Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
33 online now:
Britton, dwise1, PaulK, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,849 Year: 18,885/19,786 Month: 1,305/1,705 Week: 111/446 Day: 7/104 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dems and Reps at age 3?
subbie
Member (Idle past 33 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 46 of 61 (397025)
04-23-2007 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by nator
04-23-2007 7:55 PM


Yes, of course you are right. Conservatives are Satan-spawned and should be taken out and slaughtered. It's a good thing that we have the divine liberals, incapable of making any mistake or doing any wrong to save us.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by nator, posted 04-23-2007 7:55 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by nator, posted 04-24-2007 8:34 AM subbie has not yet responded
 Message 56 by Larni, posted 04-24-2007 11:23 AM subbie has not yet responded
 Message 60 by Taz, posted 04-24-2007 2:17 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 459 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 47 of 61 (397065)
04-24-2007 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by anastasia
04-23-2007 9:32 PM


Re: Fishy
quote:
Nothing makes any of us doubt the scientists or their methods or their integrity or their genius. I am questioning their findings.

But it is exactly their methods that you are questioning. Often, you doubt the results because you think they have failed to control for some incredibly obvious variable that you thought of but doubt that the researchers have.

Isn't your argument basically:

"Maybe they got these results (that sound fishy to me) because they didn't they take this and/or that variable into account."?

Isn't your argument also that you doubt the Psychology findings in a single paper because they don't explain ALL reality, even though no scientific study claims to do this? Why does psychology research make people think like this?

quote:
Opening a topic about the study does, however, make us believe you would like to discuss the results, rather than just post them.

We haven't been discussing the results, actually.

What people have mostly been doing is unreasonably criticizing the study on grounds that range from the fact that it doesn't explain all reality to the belief that it is a propaganda tool and will damage the Democratic party's chances in the next election.

Or, my favorite criticism, the vague "Something smells fishy about this study, followed by an open-ended statement questioning the study's methodology but no actual analysis of the research to show that the doubt is fair".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by anastasia, posted 04-23-2007 9:32 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by fallacycop, posted 04-24-2007 8:47 AM nator has not yet responded
 Message 51 by anastasia, posted 04-24-2007 11:02 AM nator has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 459 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 48 of 61 (397067)
04-24-2007 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by subbie
04-23-2007 10:35 PM


WTF?
quote:
Yes, of course you are right. Conservatives are Satan-spawned and should be taken out and slaughtered. It's a good thing that we have the divine liberals, incapable of making any mistake or doing any wrong to save us.

How on earth is this a reply to anything in my post?

You made a claim that unless a person is disabled, they can make money.

I put that statement into a historical context that shows how, contrary to the (your?) idea that government intervention is nearly always bad for society, government intervention in the form of worker, consumer, and environmental protections have, for the most part, been very good for society.

If you disagree, then present evidence to the contrary instead of putting words I never said into my mouth.

Do you deny that history has shown that in general we can't trust business to do the right thing in a community if it is between the best interests of all in the community and the best interests of the business?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by subbie, posted 04-23-2007 10:35 PM subbie has not yet responded

    
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3810 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 49 of 61 (397068)
04-24-2007 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by nator
04-24-2007 8:24 AM


Re: Fishy
Or, my favorite criticism, the vague "Something smells fishy about this study, followed by an open-ended statement questioning the study's methodology but no actual analysis of the research to show that the doubt is fair".

I`m glad you liked it...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by nator, posted 04-24-2007 8:24 AM nator has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 459 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 50 of 61 (397069)
04-24-2007 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by subbie
04-23-2007 3:36 PM


quote:
The classic, core belief of conservatism is that the government is a drain on society, it takes money away from the people who earned it and out of the pubilc sector.

If this is truly what conservatives believe, then it really doesn't reflect reality.

How can the federal taxes and regulations on business that go to keeping our air and water clean, for example, be a "drain on society"?

How can paying for government agencies and passing regulatory laws to prevent companies from selling unsafe products to consumers be a "drain on society"?

How does goverment protection of wilderness areas and the National Parks system "drain society"? I mean, we know that most business interests would log these forests and mine the Grand Canyon if there was profit to be made and if they weren't protected, don't we? We have the Alaska pipeline battle as evidence in favor of this view.

Etc.

Those government interventions seem like good investments that benefit everyone, wouldn't you say?

You also realize, don't you, that it is a popular myth that most of the wealth in the US is earned.

It isn't earned. It is inherited.

Also, much of that money is invested, so the people who have those portfolios don't do much of anything to "earn" more. You know the expression; "let your money work for you".

So the mythology of the "deserving, hard-working" rich who "pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps" and who "started with nothing and built an empire" is truly a rare phenomena.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by subbie, posted 04-23-2007 3:36 PM subbie has not yet responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4242 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 51 of 61 (397088)
04-24-2007 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by nator
04-24-2007 8:24 AM


Re: Fishy
nator writes:

"Maybe they got these results (that sound fishy to me) because they didn't they take this and/or that variable into account."?

Actually that was not my argument. I have no doubt that they (scientists) got the results they did regardless of the variables they took into account.

My observation was that in a study where there are so many possible variables I would not be over-eager to draw a parallel. I don't know that anyone is. As you keep repeating, its only one step of many.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by nator, posted 04-24-2007 8:24 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Larni, posted 04-24-2007 11:29 AM anastasia has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 52 of 61 (397089)
04-24-2007 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
04-21-2007 8:43 PM


I would certainly agree that there is a subset of the population that can tolerate less uncertainty in life. They percieve little control over the environment.

This can be seen in anxiety disorders where the individual engages in the cognitive distortion of catastrophising. The individual cannot predict the future and this leads to thinking the worst.

Cognitive theory would argue that these cognitive styles are put down at a young age as we learn the rules of the world.

If we don't feel secure as kids we can view the world as somewhere that we must make safe to reduce our risk of harm and consequent anxiety.

To stretch a point you could argue that your goofy president is trying (in his own head) to make his environment safe the only way he knows how.

The artical starts with the tale of the woman who become a Republican after 911: You could read that as causing her to percieve the world as a more uncertain and threatening place and this triggers a need to make ones environment safe.

I can see easily that the security found in conservatism (small c) can reduce the anxiety provoked by intelerance of uncertainty and would also argue that this is the case with religiousity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 04-21-2007 8:43 PM nator has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 53 of 61 (397091)
04-24-2007 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by anastasia
04-23-2007 2:19 PM


Ana writes:

We recently saw a study where a link was made between young children and a preference for attractive faces. I am not sure how much worse we could get in terms of bias, or how much more such a study could depend on the time or decade in which it was done. What is or is not attractive changes very often!

If you think of attractiveness as symetry and smiling you can't go far wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by anastasia, posted 04-23-2007 2:19 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by anastasia, posted 04-24-2007 12:38 PM Larni has responded

    
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3810 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 54 of 61 (397094)
04-24-2007 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by anastasia
04-23-2007 2:19 PM


What is or is not attractive changes very often!

I believe you would be hartd pressed to support this assertion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by anastasia, posted 04-23-2007 2:19 PM anastasia has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 55 of 61 (397096)
04-24-2007 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by nator
04-23-2007 8:19 PM


Re: Fishy
nator writes:

What is it about Psychology research that makes laypeople so easily brush it's findings aside, or assume the scientists researching an issue are complete morons who haven't already figured out the issues they believe are so damning to the study?

Or (and this one really makes me mad) what we find in research is simply explaining in scientific terms what every ones knows anyway. Like folk wisdom is so damn good at curing depression.

Sorry about the rant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by nator, posted 04-23-2007 8:19 PM nator has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 56 of 61 (397097)
04-24-2007 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by subbie
04-23-2007 10:35 PM


subbie writes:

Conservatives are Satan-spawned[

Dude, as I read this post your post counter reads 666.

:)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by subbie, posted 04-23-2007 10:35 PM subbie has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 57 of 61 (397098)
04-24-2007 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by anastasia
04-24-2007 11:02 AM


Re: Fishy
ana writes:

My observation was that in a study where there are so many possible variables I would not be over-eager to draw a parallel. I don't know that anyone is. As you keep repeating, its only one step of many.

That's why every undergraduate psychologist learns to understand the statistics of error and cannot progress through a degree without proving that we can perform the correct statistical manipulations to control for error.

I dare say every statistical scientist knows this as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by anastasia, posted 04-24-2007 11:02 AM anastasia has not yet responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4242 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 58 of 61 (397109)
04-24-2007 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Larni
04-24-2007 11:12 AM


Larni writes:

If you think of attractiveness as symetry and smiling you can't go far wrong.

I understand that there has been seperate research regarding symmetry, and that the 'perfectly symmetrical face' was often an object of the artist's quest.

What I did not have from the news report was any determination of the criteria they used in this test. I will see if I can find anything online.

The debate over the definition of beauty has been waged by both scientists and philosophers for centuries. We tested the idea that a facial configuration close to the population mean is fundamental to attractiveness (see: Why Are Attractive Faces Preferred).

First, we digitized images of faces of male and female college students (i.e., transformed the facial images into little dots of lightness and darkness called "pixels"). Each face is represented by a matrix of pixel values that can be mathematically averaged with the matrices of other faces. Once digitized and averaged together, we can turn the averaged pixel values back into images and have the composite faces rated for attractiveness (see Langlois & Roggman, 1990; Langlois et al., 1994). To see some faces averaged together, please visit our Image Morphing pages.

College students rated the male and female composite faces as significantly higher in attractiveness than the individual faces used to create them, if the composites had at least 16 different faces in them. Thus, averaged faces are attractive. Note that when we use the word, "average," we mean the arithmetical mean, and not an average-looking person. If, for example, you take a female composite (averaged) face made of 32 different faces and overlay it on the face of an extremely attractive female model, the two images line up almost perfectly indicating that the model's facial configuration is very similar to the composites' facial configuration.

Other researchers have suggested that the symmetry or youthfulness of a face make faces attractive. Although we agree that symmetry, youthfulness, or a smile can contribute to the attractiveness of a face, it does not necessarily make a face attractive. We have shown that faces can be highly symmetrical or youthful, but are not necessarily attractive. Thus, we view averageness as fundamental and necessary to facial attractiveness. Averageness is not the only component of attractiveness, but without it, no face will be attractive.

Here is a sample of something online.

You can see they are denouncing symmetry or smiles alone. What they did do is start with the idea that models are attractive, and then have college students rate their composites for attractiveness. Then they compared these composites with the faces of female models. They matched, which to me only proves that right now a certain type is 'in'. Necessarily only the infants and children could be non-biased observers.

Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Larni, posted 04-24-2007 11:12 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Larni, posted 04-24-2007 1:07 PM anastasia has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 59 of 61 (397114)
04-24-2007 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by anastasia
04-24-2007 12:38 PM


Hm.

We could be in a paper war here so here's my parting shot.

Artical writes:

The fact that lateral reversal did not affect the results of Experiment 2 suggests that facial attractiveness is more dependent on physiognomy (of the owner) and less dependent on an asymmetrical perceptual process (in the observer) than is facial identity.

http://cogprints.org/151/


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by anastasia, posted 04-24-2007 12:38 PM anastasia has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1581 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 60 of 61 (397125)
04-24-2007 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by subbie
04-23-2007 10:35 PM


subbie writes:

Yes, of course you are right. Conservatives are Satan-spawned and should be taken out and slaughtered. It's a good thing that we have the divine liberals, incapable of making any mistake or doing any wrong to save us.


Oh, puuuhleese, exaggerating your opponent's view to a point of silliness is just plain stupid.


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by subbie, posted 04-23-2007 10:35 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019