Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 39 of 39
  1. #26
    Thailand Expat Jesus Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    22-09-2017 @ 11:00 AM
    Posts
    6,954
    Quote Originally Posted by david44 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jesus Jones
    I don't really care if I am called a racist or any other it as long as I am comfortable my conclusion is based on logic. Whether my logic is correct is for others to argue but for me it is.
    Would you care if you were mislabeled?
    I am not suggesting you are something crass
    e.g for sake of argument a Scientologist Manchester Utd Fan and fish lover etc if this was an unjustified insult would you be upset and rightly so,I do see the snowflakes and their safe spaces as a new form of repressive tolerance exemplified by Marcuse in One dimensional man.

    Willy regularly calls me a fool, which may be truely his opinion to which he and my wife are entitled , his view is an opinion hers is knowledge based on facts.

    An interesting point well made.
    Let's start with racist?

    There is no doubt we perceive difference
    Tribal differences are in all primates we are of course all Africans of varying hues.

    Is it racism to delineate ?

    Well all programs to eliminate racism acknowledge there is difference

    Years ago University teachers like Jensen and notorious Hans Eysenck tried to show certain races usually not there own had inferior intelligence using culturally skewed test.I met Eysenck he was an arrogant fool.

    I am no genius but could get by doing a Maths test set in say French or German but in Thai I wouldn't fully understand the format etc.

    I suppose we all know how we feel, what we think and equally that if we regard all deserving equal treatment them we behave so.

    Of course people well be treated differently if they do not conform to universal taboos, rape incest child abuse murder, sadly some of these are weapons of war and religion as we witness the Yazidis.
    I doubt if they influenced US press and government they would have received same appalling fate.

    Today in different places you can be jailed or worse depending what passes your lips, who you sleep with and many cultural matters esp here.

    There were Nazi Germany Apartheid South Africa , Us Slavery times when folks were mistreated for matters they could not alter through no moral turpitude or law breaking.

    I fear the recession and pressure on land water and resources will intensify such divisions

    There does seem to be bitterness between American Right wing morons and American left wing morons , have I spotted the missing link or is calling out American exceptionalism racist you decide.

    Can black people be racist Jews anti Zionist, fool literate, Willy will advise a person that chooses to live in Jakarta is obvioulsy open minded or a Gangegorman.
    I didn't post that, but I'll go with it.
    You bullied, you laughed, you lied, you lost!

  2. #27
    Fresh Seaman CaptainNemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    18-02-2018 @ 04:17 AM
    Location
    in t' naughty lass
    Posts
    5,408
    Science confirms: Politics wrecks your ability to do math
    By Chris Mooney on Sep 8, 2013

    Everybody knows that our political views can sometimes get in the way of thinking clearly. But perhaps we don’t realize how bad the problem actually is. According to a new psychology paper, our political passions can even undermine our very basic reasoning skills. More specifically, the study finds that people who are otherwise very good at math may totally flunk a problem that they would otherwise probably be able to solve, simply because giving the right answer goes against their political beliefs.

    The study, by Yale law professor Dan Kahan and his colleagues, has an ingenious design. At the outset, 1,111 study participants were asked about their political views and also asked a series of questions designed to gauge their “numeracy,” that is, their mathematical reasoning ability. Participants were then asked to solve a fairly difficult problem that involved interpreting the results of a (fake) scientific study. But here was the trick: While the fake study data that they were supposed to assess remained the same, sometimes the study was described as measuring the effectiveness of a “new cream for treating skin rashes.” But in other cases, the study was described as involving the effectiveness of “a law banning private citizens from carrying concealed handguns in public.”


    The result? Survey respondents performed wildly differently on what was in essence the same basic problem, simply depending upon whether they had been told that it involved guns or whether they had been told that it involved a new skin cream. What’s more, it turns out that highly numerate liberals and conservatives were even more — not less — susceptible to letting politics skew their reasoning than were those with less mathematical ability.

    But we’re getting a little ahead of ourselves — to fully grasp the Enlightenment-destroying nature of these results, we first need to explore the tricky problem that the study presented in a little bit more detail.

    Let’s start with the “skin cream” version of this brain twister. You can peruse the image below to see exactly what research subjects read (and try out your own skill at solving it), or skip on for a brief explanation:



    As you can see above, the survey respondents were presented with a fictional study purporting to assess the effectiveness of a new skin cream, and informed at the outset that “new treatments often work but sometimes make rashes worse” and that “even when treatments don’t work, skin rashes sometimes get better and sometimes get worse on their own.” They were then presented with a table of experimental results, and asked whether the data showed that the new skin cream “is likely to make the skin condition better or worse.”

    So do the data suggest that the skin cream works? The correct answer in the scenario above is actually that patients who used the skin cream were “more likely to get worse than those who didn’t.” That’s because the ratio of those who saw their rash improve to those whose rash got worse is roughly 3 to 1 in the “skin cream” group, but roughly 5 to 1 in the control group — which means that if you want your rash to get better, you are better off not using the skin cream at all. (For half of study subjects asked to solve the skin cream problem, the data were reversed and presented in such a way that they did actually suggest that the skin cream works.)

    This is no easy problem for most people to solve: Across all conditions of the study, 59 percent of respondents got the answer wrong. That is, in significant part, because trying to intuit the right answer by quickly comparing two numbers will lead you astray; you have to take the time to compute the ratios.

    Not surprisingly, Kahan’s study found that the more numerate you are, the more likely you are to get the answer to this “skin cream” problem right. Moreover, it found no substantial difference between highly numerate Democrats and highly numerate Republicans in this regard. The better members of both political groups were at math, the better they were at solving the skin cream problem.

    But now take the same basic study design and data, and simply label it differently. Rather than reading about a skin cream study, half of Kahan’s research subjects were asked to determine the effectiveness of laws “banning private citizens from carrying concealed handguns in public.” Accordingly, these respondents were presented not with data about rashes and whether they got better or worse, but rather with data about cities that had or hadn’t passed concealed carry bans, and whether crime in these cities had or had not decreased.

    Overall, then, study respondents were presented with one of four possible scenarios, depicted below with the correct answer in bold:



    So how did people fare on the handgun version of the problem? They performed quite differently than on the skin cream version, and strong political patterns emerged in the results — especially among people who are good at mathematical reasoning. Most strikingly, highly numerate liberal Democrats did almost perfectly when the right answer was that the concealed weapons ban does indeed work to decrease crime (version C of the experiment) — an outcome that favors their pro-gun-control predilections. But they did much worse when the correct answer was that crime increases in cities that enact the ban (version D of the experiment).

    The opposite was true for highly numerate conservative Republicans: They did just great when the right answer was that the ban didn’t work (version D), but poorly when the right answer was that it did (version C).



    Here are the results overall, comparing subjects’ performances on the “skin cream” versions of the problem (above) and the “gun ban” versions of the problem (below), and relating this performance to their political affiliations and numeracy scores:



    For study author Kahan, these results are a fairly strong refutation of what is called the “deficit model” in the field of science and technology studies — the idea that if people just had more knowledge, or more reasoning ability, then they would be better able to come to consensus with scientists and experts on issues like climate change, evolution, the safety of vaccines, and pretty much anything else involving science or data (for instance, whether concealed weapons bans work). Kahan’s data suggest the opposite — that political biases skew our reasoning abilities, and this problem seems to be worse for people with advanced capacities like scientific literacy and numeracy. “If the people who have the greatest capacities are the ones most prone to this, that’s reason to believe that the problem isn’t some kind of deficit in comprehension,” Kahan explained in an interview.

    So what are smart, numerate liberals and conservatives actually doing in the gun control version of the study, leading them to give such disparate answers? It’s kind of tricky, but here’s what Kahan thinks is happening.


    Our first instinct, in all versions of the study, is to leap instinctively to the wrong conclusion. If you just compare which number is bigger in the first column, for instance, you’ll be quickly led astray. But more numerate people, when they sense an apparently wrong answer that offends their political sensibilities, are both motivated and equipped to dig deeper, think harder, and even start performing some calculations — which in this case would have led to a more accurate response.

    “If the wrong answer is contrary to their ideological positions, we hypothesize that that is going to create the incentive to scrutinize that information and figure out another way to understand it,” says Kahan. In other words, more numerate people perform better when identifying study results that support their views — but may have a big blind spot when it comes to identifying results that undermine those views.

    What’s happening when highly numerate liberals and conservatives actually get it wrong? Either they’re intuiting an incorrect answer that is politically convenient and feels right to them, leading them to inquire no further — or else they’re stopping to calculate the correct answer, but then refusing to accept it and coming up with some elaborate reason why 1 + 1 doesn’t equal 2 in this particular instance. (Kahan suspects it’s mostly the former, rather than the latter.)

    The Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume famously described reason as a “slave of the passions.” Today’s political scientists and political psychologists, like Kahan, are now affirming Hume’s statement with reams of new data. This new study is just one out of many in this respect, but it provides perhaps the most striking demonstration yet of just how motivated, just how biased, reasoning can be — especially about politics.
    Science confirms: Politics wrecks your ability to do math | Grist
    How Political Science Makes Politics Make Us Less Stupid | The Math Of Politics

    The message for left-liberals is clear: it's time to start talking to people who you disagree with and despise and denigrate, and just listen... learn their language, their idioms, and stop treating them like they are dumb, evil, and part of a monolith.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1F2i0rYMj8

    we are all figments of our own imagination.

  3. #28
    Fresh Seaman CaptainNemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    18-02-2018 @ 04:17 AM
    Location
    in t' naughty lass
    Posts
    5,408
    A definition of irony:

    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AntRobertson View Post
    It's no use trying to use facts or logic with him: he makes up his mind about something and that's that. No amount of reason will change it and he will perform any logic gymnastics or outright disingenuity to keep repeating the same incorrect statements.
    He's not very bright you know.

  4. #29
    I am not in Jail AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    28,142
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainNemo
    A definition of irony
    Indeed.

    An angry old bigot pulling a year old quote out of context because he thinks it proves a point that he doesn't actually have.

    That's ironic, right?

  5. #30
    Fresh Seaman CaptainNemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    18-02-2018 @ 04:17 AM
    Location
    in t' naughty lass
    Posts
    5,408
    There you go again...


  6. #31
    I am not in Jail AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    28,142
    Says the guy that just randomly quoted a year old post out of context with an obtuse comment.

    You're very strange.

  7. #32
    Thailand Expat
    cyrille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    10,540
    Quote Originally Posted by AntRobertson View Post
    Says the guy that just randomly quoted a year old post.
    Guess it must have hit home.

  8. #33
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Posts
    47,286
    Quote Originally Posted by cyrille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AntRobertson View Post
    Says the guy that just randomly quoted a year old post.
    Guess it must have hit home.
    Well it was my post he quoted. Truth be told I don't think he *really* understood all the big words.

  9. #34
    Fresh Seaman CaptainNemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    18-02-2018 @ 04:17 AM
    Location
    in t' naughty lass
    Posts
    5,408
    ^those are "big" words, are they? Putting all the useless flailing around of left-wing moron and weirdo AR to one side, back on topic...

    The government is unable to commit to the social mobility challenge

    Alan Milburn Theresa May’s administration does not have the ‘necessary bandwidth’ to make Britain a fairer, more open society







    Alan Milburn, who is standing down as chair of the Social Mobility Commission. Photograph: David Levene for the Observer









    Shares


    272


    Comments


    444



    Saturday 2 December 2017 22.22 GMT First published on Saturday 2 December 2017 22.21 GMT

    Dear Prime Minister,
    It is with regret that I am writing to stand down as chair of the Social Mobility Commission with immediate effect.
    I do so with much sadness. I was appointed chair by the coalition government in 2012 and my term of office has come to an end. I understand the current government will launch an open process for a new chair in 2018. I will not be applying.
    I am deeply proud of the work the commission has done to champion the case for greater fairness in Britain. Our research and advocacy work has helped put social mobility at the heart of the national debate about the future of our country. All the main political parties now espouse a Britain that is less elitist and more equal, while growing numbers of employers, universities, colleges, schools and councils have developed a shared determination to create a level playing field of opportunity in our country.
    I would like to pay tribute to my vice-chair Gillian Shephard for her outstanding work over the last few years: similarly, my fellow commissioners Paul Gregg and David Johnston. They have all been a joy to work with. From the outset, all have discharged their role as commissioners in a non-partisan way. I would also like to thank the secretariat team that have supported us throughout. The cross-party and independent nature of the commission has been one of its great strengths.
    For almost a decade, I have been proud to serve under Labour, coalition and Conservative governments in various social mobility roles. I remain deeply committed to the issue, but I have little hope of the current government making the progress I believe is necessary to bring about a fairer Britain. It seems unable to commit to the future of the commission as an independent body or to give due priority to the social mobility challenge facing our nation.
    Advertisement

    It is disappointing, indeed puzzling, that appointments to key commission roles have been left vacant for almost two years. Nor do the protracted discussions about its role, remit and resourcing show any sign of being resolved.
    Individual ministers such as the secretary of state for education have shown a deep commitment to the issue. But it has become obvious that the government as a whole is unable to commit the same level of support. It is understandably focused on Brexit and does not seem to have the necessary bandwidth to ensure that the rhetoric of healing social division is matched with the reality. I do not doubt your personal belief in social justice, but I see little evidence of that being translated into meaningful action.
    The need for political leadership in this area has never been more pressing. Social mobility is one of the biggest challenges facing our country today. It is not just the poorest in society who are losing out. Whole communities and parts of Britain are being left behind economically and hollowed out socially. The growing sense that we have become an “us and them” society is deeply corrosive of our cohesion as a nation. As the commission’s work has demonstrated, the 20th-century expectation that each generation would do better than the last is no longer being met. At a time when more and more people are feeling that Britain is becoming more unfair, rather than less, social mobility matters more than ever.
    While the government seems unable to devote the necessary energy and focus to the social mobility agenda, I have been heartened that others in civil society – from local councils to major employers – are actively embracing it. So I will be establishing a new social mobility institute, independent of the government and political parties, to take forward the practical work that is needed to make a reality of my belief in a fairer, more open, more mobile society in Britain.
    Yours sincerely,
    Rt Hon Alan Milburn
    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ocial-mobility

    Yeah... and what did you and your mob do for social mobility when you were in government, Alan?

    Britain's opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn addresses his party's annual conference in Brighton.Toby Melville/Reuters

    Loads of people have joined the Labour Party following its defeat in last year's general election, but a disproportionate number of them are rich and own their homes. The revelation that "high-status city dwellers" are flocking to Labour was revealed in internal party data that was leaked to the Guardian.
    The number of registered Labour Party members hit 388,103 at the end of 2015, up a massive 194,349 on the previous year. The huge increase, driven by support for new leader Jeremy Corbyn, is interesting but the way the demographics of the membership break down is really surprising.
    Here are the most interesting bits:

    • The number of previously mentioned "high-status city dwellers" has increased by 119%. They now make up 11.2% of the party membership, but only make up 4% of the general population.
    • Another 10% of the membership is made up of those in "prestige positions" – rich, married couples who own their homes.
    • Poor people, categorised as those "who have to budget to make ends meet," have been joining the party but they only make up 4% of the total membership while comprising 8.7% of the population.
    • People over 70 who live alone, a crucial election demographic, have increased by 41%, but still only make up 2.8% of the membership.
    • A small portion of members have left Labour since the general election: 15,284 people didn't renew their membership and another 6,627 resigned.

    The report itself warns that young people, renters, people who rely on government benefits, and people living outside of cities are underrepresented in Labour.
    It's a conclusion that some long-time Labour members agree with, and blame on Corbyn. Former Labour MP and chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party Lord Watts said last week that Corbyn is paying too much attention to rich city dwellers who like "eating their croissants at breakfast." Here is what he told the House of Lords:
    My advice to my own party leadership is that they should take less notice of the London-centric, hard-left political class who sit around in their £1m mansions, eating their croissants at breakfast, and seeking to lay the foundations for a socialist revolution.
    It is not the job of the Parliamentary Labour Party to sit around developing ultra left-wing policies that make it feel good. It is its job and responsibility to come forward with policies that will help us win the next general election.
    The Labour Party has not responded to Business Insider's questions about the report, but a Labour source did tell us that "it sounds about right."
    http://uk.businessinsider.com/jeremy...-houses-2016-1

    How often do you meet a skint remainiac? Could it be that all the scum that voted the wrong way are those who the ladder was pulled up from? The ones that don't get to indulge in ghetto tourism? Who does Labour stand for? It's rich of them to complain about the lack of social mobility - they are largely responsible for it.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by CaptainNemo; 04-12-2017 at 01:01 AM.

  10. #35
    Fresh Seaman CaptainNemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    18-02-2018 @ 04:17 AM
    Location
    in t' naughty lass
    Posts
    5,408
    Why not just put this in it's own thread Harry?

    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    I assume the idiots that vote in the Republicans are blissfully unaware for whom they are really working.



    Koch Brothers Plan to Spend a Record-Setting $400 Million | Time

  11. #36
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Posts
    47,286
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainNemo View Post
    Why not just put this in it's own thread Harry?
    Why post it here dickhead?

  12. #37
    I am above looking down
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    14,681
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    Why post it here dickhead?
    Because the right wing moron is trying to bump his shit thread created in a failed attempt to be some sort of counterbalance to the "right wing moron" thread. That is a thread with legs unlike this one that the retard nemo digs up from the boneyard every six months with his usual incomprehensible babble.

  13. #38
    Veni vidi fugi
    pseudolus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Online
    10-02-2018 @ 11:36 PM
    Posts
    16,414
    Quite right Snubbings. Comparably, not many left wing morons, especially those with a million dollar house and a Tesla.

  14. #39
    Connected HuangLao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Siam
    Posts
    2,122
    Quote Originally Posted by pseudolus View Post
    Quite right Snubbings. Comparably, not many left wing morons, especially those with a million dollar house and a Tesla.
    Card-carrying Anarchist.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •