[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Just posting the scientific research. No need to get mad about it. But the real reason I'm not a conservative these days has nothing to do with my hyper-intelligence.

No, you're stroking your ego. Statistics, much like polls, are bullshit. People, even acclaimed scientists, can manipulate factors to state whatever they want. You'd think, after Climate-gate, you'd realize this.

Think of it like Plato in the Republic, on how he sees the perfect state needing to be led by "Philosopher Kings". I'm sure you think that the fact Plato was a philosopher did not EVER come into consideration to his conclusion.

So, interestingly enough, scientists, who would be generally considered as liberal atheists, field a study that states that liberal atheists are smarter than religious or conservative, or worse yet, religious conservatives. And of course, you, being a non religious liberal, accepts this conclusion wholeheartedly. Why? It strokes your ego and supports your worldview, and only riles up any opposition without any actual relevant information being brought forth.

By making their common sense clouded by your emotional and ego stroking rhetoric
you're able to steer control of the discussion, to what you see fit by making your opposition go on the defensive. So sorry, I'm not "mad", as you claimed, but rather tired of individuals like yourself who attempt to use faulty evidence to bolster your claims or just stroke your ego.

$1:

:lol: I just see a political movement seething and foaming with hate and misanthrope.

And I have seen no evidence of that. I've seen no major violent incidents against police or property, unlike what is seen of left wing protests in the past. Of course though, those protests fit your worldview, and as such, they're filled with hate and misanthrope, because they disagree with you.

$1:

Again, I'm stating a fact--that's not race baiting. Tea Party protests are overwhelmingly white. Why? It's an interesting phenomenon.

No, it's not. The fact you think it's an "interesting phenomenon" then you don't understand demographics. Like I said, a protest movement that has its support within the conservative middle class will generally be white and suburban...because, guess what? That's the demographics of the conservative middle class! Attempting to play off the demographics of the Tea Parties as "interesting" because of their whiteness is weak.

$1:

I don't necessarily think that they are fundamentally racist in nature, though there's a small but significant percentage of folks in there who are just angry that a black man with a funny name is president.

And there were plenty of folks during the anti-war protests who saw 9-11 as some inside job too. Unless those individuals are more but a fringe element (as I'd assume you wouldn't argue) within leftist protests, why should these right wing protests somehow be totally smeared by the potential of some racist morons might be hopping on the bandwagon too?

$1:

However, with that demographic, they are hardly representing a cross-section of America, like FOX News likes to tell them.

Racists aren't a cross-section of the United States? I'm glad we agree, though I'm not sure how Fox News somehow encourages this sort of racism.

[N_Fiddledog]

sandorski sandorski:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Yes, the primary problem being that the political extremists don't accept science, so it wouldn't matter how many studies were posted here: it's against their ideology therefore they reject it.

I don't know if that's a personal dig, or not, but if it is, I have nothing against science. I just prefer the good stuff. You know - hard empirical data, not relying on subjectivity, or pre-conceived conclusions. Falsifiable results which can be reproduced.

Other than that you can find a study somewhere to support almost any half-baked idea you want to support.

You have found plenty. It's just too bad you don't adhere to the first parts of that Post.

I was thinking about that, and you know what? This is one of the rare times you have something resembling a point.

I am guilty of what you suggest on occasion, but I have a rationalization. Here's an example. Somebody posts a less than scientific poll, or study showing a consensus of scientists say the world will soon overheat and die. I post a similarly worthless poll or study showing that's not the case.

I'm not saying such studies can never be used as support, or at least that I will never use them in what's pretty much a street debate where science has been reduced to science-y rhetoric. I'm saying accept such studies for what they are.

The Conservative versus Liberal IQ study above, and the poll this thread is based on are worthless. If I'd posted something similar I'd expect people to go after me for it.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

No, you're stroking your ego.

Ah, let's start off with a personal attack. What better way to show desperation and what better way to prove my point about the neo-conservatives and their hatred? Thank you, thank you thank you.

$1:

Statistics, much like polls, are bullshit. People, even acclaimed scientists, can manipulate factors to state whatever they want. You'd think, after Climate-gate, you'd realize this.

And let's follow that up with a short, simple, to-the-point and completely unsubstantiated dismissal of an entire branch of science. People can indeed manipulate things. So what idealogues do is instantly dismiss any scientific study with which they don't agree as having been manipulated. Any study which accords with their point of view, however, is revered.

$1:

So, interestingly enough, scientists, who would be generally considered as liberal atheists, field a study that states that liberal atheists are smarter than religious or conservative, or worse yet, religious conservatives.

Oh, I should have guessed. This is all a part of that vast conspiracy by the liberal elite, the mainscream media, academia and scientists. The fact that neo-conservative demagogues have managed to convince a good portion of the political right in North America that this completely outlandish conspiracy theory on par with 9/11 truthers and Holocaust deniers is true is--if anything--proof of the ignorance currently endemic on the political right.

$1:

And of course, you, being a non religious liberal, accepts this conclusion wholeheartedly. Why? It strokes your ego and supports your worldview, and only riles up any opposition without any actual relevant information being brought forth.

Why would being intelligent stoke anyone's ego? It's a genetic predisposition.

Because it has no relevance for you doesn't mean it has no relevance.

$1:

By making their common sense clouded by your emotional and ego stroking rhetoric
you're able to steer control of the discussion, to what you see fit by making your opposition go on the defensive. So sorry, I'm not "mad", as you claimed, but rather tired of individuals like yourself who attempt to use faulty evidence to bolster your claims or just stroke your ego.

Well, I only posted the original bit as a joke. I did a quick Google and found that study. However, the overly-defensive response is most elucidating.

$1:

And I have seen no evidence of that. I've seen no major violent incidents against police or property, unlike what is seen of left wing protests in the past. Of course though, those protests fit your worldview, and as such, they're filled with hate and misanthrope, because they disagree with you.

Oh yes, Anne Coulter is a model of love and compassion. Suuuurrrrre.

$1:

No, it's not. The fact you think it's an "interesting phenomenon" then you don't understand demographics.

[/quote]

Oh give it a rest. Typical--you've just finished dissing the entire sceince of statistics and now here you are telling me I don't understand it. I hate to quote Sandorski here but "FAIL."

Here's a hint--if you want to win an argument, try to make your own arguments at least internally consistent.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I don't know if that's a personal dig, or not, but if it is, I have nothing against science. I just prefer the good stuff. You know - hard empirical data, not relying on subjectivity, or pre-conceived conclusions. Falsifiable results which can be reproduced.

Other than that you can find a study somewhere to support almost any half-baked idea you want to support.

I prefer the same kind of science myself. The thing is, that you don't really know, a priori, if the conclusions were preconceived or not. It's hard to believe that anyone would deliberately skew scores in a scientific study to show that blacks score lower than whites, because concluding that blacks score lower on IQ tests just makes you a very unpopular person. It gets you a lot of hate mail when you reach a controversial conclusion.

[N_Fiddledog]

Here's a fun one for you Zip.

The one study says liberals are scoring highest on IQ tests. The other study says blacks score lower on IQ tests. Part of the cliche-as-fact mindset that wants to push the dumb-conservative meme the first study panders to says conservatives are middle-class, and bubba white dudes. It tells us blacks are liberals. Wouldn't one of those concepts have to be incorrect? Unless, I don't know, you want to push the concept that the white libs are all off the charts brilliant (in which case I'd encourage them to view the Anne Coulter thread, and see if they want to try to make that one stick), or they're saying blacks are off the charts dumb. Or maybe they want to admit there actually are black conservatives. Nah that'll never happen. I show libs gigabytes of proof to that effect, and two posts later they're talking like they didn't see it.

[fifeboy]

commanderkai commanderkai:

[
Statistics, much like polls, are bullshit. People, even acclaimed scientists, can manipulate factors to state whatever they want.

I don't want to bet too far into this argument except to debate your idea that statistics are BS. They can be, but just saying they are does not make them that. If you have another study to back up your argument, than great, back it up, but you can't just say a study is BS. If a study has been published than it has undergone peer review, or if in something like Psychology Today, an editor has looked it over and approved it's content. Then science kicks in and other people, with another hypothesis, can look for other evidence and give it a statistical analysis. You can't call it BS unless you have other data to show so.

All that aside, it brings to mind the old joke about stats and psychology. A psychologist publishes a report with the following stats. Rabbits were exposed to blue light. 33% of the rabbits showed increased night time activity, 33% showed decreased night time activity and the third rabbit died.

[commanderkai]

fifeboy fifeboy:

I don't want to bet too far into this argument except to debate your idea that statistics are BS. They can be, but just saying they are does not make them that. If you have another study to back up your argument, than great, back it up, but you can't just say a study is BS.

But that's the whole point. Polls, statistics, and studies can be hugely biased, and in the end lead to circular arguments about who can find more statistics, studies, or polls in their favor.

I'll use a quick example. There are FIVE major different death counts over the Iraq War, ranging from 300,000 to over a million. Which one is right? Nobody really knows, and as such people will choose whatever statistic further favors their political bias. A conservative, or somebody for the Iraq War, will choose the smaller number, while somebody who's against the war will choose the highest. In the end, what is accomplished? No real discussion is put forth.

$1:

If a study has been published than it has undergone peer review, or if in something like Psychology Today, an editor has looked it over and approved it's content. Then science kicks in and other people, with another hypothesis, can look for other evidence and give it a statistical analysis. You can't call it BS unless you have other data to show so.

Well, if Climate-gate shows anything, peer review or editor approval isn't exactly a guarantee of non-bias. Political agendas are pressed forward in statistics, studies, and polls. I could question the bias of the questions, or the ethno-centric nature of IQ exams (isn't this a favored statement of liberals over poor minority IQ scores?). So tell me, what science is truly concluded by finding a poll about 24% of Republicans believe Obama is the anti-Christ? None. What political agenda is furthered? A large one, and that's why I call it bullshit.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Ah, let's start off with a personal attack. What better way to show desperation and what better way to prove my point about the neo-conservatives and their hatred? Thank you, thank you thank you.

Wait, me saying you're stroking your ego is a personal attack? A bit sensitive. Considering you post a "study" on how conservatives and religious individuals score lower on IQ tests (and look a this, I'm a religious conservative, so absolutely no message was implied here hmm?), and you act like the offended party?

$1:

And let's follow that up with a short, simple, to-the-point and completely unsubstantiated dismissal of an entire branch of science.

I've made my views clear on statistics and how I view them as being too easily manipulated and biased to be any real use in political discussions. Look at my response to fifeboy if you need a rehash.

$1:

People can indeed manipulate things. So what idealogues do is instantly dismiss any scientific study with which they don't agree as having been manipulated. Any study which accords with their point of view, however, is revered.

Actually no. I disagree with statistics even when they're in my favor. I've made this known as of late as well. I can't speak for others, but there's a reason I avoided most Climate change discussions, is because I view statistics as too easily manipulated to fit ANY viewpoint, even my own. If I bothered, I'm sure I could have found a study on how liberals have lower IQs than conservatives, or that 32% of Democrats view 9-11 as an inside job, but guess what? That furthers no true political discourse, now does it?

So what has been accomplished here? Nothing. You take offense to my statement that you're stroking your ego by posting a study about how conservatives have lower IQs, while you act like it's not a big deal when I take offense to you posting a "study" that further supports your view of your hyper-intelligence. And so continues partisan politics.

$1:

Oh, I should have guessed. This is all a part of that vast conspiracy by the liberal elite, the mainscream media, academia and scientists.

Actually, all I said is that people like making themselves feel better and/or smarter, no matter who they are. Scientists, journalists, professors, etc, commonly argue from their political perspective. This is perfectly fine, in my opinion. I, no doubt, within my papers or discussions that I argue from a right wing perspective. I won't ever pretend that I'm objective, because I'm not a computer, but rather a human.

So, if I, instead, posted a poll, statistic, or study on how atheists liberals are commonly ranking lower on IQ tests than conservatives, I'd no doubt expect you to question the biases of the writers, or the sampling, or the test itself. So instead, I go a step further and denounce these sorts of statistics from EITHER side.

$1:

The fact that neo-conservative demagogues have managed to convince a good portion of the political right in North America that this completely outlandish conspiracy theory on par with 9/11 truthers and Holocaust deniers is true is--if anything--proof of the ignorance currently endemic on the political right.

That's right, not agreeing with some study about how conservatives or religious individuals have a lower IQ than liberal atheists, or how a poll stating that 24% of Republicans see Obama as the Anti-Christ makes me on par with Truthers or Holocaust Deniers. That's great.

Of course, this is proof to whatever you want it to prove. To me, this is proof that statistics can be easily manipulated to say whatever people want it to say. To you, this is proof that there is an epidemic of ignorance in the American right. In the end, we're not going to agree, and you'll keep on believing whatever you want to believe, and as will I.

$1:

Why would being intelligent stoke anyone's ego? It's a genetic predisposition.

Because it has no relevance for you doesn't mean it has no relevance.

Why, if you were intelligent, would you need a study to tell you you're smarter than somebody else? If you think I said you were stroking your ego because you said you were smart, you're wrong. I said posting a study stating how atheist liberals are smarter than religious conservatives is stroking your ego.

$1:

Well, I only posted the original bit as a joke. I did a quick Google and found that study. However, the overly-defensive response is most elucidating.

Oh, so because I saw that as a serious posting (much like the original statistic), due to the lack of humor, I should now see it as a joke? Wow, haha. Hilarious.

Not.

You can see it however you want. If this clears things up, then good for you? All this should clear up is your punchlines suck.

$1:

Oh yes, Anne Coulter is a model of love and compassion. Suuuurrrrre.

That's right. I wholly agree with Coulter and her stupidity. Right. Do tell where you came to this conclusion?

$1:

Oh give it a rest. Typical--you've just finished dissing the entire sceince of statistics and now here you are telling me I don't understand it. I hate to quote Sandorski here but "FAIL."

Wait, I dissed demographics? No, I never did anything of the sort. Demographics is apolitical, even though it can be used for political reasons (like gerrymandering). Acting all surprised that middle class conservatives are white, and as such are the major contributor to Tea Party protests is cute, but just a weak attempt to smear opposition, much like the rest of this post.

$1:

Here's a hint--if you want to win an argument, try to make your own arguments at least internally consistent.

Here's a hint--They are. They just challenge how you perceive things, and that's against what you believe, isn't it?

[Toro]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I'd like to see the same focus group polled for 911 truth, and UFOs, along with political affiliation.

$1:

Public Policy Polling asked another of their rather bizarre questions, this time to New Jersey residents, and the results show extremism and looniness on both sides of the aisle.

Examples:

* 8% of all voters think Barack Obama is the AntiChrist
* 13% are unsure
* Of conservatives, 14% think Barack Obama is the AntiChrist
* Of conservatives, 15% are unsure

...

Another interesting facet of this poll are the rising numbers of "truthers" - those who believe there was some sort of US Government conspiracy that coordinated the 9/11 attacks.*

Ah, but it's not isolated to the right. 19% of voters in the state, including 32% of Democrats, think that George W. Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11, the so-called "truther" belief.

http://www.huliq.com/3257/86538/nearly- ... antichrist
http://obamaantichrist.blogspot.com/200 ... ma-is.html
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/ ... NJ_916.pdf

[commanderkai]

HAH! My 32% Truther guess was actually right on (Seriously, I bullshitted the number). Meh, at least for New Jersey. Not saying it's right, I'm just surprised I guessed well.

[fifeboy]

commanderkai commanderkai:

But that's the whole point. Polls, statistics, and studies can be hugely biased, and in the end lead to circular arguments about who can find more statistics, studies, or polls in their favor.

I'll use a quick example. There are FIVE major different death counts over the Iraq War, ranging from 300,000 to over a million. Which one is right? Nobody really knows, and as such people will choose whatever statistic further favors their political bias. A conservative, or somebody for the Iraq War, will choose the smaller number, while somebody who's against the war will choose the highest. In the end, what is accomplished? No real discussion is put forth.




Well, if Climate-gate shows anything, peer review or editor approval isn't exactly a guarantee of non-bias. Political agendas are pressed forward in statistics, studies, and polls. I could question the bias of the questions, or the ethno-centric nature of IQ exams (isn't this a favored statement of liberals over poor minority IQ scores?). So tell me, what science is truly concluded by finding a poll about 24% of Republicans believe Obama is the anti-Christ? None. What political agenda is furthered? A large one, and that's why I call it bullshit.

Yes, they can be biased, but you have nothing except your opinion to back up you point.

Death counts: And you are right, but like the man said, "the answer is out there."
You can argue that the methodology of the poll is poor or that the analysis of the information gathered is wrong, but you can't just say BS. A much more acceptable answer would be "so and so's estimate of Iraq deaths is xxxxx and here is why he has a better estimate. Otherwise you are just giving your opinion.

Climate gate: Ahh, yes, you are of the opinion that the whole thing is settled, right. It's not. More research or time will give us the answer.

You seem to have the idea that I have come to a conclusion about Republicans and their opinions of Obama's cosmic connections. Nope! Has not and will not happen.

My whole point, which seems to have been lost in too many words, is that a logical argument in a conversation about some poll or research is not---that's BS, but that some other poll or research shows something else or that the manner of the research or poll is unacceptable.

Edit:

After looking at your response to Zip:

So, you don't trust statistics. What is your solution to producing trustworthy science?

[Proculation]

Well, maybe Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are the two witnesses. If Obama makes a peace agreement between Israel and the Arabs but decides to invade Israel, build a temble in Jerusalem with his statue inside before his term finishes (3½ years), I think we can begin to ask ourselves questions

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Yes, the primary problem being that the political extremists don't accept science, so it wouldn't matter how many studies were posted here: it's against their ideology therefore they reject it.

I don't know if that's a personal dig, or not, but if it is, I have nothing against science. I just prefer the good stuff. You know - hard empirical data, not relying on subjectivity, or pre-conceived conclusions. Falsifiable results which can be reproduced.

Other than that you can find a study somewhere to support almost any half-baked idea you want to support.

No that wasn't a personal dig.

[fifeboy]

This thread has become more tiring than the Friday the 13th series. May I post my humble apologies for having posted anything here and hope everyone decides it's time to say "Die Monster Die."

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Here's a fun one for you Zip.

The one study says liberals are scoring highest on IQ tests. The other study says blacks score lower on IQ tests. Part of the cliche-as-fact mindset that wants to push the dumb-conservative meme the first study panders to says conservatives are middle-class, and bubba white dudes. It tells us blacks are liberals. Wouldn't one of those concepts have to be incorrect?

All blacks are liberals? I haven't seen any evidence of that, and it strikes me as highly unlikely.

If you mean that most blacks are liberals, then I don't see how all three premises couldn't be true.

$1:

Unless, I don't know, you want to push the concept that the white libs are all off the charts brilliant (in which case I'd encourage them to view the Anne Coulter thread,

I don't want to push a concept, period.