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

ModusPonens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

08 Jan 2014, 7:46 am

In average, Viper. The average behaviour is what is being studied.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,730
Location: Stendec

08 Jan 2014, 9:11 am

The "American Dream" is predicated on the concept that any individuals, given the abilities and the opportunities, could apply themselves and earn enough money to purchase a home, raise a family, and retire comfortably without any handouts or charity from anyone else.

This concept has been perverted by those who believe that what other people have earned for themselves should be shared equally with everyone else; that opportunities are for the 'lucky'; and that the only abilities anyone ever needs to become wealthy are the abilities to steal, lie and cheat.

In other words, a bunch of lazy criminals think that the only way to achieve the American Dream is to either have it handed to them or to rob someone else of theirs. They will never see that day.

Meanwhile, us more traditional "American Dreamers" are forging ahead on our own efforts toward that goal of an affluent retirement, and enjoying every minute of it!

:D



ModusPonens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

08 Jan 2014, 10:22 am

Ok.

So far there has been denial, because of not wanting to see the science here. You have spent, when summed up, weeks (months?) of your lives debating this BS on PPR, but when scientific studies come up, you suddenly have no time to watch a 16 minute video.

There has been no valid argument against the science presented, nor its implications.

Curiously, there has only been a reinforcement of one of the major points in the TED talk, namely because of what Fnord expressed: the justification of selfish behaviour, due to being in an advantageous position.

Fnord, I praise that you do (did?) actual work with homeless people. But you are still not ready to admit that you are manifesting the behaviour of people in advantageous conditions studied by these scientists.



RandyG
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

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

08 Jan 2014, 12:12 pm

'Rich people are mean. Unless they watch a My Little Pony video every day. Fortunately, there are some rich people who feel guilty and donate to charity and leftist causes.'

That's four minutes I'll never get back.



ModusPonens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

08 Jan 2014, 12:41 pm

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?



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

08 Jan 2014, 1:03 pm

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:


_________________
“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 Jan 2014, 1:18 pm

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.



TheGoggles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060

08 Jan 2014, 1:27 pm

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:


You're the one who "called BS" on it. And then projected that opinion on everyone else for some reason.



RandyG
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

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

08 Jan 2014, 1:41 pm

ModusPonens wrote:
That's a slow witted caricature.


Ad hominem? Tu quoque.

Exactly what beliefs, held by whom, do you think are being challenged? I believe that all interactions among adults should be voluntary, no doubt making me "right-wing" in your mind, and none of the above "touches" that belief in any way. I just hope that none of my tax money went to fund "research" of that kind.



ModusPonens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

08 Jan 2014, 3:14 pm

RandyG wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
That's a slow witted caricature.


Ad hominem? Tu quoque.

Exactly what beliefs, held by whom, do you think are being challenged? I believe that all interactions among adults should be voluntary, no doubt making me "right-wing" in your mind, and none of the above "touches" that belief in any way. I just hope that none of my tax money went to fund "research" of that kind.


Tuo quoque? Only if you selctively quote me. Thus, you're only afirming something about yourself.

I believe all interactions between adults should be voluntary. I'm left wing.

Why do you call it "research" and not research? To quote the part you selectively eliminated after my classification of your caricature as slow witted:

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?



adb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

08 Jan 2014, 3:52 pm

After reading that, I'm stuck with the question "so what?" I fail to see how this is a problem that can be solved or even needs to be. What does it matter if someone else attributes their success to skill rather than unequal circumstances?

The "American Dream" isn't about equal opportunity. It's about having the opportunity to build wealth. It's not equal and it never will be. Some people overcome disadvantages and some people don't. Why focus on the opportunities of others rather than your own opportunities?

It seems like the time spent debating the unfairness of life would be better applied to producing and building wealth. Jealousy isn't productive.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,612

08 Jan 2014, 3:55 pm

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

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


It's not that simple.

1. You are asking people to invest their valuable time. I don't have time to watch every video clip posted online. If it's more than 2 minutes long, it would be nice to have a synopsis of what's in the video so I don't need to watch it to get the basic point(s) of what it says. The longer the video, the more this should be mandatory.

2. If you don't have broadband, you can't watch streaming video...period.



ModusPonens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

08 Jan 2014, 4:15 pm

Ok. This is the best right wingers can do.

Thread bookmarked for future reference against BS.



RandyG
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

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

08 Jan 2014, 4:23 pm

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.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

08 Jan 2014, 4:24 pm

ModusPonens wrote:
Ok.

So far there has been denial, because of not wanting to see the science here. You have spent, when summed up, weeks (months?) of your lives debating this BS on PPR, but when scientific studies come up, you suddenly have no time to watch a 16 minute video.

There has been no valid argument against the science presented, nor its implications.

Curiously, there has only been a reinforcement of one of the major points in the TED talk, namely because of what Fnord expressed: the justification of selfish behaviour, due to being in an advantageous position.

Fnord, I praise that you do (did?) actual work with homeless people. But you are still not ready to admit that you are manifesting the behaviour of people in advantageous conditions studied by these scientists.


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.



Last edited by Janissy on 08 Jan 2014, 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

adb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

08 Jan 2014, 4:29 pm

ModusPonens wrote:
Ok. This is the best right wingers can do.

I'm not a right-winger, but I felt the need to respond since there is a false assumption in the presented data. The "American Dream" is not "an idea in which we all have an equal opportunity to succeed and prosper".

None of this data is relevant as an argument for or against the status of the "American Dream".