and has 17 affiliated hospitals in its network.
Actually, we've understood that sunlight is the best disinfectant since at least when Louis Brandeis wrote those words in 1913. I think Disc's concern was Trump's anti-scientific suggestion that we irradiate the insides of our bodies. Sunlight changes the cells' DNA and RNA, inhibiting reproduction which is why our skin maintains a layer of dead cells on the surface. A lot of our internal organs don't have the same adaptations to direct UV radiation as our skin does and such an application could cause massive harm to to body.... What happens when you deliberately sunburn your stomach? Your lungs? Your kidneys? Why would a President recommend such reckless self-destruction? Why would a President of the United States give so few fucks about what his scientists tell him in this matter?
Here's the actual Tel Aviv study, which makes the rather obvious notation that any real effort to reproduce the power of sunlight inside enclosed spaces (like air conditioners, for example) would either be incredibly weak if affordable and incredibly expensive if effective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
-->@Discipulus_Didicit
I have never heard the term "skeptical science". You would need to give a specific example for this question to be answered.what about climate skepticism, there are over 1300 papers addressing AGW and it gets ignored
Climate skepticism is NOT ignored. Most skepticism is consistently, easily disproved but that is not ignoring. Some skeptics raise legitimate questions that don't have answers yet. I don't know how climate skepticism persists is the face of the overwhelming evidence available to ordinary perception these days. It's like being skeptical that it rains.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
-->@3RU7ALFREEDOM = EVILagree
Insert image of the ghost of the real Dr.Franklin, Dr. Benjamin Franklin, co-author of the Declaration of Independence, tazing Dr.Franklin repeatedly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That would be a 12% trust situation
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
people also lost trust in science when people like fauci came out and said that BLM protests could not spread covid19.
Well, of course, that is false.
Fauci never said that BLM could not spread COVID-19. Quite the opposite.
Jim Jordan tried to put those words in Fauci's mouth on several occaision but Fauci refused to concur. Looks like Wylted got the message about what Trump expected him to believe and went ahead and believed it anyway even though the event never happened.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) pressed Anthony Fauci with a series of combative questions on Friday, asking him whether the government should limit protests to help slow the spread of the coronavirus.Jordan, a close ally of President Trump and member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, drilled down on Fauci at a House hearing, echoing an argument often made by conservatives that there is a double standard when liberals and some public health experts support widespread Black Lives Matter protests, which bring together thousands of people, but push for restrictions on other gatherings like those at churches.Fauci did not address the protests directly, but said more broadly: "Avoid crowds of any type no matter where you are ... I don't judge one crowd versus another crowd."When Jordan pressed for a direct answer on the protests, saying, "So the protests don't increase the spread of the virus?" Fauci shot back: "I didn't say that, you're putting words in my mouth.""I just want an answer to the question, do the protests increase the spread of the virus?" Jordan said."I can tell you that crowds are known, particularly when you don't have a mask, to increase the acquisition and transmission, no matter what the crowd is," Fauci replied.
Fauci has 70% trust ratings, more than science itself so it is obviously false that Fauci decreased trust in Science. Quite the opposite. When Biden elevated Fauci to overall authority over the pandemic response on his first day in office, the public's trust in the Government's handling increased 10% (From 40% to 50%) overnight. Six months later the new government's handling of the coronavirus under Fauci's leadership enjoys 77% trust- more trusted than any institution or initiative that Trump ever undertook.
Wylted is so well trained to believe whatever Fox News wants him to believe that there doesn't even need to be fake news, so long certain Trump loyalists like Jim Jordan suggest it might be true, Wylted unquestioningly believes it even thought Jordan himself publicly tweeted that Fauci opposes the protests.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
All right. Well, if you think that Trump withholding treatment data from the public was good then I think we've established where you are coming from. Let's refute the premise that "Science has lost the public's trust"
According to Gallup's 2021 Confidence in Institutions poll, Science is one of the most trusted institutions in America.
64% of Americans say they trust science a Great deal/Quite a lot. That might not seem impressive until compared to other results:
51% trust the Police
44% trust the Medical system
38% trust the Presidency
37% trust Organized Religion
36% trust the Supreme Court
33% trust Banks
32% trust Public Schools
29% trust Big Tech
28% trust Labor Unions
21% trust Newspapers
20% trust Criminal Justice
18% trust Big Business
16% trust TV news
12% trust Congress
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I saw Joe Rogan’s test score on his Instagram and decided to see how I stack upSo I took the online IQ test at test-iq.org.It said:Impressive! You completed the test in: 16 m 36 sThat's faster than 97% of people tested.Your strongest category is Pattern Recognition where you scored higher than 99% of people tested.I didn't want to pay the $19.99, so I didn't get the actual score.
Did test-iq.org tell you they wanted $20 for that score before or after they asked you twenty questions?
Created:
Posted in:
Added07.30.21 04:41PMery straightforward. BIden has some basic science literacy and trusts expert opinion. Trump was never pro-anything except pro-Donald Trump but he has certainly demonstrated a lack of basic science literacy and a powerful distrust of all facts in all fields of study that do not engage Trump's immediate self-interest.trump was very good with science,
lollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollol
- Suppressed the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, tried repeatedly to change, delay, or remove reports about COVID-19, suppressed govt. warnings about the dangers of hydrocholoquine for more than a month
- demanded that Fauci stop promoting mask usage and COVID testing for children
- took $300 million away from the CDC during a pandemic to fund a celebrity "bring America back" campaign
- ordered the frequency of testing to be reduced to reduce the number of cases reported
- over-ruled CDC recommendations for mask wearing and quashed publication of those recommendations
- demanded that schools remain open fall 2020
- called for an end to all lockdowns on Oct 5, 2020
- Ordered Dept of Agriculture scientists to relocate to Kansas City, causing a mass exodus of climate change and food security scientists out of government- some depts lost 90% of their scientists.
- Accidently said that Hurricane Dorian was going to hit Alabama and rather than admit his mistake, spent 3 days ordering climatologists to misstate the threat to Alabama and interfering with and editing Federal reports during a lethal National Emergency
- Gutted the Environment Protection Agency and most Federal efforts addressing climate change
- Edited and removed federal warnings of toxicity on products
- Banned the use of "climate change," or "Paris Agreement" in government memos
- etc, etc, etc
- Anthony Fauci: "With every other president, whether they were conservative, moderate, or liberal, the guidepost for everything was a deep respect for science. That was always the case. When I got involved with Trump, it went into a different world, the likes of which I had not experienced. He didn't undermine me, because I didn't give a shit about him. I didn't really care what he said, because my home base was [NIAID]." Fauci added that he did not "take any great pleasure in contradicting" Trump, but felt obliged to do so "as a symbol to the rest of the world that science is not going to flinch in the face of somebody who's spouting nonsense."
- That's the most respected scientist in the US today affirming that the POTUS is "spouting nonsense"
lollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollol
he developed the vaccine and worked with the companies.
agreed. He did help hurry up the vaccine development and production and gets some real credit for that.
biden, well what has biden does wotj science opinion
- Raised Chief Scientist to a cabinet level position
- Rejoined Paris Climate accords
- Killed the useless XL pipeline
- Rescinded all bans and directives regarding the freeexhcange of scientific information at NIH, CDC, EPA, USDA, etc.
- disbursed billions to increase the availability of medicaid, heathcare, childcare, living wage for parents, minimum wage for Federal employees all according to overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion
- took management of space programs away from the National Security Council and gave it back to NASA, ordered the Artemis program back on track
- etc., etc., etc.
"skeptical science" refers to science that isnt mainstream
Why all the tapdancing? Why don't you just give some specific example?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
-->@oromagiI don't think you can call it a buzzword if you are using a common word in its most common sense. That's just talking. Oh, you are anti-science if you think the COVID vaccine is worse than the disease, etc. That's just ordinary word usage.
Very straightforward. BIden has some basic science literacy and trusts expert opinion. Trump was never pro-anything except pro-Donald Trump but he has certainly demonstrated a lack of basic science literacy and a powerful distrust of all facts in all fields of study that do not engage Trump's immediate self-interest.
Skeptical Science has become a resource about climate change, and praised for its straightforwardness. Marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg has described it as "the most prominent knowledge-based website dealing with climate change in the world", and The Washington Post has praised it as the "most prominent and detailed" website to counter arguments by global warming deniers. In September 2011, the site won the 2011 Eureka Prize from the Australian Museum in the category of Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge.Skeptical Science is owned by john Cook, a cartoonist who displayed himself as a NAZI for an unexplained reason. Every single one of his claims has been REFUTED""I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science"
I'm trying to get you to define skeptical science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
science is currently a buzz word and people like to say "oh, your anti science if X"
I don't think you can call it a buzzword if you are using a common word in its most common sense. That's just talking. Oh, you are anti-science if you think the COVID vaccine is worse than the disease, etc. That's just ordinary word usage.
and "skeptical science" is real science. its the purpose of science
Skeptical Science has become a resource about climate change, and praised for its straightforwardness. Marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg has described it as "the most prominent knowledge-based website dealing with climate change in the world", and The Washington Post has praised it as the "most prominent and detailed" website to counter arguments by global warming deniers. In September 2011, the site won the 2011 Eureka Prize from the Australian Museum in the category of Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
->@oromagiI'm not saying that laws regarding drug use haven't been politically motivated in the past.
I see
But it was stated that criminalizing drug use is racist in and of itself. I'll ask the same questions then. Why is criminalizing the use of heroin racist in and of itself?
Is somebody making that argument?
Do you believe it should be a crime to use heroin?
I guess not. The relapse rate for heroin is about 90% so its clear the rehabilitative effect is weak and the punitive effective is negligible. I suppose most heroin addicts end up commiting non-drug-related offenses sooner or later but fine, let them go down that way. Criminalizing drugs generally does not seem to have had the suppressive effect intended and the unintended consequences like making drug lords into powerful and well-armed organizations clearly outweighs any benefits we've seen.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagido you believe that some people tend to adopt "the scientific method" to deal with challenges they encounter ??
No. I think people get to the hypothesis and prediction stages plenty but then they test their predictions sloppily and seldom make an accurate record of the results.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Humans (Homo sapiens) are the most abundant and widespread species of primates, characterized by bipedality and large, complex brains enabling the development of advanced tools, culture and language.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Wait, why is criminalization of drug use racist?
Wait, isn't that fact well established? Weed was legal when George Washington grew it but when William Randolph Hearst bought a monopoly in timber he began to call weed a "drug" and then a "dangerous drug" across his newspaper monopoly, which created the myth of reefer madness just as saloon culture was really taking off with the white people. Hearst got no pushback because weed was only popular with non-white cultures at the time. Police enthusiastically embraced that redefinition and quickly made it their favorite felony to arrest (mostly black) people for. Once weed became popular with white after the 60's, the process of de-criminalization began. When whites put cocaine in their soda pop and opium in their toothache medicine, they were called drugs but pharmaceutical drugs. As whites switched to uppers and downers after their popular adoption during World War II, mostly non-whites were left with the cocaine and opium habits and so those drugs got re-classified from licit to illicit. There was definitely a racist component to Prohibition, given that saloon culture was popularized by (Catholic) immigrants and non-whites. Temperance was popular within Great Awakening protestants and the protestant reaction to saloon culture was closely associated with the second rise of the Klan. I think current definitions are definitely working hard to remove racial preferences but I don't think history lets us pretend that which drugs get criminalized and which don't never had a well documented racist bias.
Created:
Posted in:
I always use this rule for debates I initiate and often exploit failures to make this rule in debates initiated by others. I would have no objection to such a policy although if we are honest, most debaters frequently violate the standard unintentionally. As you are collating arguments for conclusion, new perspectives frequently surface even if we don't format them as arguments.
Created:
ARE HUMANS UNDECIPHERABLE ENIGMAS OR PROGRAMMABLE BLACK BOXES?
no
do you believe that people tend to adopt general strategies to deal with challenges they encounter ??
no
do you hink a person should get their sense of self-worth from within themselves or from what other people think of them?
within
(2) do you prefer to be spontaneous and go out and travel and do things "IRL" or do you prefer to think about doing things and lose yourself in movies and television shows and books ?
all of the above
(3) do you think people should generally trust their gut or do you think people should generally think things through ??
Mostly depends on time availability.
(4) do you think people should follow a strict core code of laws or principles no matter what, or do you think that people should follow different rules in different situations ??
both
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
So then you fault fauxlaw's definition of SYSTEMIC RACISM for failing to account for the conduct of racist institutions as welll as the failures of government systems built to hold such institutions accountable?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I understand the distinction you are making.
- So when Ronald Greene was beat to death by six Louisiana State troopers on May 10, 2019 that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because no law allowed those troopers to beat an unarmed man to death as punishment for resisting arrest.
- And when those troopers lied on their arrest reports and lied to Greene's widow saying that Greene had died in an auto accident, that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because no law allowed those troopers to lie and cover up their murder of Greene.
- And when those troopers turned off their body cameras or else lied about having any body camera footage of the murder that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because the law clearly states that those troopers must have their body cameras running at all times.
- And when the County Coroner falsely attributed Greene's death to car accident and made no report of the many deep lacerations and bruises and taser prongs stuck in Greene's body, that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because the law clearly requires the County Coroner to make accurate statements during an autopsy.
- And when Troop F commanders threatened internal investigators who wanted to charge the troopers that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because by law police commanders are supposed to charge known murderers and not cover up when the murders are committed by co-workers.
- And when the Louisiana State Patrol refused to release any body camera footage or discuss Greene's death for two years that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because state officials are not allowed by law to knowingly cover up internal investigations or conceal evidence in a murder.
- And when the Governor of Louisiana backed the LSP's refusal to release body camera footage or discuss Greene's death because investigation were still active two years out that was not SYSTEM RACISM because Governor's are not permitted by law to knowingly conceal evidence of a murder.
- And when the LSP decided to scapegoat one officer and that officer then died in a car accident a few hours later that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because state officials are not allowed by law to scapegoat one man for a murder done by six men.
- And when the LSP slapped a different officer on the wrist and refused to charge the rest of the murderers with anything, in spite of the recommendations of internal investigators and in spite of the active cover up, that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because police officers are required by law to charge people with murder when detectives have determined that a murder has been committed.
- And when evidence emerges that Troop F has a long history of accusations of racially motivated violence against black motorists around Monroe, LA and a long history of cover-ups and most of Troop F command resigns to avoid any backlash, that is not SYSTEMIC RACISM because the law does not allow for racially motivated violence against motorists and the law requires the State to prosecute those officials who cover up such incidents.
So, while any reasonable person might conclude that Troop F, the Louisiana State Patrol and the highest-ranking state officials all worked together as an institution to promote racist violence, created a system that covered-up racist violence and therefore forgave if not actively encouraged racist violence no person might reasonably call that system of racist violence SYSTEMIC RACISM so long as the definition of SYSTEMIC RACISM only accounts for the TEXT of current statutes and procedural policies and never accounts for the conduct of racist institutions and systems which may only be properly seen as large interdependent hierarchies of officially appointed individuals, independently breaking the law en masse and never as part of any inherently racist system.
I understand the distinction you are making.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
-->@oromagi
- why has science become a buzz word
- I fault the premise. A buzz word is fashionable jargon. Science has been used in its popular context since at least Galileo Galilei.
- why is skeptical science instantly shut down.
- It's not. My guess is that what you want to call skeptical science is not science at all but faith-based argument or obvious deception. Real science contradicting the present paradigm is typically placed at the center of scientific controversy.
are we done with your OP?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
-->@oromagiBut then when I ask for a definition of INTELLIGENCE you give me the definition for GENERAL INTELLIGENCE. I say that IQ doesn't cover all of what we recognize as intelligence.
- You disagree with me by saying that perception correlates well with test outcomes but in a later post agree that Dennison found that the correlation was weak for starters and only improved over time. Dennison only claims correlation to objective intelligence, which more or less agrees with my contention.
- You agree with me by limiting your definition of INTELLIGENCE to the smaller subset, GENERAL INTELLIGENCE.
My contention was only that GENERAL INTELLIGENCE or objective intelligence is not the same thing as intelligence generally. Huffcutt & Arthur would seem to agree with my point as does Dennison, as do you at some points in spite of your objection here.I generally agree with what you're saying here.
Fine.
As for "IQ doesn't cover all of what we recognize as intelligence", "I.Q." not covering what is heuristically understood as intelligence does not mean we should make it match the heuristic understanding.
Yes, I'm afraid it does. The people are not going to change their shared understanding of the word INTELLIGENCE. The fact that Intelligence quotients only quantify a subset of those elements we understand as INTELLIGENCE means that the inaccurate usage is Psychometry's to correct. 'g' quotient or "cognitive integration test" would be a lot less misleading and probably eliminate most objections to IQ test altogether.
It would be like giving an English test to an African tribe, one of which has never seen English before, and concluding that they have zero I.Q. because they couldn't answer anything. Clearly, you need to control for learned knowledge. Likewise, "leadership skills", "humor" etc. suffer, to some degree, from this problem, too.
I assume (admittedly without looking into it much) that the Pygmys' avg 55 IQ score as well Sub-Saharan Africa's avg 71 are similar artifacts of poor controls for learned knowledge and don't quantify actual cognitive integration particularly well.
I don't think most would agree with your assertion that IQ tests are only or even mostly interested in the heritability of general intelligence. Yes, that is the primary interest of the eugenicists you cite, which makes sense because their mission is to justify their assertions of political supremacy with some kind of objective measure of genetic superiority. However, the general figure for the heritability of IQ, according to the APA is 0.45 for children, and rises to around 0.75 for late adolescents and adults. Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 0.2, around 0.4 in middle childhood, and as high as 0.9 in adulthood. That is, stripped of influences of environment, genetics only show a weak correlation to IQ. I think its fair to say that most psychometrists, absent those tainted by political agenda, are trying to assess the whole picture, not genetic general intelligence alone but also the influence of environment and the relationship between the two.Firstly, stop Ad homming people.
What people? Eugenicists? Is it an ad hom to call a Eugenicist a Eugenicist? Are you denying that taking money from parties with a political interest in a particular outcome exposes the data to skepticism when that particular outcome is published? If a study stating that smoking is good for you comes out and I complain that the study was sponsored by RJ Reynolds, is that mere insult or is that a legitimate cause for skepticism?
Secondly, I.Q. tests by function do assess the genetic component of I.Q. That might not be the primary interest or even an interest of administering the test,
So you concede my point . Most people just want a number that let's them say they are smarter than others and aren't building a case that some groups of people are naturally smarter than others.
Thirdly, I actually pretty much agree with your quoted estimations of I.Q. heritability.
I do think our differences are more a question of the degree and extent to which this data is reliable than any question of validity.
I think you have circled around to agreeing with me. IQ can't capture all of what we call INTELLIGENCE including things like leaderships skills.I agree that I.Q. doesn't specifically measure for "leadership skills", measurement of I.Q. would be *worse* if it did.
Nor could leadership be quantified if we tried. Agreed.
I can see that some important qualities might be reflected by IQ. I have never seen an IQ test variant that quantified humor or empathy. I don't agree that such qualities must necessarily or naturally flow from general intelligence.I don't know how many ways I can make this point, but we'll see:If I attended multiple seminars for humor analysis, if I watched sitcoms daily, if I spent time in a bar testing my stand-up routine on people, would not those experiences influence my ability to produce humor? Would I not have an advantage in learned knowledge if we tested for humor, especially against someone who didn't do these things?Do you see the difference between "learned knowledge" and general intelligence?
But, as you claim, IQ is controlling for learned knowledge. You seem to agree that humor and empathy are aspects of intelligence not quantified by IQ tests.
I'm not demanding an explanation, I'm illustrating the limitations of objective intelligence assessment. We are able to perceive differences in intelligence that we have no hope of quantifying within the limited scope of verbal measurement.We don't need to answer this "why" in order for I.Q. to be a valid metric. The limitation you illustrated isn't relevant to the thread.
Again, I am not asking for an explanation (why) I am showing you that IQ does not measure those subjective perceptions that make an important part of what we call INTELLIGENCE.
You'd have to define performance more specifically. The bell curvers were defining performance as holding a job for men and bearing children within wedlock for the ladies. Kirkegaard's survey was looking at education level, occupation level (*), and income level as measures of performance. I think IQ probably is a better or best predictor for educational, occupational, and financial attainment but again, all those measures fall within a certain Western paradigm. We want to be careful not to mistake such metrics as a measure of human worth or an indicator of superior ability.*I do wonder how "occupational levels" were measured and what biases revealed therein.By performance, I mean ability to perform at work, ability to make income and ability to become educated.
Fine but then that reveals your bias, right? Many intelligent people place no value on institutionalized labor, money, or institutionalized education. I think that's why Pygmys score so low, not because they lack integrated cognition.
I also think that bearing children within wedlock is a desirable life outcome for ladies (and society). However, this is absolutely debatable (and probably requires its own thread).
Agreed.
So, one of the in-built premises of my argument is that civilizations are desirable.
But obviously, humans were INTELLIGENT long before they were civilized. This demonstrates more of your bias. Are you really measuring 'intelligence' or controlling for 'civilized?'
"Occupational level was typically measured by such occupational scales as Duncan Socioeconomic Index, International Socioeconomic Index of Occupational Status, NORC prestige scale, etc" -- Page 406 under the heading: '5.1.1. Socioeconomic success'
I have used a racial example but that is not part of my "assertions". You can agree that I.Q. is a valid metric without believing that human races exist.I don't particularly know about Pygmies, but I have done a small amount of research on Aboriginal Australians. They actually have a superior level of spatial awareness. If we were to use the same distribution as I.Q. test data presents, Aboriginal Australians have 119 points, which puts them above an entire standard deviation of the global average (can't find my source on this though). If you were to set-up a test that measured spatial awareness, Aboriginal Australians would almost certainly do the best. However, that doesn't mean they are intelligent or that it makes sense to measure intelligence through spatial awareness levels.
Obviously, Aboriginal Australians are INTELLIGENT. That is why we should change the name of the IQ test to the integrated cognition test because INTELLIGENCE means a whole lot more than just integrated cognition and if you go around saying that Aboriginal Australians are not intelligent you are picking an unnecessary fight because Psychometry is stubbornly using the word INTELLIGENCE to mean integrated cognition. This is a good illustration of my contention.
Clearly, if you find the Mbuti people who are five standard deviations (1 / 1744278) above their race's I.Q (you couldn't even find them lol), they are intelligent enough to become competent neuroscientists. This is not surprising. This doesn't meant that all Mbuti people are capable of becoming competent neuroscientists.
I've already argued this. I suspect that the biases you've already admitted- civilization, money, jobs, education, etc. clearly distort any evaluation of a nomadic people who value none of those things. I've only studied Mbuti and San peoples briefly in anthropology but sufficiently to say with confidence that these people are INTELLIGENT by any ordinary understanding of that word and the scores reflect the failures of psychometry to match up IQ with actual INTELLIGENCE.
don't know why you've decided to argue now that the environment could make for this gigantic gap in I.Q,
I'm not. I only argued that most Psychometry is trying understand the relative influence and interplay of heritability. You have already agreed that most Psychometrics are not interested in heritability alone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
So....Republicans lost faith in science because they discovered that that science was like all other human institutions? Does it not follow that if all human institutions are alike in imperfection, that Republicans have given up on all human institutions? This would certainly explain their public policy choices of the last twenty years.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
What definition of SYSTEMIC RACISM are you employing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
- Let's note that the Southern Poverty Law Center defines Gottfredson as a promoter of eugenicism, scientific racism, and white nationalism.
- Gottfredson has taken more than a quarter million dollars in grants from the White Supremacist Pioneer Fund to advance eugenics research.
These notes are both Ad Hominem attacks and are thus logically invalid.
WIKI: Valid ad hominem arguments occur in informal logic, where the person making the argument relies on arguments from authority such as testimony, expertise, or on a selective presentation of information supporting the position they are advocating. In this case, counter-arguments may be made that the target is dishonest, lacks the claimed expertise, or has a conflict of interest.
You asked if I "see any issue with the data" you provided. I consider Gottfredson's acceptance of funding from White Supremacist eugenicists a legitimate conflict of interest when evaluating the heritability and worth of human traits. That is, people with an interest in a particular outcome favoring certain political conclusions (i.e. supremacy) are more likely to introduce bias. Now look at your top three negative life outcomes and tell me there isn't a certain old-fashioned white man elitism to your data:
Out of labor for 1 month is one bad life out indicator. The original data is so old-fashioned that they only counted men, expecting women to drop out of the labor force regular for birthing and raising children. I'd argue that if our priorities were straight, all parents would drop of the labor force for at least month as part of bonding with infants and other childcare responsibilities.
Had an illegitimate child: is another bad life indicator. I understand why white supremacists are very interested in controlling breeding for the purpose of enforcing racial purity but 40% of all US mothers now have children deemed "illegitimate" by the old-fashioned standards of the early '80's. Are we really still calling this a bad outcome. Naturally, this bad outcome is only counting women as responsible for children born out wedlock. Fathering illegitimate children is not considered a similarly negative outcome, apparently.
Lives in poverty: There's the classic indicator of classist bias, measuring positive life outcomes according to money made. Many people choose low-paying jobs out of a sense of civic duty- teachers, nurses, military, clergy, social workers, etc or because their priorities supersede financial considerations- artists, athletes, farmers, etc. Many highly intelligent people choose poverty, experience contentment, yet end up the bad outcomes list.
- The table also appears in "The Bell Curve"
Your point?
I think my point was clear: super old fashioned, kind of racist, and not even really using IQ.
- I'm not yet sure why it's important that "only white non-Hispanic respondents were included". Are you arguing that the results would have been significantly different if the other racial groups were included?
On outcomes like "lives in poverty?" "was ever incarcerated?" Are you kidding me?
For your second dot-point, we should note that I.Q. only correlates with itself at 0.87. Still, the researcher's estimates have this 0.06 gap because ASVA is 0.06 less correlate than I.Q. is for I.Q, so you're right in arguing that this is a limitation of the study. However, an unaccounted 0.06 correlation effect is quite small and we should regard the impact it could have as such.
- The question is what biases are introduced by subbing in an Armed Services aptitude test for a General Intelligence test. If anything an Armed Service test strikes me as even less likely to capture empathy, humorousness, experience, creativity, original thinking. I think the Bell Curve and Gottfredson's eugenicists like this old-fashioned data because the biases skew towards a desired political conclusion.
- I.Q. doesn't take into account the intelligence components within "musical aptitude" or "sense of humor".... In other words, general intelligence does not reject the notion that things like "empathy" and "humor" (to some degree) are part of general intelligence. So, in essence, I agree with you that I.Q. should factor these attributes into it,
Yes, this is the essential point of my original contention.
- and it already does to some degree.
Disagree. In what sense does the Armed Services Aptitude test measure humor or empathy?
The reason why it only factors these attributes "to some degree" is because a lot of those traits you listed can be learned. ..... let the genetic components of "humor", "leadership", "empathy" etc. be naturally integrated into the general intelligence assessment.
My point is those are clearly intelligence indicators that IQ does not measure. You many be comfortable inferring that all such abilities flow from the traits quantified by IQ but I think you are in a small minority by such opinion.
For you second dot point, the data remains valid because the cultural snapshot applied to *all* participants at the time. Effectively, controls for environment. I'd also argue that, "high school diploma, never been incarcerated, remain married to first wife and never give birth to a child out of wedlock" are all positive life outcomes, hence the data remains valid. 40% of modern women, I would argue, are likely to have lower I.Q. for making a bad decision (child out of wedlock). Albeit, this point probably requires its own thread (I might make one). Hence, this data remains valid, in regards to I.Q.
Again, better than 40% of US women are having babies without a marriage license these days. Are you really lumping all those women into a bad life outcome.
Your final dot point is mostly Ad Hominem against the data. "Not using IQ" is addressed above.
Again, Pointing out that the advocate is not neutral, but has a conflict of interest, is a valid form of ad hominem argument.
- You claim that "Schmidt and Hunter (1990) examined the correlation between job performance and IQ" but that is false.
- But Hunter and Schmidt explain, "The hypothesis was tested that the standard deviation of employee output as a percentage of mean output increases as a function of the complexity level of the job." The paper broadly found that as a job grew more complex, a wider variety of output was delivered by employees. Nothing about intelligence or IQ at all. In fact, a quick search for terms "IQ" "Intel" and "Quotient" all came up zero.
- The table you snapshot and the data you describe are not in the paper you linked to.
So Hunter and Schmidt use the term "mental ability" and "cognitive ability" instead of "IQ". It's fair enough to say that I should have noted this in the OP.
Yes, "mental ability" seems to claim a much wider range than "general intelligence"
The table I snapshotted was not directly from the study, but rather a compilation of data from the study. For example, Hunter and Schmidt refer to mental ability specifically here:"On the basis of Hunter's (1980) findings, the true-score correlations for general mental ability and supervisory ratings are .65 for high-complexity jobs, .57 for medium-complexity jobs, and .44 for low complexity jobs (when complexity is as defined in the text and in Footnote I)."The average of: 0.65+0.57+0.44 = 0.5533 (to 4 d.p.), but the data they used had a higher percentage of medium complexity and low complexity jobs, and so the average of the data they used makes "mental ability" correlate at roughly 0.51 in their study (as depicted in the table).
OK. I don't think we're surprised that " the fluid ability to integrate multiple cognitive abilities in the service of solving a novel problem" correlates to job complexity.
- You claim that Huffcutt & Arthur found that IQ was the best predictor of job performance but that is false.
- Huffcutt & Arthur found that Hunter & Hunter (1984) had totally under-represented the value of the job interview and went on to conclude, "highly structured interviews provide essentially the same validity as ability tests"
- The paper concluded the opposite of what you claimed it concluded.
- Huffcutt & Arthur did not specify Intelligence as the ability tested, nor IQ as the test of Intelligence.
Claiming that "highly structured interviews provide essentially the same validity as ability tests" doesn't detract from the validity of I.Q as a metric.
Valid but not "best." You claimed Huffcutt & Arthur supported "best predictor" but Huffcutt & Arthur said that Hunter (1980) badly underestimated the value of the job interview as the predictor of job performance and that when the job interview was highly structured surpassed IQ as a predictor.
It's worth noting that intelligence/I.Q. is denoted as "Ability Composite" in this paper (which is admittedly a strange way to say intelligence).
You seem to be assuming that Huffcutt's "ability composite "represents IQ but I don't see where Huffcutt made that connection.
- You claim "with education, occupation and income levels, IQ consistently produced the best correlation."
- We should note that more than a hundred different types of intelligence tests were used- which raises plenty of questions regarding the correlations between one kind of intelligence test and the next.
- This data claims that neither intelligence nor socio-economic index correlates very strongly to income.
- I would think socio-economic status would correlate with income far more than claimed here.
We don't need to know how well I.Q. tests correlate with each other. All we need to know is how well the I.Q. test correlates with general intelligence, and then we can take an average of all the I.Q. tests in question.
You're asking me to take for granted that all these hundreds of different kinds of intelligence tests all reflect your definition of general intelligence sufficiently to eliminate any opportunity for bias. I don't make that assumption.
You can think your final dot-point if you like, but you don't have any data to back you up. I do.
Socioeconomic status is the is often measured as a combination of education, income and occupation. I'd always expect to see a strong correlation between any status and the qualities that define status. For example, people with the status dead correlate strongly with lack of movement as an attribute.
- So, for clarity: people guessing other people's I.Q. has weak correlation, BUT, when given enough time with the person, the correlation with an I.Q. test becomes quite strong. Without that caveat (time), I agree with you.
So it takes time to accumulate subjective and objective data points in order to more accurately assess intelligence. IQ gives us some valid metric of what you call general intelligence, but just like superficial personal assessments, not necessarily what we call intelligence generally.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
oromagi: Practical, again, but a different theme.
Rats. I was shooting for funny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
I think the results are repeatable enough to conclude that IQ measures some aspects of the human intellect but hardly encompasses what humans mean when we say intelligence.According to the data I provided, that isn't true. That's why a heuristic evaluation of people's intelligence correlated really well with a formal I.Q. test.
But then when I ask for a definition of INTELLIGENCE you give me the definition for GENERAL INTELLIGENCE. I say that IQ doesn't cover all of what we recognize as intelligence.
- You disagree with me by saying that perception correlates well with test outcomes but in a later post agree that Dennison found that the correlation was weak for starters and only improved over time. Dennison only claims correlation to objective intelligence, which more or less agrees with my contention.
- You agree with me by limiting your definition of INTELLIGENCE to the smaller subset, GENERAL INTELLIGENCE.
My contention was only that GENERAL INTELLIGENCE or objective intelligence is not the same thing as intelligence generally. Huffcutt & Arthur would seem to agree with my point as does Dennison, as do you at some points in spite of your objection here.
We were just recently discussing Bobby Fisher's high IQ although that sad bastard was an unemployable schizophrenic who pissed himself to death because he wasn't smart enough to go to a doctor. Was Bobby Fisher therefore intelligent? I know a fair number of brilliant manic depressives but the people I know with a real genius for living an admirable life would probably score about 100 on that test.You love anecdotes lol.
All good writers do, in the ranks of whom I hope to prove worthy someday. Let's agree that anecdote should not be used to represent generalization but that's not how I employed Bobby Fisher here. I used examples to illustrate why everything we call intelligence is not summed up in a score. Consider meeting the raging, deluded, self-destructive Fisher and being asked to evaluate his intelligence. In that specific case, you might actually require a fairly advanced understanding of the game of chess before you could reconcile Fisher's IQ with your perception of the man....but then, there it is, a clear correlation in one extraordinarily limited application. By your definition of GENERAL INTELLIGENCE (ability to integrate multiple cognitive abilities in the service of solving a novel problem) doesn't really apply to Mr. 180 IQ at all but people still think of Fisher as intelligent, even a genius in spite of his lack of integrated abilities. The anecdote illustrates my contention: GENERAL INTELLIGENCE is clearly a subset of what we call INTELLIGENCE but GENERAL INTELLIGENCE is just as clearly not all of what we call INTELLIGENCE.
I think IQ is over-rated and fairly slanted towards a 19th century European male model of success- lawyers and doctors and engineers. What of empathy? What of self-awareness? What of leadership and problem-solving? What of wit and humor- clearly signs of intelligence that no IQ test can capture. What of instinct- which is often the smartest part of us though we don't understand how or why? IQ might correlate with job performance because it favors those intellects which dot their i's and cross their t's, but tidy thinkers are seldom inspired and the truly creative seldom score high in IQ.General intelligence ('g', of which I.Q. is a proxy for) has built-in a calculation of these facets. In other words, general intelligence does not reject the notion that things like "empathy" and "humor" (to some degree) are part of general intelligence. So, in essence, I agree with you that I.Q. should factor these attributes into it, and it already does to some degree. The reason why it only factors these attributes "to some degree" is because a lot of those traits you listed can be learned. Clearly, "leadership" can be taught to people to some degree, and whilst you could argue that some people have a natural affinity for leadership (I agree), the environment will play a large part in a person's ability to acquire leadership skills (and thus make them better at leadership).
Integrating multiple cognitive abilities in the service of solving a novel problem is also learned. Understimulated children often demonstrate cognitive deficits.
It makes no sense when assessing I.Q., which attempts to assess genetic general intelligence, to have factors which are purely environment factors.
I don't think most would agree with your assertion that IQ tests are only or even mostly interested in the heritability of general intelligence. Yes, that is the primary interest of the eugenicists you cite, which makes sense because their mission is to justify their assertions of political supremacy with some kind of objective measure of genetic superiority. However, the general figure for the heritability of IQ, according to the APA is 0.45 for children, and rises to around 0.75 for late adolescents and adults. Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 0.2, around 0.4 in middle childhood, and as high as 0.9 in adulthood. That is, stripped of influences of environment, genetics only show a weak correlation to IQ. I think its fair to say that most psychometrists, absent those tainted by political agenda, are trying to assess the whole picture, not genetic general intelligence alone but also the influence of environment and the relationship between the two.
In other words, testing "leadership skills" isn't going to provide us a strong correlate for raw general intelligence because it is muddied too much by environmental factors, defeating the purpose of measuring general intelligence.
I think you have circled around to agreeing with me. IQ can't capture all of what we call INTELLIGENCE including things like leaderships skills.
Instead, it is better to test for general intelligence and let the genetic components of "humor", "leadership", "empathy" etc. be naturally integrated into the general intelligence assessment.
I can see that some important qualities might be reflected by IQ. I have never seen an IQ test variant that quantified humor or empathy. I don't agree that such qualities must necessarily or naturally flow from general intelligence.
We can recognize that dogs are smarter than sheep but an IQ test can't tell us why. Or why some dogs are smarter than others. Clearly adults are smarter than children in most ways so intelligence changes and adapts as we grow and age. Obviously, there's more to intelligence than can be expressed in letters and numbers and in fact those abstractions came along only recently, long after humans had distinguished themselves as more intelligent than any other species.You're moving the goalposts when you demand of I.Q. to explain "why". I.Q. is designed to be a proxy for general intelligence. That's it. Is it a valid metric in that regard? I've argued yes.
I'm not demanding an explanation, I'm illustrating the limitations of objective intelligence assessment. We are able to perceive differences in intelligence that we have no hope of quantifying within the limited scope of verbal measurement.
We see general intelligence proxy tests (I.Q. tests) and see that some people perform better than others. Does that mean we shouldn't use I.Q. tests?
Who said that? I'll remind you that I opened with "I do not disagree that IQ is a valid metric"
Overall, I'm IQ skeptical and my experience tells me (hey, what about experience?) that applying numbers to people's capacity is often self-defeating or at least self-limiting. Tell people that a 4 minute mile is the limit of human capability and for some reason everybody believes it until one day that record is broken and suddenly thousands more find that ability within themselves.Applying numbers (based on I.Q. results) to people's capacity produces moderate correlations to desirable life outcomes.
agreed.
It's also often the best metric for predicting performance. Clearly, I.Q. is having some impact on performance.
You'd have to define performance more specifically. The bell curvers were defining performance as holding a job for men and bearing children within wedlock for the ladies. Kirkegaard's survey was looking at education level, occupation level (*), and income level as measures of performance. I think IQ probably is a better or best predictor for educational, occupational, and financial attainment but again, all those measures fall within a certain Western paradigm. We want to be careful not to mistake such metrics as a measure of human worth or an indicator of superior ability.
*I do wonder how "occupational levels" were measured and what biases revealed therein.
I agree that if you inspire people in various ways, you'll have them performing better. But you'll never have 55 I.Q. Pygmies becoming competent neuro-scientists at Yale, and you'll frustrate everyone involved if you force it.
So, there's is a racial component to your assertions. I don't know how you could possibly make such an assertion while failing to control for Western values. Your definition of general intelligence may correlate with educational, occupational, and financial attainment but I assume that Bushmen are just as able to demonstrate their fluid ability to integrate multiple cognitive abilities in the service of solving problems within the context of the Kalahari as we are in the context of some Western metropolis. I likewise assume that if the Mbuti were running the tests for cognitive abilities, big city white boys might take a significant hit in the scoring.
I may not be able to find a specific example of a Mbuti neuroscientist, but the stated avg IQ score across all of sub-Saharan Africa is only 71 and nevertheless we see some prestigious neuroscientists excelling in Western cultures. I do assume that some excellent individual Mbuti are entirely capable of such achievement given the right environment but if I'm reading you right, you don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Competency, anyone?How many of these blatant gaffes are y’all going to allow before you start counting them like you did alleged Trump lies?
second dustryder here. If you are going to dismiss Trump's mind-blowingly unprecedent wall of lies and deception as mere speaking errors than you must share in the responsibility for Trump's destructive deceits.
also, btw, I have no idea what you're talking about. Why not cite the specific for clarity's sake?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
...a complete set of new dishes.
Created:
Posted in:
65% of all COVID disinformation available online is manufactured by just 12 people.
Created: