Page 3 of 3 [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

ModusPonens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 715

08 Jan 2014, 4:59 pm

RandyG wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
Why don't you (all) try to find faults in methodology? Or that the conclusions don't follow from the raw data?


It's blindingly obvious, even from the sketchy outline we're given, but if you need it spelled out:

The Monopoly game: who were the "strangers" who took part? We're not told, but I'll guess that they were mostly students, because that's whom you find walking around the campus of UC Berkeley. Is that really representative of the US population? They weren't actually rich; we don't know their economic background -- they were made to "feel rich" within the context of a game. So they acted the way they thought rich people act. It was role-playing. What does that tell us about actual rich people? Nothing.

You could take the same group and say we're going to put on a little play here: Bob, you're Henry Ford, and the rest of you are delegates from the workers' union -- and Bob will puff out his chest and threaten to throw the others out of his office, because he thinks that's what Ford would have done. What does this tell us about the real Henry Ford? Sweet Fanny Adams.

The "study" with the cars: if they looked at mere hundreds of cars over a period of several days, that strongly suggests that they stayed at one intersection, convenient to campus. What is nearby? City Hall, a Hispanic neighborhood, a Jain temple? Maybe a disproportionate number of the expensive cars were driven by politicians, or drug dealers, or servants taking the car to be washed. Maybe a disproportionate number of the inexpensive cars were driven by undergrads, or illegal immigrants, or Mormon missionaries. A serious study would look at behavior at random locations in Newark and Provo and International Falls and Crabapple Cove. You'd have to make sure to look at an intersection near a country club, and one near a Chinatown, and one near a government housing project. Because drawing conclusions from behavior observed at one intersection in Berkeley isn't research and it isn't science, it is complete BS.

The fact that the speaker quotes such rubbish as if it meant anything casts a pall of doubt over everything else he mentions, including the studies which allegedly involved genuine wealthy people. Your posting the video uncritically, as if it were some kind of devastating final argument, does the same for everything you say now and in the future.


Finaly! Somebody tries to counterargue with atempts at logical arguments. Paragraph by paragraph, then.

1- It wasn't obvious when you argued before, so why is it obvious now?

2- That's a somewhat fair criticism only in the sense that the population is at around the same age. People at campuses are easily recruited because of their interest in science. In terms of economic background I doubt that there is bias towards the poor, afaik. It's not even very relevant. People were put in a situation of economic advantage vs disadvantage, due to luck. And the random advantageous adversary, even though knew s/he was benefited by luck, justified his "success" with merit, instead of the original random advantage. Even if your theory, about it all being role playing, was true, that afirms the thesis you are trying to deny: rich people are, in average, more selfish than the poor, due to the very fact of being rich.

3- See 2.

4- He explicitly said that the images he was showing was one example of the experiment, ie, the experiment was done on many locations. Besides, if these are published, don't you think the referees would spot this paifuly obvious flaw you try to attribute to this study?

5- Ad hominem fallacy towards the speaker. And it was because of: a) lack of arguments against the other (explicit and mentioned) experiments' methodology; b) blinding bias towards an ideology. Ad hominem fallacy against me due to lack of real arguments, trying to shut me up and discredit me in further exchanges.

One more round?



ModusPonens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 715

08 Jan 2014, 5:27 pm

Janissy wrote:
What the experiments showed* is not that people in an advantageous position exhibit more selfish behaviour but rather that they exhibit more entitled behaviour. There is a meaningful difference between those two things. With selfish behaviour, the person doesn't want to share what they already have. With entitled behaviour, people take things that they are not actually entitled to. In the experiments they act entitled to pretzels, candy, and to drive through a crosswalk without stopping.

For the record, I'm not saying that Fnord was showing selfish behaviour. I personally don't think it's selfish to want to hold on to what you earned, although I am not a libertarian and I do believe in taxation. What I am saying is that you didn't look closely enough at what the experiments actually showed* but instead just picked up on an overall vibe of rich=mean.

It's important to note that what the speaker thought would help wasn't wealth redistribution but rather prosocial attitude adjustment. They experimentally also found that advantaged people acted less entitled and more prosocial when exposed to messages of community and prosocial values. Thus the philanthropy of Bill Gates.

For the record, I didn't watch the video. 16 minutes really is too long. I hate hate hate getting information from videos of people speaking. It's the absolute worst way to get their ideas. I find it distracting and time consuming. I instead read the transcript kindly provided by GGP Viper. It took me about 10 minutes which is a lot longer than it took him to read it but still less long than the video itself. So if you want people to talk about your message rather than shooting the messenger- post a transcript (if allowed) or at least a summary.

*RandyG did a good summary of methodology flaws which means we can't even be sure that the experiments actually showed what they seemed to show. But suppose the experiements were done with better methodology and still showed the same thing, it's a lot more nuanced than you are saying.


Ok. The other line of atack: that the conclusions don't follow from the data. Paragraph by paragraph, then.

1- Ok. That could be a possible criticism. If people don't share what they're not entitled to, a fortiori they do not share what they already have. That's a far more reasonable line of reasoning than thinking these behaviours are completely distinct.

2- We're all selfish, including me, you and Fnord. We're humans. It's a matter of degree. What these many studies suggest is that selfishness (or self-entitled behaviour) arises because of increased wealth, relative to others' wealth. And that it has negative consequences for the society as a whole.

3- It's possible that that is the case, although it's unlikely. How to effectively simulate societies with wealth redistribution many times? That's a study on collective behaviour, not on individual behaviour. It's much more difficult to replicate, I think, because of the exponential growth of the complexity of collective behaviour, and of the length of time that that behaviour takes to manifest.

4- Ok. I don't mind being "shot" by people without arguments.

5- On the footnote: see my previous post.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

08 Jan 2014, 7:28 pm

ModusPonens wrote:
Raptor wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
That's a slow witted caricature. Why don't you (all) try to find faults in methodology? Or that the conclusions don't follow from the raw data? Any chance of that? Any other way to argue without denial? Any way to examine if your beliefs are false? It's good to make fun of creationists for being antiscience. But when it touches your beliefs it's a different game, right?


You're reaping what you've sown on this.
Post some video of an asinine experiment, probably rigged, and want the opinion of the right on it when you know we'll call BS on it.
:roll:


Thank you for making my point once again. It wasn't just one experiment. There were several experiments explained and dozens just mentioned. You didn't point to specific flaws in methodology(ies). You said it was "probably rigged". Not very a logical argument, especialy having into account that you are refering to just one of the experiences.

I want two things, actualy: 1- to make the intelectualy honest right wingers to discuss the science; 2- to expose the dishonest right wingers for their lack of arguments, denial and zealot-like belief in their ideology(ies).

You're right on one thing though. I am reaping the delicious fruits of my, above mentioned, second goal.


According to the left there are no intellectual right wingers. In the video they pretty much tell you in the beginning what the results will be. It's UC Berkeley, a notoriously liberal school, so I don't think they're going to conduct then publish a study that is contrary to their beliefs.
Yours truly,
The Zealot


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


RandyG
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 173
Location: Ohio, USA

08 Jan 2014, 8:24 pm

ModusPonens wrote:
It wasn't obvious when you argued before, so why is it obvious now?


It was obvious on first reading. If I think something is obvious, that means I really shouldn't have to point it out.

Quote:
2- That's a somewhat fair criticism only in the sense that the population is at around the same age. People at campuses are easily recruited because of their interest in science. In terms of economic background I doubt that there is bias towards the poor, afaik. It's not even very relevant. People were put in a situation of economic advantage vs disadvantage, due to luck. And the random advantageous adversary, even though knew s/he was benefited by luck, justified his "success" with merit, instead of the original random advantage. Even if your theory, about it all being role playing, was true, that afirms the thesis you are trying to deny: rich people are, in average, more selfish than the poor, due to the very fact of being rich.


It affirms nothing of the kind. 'A twenty-year-old's impression of a rich person' does not equate to 'a rich person'. The impression may or may not be accurate. In sum: you claim that the undergraduates at UCB are a fair representation of Americans of all ages and backgrounds, or perhaps of all humans; and that a student's behavior when he "feels rich" in a contrived situation closely corresponds to the behavior of genuinely wealthy people of all ages and backgrounds. I disagree with both claims.



Quote:
3- See 2.


So you think that Bob's behavior really does tell us something about the historical Henry Ford?

Quote:
4- He explicitly said that the images he was showing was one example of the experiment, ie, the experiment was done on many locations.


Not in the transcript he didn't. If the transcript is inaccurate, we may as well stop, because we're talking about different things.

"Hundreds of cars" is not really very many. I could stand at the intersection a block from here and watch hundreds of cars go by in an hour. Extrapolating from what I see there to draw conclusions about 300 million people would be absurd.

Quote:
Besides, if these are published, don't you think the referees would spot this paifuly obvious flaw you try to attribute to this study?


Appeal to authority. No, after seeing many examples over the decades, I think scientific standards in the social sciences are actually quite low. And even in the hard sciences some dreck gets through. I am close to several academic research scientists, and they routinely show me journal articles which should never have seen the light of day. Sadly, 'published in a peer-reviewed journal' does not automatically mean 'valid and true'.

Quote:
5- Ad hominem fallacy towards the speaker.


That's not what an ad hominem is. I do not say that the speaker is slow-witted, or insane, or funny-looking; I say that some of what he describes is demonstrably bad science.

Quote:
And it was because of: a) lack of arguments against the other (explicit and mentioned) experiments' methodology;


We're not given as much information about the other experiments. However, two examples are enough to destroy his credibility. Either he follows sound scientific principles or he doesn't.

Quote:
blinding bias towards an ideology.


"Blinding bias" is an ad hominem. You know little of my ideology and nothing of the reasons I believe it to be true.

Quote:
Ad hominem fallacy against me


Again, I have said nothing about you personally.

Quote:
due to lack of real arguments,


If I had no arguments I wouldn't bother contributing.

Quote:
trying to shut me up


I lack this power, and in any case don't really care what you say. If you imagine yourself to be a major thorn in my side, you're mistaken.

Quote:
and discredit me in further exchanges.


Insofar as you align yourself with junk science, you discredit yourself.

I'll ask again: what ideology or belief do you think is challenged by that TED lecture? I'm not on this board every day, but I really haven't noticed anybody arguing that most rich people are scrupulously honest and enjoy giving their money away.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

09 Jan 2014, 12:05 am

RandyG wrote:
I'll ask again: what ideology or belief do you think is challenged by that TED lecture? I'm not on this board every day, but I really haven't noticed anybody arguing that most rich people are scrupulously honest and enjoy giving their money away.


Captialism.

Left-Wing people seem to really hate that people can work hard, earn a lot of money, and get to keep it all to themselves (after first giving the goverment a giaganitic share of their money).

We should be thankful to successful capitalists, instead, they are called greedy, or selfish, or evil.

When the paltry 4.3% of the world's population called Americans (313 mill / 7.2 billion) equalize with the rest of the world, and all Americans are impoverised like most of the rest of humantiy, then does the left-wing claim success? What an awful ideology to actually want people to be poorer.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 117
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

08 Mar 2014, 7:11 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58-7qtpa80Y[/youtube]



khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

08 Mar 2014, 9:09 pm

ModusPonens wrote:
I don't know if anybody has seen this before. I'm very curious how right wingers will argue against facts.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ8Kq1wucsk[/youtube]


Denial. Facts are relative though. The American Dream of the far right extremists (they are the loudest), is the scorched earth ideology. Just rip it all apart and start over again. They don't believe in problem solving. They are defeatists. They give up. They want to thugify (I know it isn't a real word) their way through life. But I guess that is not exactly what the thread is about.



khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

08 Mar 2014, 9:11 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Don't be so lazy. :shameonyou:

Watch the whole thing, or you're just being a T-word. :shameonyou:


Look at the picture he uses to define himself on this site. It says everything about his "mentality"



khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

08 Mar 2014, 9:16 pm

ModusPonens wrote:
It's funny that one of the things that the author is trying to get at is that there is no american dream in the US. I personaly never bought that BS, but for those who think it's a good idea, watch the video and see why the republicans (and democrats, the good cop) are lying to the american people.

George Carlin on the american dream: "You know why it's called a dream? Because you have to be f***ing asleep to believe it!"


What these people want to sell is that the "American Dream" is constant, unchanging, and the same for every American or person who comes to America. It is not my dream to be wealthy. own a bunch of crap and have people worship my ego. The people who have that dream are obvious. Obvious "me-ists and my-ists" Everything is about THEM.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

08 Mar 2014, 9:37 pm

khaoz wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Don't be so lazy. :shameonyou:

Watch the whole thing, or you're just being a T-word. :shameonyou:


Look at the picture he uses to define himself on this site. It says everything about his "mentality"


There were actually two people that critizised the lenght of the video before AP put his two censt worth in and both have avatars your kind might find offensive.
But since I remember this little gem \/ I'll assume your talking about me. :D
khaoz wrote:
Why is it that in blogs and forums about issues like this it is always the people with little flags and other "patriotic" self indicators are always the ones who seem to with the most offensive anti American, unpatriotic posts. Who pays you fake flag wavers to write anti American propaganda and troll real Americans?
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt252605.html


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


ModusPonens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 715

08 Mar 2014, 9:46 pm

Rise and walk, oh dead thread!



khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

08 Mar 2014, 10:05 pm

Raptor wrote:
khaoz wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Don't be so lazy. :shameonyou:

Watch the whole thing, or you're just being a T-word. :shameonyou:


Look at the picture he uses to define himself on this site. It says everything about his "mentality"


There were actually two people that critizised the lenght of the video before AP put his two censt worth in and both have avatars your kind might find offensive.
But since I remember this little gem \/ I'll assume your talking about me. :D
khaoz wrote:
Why is it that in blogs and forums about issues like this it is always the people with little flags and other "patriotic" self indicators are always the ones who seem to with the most offensive anti American, unpatriotic posts. Who pays you fake flag wavers to write anti American propaganda and troll real Americans?
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt252605.html


I was not particularly referring to you on this post, but yeah, I find your exploitation of the American flag offensive. I find you offensive. I don't even know why you are on this site other than to troll. But every person, in every forum and message board I have come across on the internet who exploits the flag in the way you do behaves in the same arrogant, jingoist way. This is supposed to be a support site, not an abuse site. You have no empathy for the problems people here deal with. You are self diagnosed. One of the people who self diagnose AS for status. You do not care about anyone but YOU. Most flag exploiters are apathetic.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

08 Mar 2014, 10:59 pm

khaoz wrote:
Raptor wrote:
khaoz wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Don't be so lazy. :shameonyou:

Watch the whole thing, or you're just being a T-word. :shameonyou:


Look at the picture he uses to define himself on this site. It says everything about his "mentality"


There were actually two people that critizised the lenght of the video before AP put his two censt worth in and both have avatars your kind might find offensive.
But since I remember this little gem \/ I'll assume your talking about me. :D
khaoz wrote:
Why is it that in blogs and forums about issues like this it is always the people with little flags and other "patriotic" self indicators are always the ones who seem to with the most offensive anti American, unpatriotic posts. Who pays you fake flag wavers to write anti American propaganda and troll real Americans?
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt252605.html


I was not particularly referring to you on this post, but yeah, I find your exploitation of the American flag offensive. I find you offensive. I don't even know why you are on this site other than to troll. But every person, in every forum and message board I have come across on the internet who exploits the flag in the way you do behaves in the same arrogant, jingoist way.

I'm not in lockstep with your liberal views so therefor I'm a troll.
Seen it before.

Quote:
This is supposed to be a support site, not an abuse site. You have no empathy for the problems people here deal with. You are self diagnosed. One of the people who self diagnose AS for status. You do not care about anyone but YOU. Most flag exploiters are apathetic.

Openly doubting someones diagnosis/self-diagnosis because they don't agree with you is what you're doing.
Seen that before, too.
If you think I'm naughty now you should have been here in 2011-2012.
It's only fair that I inform you that your style of vitriolic posting is nothing new here and your kind provides only mild annoyance to some and entertainment to others.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

08 Mar 2014, 11:14 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-4FFxfIbec[/youtube]


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList