Scientific thought. Definitely not social sciences pt 2.

[gourimoko]

We really need to get away from defining words like this.(as if its an accepted fact)
That may be what it means to you but I know many people who consider themselves conservative who would say they fit that definition perfectly.
Political labels are fluid and almost never used without partisan motives.

I have to say I reject this definition and then we have a useless debate on definitions.
You have stated before that debate is very difficult unless we can agree on the meanings of words. And in most cases that is true.
But in a conversation on public policy it is always best to avoid words like liberal, conservative, progressive and libertarian. People rarely agree on the meaning of those words.
The conversation can still proceed nicely if people just state their position on the policy being discussed.

I'm not arguing that it's a fact; but debating over the definition is something that's simple to do and we can agree on terms based on consensus..

For example; here's a consensus Wikified opinion about classical liberalism:

Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law, and emphasizes economic freedoms found in economic liberalism which is also called free market capitalism.[1][2]

Classical liberalism was first called that in the early 19th century, but was built on ideas of the previous century. It was a response to urbanization, and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States.[3] Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[4] Thomas Jefferson, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law,[5] utilitarianism,[6] and progress.[7]

And by contrast modern (social) liberalism:

Modern American liberalism is the dominant version of liberalism in the United States. It is characterized by social liberalism,[1] and combines ideas of civil liberty and equality with support for social justice and a mixed economy.[1] The term "modern liberalism" in this article refers only to the United States. In a global context, this philosophy is usually referred to as social liberalism.

The American modern liberal philosophy strongly endorses public spending on programs such as education, health care, and welfare. Important social issues today include addressing inequality, voting rights for minorities, affirmative action, reproductive and other women's rights, support for LGBT rights, and immigration reform.[2]

Modern liberalism took shape during the twentieth century, with roots in Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, Harry S. Truman's Fair Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier, and Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. American liberals oppose conservatives on most issues, but not all. Modern liberalism is historically related to social liberalism and progressivism, though the current relationship between liberal and progressive viewpoints is debated.[3][4][5][6][7][8]

John F. Kennedy defined a liberal as follows:[9][10]

"...someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties—someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal'."

Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1941 defined a liberal party as one,

"which believes that, as new conditions and problems arise beyond the power of men and women to meet as individuals, it becomes the duty of Government itself to find new remedies with which to meet them. The liberal party insists that the Government has the definite duty to use all its power and resources to meet new social problems with new social controls—to ensure to the average person the right to his own economic and political life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."[11]

Keynesian economic theory has played an important role in the economic philosophy of modern American liberals.[12] Modern American liberals generally believe that national prosperity requires government management of the macroeconomy, in order to keep unemployment low, inflation in check, and growth high.[12] They also value institutions that defend against economic inequality. In The Conscience of a Liberal Paul Krugman writes: "I believe in a relatively equal society, supported by institutions that limit extremes of wealth and poverty. I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I'm proud of it."[13] Liberals often point to the widespread prosperity enjoyed under a mixed economy in the years since World War II.[14][15] They believe liberty exists when access to necessities like health care and economic opportunity are available to all,[16] and they champion the protection of the environment.[17][18]

Modern American liberalism is typically associated with the Democratic Party, as modern American conservatism is typically associated with the Republican Party.[19]​

...


WE can start from there if you prefer? It doesn't matter to me, as these definitions are equally agreeable.

 

[Whittaker]

WE can start from there if you prefer? It doesn't matter to me, as these definitions are equally agreeable.

I think you misunderstood my point.
I was suggesting not using words like liberal & conservative in debates on public policy.
It sends the conversation off on definition tangents and it creates misunderstandings imo.
And it is not necessary to a productive discussion. We had short but good discussions on both universal health care and voter ID without ever delving into our respective political ideologies.
I actually don't want to agree on a definition of liberal & conservative because those words have become nearly synonymous(among the masses) with democrat & republican, leading to assumptions of positions not stated and partisan attitudes not held. Honestly, I don't think you would be susceptible to those false assumptions but there are many other people reading these threads.
I might be too sensitive to political labels as I don't identify strongly with any of them.
Anyway, it was a small point and I didn't mean to derail the discussion you were having with David.

 

[David.]

If I understand you correctly, by saying that you "believe it does," referring to bias mattering, and then saying that the researcher's bias that is conflicting with your own admitted biases ('confirms my biases') helps you pick up on flaws in 'findings?' Also, can you give specific examples of times where I've posted biased studies that had obvious and immediately identifiable flaws?

yes, you've got it. And the data was I BELIEVE a poll about republicans voting habits and their opinions towards minorities. I'm almost positive it was that one. IIRC, my knee jerk reaction was to look at the questions used to illustrate voters opinions. I think it was a thread that I came across roughly a month ago that claimed they had looked into it, and the questions were weasel questions - do you think black people should get off welfare. Well, I think republicans think everyone should get off of welfare generally. I would answer that question 'yes', and by that poll, i'd be a point scored for 'one who harbors resentment for black people'.

Getting back to the point here: whether or not the researcher is biased has nothing to do with whether or not the methodology of the study in question is sound. This is the key point that seems to be getting lost here.

Yes, bias is important; but only after we've concluded that the scientific work in question has been affected by said bias - not before... otherwise we ourselves are prejudicing our opinions of the work based on perceived biases.

Q has mentioned, with specifics, how this falls short.

I wouldn't say that... Socialist libertarianism / leftsit-libertarianism / libertarian socialism are not 'anti-statist.'

But let's be clear here: the term 'classical liberal' doesn't really apply to ANY of these concepts, we consider these folks 'libertarian' because in present day reality, that's what they are.. But taking 18th century political philosophies and trying to assert them today, in this context, makes little to no sense because these folks were the radicals of their time -- and yet their ideas when transposed over our own present political context simply look conservative from our perspective.

you can go down the line of what a classic liberal is and youll have a lens through which to see current issues. I could say Im a labor partier. Thats how I see things. Its not up to anyone else whether or not their reality is credible.

This is one of a few reasons as to why the term 'classical liberal' is .. less than useful in serious political discussion. Because the person using it is often using it in order to somehow confuse or reclaim the term 'liberal' from common parlance which is, obviously, not helpful when trying to narrow down what it is we're talking about.

Honestly, I'd like to reclaim the term because today's liberalism is not liberal. Its been coopted. Just like many other movements. So it is helpful. I personally want to sell that school of thought. Its NOT helpful to tell people their beliefs aren't legitimate based on what YOU believe about the nomenclature. Have your opinion all you want, and I'll have mine about progressives.

So when someone like say..Milo.. refers to himself as a 'classical liberal,' he's doing so to confuse the topic at hand. He's not a 'liberal,' he's a conservative libertarian. And since this phrase is more often used on YouTube or Twitter than it ever is in actual politics, the folks who use this term are universally conservative libertarians -- and yet one asks "why not just say their conservative libertarians?" Simply saying "I'm okay with gays getting married," doesn't make a person socially liberal.

Well, Dave Rubin would disagree with you. And he comes off pretty sincere and has a record for shouting down dishonesty. I'll jump the gun and agree with Whitaker, I do not agree with your definitions. Ill point out that I do believe the right is attempting to take in the real liberals (classic by your definition) by 'outgrouping' leftists to distinguish between the two. I dont know how else I can communicate that there legitimately are liberal liberals, which ISNT redundant, that on principle are making the point that their party has left them. Not the Milos. The people who want freedom from oppression, and dont believe you get there by oppressing people.

I'm not sure what you mean here?

Look, i hope I dont need to tell you about the pitchfork for the white male. I suppose its possible you dont see all of it going around, but I deal with it daily. Before i get into the science.. 'resolutions for white people', 'dear white people', 'white genocide' amongst a list so long I hope I dont need to go down it. I think if youd poll americans, the general opinion of feminists would be that they are a man hating movement that poses under guise of equal rights advocacy. 17% of americans identify as feminists. Who do you actually believe DOESNT want equality? so why, by definition of the word 'feminist', do you think there is a disconnect?

stalin collevtivized the peasanty against the kulaks, who were literally just a step above poverty. they had their own farms, and maybe a worker. They were painted as class enemies because they wouldnt hand over the assets to the state. so stalin rounded up the peasants, told them the kulaks were rich because they stole and oppressed the peasants. They rounded them all up and shipped them out to labor camps. Raped and killed them off. 700,000.

"By definiton, collectivism creates an outgroup. created by the existence of the collective itself. Whoever the ingroup (collective) isnt, is part of the outgroup. "Straight white male" is a direct aggregated result of lgbt, minority, feminism collectivism. Im sure I'm not introducing SWM to you. How do you think we got there?

Individualism and collectivism are concepts concerned with determining the most important aspect of a society. Individualism posits that the rights of the smallest part of society, the individual person, is the most important factor, whereas collectivism is the assertion that any defined group or groups takes this place instead.

It is inevitable that every collective will end up violating the rights of any indivual that opposes it. It demands conversion or desrutcion members of the outgroup who threaten the stability or integrity of the collective. The rights of the individual are not only irrelevant int he face of the collective, but are actively detrimental to it."

'

"Identity politics. Shared experiences of injustices of members of certain social groups. (progressive stack anyone?) Recruitment by assocaition. not by empircal evidence or fine argument. Purpose of identity politics is to remove the individual from the equation in calculating the experience of the individual, ironically. No longer is the question, 'what is john's experience?' the question is now 'what is the experience of black people? as if somehow this is universal constant


the appeal to the collective is designed to give issues more weight, legitimacy and urgency. To appeal to the collective is to magnify a problem to maximize attention drawn to it, and relies on the individual to not examine the pretext of this approach too carefully. It attempts to gain appeal not through logic or reasoning, but at the most BASE (TRIBAL) LEVEL which is 'we look alike', therefore we must think alike.

The hypocrisy of neoprogressivism (among other things) is the hypocrisy of stereotypes. "not all muslims' is stated in one breath, and 'all white males privilege' in the next. 'all women and minorities are oppressed'. It doesnt matter that 2to1 homeless people are males, or that most women in university are females."

I could go on. I really make a point NOT to reference other material anymore, but Ive got about an hour that is a remarkable critical analysis from a classic liberal in the uk called Carl Benjamin. Its so profound that I actually would specifically recommend it, even though I think recommending anything like this is lame.

Hang on a second, Dave; I've been doing this a long time -- I've never heard such an interpretation between liberals and progressives, and, I would tell you outright that it's a completely incorrect (backwards even) understanding as to this specific difference. Your sources are way way off base if that's what they're telling you.

I dont believe in your definition. I believe progressives who have a habit of getting people fired for nothing more than their skin color is not liberal. I believe that forcing people to accept other people rather than be tolerant is not liberal. i believe that BLM stealing Bernie Sanders speech to speak on behalf of their collective issues is not liberal. i believe that no platforming because of dissenting political view is not liberal. I believe that enforcing people to participate in something that categorically is against their religion is not liberal. I believe that addressing individual black people as a collective (is categorically fucking racist) and giving them privileges over white or asian people, who are individuals and not a collective is not liberal. and it doesnt make any sense and falls for the same stereotype hypocrisy neoprogressives seem to say theyre battling. by looking at nothing more than the color of someones skin (TRIBAL COLLECTIVISM) and not their situation and what theyve overcome, is silly, racist, and not liberal.

Dnesh Dsouza is a sophist and a polemicist, and I'm trying to do less belly flopping and more swan diving in my presentation, but if you were to normalize requests for a black genocide and getting people fired based on them being black, or that they deserved things based on the color of their skin, or telling blacks they need to shut up and let the whites talk, I'd say you have the old democrats running around with political power. And it seems to look like the new democrats with different skin colors as their targets.

modern liberalism is oppression based on the progressive stack. real liberalism is NOT oppression. These are illiberal liberals. So I do not accept your definition.

First off (hear me out on this before writing your reply)... from reading your post it seems you are confusing yourself with the term "liberal." You really should not use this term when talking about a conservative unless you mean it in a purely historical context. For example, telling people that say, Ted Cruz is a liberal, will turn heads -- it will confuse people. Now you could say something to the affect of, Thomas Jefferson was a "liberal" + "in his day." Locke was a "liberal" + "in his day." But using the term 'liberal,' interchangeably, between historical and present-day political contexts simply leads to confusion -- because the two ideas are similar, and even derived from the same historical ideology, but today are very different.

well thats their problem. It doesnt define how I view myself. We're all about how we identify and forcing others to accept it, right? Someone who isnt in a conversation with the intent of listening is going to make their mistakes and you wont reach them all. But there is a movement, and its to reclaim liberalism. And part of how you get there is by having the conversations and informing those who have open ears, and planting seeds in ground, even if its currently cold and stiff.

Secondly, let's talk about the different between liberals and progressives.

A liberal is someone like, say, Sen. Chuck Schumer; while a progressive might be someone like say Sen. Elizabeth Warren. I'm leaving Clinton out since she is not really a liberal, if we're being honest (she's not at all progressive); and I'm leaving Sanders out because of his extreme-left-leaning bent, although we'll get back to Sanders.

So you ask, what's the difference?

A liberal is someone who balances both the concepts of free market economics, and individual liberty with the needs of the public at large (or as you put it, balances between the concepts of historically classical liberalism as well as the need for social liberalism). Liberals typically look to government for infrastructure, support, and control within society and the economy. Liberalism specifically focused on equality of opportunity and the public good.

Ill say it now so i dont get worked up as this goes on, but we are at a disagreement of what these terms actually mean. I absolutely understand what you're saying, and believe me, I know what youre claiming is liberal and progressive. Im aware of the definitions. I disagree with them. And I think the messages are so diluted and obfuscated that you have a party that 67% believe is out of touch and that the kids are hating. Tell me how kids hate the liberals and how we got there? Thats absurd.

A progressive is someone who believes in progressing society forward, culturally, technologically, and scientifically. Progressives, like liberals, embrace social justice as a fundamental concept within the idea that equality is a prerequisite for a free society.

Q believes in progressing society forward. he believes you get rid of racism by creating a 'color blind society', much like MLK advocated. Who is the progressive? Republican Q and MLK? Everyone wants to move society forward. we dont think you get there by making everything about race, everyone hypersensitive to race, telling everyone to focus on how different everyone is from each other, and bestow privilege based on that concept. because thats racism. To assume all black people have a collective experience and arent individual people is racism. To have a philosophy based on the well being of your race is racism. Look, Im all about expanding the concept of racism. I still think 9/10 times its shit, but philosophically, there is room where it should be considered. BLM wants special rights for blacks. thats collective racism. you guys are getting scary results out of collectivizing everyone. Youre going to disagree with me, but look, racial tensions are up for a reason and i dont believe its a coincidence that progressives have been in office riling up the races. And sexes. These movements are well intended but aboslutely cancer dude. TYT actually had a segment advocating segregation. I.. i dont even know what else to say to you about that. I just dont.

I have no idea where you guys stand and where youre going forward. It looks like youre partially just going to run off of donald trump hate for the next 4 years of american referendum. But bernie has actually stated some things that are anti progressive and that seem to be addressing the problem a chunk WAY too large of america sees within the left.

Also, inaccurate in what respect? Also, I don't think either liberals or progressives would consider their fundamental beliefs to be tailored towards collectivism.

# of blacks killed by cops. that is a collective stat. It doesnt take into account the individual cases and the variables involved. You come up with 12 or so in the last what, 2 years? that are legitimately bad shoots. Thats not the narrative. The narrative is blacks are getting mowed down by cops not 'there were instances, here are the indiviuals'. Mike brown is still being championed, among others. And tell me whre you disagree; its because hes black. If it wasnt, people would look at the actual details and realize 'dont take a cops gun' etc.

Result? people start poking around at these statistics and see how many black people kill white people every year. Thats what happens when you introduce a tribalistic, collective narrative.. people are goinhg to scrutinize it. And whack jobs like dylan roof are out there.

There is not.. a collective narrative that is going well today, and isnt producing tension. Or accurate for that matter.

Secondly the second assertion you make is false; "modern liberals" are for individual rights -- but where they define those rights are somewhat different than where conservatives define those rights. Gun rights compared to say, marriage rights, are a perfect example of this; where both ideologies simply view what is or isn't a negative right to be defined differently - with most liberals arguing that individuals do not have a right to gun unfettered ownership, and with most conservatives arguing that individuals do not have a right to marry anyone they choose to

fair. and ill reconsider how I feel about liberal and libertarian, i really the differences are small and if you marry yourself to one rather than look at situations individually and rationally, youre only hurting yourself. i shouldnt have to rely on dogma to consider whether or not I would have been pro slavery. And if your ideology would have ended up requiring you to be proslavery, then I doubt your ideology.

actually ill expand on that. So a liberal in your book wants social programs? ok, lets say im a liberal. And theres a social program. and it doesnt work. And now i dont want it. Im not any less liberal for not wanting it. If you still want a social program that doesnt work after concluding it doesnt work, that doesnt make you a liberal, that makes you not very bright.

If you get caught up on the ideology of liberalism, which youve defined as 'pro social program', then you're disallowing yourself from nixing the program if it doesnt work and you push it in out of principle, knowing that you are doing the world more harm than good. And more likely, youre restricting yourself from properly analysing whether or not the program worked in the first place, because it seems like youve got quite a bias if youve defined your belief system as 'social programs are good', and I think youll disregard evidence to the contrary.

and if you let people co-opt your political ideology, well, goodbye to your ideology. What, youre gonna change your beliefs because popular opinion within your ideology contradicts your ideology? or do you make a stand and crystallize it for other people that they arent being very liberal?

I really dont think there is an overlap between 'liberal' and 'progressive'. I think those positions are definitively mutually exclusive.

"liberals are illiberal."
This is self-contradictory, Dave.

You got that right.

 

[David.]

We really need to get away from defining words like this.(as if its an accepted fact)
That may be what it means to you but I know many people who consider themselves conservative who would say they fit that definition perfectly.
Political labels are fluid and almost never used without partisan motives.

I have to say I reject this definition and then we have a useless debate on definitions.
You have stated before that debate is very difficult unless we can agree on the meanings of words. And in most cases that is true.
But in a conversation on public policy it is always best to avoid words like liberal, conservative, progressive and libertarian. People rarely agree on the meaning of those words.
The conversation can still proceed nicely if people just state their position on the policy being discussed.

sometimes its important. not in this case. well, to an extent.

If anyone has the time for the conversation, anything can be useful. maybe you uncover yours or someone elses blindspots. But generally, in this instance, I agree with you. Its fun to get into if youre into polisci and can help you reexamine things from a different angle, but generally, yea its not helpful.

 

[David.]

hey im gonna get to the next posts in the morning probably.. If you could save your work, Id like to get to them first so we dont have a trainwreck of a conversation and keep it chronological

 

[gourimoko]

I think you misunderstood my point.
I was suggesting not using words like liberal & conservative in debates on public policy.
It sends the conversation off on definition tangents and it creates misunderstandings imo.
And it is not necessary to a productive discussion. We had short but good discussions on both universal health care and voter ID without ever delving into our respective political ideologies.
I actually don't want to agree on a definition of liberal & conservative because those words have become nearly synonymous(among the masses) with democrat & republican, leading to assumptions of positions not stated and partisan attitudes not held. Honestly, I don't think you would be susceptible to those false assumptions but there are many other people reading these threads.
I might be too sensitive to political labels as I don't identify strongly with any of them.
Anyway, it was a small point and I didn't mean to derail the discussion you were having with David.

I like you bro... you're alright in my book..

 

[gourimoko]

hey im gonna get to the next posts in the morning probably.. If you could save your work, Id like to get to them first so we dont have a trainwreck of a conversation and keep it chronological

Dave, will respond in the morning; was reading your post and I noticed you referenced both Carl Benjamin and Dave Rubin...

Carl Benjamin.. isn't that Sargon of Akkad? This guy is just ... man ... I've told you about Benjamin before, I'm sure right?? Why listen to this outright sexist / misogynist clown for anything? He doesn't know shit, he just has YouTube followers... He's just in it to get views from neoreactionaries and nationalists who want their views repeated back to them... You've got to realize that he is a bullshitter, right?

And Dave Rubin... man.. I had high hopes for his show but, I remembered him from when he last had a high profile on TYT and I remember even then he was a neoliberal..

But Dave, do you know the real reason that Rubin left TYT? It wasn't the Harris interview, it happened before that... Not sure if you've ever been on Rubin's no deserted Reddit, but, read the posts there by users over the evolution of his show...

Rubin started the show claiming he was a liberal; using the term "classic liberal." He adopted Harris' term "regressive" to talk about progressives. He's now just calling himself a "libertarian" and endorsed Gary Johnson.

I dunno man, there's gotta be better "sources" for your information, right?

 

[Sebastian]

Dave, will respond in the morning; was reading your post and I noticed you referenced both Carl Benjamin and Dave Rubin...

Carl Benjamin.. isn't that Sargon of Akkad? This guy is just ... man ... I've told you about Benjamin before, I'm sure right?? Why listen to this outright sexist / misogynist clown for anything? He doesn't know shit, he just has YouTube followers... He's just in it to get views from neoreactionaries and nationalists who want their views repeated back to them... You've got to realize that he is a bullshitter, right?

And Dave Rubin... man.. I had high hopes for his show but, I remembered him from when he last had a high profile on TYT and I remember even then he was a neoliberal..

But Dave, do you know the real reason that Rubin left TYT? It wasn't the Harris interview, it happened before that... Not sure if you've ever been on Rubin's no deserted Reddit, but, read the posts there by users over the evolution of his show...

Rubin started the show claiming he was a liberal; using the term "classic liberal." He adopted Harris' term "regressive" to talk about progressives. He's now just calling himself a "libertarian" and endorsed Gary Johnson.

I dunno man, there's gotta be better "sources" for your information, right?

@David. Out of curiosity what would you say your information intake ratio is?

Is it mostly YouTube or do you split it with JSTOR, political blogs, news sites, academic stuff? Do you do a lot of reading in history too?

I ask because you went from zero to 60 pretty fast and I am wondering what your process is in absorbing as much information as quickly as you have.

 

[David.]

@David. Out of curiosity what would you say your information intake ratio is?

Is it mostly YouTube or do you split it with JSTOR, political blogs, news sites, academic stuff? Do you do a lot of reading in history too?

I ask because you went from zero to 60 pretty fast and I am wondering what your process is in absorbing as much information as quickly as you have.

Thank you.. Feels good that someone aknowledges hard work and can verify that it looks like its making a difference..

First, there an insatiable motor, so when i say I learn all day long, i literally mean part of the reason I have my job is because im able to listen 10 hours a day. And then I come home and continue.

My reddit is basically tailored for everything related to.. everything I write about. And only that. So its 100 new articles a day. I look for actual studies and read the comments to help out with methodology and see what people say about it. I start with that in the mornings. If something is particularly interesting, I'll bookmark the page and come back to it later.

Google scholar is my search engine, good looking out on jsotr.

I have think tanks bookmarked.

If I get to a wikipedia cycle, i'll be lost for days. Within each page is 10 distinct new concepts that lead to 10 more. I'll read through all and then try to verify the validity of the theories best I can. I've got roughly 300 bookmarks, and it just grows at this point. there isnt enough time to sit down and study; at least not til I get through the queue..

Youtube - I look for 1. channels that have extraordinarily profound points, and a plenitude of them 2. channels that use statistics and studies 3. channels that make the best arguments 4. channels that meet with my other channels to show you how different opinions/people interact on the same subject and give better context (rubin especially is good for this. he's a liberal and has hours of actual conversaton with lbertarians ie) I have 10 or channels I follow. Jordan peterson, Shapiro, Carl Benjamin (sargon of akkad), Khan academy, some zen type channels..rubin, joe rogan. I watch 10 minutes of tucker carlson debate every night. Jonathan Haidt. channels that redistribute tom sowell, sam harris.. etc.. download as mp3 and play all day. I favorite the especially interesting videos.. 397 in the 'good' folder currently.. 92 queued and 4 unlistened to but downloaded. Each of the queued videos are at least an hour long.

ive got sort of a system but I really need venture out from it and sit down and learn things that dont come naturally to me, like statistics, to help develop a better sense of what im learning. And theres topics that are queued as projects after I get through the 200 or so hours I have left (but realistically, that will expand as each channel pushes new content and each video touches on new information to explore).

A big help outside of this is actually having the conversations.. I follow several pages on facebook and have the debates out there - debate both the left and the right. It helps you articulate your positions and teaches you things, and introduces you to ideas you hadnt considered, and angles. it also helps you realize sometimes that you dont believe the argument youre making. you can make it, but youre disconnected from it. and then you can understand why, and then you'll be able to kill someone making the argument you were making previously, because you know what theyre thinkihng and going to say, and youve got the rebuttal. youtube comments, same.

Vocabulary list too. Theres too many good words. Ive got a few apps that go through daily words, and present swipeable lists if you want to focus on it for an hour long block for example.

but theres... just so much.. there are so many topics. Literally, look at a list of disciplines. And then a college schedule of classes. All of that is eventually interetsing (and with the help of the internet, you have access to all of it), because it all eventually ties together when telling the story of things - past, present future - interwoven through different disciplines.

 

[Whittaker]

For people that don't mind devouring large amounts of information I can recommend the book Modern Times by Paul Johnson.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Very good points...

But think about it from the woman's perspective as well..

Most women argue that men are somehow ..not.. living up to their standards. Most women, when polled, go sexually unsatisfied; let alone emotionally unsatisfied.. Many women feel like their male companion fails in a great many of these areas... So imagine if a woman, instead of "giving herself" to various guys who will undoubtedly not live up to her lofty expectations, could just go to Costco and buy a mate?

Literally, the perfect guy in a box...

Actually, I think that's a misread of what many women actually want.

Women place a great deal of importance on emotional communication/satisfaction. And anyone who has even a modest amount of experience with them know that is not just a matter of compliments, or even just listening -- for most women, it is extremely important that men give of themselves emotionally to a woman. They want to know what makes you tick, and what you think. The dread "watcha thinkin'" question.

That's something that a robot will never be able to give them because the woman will always know that it is just programming at its core, and so not equivalent to what they believe they're giving to you. Which is what many women really want. It will always and inevitably be an unequal transaction to those women when it is a robot on the other end.

So, while some women may resort to that as a fallback at some point, it can never be their "perfect guy", in a box or otherwise.

I think it's far more likely that a female robot could come closer to fulfilling what some men want out of mate.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Well, this is an interesting question..

I would put to you the process by which scientific papers are reviewed.... Moreover, laypeople as well as scientists largely rely, but obviously not completely, on the peer-review process to aid finding flaws in the methodology of various studies. In fact, that's how the peer-review process largely works when scientific studies are submitted for publication and feedback is given. The journal editors submit the studies for review to those with significant expertise in the field and those people critique the methodology and scientific rigor of the study to the best of their ability. This does not mean replicating the study prior to publication; it means evaluating the scientific quality paper, and the means by which the conclusions therein were derived.

The peer review process does not prove the validity of a study, else publication would be the end of the inquiry rather than just a step along the way. The peer review process probably can best be described -- if it is actually working the way it is supposed to -- as representing a "not unreasonable" standard, which is nevertheless miles from proving that it is actually true.

But even that low bar is a best-case scenario. A core (and unavoidable from the perspective of the public) problem is the reliability of that peer-review process itself. That would include not only the competency of the particular peers whom approve publication, but also their biases. Most of us probably remember reading about the pure gibberish papers that were submitted and peer-approved. The only way we found out about them was that the guy who did it fessed up. And in the case of bias, it is entirely possible to have the particular peers who review a particular article have the same biases as the authors, and the process is therefore of not much value in terms of ferretting out biases or other errors.

In the example given on the last page, we do not need to replicate the study in order to invalidate the methodology as being unsound. In fact, the majority of the lodged criticisms of the aforementioned study were obviously due to the disparate nature of the groups being studied (as I described in my previous post).

There is a massive gulf between the ability to prove or discover that a study is wrong, and proving that it is right. The former may be within the capability of a sufficiently informed, diligent layperson, if the error, omission, or mistake in the study is apparent on its face. The latter is not, and that's really the point I'm bringing out here -- how do we know that a given study is true or accurate?

And again, the inability of a layperson to prove that a particular scientific conclusion is false obviously does not make it true. It is entirely possible that the error either 1) requires a level of expertise that the layperson does not possess, or 2) the errors simply are not discernable on the face of the study. They may be buried somewhere in the data itself, or how the data was gathered, and very often also will depend on the honesty of the scientist/expert, or assistants, in question. Which, again, we cannot determine.

It seems you're suggesting that we are completely incapable of understanding what is being presented in scientific research....

No, I'm not saying we're incapable of understanding -- I'm saying that in 99.99% of the cases, we're incapable of validating/verifying the conclusions, though we may be capable of refuting them - or at least pointing out flaws that put those conclusions into doubt..

With respect to finding bias on an individual, paper-by-paper basis, in a double-blind review process, you don't even know who it is that is submitting the work, so how could you possibly try to identify bias? I'm not sure one could.

I am talking not about bias in favor of a person, but rather bias in favor of certain conclusions/results. In essence, an academic/scientific circle-jerk. And my point isn't that all such things are tainted by biases. My point is that as outside laypeople, it is very difficult for us to know if that it going on. Just as one kind of bias, I'd direct you to the article I linked upthread about the problem with medical studies.

Common sense is not necessarily fact-based, or rational, or even reasonable. Common sense is often emotionally driven. Common sense is not necessarily able to be articulated from person to person without significant changes in understanding; name, not withstanding....So relying on common sense to make rational conclusions is an illogical endeavor.

The mere fact that some of what is termed "common-sense" may fit your argument does not mean that all of it does. And I really sort of detest definitional debates unless the definition itself is the debate (as it may be in the transgender context). So I'll simply clarify that in this context, when I refer to common-sense, I'm referring to logical conclusions drawn from personal observations/experiences.

I'm not sure how the bolded works? For example Q-Tip; how does your common-sense help me contradict any conclusion?

It doesn't, unless you have a sound basis to trust my judgement on that particular subject. But just because my personal experiences/observations may not be of value to you doesn't make them wrong or not useful to me.

Thus it is also irrational to assert that a logical conclusion is false or invalid because it is not congruent with your own personal experience; because what if it is congruent with mine, or someone else's?

Depends on the nature of the conclusion, doesn't it? If the conclusion is that "x" always leads to "y", or that "z" never happens, experiences that are consistent with those conclusions do not prove the validity of the rule itself. However, one example that contradicts that rule does, in fact, disprove it.

For this reason, personal experience, and common sense are not a rational basis upon which one can evaluate an argument in a general sense.

Ugh....You seem to be arguing that everything we see and observe is fatally tainted by our own subjectivity, and hence not reliable. I think that argument ends up consuming not only itself, but also scientific inquiry in general.

Common-sense/personal experience alone may not be sufficient to evaluate every argument, but there are certainly going to be times they are capable of evaluating some. Just as an easy example, if some study would have as its conclusion that "there are no physical differences between males and females", my personal experience alone is enough for me to know that the conclusion is bullshit. If someone publishes a paper saying that it is impossible to ride a bike without using your hands, and I have actually done that, then I know that study is invalid.

If you want a real-world example, I recall reading studies that claimed there was no evidence that employers were cutting hours because of the ACA. Well, I know that's bullshit -- I was personally involved in some of those decisions and know for a fact that it did happen, and for exactly that reason.

Believe me, I know what you mean... and I think I understand where you're going with this.

Well, I'm not actually talking about global warming, if that's what you mean. I am truly speaking far more generally than that.

But, with that said, your personal knowledge and experience is your own, and that's really what these kinds of sociological studies attempt to depersonalize. By sampling a large number of people who can share first hand experiences, we can make more concrete observations and establish what should or should not be considered to be real.

My problem lies in your use of "we." It is not us, doing that, nor you (singular). It is a "them", which goes right back to the point of "why should we believe "them" in the first place"? Heck, at the most basic level, how do we know they haven't falsified or otherwise tainted their data?

 

[David.]

Cleveland woman was ordered by a judge to stand on a corner during rush hour on two days holding a sign that read "Only an idiot would drive on the sidewalk to avoid a school bus", after notoriously disregarding the law and laughing at the charges.


https://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/11/cleveland_woman_holding_idiot.html

Carr, who was elected to the bench nearly a year ago, took a page out of Painesville Municipal Judge Michael Cicconetti's playbook. He has made a career of handing out unconventional sentences.

From judge Cicconettis wiki page:

Teenagers who flattened tires on school buses were ordered to throw a picnic for the primary school children whose outing was cancelled due to the prank.

A man who committed a traffic violation while shouting "pigs" at police officers was made to stand on a street corner with a 350-pound pig and a sign that said "This is not a police officer."

An 18-year-old male who stole pornography from an adult book store was ordered to sit outside the store wearing a blindfold and holding a sign that read "See no evil."

Judge Ciconetti has extraordinarily low recidivism rates.

"It is too easy to put people in jail," Cicconetti said. "They go to jail and . . . it does not deter the crime."

"The justice system is there mainly for crime prevention and is moving away from punishment as just sending people to jail isn't really effective way to prevent future crime. Doing stuff like this is probably more effective as they won't get fired from their job and also taxpayers are not paying to keep them in jail."

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Cleveland woman was ordered by a judge to stand on a corner during rush hour on two days holding a sign that read "Only an idiot would drive on the sidewalk to avoid a school bus", after notoriously disregarding the law and laughing at the charges.


https://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/11/cleveland_woman_holding_idiot.html



Judge Ciconetti has extraordinarily low recidivism rates.

"It is too easy to put people in jail," Cicconetti said. "They go to jail and . . . it does not deter the crime."

"The justice system is there mainly for crime prevention and is moving away from punishment as just sending people to jail isn't really effective way to prevent future crime. Doing stuff like this is probably more effective as they won't get fired from their job and also taxpayers are not paying to keep them in jail."

I don't have a problem with being creative in sentencing if the other stuff fails. However, for crimes that involve prior thought-planning, I think jail time is necessary. Really bugs me when people who assault other people at rallies or commit mayhem during riots get community service. They should get a conviction that fucks up their life to some degree.

 

[David.]

I don't have a problem with being creative in sentencing if the other stuff fails. However, for crimes that involve prior thought-planning, I think jail time is necessary. Really bugs me when people who assault other people at rallies or commit mayhem during riots get community service. They should get a conviction that fucks up their life to some degree.

Recusal. Im probably too biased to give good input