House of Fusion
Search over 2,500 ColdFusion resources here
  
Home of the ColdFusion Community

Mailing Lists 		Home /  Groups /  ColdFusion Community (CF-Community)

Fox News? Really can this be called a News channel?

  << Previous Post |  RSS |  Sort Oldest First |  Sort Latest First |  Subscribe to this Group Next >> 
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/s320x320/5289_115439157020_623597020_2687373_3341209_n.jpg
** Private **
02/10/12 08:30 A
hahahahahaha, EGYPT is NOT there.
** Private **
02/10/12 08:56 A
But it does put all the talking points neatly in one area for the
** Private **
02/10/12 08:58 A
> But it does put all the talking points neatly in one area for the
** Private **
02/10/12 10:02 A
the position of a country on a map is VERY finite.
** Private **
02/10/12 10:11 A
> the position of a country on a map is VERY finite.
** Private **
02/10/12 11:06 A
Mmm...yes yes that was a bit sensationalist of me wasn't it ;-P
** Private **
02/10/12 02:06 P
"Fox News? Really can this be called a News channel?"
** Private **
02/14/12 11:28 A
Both NPR and PBS have reported on investigations on major sponsors in
** Private **
02/14/12 12:01 P
Looks like the WH's Media Matters division has another war going on.
** Private **
02/14/12 12:16 P
I am so sick of "war on this" or "war on that". Let's call this a skirmish.
** Private **
02/14/12 01:04 P
I'm guessing you think Fox should still go down now matter how it's done.
** Private **
02/14/12 01:42 P
How in god's name did you infer that from those two lines? Really.
** Private **
02/14/12 02:00 P
Because Sam is a crotchety old man who has nothing else in his life to pick
** Private **
02/14/12 02:13 P
> If we all band together and ignore him, he may go away. Because he doesn't
** Private **
02/14/12 02:18 P
Hopefully the new filter in place will prevent me from that. If that fails,
** Private **
02/14/12 02:26 P
Freudian slip in Valentines Day, talking about Sam and his crotch(ety)?
** Private **
02/14/12 02:24 P
Hey that's awesome! Especially with a glow ball, holy cow! You must either
** Private **
02/14/12 02:43 P
Wow true colors. What a selfish bitch.
** Private **
02/14/12 03:15 P
YOu know Sam that sort of language was uncalled for. While EriKa was
** Private **
02/14/12 03:26 P
Being a list Nazi is a little more than sharp.
** Private **
02/14/12 03:28 P
Sam no matter how much your sense of victimization is offended,
** Private **
02/14/12 09:03 P
there are days when I either want to pitch the iPad or my fat fingers,
** Private **
02/14/12 09:05 P
Really Larry?
** Private **
02/14/12 09:24 P
OK. I didn't set that filter right ...
** Private **
02/14/12 03:28 P
Amazing how you are fine with the real personal attacks by the lefties
** Private **
02/14/12 03:40 P
I have no idea who is left, right or center, nor do I care. And I have
** Private **
02/14/12 04:11 P
Sam....all you want to say after the fact doesn't change that out of the
** Private **
02/14/12 04:37 P
> Sam....all you want to say after the fact doesn't change that out of the
** Private **
02/14/12 05:29 P
Because you call on others when they misstate facts, I have to remind you
** Private **
02/14/12 10:56 P
> 2nd: You came back and called my accountant a liar.
** Private **
02/14/12 11:38 P
Sam, if you're going to quote something from 3 years ago, use the whole
** Private **
02/15/12 12:12 A
I actually find it more amusing that he called you a leftie. You're one of
** Private **
02/14/12 07:55 P
You totally misread that.
** Private **
02/14/12 09:16 P
No. I don't argue with Larry for much the same reason I don't argue with
** Private **
02/14/12 10:09 P
> No. I don't argue with Larry for much the same reason I don't argue with
** Private **
02/14/12 10:29 P
OK, I am worse than Larry. Fine. And worse than you, eh. Even more fine. If
** Private **
02/14/12 11:08 P
Man, my gmail filters must be working well. I seem to have fallen out
** Private **
02/14/12 11:11 P
Wait .. people hated you?! Never!!! :)
** Private **
02/14/12 11:27 P
You are slacking Judah...
** Private **
02/15/12 01:27 A
Exactly Dana. I have every respect for reasonable people. I can relate
** Private **
02/15/12 08:40 A
I forgot to add,
** Private **
02/15/12 08:41 A
Truth hurts Sam...admitting it is the first step to recovering...
** Private **
02/15/12 01:24 A
Except haven' you noticed something Sam those pieces I post are from
** Private **
02/15/12 08:34 A
I'm going by what you often say not the two line.
** Private **
02/14/12 03:11 P
I don't remember saying that Fox News needs to go down. They do piss me
** Private **
02/14/12 08:01 P
The reason he is currently setting Fox News up as victim and Media Matters
** Private **
02/14/12 08:11 P
Ah. That does make sense.
** Private **
02/14/12 08:25 P
of course.
** Private **
02/14/12 08:48 P
It makes perfect sense in a why. There is some neuropsych research
** Private **
02/14/12 09:11 P
Here we go again. Why is nobody outraged over this personal attack?
** Private **
02/14/12 09:26 P
I was about to say never mind, sorry I talked to you like you were a human
** Private **
02/14/12 10:14 P
\|||/
** Private **
02/14/12 10:24 P
> I was about to say never mind, sorry I talked to you like you were a human
** Private **
02/14/12 10:36 P
On 2/14/2012 10:36 PM, Sam wrote:
** Private **
02/14/12 10:50 P
It's all the Santorum...
** Private **
02/15/12 01:26 A
OK Sam what is the criticism of the research. Here's the original
** Private **
02/15/12 08:50 A
That's a study by the actor Colin Firth for a radio show. Do you
** Private **
02/15/12 09:28 A
Sam get real. If you cannot come up with a valid critique of the
** Private **
02/15/12 09:35 A
Yanno, at the risk of fueling your misconceptions, Sam, I have to go with
** Private **
02/15/12 09:45 A
No really, it's the Actor that co-wrote this research for a radio show.
** Private **
02/15/12 11:45 A
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are making
** Private **
02/15/12 12:55 P
Whenever I tell you to "ask yourself" it's a joke because I know you
** Private **
02/15/12 01:01 P
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2011/06/colin-firth-actor-writer-aca
** Private **
02/15/12 01:33 P
Yeah, A guy that didn't even finish high school said:
** Private **
02/15/12 01:44 P
He didn't commission it either...he brought up the idea on a radio show and
** Private **
02/15/12 01:57 P
Because lefties have the right of mind and righties have what's left.
** Private **
02/15/12 05:59 P
Sigh.
** Private **
02/15/12 02:02 P
Both of this year?s lead Oscar winners have published scientific
** Private **
02/15/12 02:14 P
Sam you need to educate yourself before commenting. All you do is make
** Private **
02/15/12 02:17 P
And where does it say that he paid Rees to do the study...
** Private **
02/15/12 02:22 P
OK, I just read it and it says nothing. Just an inconclusive
** Private **
02/15/12 02:38 P
sorry vague generalities don't cut it.
** Private **
02/15/12 03:21 P
LOL!!
** Private **
02/15/12 08:30 P
it's a different study, assuming it actually happened, isn't it? I wasn't
** Private **
02/15/12 01:45 P
nope, British, but otherwise: "a large group of young adults."
** Private **
02/15/12 01:55 P
> nope, British, but otherwise: "a large group of young adults."
** Private **
02/15/12 02:01 P
> Let me point an arrow at it, Sam --->a more comprehensive study, using
** Private **
02/15/12 02:07 P
Wow. You are so angry and you blame it on me.
** Private **
02/15/12 02:18 P
they may in fact agree with me, Sam; this is Britain where they don't use
** Private **
02/15/12 02:28 P
and actually, you're right. I am angry because you are wasting my time and
** Private **
02/15/12 02:31 P
You have a real bad attitude problem.
** Private **
02/15/12 02:42 P
I am defending it because a study in a peer-reviewed journal has a decent
** Private **
02/15/12 03:00 P
> I am defending it because a study in a peer-reviewed journal has a decent
** Private **
02/15/12 03:09 P
> Obviously you didn't read it.
** Private **
02/15/12 03:34 P
> confused. And you're still not answering my question. Where does it say
** Private **
02/15/12 03:53 P
you're still conflating. You are not talking about the study Larry posted,
** Private **
02/15/12 04:09 P
Maybe we should "commission" a scientist to study the members of this
** Private **
02/15/12 04:13 P
I wonder which members you are referring to with that comment.
** Private **
02/15/12 04:21 P
I was referring to all of them, but since you seem to think everything
** Private **
02/15/12 06:00 P
> you're still conflating. You are not talking about the study Larry posted,
** Private **
02/15/12 04:19 P
All the studies were done by Geraint Rees. Same study, different people.
** Private **
02/15/12 04:39 P
>  Maybe this is a vocabulary problem.
** Private **
02/15/12 05:39 P
> Yes it is. It's the same study done three times. Two people, 90 people
** Private **
02/15/12 07:07 P
I give up and feel the fool for not heeding this advice sooner:
** Private **
02/15/12 07:18 P
feel free to run away, Sam, but you still haven't showed me any basis at
** Private **
02/15/12 07:29 P
The sampling of 90 people is really really small.
** Private **
02/15/12 07:54 P
Depends on the standard deviation. You can draw valid conclusions for
** Private **
02/15/12 08:03 P
pretty sure that's right
** Private **
02/15/12 08:08 P
just to be totally obsessive, here's the link and the heart of the
** Private **
02/15/12 08:33 P
You can't learn can you?
** Private **
02/15/12 09:36 P
Dude. It doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't even matter why they did
** Private **
02/15/12 09:55 P
> Dude. It doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't even matter why they did
** Private **
02/15/12 11:17 P
it *says* that complex thought involves more areas of the brain than that,
** Private **
02/15/12 11:28 P
I think Sam needs to learn about single subject experimental design
** Private **
02/16/12 08:30 A
You do realize your FACTS don't add up?
** Private **
02/16/12 09:37 A
Because the generally accepted definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" change?
** Private **
02/16/12 10:38 A
That too
** Private **
02/16/12 10:44 A
Actually, he does have a point...a conservative getting a higher
** Private **
02/16/12 10:45 A
Good point. You can educate yourself to be liberal but there's no way
** Private **
02/16/12 10:56 A
But what does "conservative" mean?
** Private **
02/16/12 07:46 P
Researchers are starting to develop fairly reliable questionnaires on
** Private **
02/16/12 09:00 P
in the US it is pretty much meaningless as the neo-cons are not
** Private **
02/16/12 10:20 P
On 2/16/2012 9:37 AM, Sam wrote:
** Private **
02/16/12 12:45 P
I dismissed it because it didn't state what Larry claimed it did, the
** Private **
02/16/12 01:05 P
you keep saying that. I spent all day yesterday telling you to post your
** Private **
02/16/12 04:22 P
And I posted my proof. You are not listening.
** Private **
02/16/12 05:53 P
A good point was raised that it doesn't show what came first...the
** Private **
02/16/12 06:02 P
I detect a blog. A blog, Sam. No input validation at all, yanno?
** Private **
02/16/12 07:01 P
If you read the stupid blog you would have realized it's based on this:
** Private **
02/16/12 08:58 P
I'll have to study this a bit, but I see a few errors in how the
** Private **
02/16/12 09:04 P
All of this sounds so much more interesting than web development...
** Private **
02/16/12 09:52 P
You only see the end results. I broke down the hours someone who does
** Private **
02/17/12 09:08 A
The plain English version:
** Private **
02/16/12 09:56 P
I am on deadline and don't have time to play. But I know, shades of grey,
** Private **
02/16/12 10:43 P
Doesn't matter does it. It was published in a peer reviewed journal.
** Private **
02/16/12 11:04 P
in terms of the stuff in the article that is upsetting you it may matter.
** Private **
02/16/12 11:38 P
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote:
** Private **
02/17/12 12:31 A
I *don't* care and I don't have time to download and parse it right now.
** Private **
02/17/12 01:02 A
er, am not denying or *Idefending* anything.
** Private **
02/17/12 01:04 A
Other scientists...are they neuroscientists? Or just scientists in another
** Private **
02/17/12 02:30 A
Basic rule of science is when a scientist speaks about something
** Private **
02/17/12 10:25 A
I don't know if I'd call someone from the Department of Brain and
** Private **
02/17/12 10:46 A
Saying your "common sense" saying anything holds about as much water as a
** Private **
02/17/12 02:33 A
Actually that meta-analysis that Sam cited has nothing to do with the
** Private **
02/17/12 09:16 A
does it make methodological critiques that in any way apply? I mean, I
** Private **
02/17/12 10:36 A
The meta analysis touches on some areas in neuro imaging that's I've
** Private **
02/17/12 10:05 A
That is true, no mention of politics. Out of the 55 articles about
** Private **
02/17/12 10:33 A
I don't actually think the Rees thing is that earth shaking. I mean my
** Private **
02/17/12 10:40 A
It was written before the Rees study, so no.
** Private **
02/17/12 10:50 A
so.... not to revive this zombie thread, but I can't resist restating
** Private **
02/18/12 04:26 P
> so.... not to revive this zombie thread, but I can't resist restating
** Private **
02/18/12 05:35 P
> Why do you think you have to? I said I could probably debunk it
** Private **
02/18/12 06:21 P
The only thing I have seen him in was "The King's Speech" where he played a
** Private **
02/18/12 07:32 P
oh. I heard it was a good performance. From there to slavish defense
** Private **
02/18/12 08:18 P
Damn I thought this was about zombies.
** Private **
02/18/12 07:32 P
Only in the sense that Sam's brain is a zombie. And yes, it is a waste ;)
** Private **
02/18/12 08:19 P
http://kingsspeech.com/
** Private **
02/18/12 07:32 P
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000147/
** Private **
02/18/12 08:04 P
eyeroll.
** Private **
02/18/12 08:14 P
We all know we are our parents.
** Private **
02/18/12 10:43 P
<g> this is the guy who thinks he's polite.
** Private **
02/19/12 09:05 P
This just changed from real boring to train wreck and I should do the
** Private **
02/18/12 10:41 P
I've been stying out of this discussion mainly because I've been reading
** Private **
02/19/12 07:06 P
The article Vul et el did was on studies of functional MRI (fMRI)
** Private **
02/19/12 08:48 P
Sam.
** Private **
02/20/12 12:06 A
How would you know what I claim, you seem to forget what we're
** Private **
02/20/12 11:13 A
Fig. 4c is SUCH a pile crap and you know it.
** Private **
02/20/12 03:05 A
Please elaborate
** Private **
02/20/12 11:14 A
Don't be coy.
** Private **
02/20/12 03:21 P
see, he hasn't read it, or at least hasn't understood it if he did.
** Private **
02/20/12 05:59 P
btw, good one ;)
** Private **
02/20/12 06:00 P
Actually I read it and picked out the pertinent parts so even you
** Private **
02/20/12 08:39 P
Suuuure, you were just testing use, right? Right. Then why ask Gruss
** Private **
02/20/12 09:47 P
Because he was making a weird joke that I didn't get. The graphic made
** Private **
02/20/12 09:52 P
really?
** Private **
02/20/12 09:55 P
there's a good question. Look around, maybe on about us, and see if they
** Private **
02/16/12 04:26 P
I don't remember the name of the publication without going back to the
** Private **
02/16/12 04:40 P
current Biology
** Private **
02/16/12 05:08 P
If you had simply said all of this to begin with, like this, then I
** Private **
02/16/12 09:42 P
Well, I said he was trying to insult me with a study that I knew could
** Private **
02/16/12 10:16 P
but you haven't backed up your opinion.
** Private **
02/16/12 10:32 P
I did.
** Private **
02/16/12 11:03 P
no, because he keeps saying the funding is a bias but he doesn't have any
** Private **
02/16/12 10:31 P
If a study can be disregarded because of the funding source, then
** Private **
02/16/12 10:59 P
So why is every scientist that ever earned a dime from big oil irrelevant?
** Private **
02/16/12 11:07 P
I don't know. Since you are the only one saying the scientists who
** Private **
02/16/12 11:45 P
I think it does in some cases. If I see an environmental impact study that
** Private **
02/17/12 02:28 A
I spent about a year working on the RJ Reynolds litigation, doing data
** Private **
02/17/12 03:07 A
That begs a question...if this was funded by Colin Firth (which you still
** Private **
02/17/12 02:23 A
well it would be a little more intelligent than it must be bullshit because
** Private **
02/16/12 11:23 P
I am sure that the college republicans who attended CPAC here last
** Private **
02/17/12 10:06 A
New research commissioned by the Today Programme and led by Wellcome
** Private **
02/16/12 11:01 P
Researchers are in it for the money? That's laughable. Until you've
** Private **
02/17/12 09:14 A
that's true. It's more a study than 2 people. But really big studies are in
** Private **
02/15/12 08:06 P
It's called confirmational bias, and there are people on this list on
** Private **
02/15/12 08:56 P
Not really. It depends on the stats that are used. When looking at
** Private **
02/15/12 09:21 P
what not really -- the meaning of standard deviations? If so yeah you are
** Private **
02/15/12 09:33 P
You are not the only one. On my desk at home is a notebook with all my
** Private **
02/15/12 10:00 P
ok thanks realized after I sent the email that you were talking to Tim, but
** Private **
02/15/12 10:11 P
Without going into detail, it involves power analysis, and I remember
** Private **
02/15/12 10:14 P
oh... it's matrix algebra? I used to like that stuff. And I don't remember
** Private **
02/15/12 10:17 P
Forgot to mention the really difficult part is correctly figuring out the
** Private **
02/15/12 10:11 P
Maybe? I'd have to look at it to know whether I could. Is this something
** Private **
02/15/12 10:15 P
that's pretty interesting. And no, it's not on Google books, but I read the
** Private **
02/15/12 10:29 P
here's a different view. At by the way, there is in fact a partial version
** Private **
02/15/12 10:40 P
You can start here
** Private **
02/15/12 10:42 P
On 2/15/2012 4:38 PM, Dana wrote:
** Private **
02/15/12 06:15 P
yeah and that would be a valid reason to dis it, if that was what happened.
** Private **
02/15/12 07:11 P
It was University College in London...and I posted it...not Larry ;-)
** Private **
02/15/12 01:59 P
Makes sense, any decent researcher will do that. Recently I heard of
** Private **
02/15/12 01:53 P
Are you still pretending this is legit?
** Private **
02/15/12 02:02 P
Yup...she discovered a new molecule that can store intense amounts of energy
** Private **
02/15/12 02:07 P
Are you trying to say that the right doesn't attack the intelligence of
** Private **
02/15/12 01:35 P
Yes...because the author's name is the same as an actor, it must be the
** Private **
02/15/12 10:05 A
"Both NPR and PBS have reported on investigations on major sponsors in the
** Private **
02/15/12 09:45 A
Don't get me started on the anti-vax crowd. 4 kids are now out of my
** Private **
02/15/12 10:14 A
"Don't get me started on the anti-vax crowd. 4 kids are now out of my kid's
** Private **
02/15/12 10:58 A
idk, i havent ever had a problem with sam, sure he says some shit,
** Private **
02/15/12 11:14 A
Thanks.
** Private **
02/15/12 11:48 A
On 2/15/2012 8:50 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
** Private **
02/15/12 12:35 P
That applies to extremism in any form.
** Private **
02/15/12 12:59 P
Data are data. That study has been replicated in England, Europe and
** Private **
02/15/12 08:37 A
This is Sam we are talking about...
** Private **
02/14/12 07:52 P
To re-post my personal epiphany from a couple of years ago:
** Private **
02/14/12 07:58 P
er, the former wastes less time.
** Private **
02/14/12 07:58 P
Sam, I am going to break my own guidance to myself and tell you that I
** Private **
02/14/12 08:07 P
> Sam, I am going to break my own guidance to myself and tell you that I
** Private **
02/14/12 09:23 P
I'd rather watch the BBC, live, from the UK. Not the Americanized version.
** Private **
02/14/12 01:07 P
Someone *Really* wasn't paying attention then.
** Private **
02/10/12 10:25 A
> https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/s320x320/5289_115439157020_623597020_2687373_3341209_n.jpg
** Private **
02/14/12 08:51 P
Top  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/10/2012 08:30 AM

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/s320x320/5289_115439157020_623597020_2687373_3341209_n.jpg What's wrong with this picture?

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/10/2012 08:56 AM

hahahahahaha, EGYPT is NOT there. g00bs. > > https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/s320x320/5289_115439157020_623597020_2687373_3341209_n.jpg > > What's wrong with this picture?

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/10/2012 08:58 AM

But it does put all the talking points neatly in one area for the uneducated and ignorant masses doesn't it. They may get confused if Egypt was over in Africa. On 10 February 2012 09:55, Ras Tafari <rastafari@gmail.com> wrote: > > hahahahahaha, EGYPT is NOT there. > > g00bs. > >

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/10/2012 10:02 AM

> But it does put all the talking points neatly in one area for the > uneducated and ignorant masses doesn't it. > They may get confused if Egypt was over in Africa. > I have developed programs, then unit tested them, then put them into an integrated development environment for integration testing. THe program then went off for quality assurance testing...following by a round of user testing with "real data". After all that, the program goes into production and.......there's a bug. Did my bug, which made it through all this rigorous testing....expose the "uneducated and ignorant masses"? OR is it possible that sometimes people, even large groups of well organized and well intentioned people.....make mistakes?

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/10/2012 10:11 AM

the position of a country on a map is VERY finite. a program has MANY permutations and is subject to many use cases, etc this is just dumb ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/10/2012 11:06 AM

> the position of a country on a map is VERY finite. > a program has MANY permutations and is subject to many use cases, etc > > this is just dumb > Course it's dumb.....but Gel didnt say it was dumb, he said it "put all of the talking points neatly in one area for the uneducated and ignorant masses".

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/10/2012 02:06 PM

Mmm...yes yes that was a bit sensationalist of me wasn't it ;-P sowwies... On 10 February 2012 12:06, GMoney <gm0n3y06@gmail.com> wrote: > Course it's dumb.....but Gel didnt say it was dumb, he said it "put all of > the talking points neatly in one area for the uneducated and ignorant > masses". > >

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 11:28 AM

"Fox News? Really can this be called a News channel?" The real question is:  Can anything be called a news channel? All of the cable, network, and radio news shows are compromised. Does anyone really believe a news channel would do an in depth expose of a drug company considering how much advertising they get from drug companies. This includes NPR and PBS. Likewise, with the rise of super pac, these organizations will do everything in their power to keep the race close until late October.  Any damaging material on a nominee would kill the race and hence kill advertising.  The super pacs are like a gold mine.  No way they kill the goose laying the golden egg.  Hell, they are doing the same thing with the GOP primaries. In the end, the news will push Romney over the top to win the GOP nomination.  Come October, I am sure most will take their profits and then work on getting Obama re-elected. J - Thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative. - Kurt Vonnegut

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 12:01 PM

Both NPR and PBS have reported on investigations on major sponsors in the past. When has Faux Snooze done so? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 12:16 PM

Looks like the WH's Media Matters division has another war going on. They must be doing something to scare the left. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/14/the-curious-link-between-media-matters-and-the-white-house-war-on-fox/ A little after 1 p.m. on Sept. 29, 2009, Karl Frisch emailed a memo to his bosses, Media Matters for America founder David Brock and president Eric Burns. In the first few lines, Frisch explained why Media Matters should launch a ?Fox Fund? whose mission would be to attack the Fox News Channel. ?Simply put,? Frisch wrote, ?the progressive movement is in need of an enemy. George W. Bush is gone. We really don?t have John McCain to kick around any more. Filling the lack of leadership on the right, Fox News has emerged as the central enemy and antagonist of the Obama administration, our Congressional majorities and the progressive movement as a whole.? ?We must take Fox News head-on in a well funded, presidential-style campaign to discredit and embarrass the network, making it illegitimate in the eyes of news consumers.? What Frisch proceeded to suggest, however, went well beyond what legitimate presidential campaigns attempt. ?We should hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors, senior network and corporate staff,? he wrote. After that, Frisch argued, should come the legal assault: ?We should look into contracting with a major law firm to study any available legal actions that can be taken against Fox News, from a class action law suit to defamation claims for those wronged by the network. I imagine this would be difficult but the right law firm is bound to find some legal ground for us to take action against the network.? > > Both NPR and PBS have reported on investigations on major sponsors in > the past. When has Faux Snooze d

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 01:04 PM

I am so sick of "war on this" or "war on that".  Let's call this a skirmish. If that guy is serious, he needs to be wedgied.  Twice. On 2/14/2012 12:15 PM, Sam wrote: > > Looks like the WH's Media Matters division has another war going on. > They must be doing something to scare the left. > > > http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/14/the-curious-link-between-media-matters-and-the-white-house-war-on-fox/

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 01:42 PM

I'm guessing you think Fox should still go down now matter how it's done. . > > I am so sick of "war on this" or "war on that".  Let's call this a skirmish. > > If that guy is serious, he needs to be wedgied.  Twice.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 02:00 PM

How in god's name did you infer that from those two lines?  Really. Tell me.  I want to know. Yes, Fox News makes up news to suit their needs.  No, I don't like it. Do I think they should "go down"?  No.  The time and effort would be a waste.  They have their place, like any other media outlet.  The important thing is to remember where they are coming from.  I can't help it if someone doesn't. As far as "No matter how it is done".  Those with a good grasp of reading comprehension understand that I was was objecting to this guy's proposed tactics. So, in concise statements: I do not think Fox News should go down. I do not agree with "no matter how it is done". On 2/14/2012 1:42 PM, Sam wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 02:13 PM

Because Sam is a crotchety old man who has nothing else in his life to pick on except the CF-Community list and to pick apart each and every sentence ever written that doesn't conform to his view of the world, or his way of life. And we feed his hobby. Relentlessly. If we all band together and ignore him, he may go away. Because he doesn't care a rat's ass about anyone here. Not that I can see. So why do any of us waste our time conversing with him? That's about the only thing I've learned in the past several months. Color me "slow to figure it out". > > How in god's name did you infer that from those two lines?  Really. > Tell me.  I want to know. > >

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 02:18 PM

> If we all band together and ignore him, he may go away. Because he doesn't > care a rat's ass about anyone here. Not that I can see. So why do any of us > waste our time conversing with him? Because there are a few people who enjoy arguing with him. Every now and then I forget and reply to a post from him.  Then I realize what I have done and stop. -Cameron ...

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 02:26 PM

Hopefully the new filter in place will prevent me from that. If that fails, save me please? :) On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Cameron Childress <cameronc@gmail.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 02:24 PM

Freudian slip in Valentines Day, talking about Sam and his crotch(ety)? =) Speaking of golf....I made an eagle on a par 5 last week. at night. with a glow ball. So all is good. Any golf in your life? > > Because Sam is a crotchety old man

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 02:43 PM

Hey that's awesome! Especially with a glow ball, holy cow! You must either be playing a lot or got really lucky! LOL! Not yet. Too cold and miserable here in the mountains right now. The days that pretend to be warm and inviting, really only last about the blink of an eye. Not long enough for a round, especially on a course that is soaked to the bone. Soon though. Soon. Looking forward to it. On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson <jmiloj@gmail.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 03:15 PM

Wow true colors. What a selfish bitch. The idea is to ignore things you don't like. When you cry you want everyone to follow your demand it's hind of stupid. Have a muffin . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 03:26 PM

YOu know Sam that sort of language was uncalled for. While EriKa was being sharp, swearing is out of line. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 03:28 PM

Being a list Nazi is a little more than sharp. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 09:03 PM

Sam no matter how much your sense of victimization is offended, whether its real or imagined, swearing is beyond the pale in this case. You can have express the same sentiments without the swearing. All it takes is a reasonable command of the english language. Admittedly I hold you in complete and utter contempt, but you are better than this, or so I thought. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 09:05 PM

there are days when I either want to pitch the iPad or my fat fingers, not sure which. But let me try retyping that last little bit: You can express the exact same sentiments without the swearing.  All it takes is a reasonable command of the english language. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 09:24 PM

Really Larry? The crap you call people and you're offended by bitch? . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 03:28 PM

OK. I didn't set that filter right ... I'm selfish because you relentlessly pick on people all the time? You hardly ever have anything nice to say, and I don't need anyone to "follow my demand". Unlike you, who lashes out every time someone doesn't agree with you and your views. I see a pattern happening on this list and lately, it's you being vitriolic against many on this list, and it's those that I wonder why they don't just shut you out and ignore you instead of keep egging you on. I welcome with open arms anyone else here that wants to tell me my viewpoint is flawed. That they ENJOY arguing with you, wholeheartedly and that it enriches their life by doing so. If that's the case, then have at it, but I don't think you could contribute positively to a conversation, no matter what it was about. I had a tidbit of information to release to the public, in case people were experiencing slower than usual refund times, which one did. You chose to be an ass and call my accountant a liar, with no substantive evidence whatsoever. True colors? I've defended you before. But your behavior lately sucks. But hey, I'm just a selfish bitch. :) Doesn't bother me. :) > > Wow true colors. What a selfish bitch. > > The idea is to ignore things you don't like. When you cry you want > everyone to follow your demand it's hind of stupid. > >

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 03:40 PM

Amazing how you are fine with the real personal attacks by the lefties on this list. I rarely make a personal attack and when I do it's often after relentless insults. Kind of like you jumping all over me for telling you my theory of why you weren't getting a tax refund. The attacks here on people that don't have left leaning views is so extreme I am surprised you support that type of vitriol. That's what the true colors comment is about. But like most lefties that can't make a valid point which stands on its own it's easier to censor the other side. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 04:11 PM

I have no idea who is left, right or center, nor do I care. And I have defended you before, as I stated. I also never said I wasn't getting a tax refund. I haven't even filed yet. I posted a tidbit, passed on by my accountant, that I thought others might find useful. You called my accountant a liar. Someone you dont even know. Do I need to quote that line? Did she deserve that? Do I deserve that? But hey whatever Sam. I am nothing and nobody in the scheme of things. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 04:37 PM

Sam....all you want to say after the fact doesn't change that out of the blue you just said called someone a liar. This may be as a result of feeling attacked, or the only one defending a particular point of view. It may be that you are so often on the defensive, that I feel you end up attacking people (pre-emptive strikes?). Erika's statement was not political. She was not making a Democrat/Left wing statement. She was just sharing some information based on her personal experience. You aren't the only one who is vitriolic on the list, but it seems to come from you a bit often. At first I thought you were Trolling and enjoyed provoking people. But of late I realise it probably is just you, and you actually think that way. That is, you actually believe Erika's accountant, or Erika herself, is a liar because of what was posted. You felt as though your beliefs were attacked by her statement. Now I find that to be a pretty irrational position to take. And then on the flip side Erika saying that she is filtering you seems to have hurt your feelings, but you still can't see that you calling her/her accountant a liar precipitated that action. I think if your intention was not to attack, or malign, then the simple thing to do would be to apologise for that (which is not the same as apologising for your belief that the democrats are the cause of the tax system not working or whatever your point was. NO one's asking you to apologise for that viewpoint). On 14 February 2012 17:11, Erika L. Rich <elrich@ruwebby.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 05:29 PM

> Sam....all you want to say after the fact doesn't change that out of the > blue you just said called someone a liar. > This may be as a result of feeling attacked, or the only one defending a > particular point of view. It may be that you are so often on the defensive, > that I feel you end up attacking people (pre-emptive strikes?). No, it was a joke because we all know accountants like lawyers aren't that trustworthy. Except her's of course. > Erika's statement was not political. She was not making a Democrat/Left > wing statement. She was just sharing some information based on her personal > experience. Nor was mine. > You aren't the only one who is vitriolic on the list, but it seems to come > from you a bit often. > > At first I thought you were Trolling and enjoyed provoking people. But of > late I realise it probably is > just you, and you actually think that way. But wait? Aren't you an admitted troll? > That is, you actually believe Erika's accountant, or Erika herself, is a > liar because of what was posted. You felt as though your beliefs were > attacked by her statement. No. I mentioned what I heard as a heads-up kind of warning and she got snippy as if I was attacking her. I joked back thinking she had  too much coffee and she went crazy. > Now I find that to be a pretty irrational position to take. Yeah! > And then on the flip side Erika saying that she is filtering you seems to > have hurt your feelings, but you still can't see that you calling her/her > accountant a liar precipitated that action. Filtering me doesn't hurt my feelings. She asked everyone to filter me so I would leave. That's childish censorship. Still didn't hurt my feelings, just pointing out the tyranny. > I think if your intention was not to attack, or malign, then the simple > thing to do would be to apologise for that (which is not the same as > apologising for your belief that the democrats are the cause of the tax > system not working or whatever your point was. NO one's asking you to > apologise for that viewpoint). I apologize when I do something wrong. When I offer an insightful warning and it's perceived as a personal attack than I think her mind was made up ahead of time. The fact that she's never defended me in the past even though she claimed she did is odd. The fact that she's called me an old man living in the basement before tells me what I need to know. The fact that she's never said boo to Larry or Dana or you even is a sign she agrees with leftist extremism. That's fine, just don't attack me over it. .

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 10:56 PM

Because you call on others when they misstate facts, I have to remind you of the order of events, and exactly what was said Sam. All of which is obviously verifiable in the HOF archives. Because you are having problem with the timeline of comments, here's a recap: Sam's reply to my first reply back to him, calling my accountant a liar. ***Today at 1:41 PM, Sam wrote:*** No offense to you're lying accountant. Just telling you what I saw on the news. > > Well, my accountant isn't "any tax return company" and when she tells me that they received "official" word, I think I'll take her word for it. > > In any case, doesn't matter to me. I don't base our yearly budget on when > we get a tax refund. :) So 1st: I didn't "pitch a fit" to your original reply. As you can read above. Complete with smiley. 2nd: You came back and called my accountant a liar. *** Now to address the basement thing.*** I NEVER said you lived in a basement. I only called you, and to quote: "And why are you such a crotchety old grump of a human being ? Really? I don't even know why you enjoy being on this list. " ***To address your reply to Gel:*** A) It was not a joke. I find my accountant very trustworthy. I trust her with all my businesses and she does a perfect job. I'm sorry you think they are scum. That is news to me that accountants can't be trusted. B) I have come down on Dana AND Larry as a matter of fact, and both can attest to it. But we've been around FOREVER, and therefore as friends can do that to one another and be respectful and kiss and make up. That option doesn't exist with you. C) I DID defend you once a year or so ago. If I have to comb the archives and find it for you and quote it, just let me know, but I did. Shame on me. D) I asked OTHERS who have problems with you why they keep talking to you. Not EVERYONE. Unless you believe EVERYONE has a problem with you ... in which case I ask again, why bother? E) I don't really care. I will take everyone's advice now, on and off list, and forget all about you. :) No problemo! I have enough things to do than wage a words battle. Bottom line. Whatever. :) Happy Valentine's Day. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 11:38 PM

> 2nd: You came back and called my accountant a liar. Are you really getting into a hissy fit over me calling your accountant a liar? > *** Now to address the basement thing.*** > I NEVER said you lived in a basement. I only called you, and to quote: > I had a picture of this nasty, grumpy, disheveled, out of shape, dirty t-shirt wearing, man. Balding. Cigarette hanging from permanent scowling face, sitting behind a great big wooden desk as old as the Earth, laden with papers, and old 19" CRT monitor. Keyboard sitting on top of a pile of books. Wires and electronics scattered everywhere. (why I don't know but it was in my head) Sam sitting in an old creaking cracked leather chair. A haze of smoke in a dark room. All by himself. > > ***To address your reply to Gel:*** > > A) It was not a joke. I find my accountant very trustworthy. I trust her > with all my businesses and she does a perfect job. I'm sorry you think they > are scum. That is news to me that accountants can't be trusted. I don't think they are scum, but they are known to be liars. Arthur Anderson sound familiar? Tim Gietner? I can go on. > Happy Valentine's Day. Thanks

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 12:12 AM

Sam, if you're going to quote something from 3 years ago, use the whole message so it's read properly and not taken out of context for your purposes... Especially since I was actually concerned about you when I first had this conversation back in 2009.  :) **** Now there's some good human feelings I can deal with. Sammy's got a daughter. And he reads her stories. Phew. My mental picture of you got better. I had a picture of this nasty, grumpy, disheveled, out of shape, dirty t-shirt wearing, man. Balding. Cigarette hanging from permanent scowling face, sitting behind a great big wooden desk as old as the Earth, laden with papers, and old 19" CRT monitor. Keyboard sitting on top of a pile of books. Wires and electronics scattered everywhere. (why I don't know but it was in my head) Sam sitting in an old creaking cracked leather chair. A haze of smoke in a dark room. All by himself. I'm glad you aren't. I can at least read your posts and know someone loves you. :) On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: > BTW, I'm happy as could be, my girl hugs and kisses me several times a > day but gave me an extra big hug after I read her a spider-girl comic > tonight. I never knew there was such a thing until this morning.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 07:55 PM

I actually find it more amusing that he called you a leftie. You're one of the least political people here, and based on the few political remarks I've seen, that's not the way I'd describe you. Mind you, I dislike the whole left-right dichotomy, and think that most people here have views that are more complex than that. But you are hardly out there agitating for social change. Don't let it bother you. I think it's just his name for people who disagree with him. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 09:16 PM

You totally misread that. Every day Larry posts at least one GOP hit piece on this list. If anybody doesn't agree with it they are immediately attacked as mindless "reich-wing" buffoons. Not a word about that from most people here. I occasionally challenge his nonsense and am called a crotchety old man that lives in my mothers basement or something silly like that. People with extreme left wing views, especially you, constantly use personal attacks at the first sign of a non-left wing comment. That seems to be the standard here and more and more people are upset with differing opinions. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 10:09 PM

No. I don't argue with Larry for much the same reason I don't argue with you. Both of you have your minds made up and are utterly convinced that you are right. Life is just too short. BUT Larry does sometimes post useful fact-based information, whereas anytime I chase down the basis for one of your opinions, it's invariably some distasteful and hateful spin. And you will invariably post it again as conventional wisdom a few months later. I grant you that Larry does the same thing, but at least I can often find actual facts in his statements even if he's unable to question the correctness of his opinions. For the record, "reich-wing" is excessive if it refers to all conservatives, perhaps not if he meant the wide-eyed nutso fringes of the movement. I remember seeing him say that but not what he said exactly. But never mind. You're doing it again -- it doesn't MATTER if Larry offended you. It's no reason to call Erika a bitch. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 10:29 PM

> No. I don't argue with Larry for much the same reason I don't argue with > you. Both of you have your minds made up and are utterly convinced that you > are right. Life is just too short. You are actually worse than both of us. > Larry does sometimes post useful fact-based information, whereas anytime I > chase down the basis for one of your opinions, it's invariably some > distasteful and hateful spin. And you will invariably post it again as > conventional wisdom a few months later. I grant you that Larry does the > same thing, but at least I can often find actual facts in his statements > even if he's unable to question the correctness of his opinions. Because you and he are cut from the same cloth. You two always see eye to eye until he turns on you about homeschooling or whatever little disagreements you have. You both resort to personal attacks on the slightest disagreement. . > For the record, "reich-wing" is excessive if it refers to all > conservatives, perhaps not if he meant the wide-eyed nutso fringes of the > movement. I remember seeing him say that but not what he said exactly. But > never mind. You're doing it again -- it doesn't MATTER if Larry offended > you. It's no reason to call Erika a bitch. It's always pointed at anyone that questions his post. It's actually to childish to be offensive, but he sure does try. .

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 11:08 PM

OK, I am worse than Larry. Fine. And worse than you, eh. Even more fine. If you think I always see eye to eye with Larry, after all this time, I really don't know what to say to you. And I attack Hatton and Robert? Sorry, dude. Your reality and mine simply to not correspond. Maybe Erika had the right idea. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 11:11 PM

Man, my gmail filters must be working well. I seem to have fallen out of the top 5 of everyones person to hate on the right and left. I need to get back on that apparently. Judah > > OK, I am worse than Larry. Fine. And worse than you, eh. Even more fine. If > you think I always see eye to eye with Larry, after all this time, I really > don't know what to say to you. And I attack Hatton and Robert? Sorry, dude. > Your reality and mine simply to not correspond. Maybe Erika had the right > idea.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 11:27 PM

Wait .. people hated you?! Never!!! :) On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Judah McAuley <judah@wiredotter.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 01:27 AM

You are slacking Judah... Man, my gmail filters must be working well. I seem to have fallen out of the top 5 of everyones person to hate on the right and left. I need to get back on that apparently. Judah > > OK, I am worse than Larry. Fine. And worse than you, eh. Even more > fine. If you think I always see eye to eye with Larry, after all this > time, I really don't know what to say to you. And I attack Hatton and Robert? Sorry, dude. > Your reality and mine simply to not correspond. Maybe Erika had the > right idea.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 08:40 AM

Exactly Dana. I have every respect for reasonable people. I can relate to conservatives the onew sho think and I am willing to listen and respect reasonable people. I have no respect for those on the left or right, or middle who have substituted ideology for rational thought. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 08:41 AM

I forgot to add, Point well taken Dana, I will tone it down. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 01:24 AM

Truth hurts Sam...admitting it is the first step to recovering... You totally misread that. Every day Larry posts at least one GOP hit piece on this list. If anybody doesn't agree with it they are immediately attacked as mindless "reich-wing" buffoons. Not a word about that from most people here. I occasionally challenge his nonsense and am called a crotchety old man that lives in my mothers basement or something silly like that. People with extreme left wing views, especially you, constantly use personal attacks at the first sign of a non-left wing comment. That seems to be the standard here and more and more people are upset with differing opinions. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 08:34 AM

Except haven' you noticed something Sam those pieces I post are from Politico.com, not exactly a bastion of liberalism. Look who owns it, Albritton Communications. Its owned by form Bush I admin people, and the ceo was in Bush II's cabinate. It may be left wing in your mind but then again from the way you've been going at it lately so is everything. The issue is that you went over the line with the swearing. I really think you need to get over yourself. Take a break for a while. Leave the politics and the on-line jousting for a while. Do something that has nothing to do with either until you get your balance back. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 03:11 PM

I'm going by what you often say not the two line. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 08:01 PM

I don't remember saying that Fox News needs to go down.  They do piss me off, as does the media in general a lot of the time, but spending time and taxpayer money to harass them with lawsuits and ruin careers/lives is just asinine and stomps all over the first amendment.  That is something I would never seriously advocate, even if it is the cool thing to do these days. Oh, and remember the wise words of the squadron leader from Star Wars .. "Stay on target!" On 2/14/2012 3:11 PM, Sam wrote: > > I'm going by what you often say not the two line. > > .

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 08:11 PM

The reason he is currently setting Fox News up as victim and Media Matters as the bad guys is that they have just published a book called The Fox Effect. Make more sense now? New talking points, but you hadn't seen the memo yet, so you are comparing this to reality and of course it's not matching. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 08:25 PM

Ah.  That does make sense. For those of us who see the world in shades of grey instead of black and white, neither side is a victim. On 2/14/2012 8:10 PM, Dana wrote: > > The reason he is currently setting Fox News up as victim and Media Matters > as the bad guys is that they have just published a book called The Fox > Effect. > > Make more sense now? New talking points, but you hadn't seen the memo yet, > so you are comparing this to reality and of course it's not matching.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 08:48 PM

of course. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 09:11 PM

It makes perfect sense in a why. There is some neuropsych research that's I've mentioned before that did functional MRI's on self identified conservatives and progressives. What the researchers found was that the areas of the brain that deal with processing fear and anxiety are more active and larger in the conservatives of the sample than the progressives. In contrast the progressives had larger and more active areas of the brain that deal in complex cognition and nuanced thinking than conservatives. So its entirely possible for many conservatives to perceive the world entirely in black and white rather than in shades of grey. The perceived victimization also works because of the differences in the amydala (the area that deals with processing anxiety and fear related information). ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 09:26 PM

Here we go again. Why is nobody outraged over this personal attack? You know damn well it's pure hateful BS. Why so much hate Larry? Why? . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 10:14 PM

I was about to say never mind, sorry I talked to you like you were a human being. But ok, here we have a perfect example. Why is this a personal attack? You have two legitimate options here: shrug it off because you don't feel like you yourself in fact operate from fear, or ask him for peer-reviewed research that supports this contention. And then dispute its validity, if you can. Or, you could call it bashing and a personal attack, which will convince nobody and make you look small. shrug ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 10:24 PM

         \|||/          (o o) ,----ooO--(_)-------. | Please            | |   don't feed the  | |     TROLL's !     | '--------------Ooo--'         |__|__|          || ||         ooO Ooo ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 10:36 PM

> I was about to say never mind, sorry I talked to you like you were a human > being. Are you insulting me again? >  But ok, here we have a perfect example. Why is this a personal attack? You > have two legitimate options here: shrug it off because you don't feel like > you yourself in fact operate from fear, or ask him for peer-reviewed > research that supports this contention. And then dispute its validity, if > you can. Who do you think Larry is pointing that at? Are you really pretending it's a coincidence? I can tell his so called research is bunk without even reading it. I know that for a fact because I've been doing it for years. It's hate speech, prob from media matters attacking all that are different in opinion. It's sad. If you weren't so deep in the disillusionment you would see immediately that it's a stupid attack piece. > Or, you could call it bashing and a personal attack, which will convince > nobody and make you look small. Really, only you and he could believe conservatives can only think in black and white. WOW.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 10:50 PM

On 2/14/2012 10:36 PM, Sam wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- You are ugly. Your E-mails smell funny, too.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 01:26 AM

It's all the Santorum... On 2/14/2012 10:36 PM, Sam wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- You are ugly. Your E-mails smell funny, too.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 08:50 AM

OK Sam what is the criticism of the research. Here's the original study. As I mentioned its been replicated elsewhere and also with non university samples and the results hold. So after reading the study, please tell us why its crap? Myself and many neuroscientists would be most interested in hearing your insights on this. Is it sampling error, experimenter characteristics, blinding problems, statistical analysis or experimental design problems. If you are going to say its crap then say why, just don't make the statement without backup. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21474316 Curr Biol. 2011 Apr 26;21(8):677-80. Epub 2011 Apr 7. Political orientations are correlated with brain structure in young adults. Kanai R, Feilden T, Firth C, Rees G. Source University College London Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17 Queen Square, London WC1N 3AR, UK. r.kanai@ucl.ac.uk Abstract Substantial differences exist in the cognitive styles of liberals and conservatives on psychological measures. Variability in political attitudes reflects genetic influences and their interaction with environmental factors. Recent work has shown a correlation between liberalism and conflict-related activity measured by event-related potentials originating in the anterior cingulate cortex. Here we show that this functional correlate of political attitudes has a counterpart in brain structure. In a large sample of young adults, we related self-reported political attitudes to gray matter volume using structural MRI. We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala. These results were replicated in an independent sample of additional participants. Our findings extend previous observations that political attitudes reflect differences in self-regulatory conflict monitoring and recognition of emotional faces by showing that such attitudes are reflected in human brain structure. Although our data do not determine whether these regions play a causal role in the formation of political attitudes, they converge with previous work to suggest a possible link between brain structure and psychological mechanisms that mediate political attitudes. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. ------------------ Her's a good discussion of the study and several others. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/09/07/your-brain-on-politics-the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-liberals-and-conservatives/ What I am struck with about this work is how it may explain why conservatives and progressives find it so difficult to communicate with each other. All too often they are talking past one another. These results may explain why. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 09:28 AM

That's a study by the actor Colin Firth for a radio show. Do you really want to site a neurological study co-authored by an Oscar Winner as proof of your silly claim? . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 09:35 AM

Sam get real. If you cannot come up with a valid critique of the study, and I've given you the sources, then say so. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 09:45 AM

Yanno, at the risk of fueling your misconceptions, Sam, I have to go with Larry here. You don't seriously think that, do you? You always go for cheapo debate points, and that makes it very hard to actually talk to you. He backed up his statement, and since you didn't want to back down you used the old distract-them-with-stupid method. Everyone here has a decent brain, and has tried the baffle-them-with-bullshit route themselves at least once in their lives, so we know it when we see it, even though some of us have given you the benefit of the doubt more than once. It gets old. This thread is old.  So, more in sorrow than in anger: <delete> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 11:45 AM

No really, it's the Actor that co-wrote this research for a radio show. http://mindhacks.com/2011/04/10/the-oscar-for-best-neuroscience-research-goes-to/ If you  want to discredit all of my sites because it doesn't fit you view at least recognize a publicity stunt disguised as hate speech when you see it. Ask yourself why the left always attacks the intelligence of people that disagree? It's not very smart. The Right could easily do the same yet they don't, more mature I guess. Well, Michael Savage did write a book "Liberlism is a Mental Disorder" but he has his own issues. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 12:55 PM

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are making some sort of strange joke. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 01:01 PM

Whenever I tell you to "ask yourself" it's a joke because I know you won't understand the question. . > > I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are making > some sort of strange joke.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 01:33 PM

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2011/06/colin-firth-actor-writer-aca demy-award-winner-scientist/ Wow...I stand corrected...but he actually only gave the scientists the idea. The Coauthor thing was crediting him for the idea.  He didn't actually do the study.  So to say it is his study is stretching the truth quite a bit... No really, it's the Actor that co-wrote this research for a radio show. http://mindhacks.com/2011/04/10/the-oscar-for-best-neuroscience-research-goe s-to/ If you  want to discredit all of my sites because it doesn't fit you view at least recognize a publicity stunt disguised as hate speech when you see it. Ask yourself why the left always attacks the intelligence of people that disagree? It's not very smart. The Right could easily do the same yet they don't, more mature I guess. Well, Michael Savage did write a book "Liberlism is a Mental Disorder" but he has his own issues. . > > Yanno, at the risk of fueling your misconceptions, Sam, I have to go > with Larry here. You don't seriously think that, do you? You always go > for cheapo debate points, and that makes it very hard to actually talk to you. > > He backed up his statement, and since you didn't want to back down you > used the old distract-them-with-stupid method. Everyone here has a > decent brain, and has tried the baffle-them-with-bullshit route > themselves at least once in their lives, so we know it when we see it, > even though some of us have given you the benefit of the doubt more than once. > > It gets old. This thread is old.  So, more in sorrow than in anger: > > <delete>

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 01:44 PM

Yeah, A guy that didn't even finish high school said: I?decided to find out what was biologically wrong with people who don?t agree with me and see what scientists had to say about it. So commissioning a study to confirm a stupid theory that returns your predisposed results seems a little over the top. No? . > > http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2011/06/colin-firth-actor-writer-aca > demy-award-winner-scientist/ > > Wow...I stand corrected...but he actually only gave the scientists the idea. > The Coauthor thing was crediting him for the idea.  He didn't actually do > the study.  So to say it is his study is stretching the truth quite a bi

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 01:57 PM

He didn't commission it either...he brought up the idea on a radio show and the scientist heard about it and thought that it would be an interesting study.  Even if he did commission it (unless I missed it in the article, it didn't say he did in the article anyhow), he wasn't actually part of the study and didn't do any of the research so why would it matter if he brought up the idea or Bozo the Clown brought up the idea?  The study only confirmed his theory...why do you have a problem with the fact that he was on target with his theory that people of differing political inclinations are wired differently?   Yeah, A guy that didn't even finish high school said: I?decided to find out what was biologically wrong with people who don?t agree with me and see what scientists had to say about it. So commissioning a study to confirm a stupid theory that returns your predisposed results seems a little over the top. No? . > > http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2011/06/colin-firth-actor-writ > er-aca > demy-award-winner-scientist/ > > Wow...I stand corrected...but he actually only gave the scientists the idea. > The Coauthor thing was crediting him for the idea.  He didn't actually > do the study.  So to say it is his study is stretching the truth quite > a bi

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 05:59 PM

Because lefties have the right of mind and righties have what's left. heyuk. On 2/15/2012 1:52 PM, Eric Roberts wrote: > his theory...why do you have a problem with the fact that he was on target > with his theory that people of differing political inclinations are wired > differently?

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 02:02 PM

Sigh. 1. I don't care if he finished high school, if the study results have some validity, and no I have not done a chi-square analysis on this. 2. I think you are possibly skewing Mr Firth's idea quite a little 3. He didn't commission the study; where did you get that? 4. It may be a stupid theory, but at the moment the data is on its side 5. I think you mean predetermined, and now that you have said it, please explain the accusation And that's without breaking a sweat or getting into the fact that you misrepresent one study as the other. Even if it was an accident, that was uncool. And this is essentially what happens any time I actually try to figure out what the fuck you are talking about. Invariably the answer is "bullshit." ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 02:14 PM

Both of this year?s lead Oscar winners have published scientific papers on neuroscience. We?ve covered Natalie Portman?s work on frontal lobe development in children before, but it turns out Colin Firth has also just co-authored a study on structural brain differences in people with differing political views. An excellent post on The Neurocritic tells the intriguing story of how the study came about. It turns out Firth was a guest editor on the daily BBC Radio 4 news programme Today and -----((( commissioned neuroscientist Geraint Rees )))------- to scan the brains of two prominent UK politicians ? one staunchly liberal and the other a confirmed conservative ? to look for differences. The piece was clearly a piece of news fluff ? as you can tell very little from scanning just two people ? but it was motivated by a genuine interest in whether political opinions correlate with brain differences. -----(((Rees decided to develop the idea into a more comprehensive study,)))----- using scans from 90 people, to see whether the density of the brain?s grey matter differed in line with differences in political views. Summary, Idiot actor paid Reese to do a study proving people that disagreed with him are biologically inferior: From Eric's article that you like: I?decided to find out what was biologically wrong with people who don?t agree with me and see what scientists had to say about it. Reese like the predetermined results and added people. It's really not so hard to follow. Stop attacking me and read what I say. You will stop at nothing to defend Larry's lunacy. That's not a good thing. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 02:17 PM

Sam you need to educate yourself before commenting. All you do is make yourself look foolish. So as I said what is wrong with the study? Sample Size? Methodological Issues? Data Analysis? and no snarky answers please, just answer the question. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 02:22 PM

And where does it say that he paid Rees to do the study... Sam you need to educate yourself before commenting. All you do is make yourself look foolish. So as I said what is wrong with the study? Sample Size? Methodological Issues? Data Analysis? and no snarky answers please, just answer the question. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 02:38 PM

OK, I just read it and it says nothing. Just an inconclusive assumption that can be a guide for further research. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 03:21 PM

sorry vague generalities don't cut it. Specifics please. What are the issues you have with the studies? Sample Size, Methodology, Analysis, what Sam? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 08:30 PM

LOL!! Brilliant response :) http://abhimanyudubey.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/trollface.jpg?w=207&h=170 On 15 February 2012 15:38, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 01:45 PM

it's a different study, assuming it actually happened, isn't it? I wasn't sure what I thought of Sam's source, but if the Smithsonian says it happened I guess it did. However, per Mind Hacks, the Colin Firth one is two British politicians, and the study Larry is citing involved a group of American students. I think. ::scrolls up:: On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Eric Roberts < owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 01:55 PM

nope, British, but otherwise: "a large group of young adults." per Mind Hacks: "two prominent UK politicians ? one staunchly liberal and the other a confirmed conservative" You are conflating. Apparently the the Current Biology study got the first germ of the idea from Firth and that is why he got a credit, but they are still two different studies, one with a larger sample and better methodology than the other. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 02:01 PM

> nope, British, but otherwise: "a large group of young adults." > > per Mind Hacks: "two prominent UK politicians ? one staunchly liberal and > the other a confirmed conservative" Keep reading: Rees decided to develop the idea into a more comprehensive study, using scans from 90 people, to see whether the density of the brain?s grey matter differed in line with differences in political views. > You are conflating. Apparently the the Current Biology study got the first > germ of the idea from Firth and that is why he got a credit, but they are > still two different studies, one with a larger sample and better > methodology than the other. So we have predetermined results and a paid scientist. Any idiot with common sense can tell you this study is stupid and flawed. Ask your self if the study supported the opposite would you relish it? Than's a joke.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 02:07 PM

> Let me point an arrow at it, Sam --->a more comprehensive study, using > scans from 90 people > > So we have predetermined results and a paid scientist. > Any idiot with common sense can tell you this study is stupid and flawed. Well the idiot I am listening to is certainly saying that, but as far as I can tell he is talking out of his ass. If you aren't going to substantiate you ugliness then keep it to yourself. Ask your self if the study supported the opposite would you relish it? > Than's a joke. > I am not relishing it when it doesn't. You're jerking the list around. Again.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 02:18 PM

Wow. You are so angry and you blame it on me. Do you truly believe people that don't agree with you are biologically inferior? . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 02:28 PM

they may in fact agree with me, Sam; this is Britain where they don't use the same definitions as you do. But it doesn't matter whether they agree with me. What does the study say, Sam? And by the way, "more fearful" does not necessarily mean "biologically inferior." Sometimes fear is a survival trail, although assuming the study is valid I suspect it may be like ADD, a good way to be if you're a hunter-gatherer... ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 02:31 PM

and actually, you're right. I am angry because you are wasting my time and I am allowing it. Just be quiet and admit you have no idea how to evaluate the validity of the sample, and add that you question its findings. This is what wikipedia calls WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You are the CF equivalent. Is that not the essence of your objection. Ok. We have all registered your displeasure. Have a nice day. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 02:42 PM

You have a real bad attitude problem. Why do you defend with such anger a study you know nothing about? Because you think they study claims you're smarter? It doesn't. It claims nothing. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 03:00 PM

I am defending it because a study in a peer-reviewed journal has a decent claim to representing, however imperfectly, some part of the truth, whether Sam likes it or not. And you know what, I just tried to show you a graceful way out of this conversation, but if you don't want to take it I am feeling just bloody-minded enough to expose invincible ignorance for what the fuck it is. We could save a lot of time and bandwidth if you just call me a bitch now and run home to mama, because you aren't doing yourself any good here. Sam, show me where in the study it says any thing about "smarter" or "claims nothing". And you still haven't answered Eric when about where exactly it says that Firth commissioned the study or that the researchers were paid off or that the results were predetermined. See, this is what you do, every time. You find  make unfounded accusations or find a reason to belittle some part of the topic, usually tangential, and hang on to it for dear life as you chuckle to yourself about how clever you are. And you are always beside the point and usually wrong about the specifics. Most people would get frustrated watching a train wreck that insists on happening over and over again. Around here we mostly just kinda avert our eyes to be polite. But hey if we're going to talk bitches... I suggest you stop here because I am telling you that we know you are full of shit and yet you refuse to hear it and... well, it's hard to see how you could make yourself look worse, but by God you are trying. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 03:09 PM

> I am defending it because a study in a peer-reviewed journal has a decent > claim to representing, however imperfectly, some part of the truth, whether > Sam likes it or not. Obviously you didn't read it. > And you know what, I just tried to show you a graceful way out of this > conversation, but if you don't want to take it I am feeling just > bloody-minded enough to expose invincible ignorance for what the fuck it > is. We could save a lot of time and bandwidth if you just call me a bitch > now and run home to mama, because you aren't doing yourself any good here. You have a blood vessel in your forehead that's about to pop. I am not the enemy. Calm down. I think you should get help. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I just provided you point by point all of the above and you ignore it and ask again. Why are you so belligerent? Why are you taking this so personal? It's not an attack on you. I am not attacking you, you are attacking me. Take a deep breath and realize what's happening. It's the only way to move forward. > I suggest you stop here because I am telling you that we know you are full > of shit and yet you refuse to hear it and... well, it's hard to see how you > could make yourself look worse, but by God you are trying. Ya got nothing again so another personal attack. Do you not see the pattern?

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 03:34 PM

> Obviously you didn't read it. > Obviously you didn't understand it. > You have a blood vessel in your forehead that's about to pop. I am not > the enemy. Calm down. I think you should get help. > No, Sam, I don't. I have decided that if you insist on putting your ignorance on display,it's not up to me to stop you. You're also apparently -- just to underline the point -- not going to answer the question. I just provided you point by point all of the above and you ignore it > and ask again. Why are you so belligerent? Why are you taking this so > personal? It's not an attack on you. I am not attacking you, you are > attacking me. Take a deep breath and realize what's happening. It's > the only way to move forward. > No, Sam, you didn't. And no, I don't think I am being attacked. By anyone, least of all you. A minute ago, you thought I was all jubilant because this study supposedly attacked you. And you wonder why people think you are confused. And you're still not answering my question. Where does it say that Firth commissioned the study or that its results were predetermined? What actual basis do you have for saying the study proves nothing? /me listens to crickets. that's what I thought >  I suggest you stop here because I am telling you that we know you are full > > of shit and yet you refuse to hear it and... well, it's hard to see how > you > > could make yourself look worse, but by God you are trying. > Shrug. I gave you your chance.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 03:53 PM

> confused. And you're still not answering my question. Where does it say > that Firth commissioned the study Again: It turns out Firth was a guest editor on the daily BBC Radio 4 news programme Today and <LOOK HERE> COMMISSIONED neuroscientist Geraint Rees </LOOKHERE> to scan the brains of two prominent UK politicians ? one staunchly liberal and the other a confirmed conservative ? to look for differences. > or that its results were predetermined? I?decided to find out what was BIOLOGICALLY WRONG with people who DON'T AGREE WITH ME and see what scientists had to say about it. - CF > What actual basis do you have for saying the study proves nothing? The study states it's all assumptions based on the findings. -- Results offer POSSIBLE accounts for cognitive styles of liberals and conservative Although these results suggest a link between political attitudes and brain structure, it is important to note that the neural processes implicated are likely to reflect complex processes of the formation of political attitudes rather than a direct representation of political opinions per se. The conceptualizing and reasoning associated with the expression of political opinions is not necessarily limited to structures or functions of the regions we identified but will require the involvement of more widespread brain regions implicated in abstract thoughts and reasoning. > /me listens to crickets. > > that's what I thought No you did not

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 04:09 PM

you're still conflating. You are not talking about the study Larry posted, Sam, all of these insults later. Again: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- so how do you get "predetermined" from "see what the scientists had to stay." I mean, really. How? > The study states it's all assumptions based on the findings. > > -- Results offer POSSIBLE accounts for cognitive styles of liberals > and conservative > well yeah, it's always "possible" when it comes to science, Sam, because your data is only as good as your sample and your model. Duh.  But that doesn't mean we stop doing it or can airily dismiss study results that don't please us. At least not without explaining why. Although these results suggest a link between political attitudes and ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- the key word here is not necessarily. They found a statistically significant difference, and weren't sure why. It's still statistically significant. Not knowing why doesn't make they finding either "predetermined" or "nothing". You should pick one of those and stick with it, by the way, as they kinda contradict each other. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- giggle, there you go again, you silly bastard you.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 04:13 PM

Maybe we should "commission" a scientist to study the members of this list and see what their brains show, keeping in mind that they can only scan hardware, not the software. > >> to scan the brains of two prominent UK politicians ? one staunchly >> liberal and the other a confirmed conservative ? to look for >> difference

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 04:21 PM

I wonder which members you are referring to with that comment. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 06:00 PM

I was referring to all of them, but since you seem to think everything I post is a derogatory reference to you, here's a link: http://www.mentalhealth.com/icd/p22-pe01.html ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 04:19 PM

> you're still conflating. You are not talking about the study Larry posted, A high school dropout commissioned Geraint Rees because: I?decided to find out what was BIOLOGICALLY WRONG with people who DON'T AGREE WITH ME and see what scientists had to say about it. - CF All the studies were done by Geraint Rees. Same study, different people. > so how do you get "predetermined" from "see what the scientists had to > stay." I mean, really. How? Why did you not read this sentence: I?decided to find out what was BIOLOGICALLY WRONG with people who DON'T AGREE WITH ME and see what scientists had to say about it. - CF > well yeah, it's always "possible" when it comes to science, Sam, because > your data is only as good as your sample and your model. Duh.  But that > doesn't mean we stop doing it or can airily dismiss study results that > don't please us. At least not without explaining why. Like it's possible to get out of it what you want and claim conservatives can only think in black and white? Is that what you got out of it? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Predetermined outcome was there's a tiny weenie difference that we could use to define the two different groups but we shouldn't because that's not what the data tells us.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 04:39 PM

All the studies were done by Geraint Rees. Same study, different people. Maybe this is a vocabulary problem. See, the scans of one of each, sure, that has only anecdotal validity. It's still science, for certain meaning of "science", because you get journal articles about individual patients, but it's no more than suggestive. Please try to follow here, because that is not the study that Larry posted. THAT one was -- dammit don't want to look again -- something like a hundred people. But if the sample was truly random, it's sometime like confirmation. Larry, I am going to assume that you looked at that thing for statistical significance, right? Cause I understand the concept, but I would have to look up standard deviation and start from there, and Sammy here obviously doesn't have a clue or he'd be talking about it. > so how do you get "predetermined" from "see what the scientists had to > stay." I mean, really. How? > > Why did you not read this sentence: > I?decided to find out what was BIOLOGICALLY WRONG with people who > DON'T AGREE WITH ME and see what scientists had to say about it. - CF > I read it. You're offended by the idea that he thinks people who don't agree with him have something that is biologically wrong with him. We all understand that. But you're saying that a study of 100 people is invalid because somebody who didn't conduct it said something about a different set of activities, and the statistical significance of the results is irrelevant. And I am telling you that it can offend you until you are blue in the face, but it still won't make "see what the scientists had to say about it" mean "predetermined" results. Please tell me you're this stupid on purpose, because you're scaring me. I am not sure what to call your reasoning (?) here but it's definitely not logic. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Well, I have to say, you're sure giving it a shot. > and claim conservatives can only think in black and white? Is that what > you got > out of it? No, Sam. That is not what I got out of it. > Predetermined outcome was there's a tiny weenie difference that we > could use to define the two different groups but we shouldn't because > that's not what the data tells us. That's not the usual meaning of predetermined, Sam. You might want to look these big words up before you use them.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 05:39 PM

>  Maybe this is a vocabulary problem. I think it goes much deeper. > See, the scans of one of each, sure, > that has only anecdotal validity. It's still science, for certain meaning > of "science", because you get journal articles about individual patients, > but it's no more than suggestive. Please try to follow here, because that > is not the study that Larry posted. Yes it is. It's the same study done three times. Two people, 90 people and 28 people. > THAT one was -- dammit don't want to look again -- something like a hundred > people. But if the sample was truly random, it's sometime like > confirmation. Larry, I am going to assume that you looked at that thing for > statistical significance, right? > Cause I understand the concept, but I would have to look up standard > deviation and start from there, and Sammy here obviously doesn't have a > clue or he'd be talking about it. PURE BS! If a scientist ever made nickle form an oil company everything they ever say for the rest of their lives is bunk in your mind. NOW, you say the science is sound even though you know it was the equivalent of Bill Maher saying if you don't agree you're inferior. I will pay someone to prove it. But I will not pay them a large enough amount to do a continued study to make my study look legit. No way. This is n the up an up. > I read it. You're offended by the idea that he thinks people who don't > agree with him have something that is biologically wrong with him. We all > understand that. But you're saying that a study of 100 people is invalid > because somebody who didn't conduct it said something about a different set > of activities, and the statistical significance of the results is > irrelevant. No, I'm saying it was a publicity stunt that for a radio station that some people took seriously. Again if it was tied to anything right leaning it would be bunk before it started. Now miraculously science can never be wrong. > And I am telling you that it can offend you until you are blue in the face, > but it still won't make "see what the scientists had to say about it" mean > "predetermined" results. I'm not offended. I'm sad that you would carry on like this. Try using the first part of the sentence. I?decided to find out what was BIOLOGICALLY WRONG with people who DON'T AGREE WITH ME. Say it out load if you need to. Then say this out load: I'm sofa king we Todd did. :P > Please tell me you're this stupid on purpose, because you're scaring me. I > am not sure what to call your reasoning (?) here but it's definitely not > logic. Don't be afraid, embrace the knowledge, let it seep in. There might be hope. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- That's what Larry claimed and that's why we're discussing it. Do you not pay attention? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I added the "teeny-weeny" surprise but you should realize what outcome they expected without me spelling it out over and over and over again. You can stop at anytime you know. <delete> .

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 07:07 PM

> Yes it is. It's the same study done three times. Two people, 90 people > and 28 people. > Ah, here's the heart of the problem. No, Sam, it isn't. It's -- I'd call it two studies and an experiment I guess -- that tested the same hypothesis. According to your nomenclature here, all trials for the same drug are a single study. And mutually responsible for one another's methodology. And, according to you, everything anyone remotely affiliated with them may have said in an interview... > PURE BS! > If a scientist ever made nickle form an oil company everything they > ever say for the rest of their lives is bunk in your mind. > I don't recall ever saying this...  I'd get into what I might have said if I had participated in whatever thread you are talking about, but let's cut to the chase. You have no clue.  You just know you don't like it. I suppose you're entitled to this position, but don't ask me to take it (or you) seriously at this point. NOW, you say the science is sound even though you know it was the > equivalent of Bill Maher saying if you don't agree you're inferior. Whatever, dude, you're still talking about something that's completely beside the point. Concentrate on Larry's journal article. What is wrong with the science? > No, I'm saying it was a publicity stunt that for a radio station that some people took seriously. different set of events. > Again if it was tied to anything right > leaning it would be bunk before it started. Now miraculously science > can never be wrong. > Your paranoia is getting on top of you. I am saying that if there is something wrong with the journal article -- besides your moral indignation at something said by someone that did not even participate-- then speak up. And learn the freaking difference between a hypothesis and a clinical study for fuck's sake >  I?decided to find out what was BIOLOGICALLY WRONG with people who >  DON'T AGREE WITH ME. > so? Is that in the journal article that Larry posted? Is it part of the selection criteria, or does it affect the sample size? You're offended. I'm sad you're sad. It still doesn't "see what the scientists had to say" mean "predetermined". No matter how sad or offended you are. > That's what Larry claimed and that's why we're discussing it. Do you > not pay attention? > I don't give a fuck what Larry said. That might be why you're... doing whatever you are doing, but I am here because a whiny little bitch like you that's all "wa wa wa the man said mean things about my beliefs" needs to be called on his crap every so often and since I'm in the mood for it. So, are you actually saying that anyone who knows anyone who has ever said a rude thing about neo-cons is automatically incapable of objective science? No wait,`anyone who is testing a hypothesis that in other circumstances was tested by someone who knows someone who once said that someone who thinks like you do might possibly have his head up his ass... and you know what, anyone who thinks the way you do MUST have his head up his ass. Wow. Well, my work here is done. Gawd knows how much science that little tirade invalidated not, of course, that you would believe it anyway. I added the "teeny-weeny" surprise but you should realize what outcome > they expected without me spelling it out over and over and over again. > expected outcome != predetermined outcome

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 07:18 PM

I give up and feel the fool for not heeding this advice sooner: Don?t argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 07:29 PM

feel free to run away, Sam, but you still haven't showed me any basis at all for the crap you've been talking. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 07:54 PM

The sampling of 90 people is really really small. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 08:03 PM

Depends on the standard deviation.  You can draw valid conclusions for n < 100 if standard deviation < 2. > > The sampling of 90 people is really really small.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 08:08 PM

pretty sure that's right ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 08:33 PM

just to be totally obsessive,  here's the link and the heart of the statistical validation. Note: p=0.011, which based on some semi educated googling, indicates, according to the pretty little chart here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_normal_distribution#Standard_deviation_and_confidence_intervals that this result is three standard deviations from normal, in other words very unlikely to have occurred  by chance. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/ The gray matter volumes of ACC and the right amygdala allowed the classifier to distinguish individuals who reported themselves as conservative from those who reported themselves as very liberal with a high accuracy (71.6% ± 4.8% correct, p = 0.011). This suggests that it is possible to determine the self-expressed political attitude of individuals, at least for the self-report measure we used, based on structural MRI scans. now the rest of the number crunching, : matter volume of anterior cingulate cortex and right amygdala from each individual to train a multivariate classifier [9 <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16791142>;]. A leave-one-out procedure with cross-validation was used to determine how well this classifier could predict whether an individual was conservative or very liberal when trained on the other participants' data you got me. No clue. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 09:36 PM

You can't learn can you? The study was an intended insult. It defies logic. People change there minds all the time or  do you truly believe they can't. If a liberal radio station gave someone money to prove their point would you call it science? Yes you did. The only thing they proved was that science says nothing. They said they have tiny differences that might be able to stand out for something but don't rely in it to mean anything. It does not mean one side thinks in black and white and the other side is smarter. To believe that's what the study says is stupid. Did I mention the entire study, three if you insist, were funded by the radio station? . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 09:55 PM

Dude. It doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't even matter why they did it. Three standard deviations is statistically significant. The funding might show bias if you can document it. Maybe. Since you can't seem to read the sentences in this study, I am afraid I can't accept that as fact on your say-so and even if you prove it, you still have three standard deviations. The study, the n=90 and n=28 I am talking about here, simply does not say what you say it does. If you want to refute the study you should go look at its methodology, I dunno, check to see if Andres Breitbart was involved... like that. And I never said it meant that anyone is smarter. Go look at the link that Maureen sent you. The study was an intended insult. It defies logic. People change there ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 11:17 PM

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- The same three or for people did a test with an MRI three times. Not different people, not different observers. I don't car how many times they claim to replicate the same results. Until someone else finds a backer to confirm the results are legit it's just a biased study. Remember the Climate gate emails were about peer reviewed studies. After all that the study results that are hyped to mean something they do not. The report, if you read  it, and I've posted clips, claim that the results found mean nothing other than more research is needed. I guess they got the publicity they needed but if someone does waste their time and money debunking a study that's obviously biased they will have their asses covered. > And I never said it meant that anyone is smarter. Go look at the link that > Maureen sent you. Reading comprehension. .

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 11:28 PM

it *says* that complex thought involves more areas of the brain than that, so the results are a bit puzzling. But I know -- CFSAMMYDOESNTLIKEIT Unless I hear a better reason than that, as far as I am concerned it's an unexplained fact. Interesting maybe. I've already told you how to prove it's biased if you want to, made several suggestions in fact.  if you cant be bothered then be quiet already. You don't like it you don't like it you don't like it. Oh well. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 08:30 AM

I think Sam needs to learn about single subject experimental design and how powerful such designs are. For those interested they can start here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-subject_design ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 09:37 AM

You do realize your FACTS don't add up? If our brains are hard wired so one can predict political stance, than how do we explain the people that change their positions? Think about it, 90 random people in a London college and half are conservatives. What are the odds of finding even two conservatives in a university. Most college kids start liberal and mature into conservatives. But according to this study that's impossible because only the anterior cingulate cortexside is capable of growing -- with training they say. The only way this study can be even close to realistic is if the folks studied were lifelong conservatives or liberals and they're still in college. So focusing on your little points and running around like an idiot claiming victory doesn't make it so. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 10:38 AM

Because the generally accepted definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" change? On Feb 16, 2012, at 6:37 AM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 10:44 AM

That too On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Gruss Gott <grussgott@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 10:45 AM

Actually, he does have a point...a conservative getting a higher education....what are the odds of that... Eric On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Gruss Gott <grussgott@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 10:56 AM

Good point. You can educate yourself to be liberal but there's no way to become conservative. Yet it happens. Maybe people's brains deteriorate, after university, and then they become conservative. . On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Eric Roberts <owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > Actually, he does have a point...a conservative getting a higher > education....what are the odds of that... > > Eric

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 07:46 PM

But what does "conservative" mean? If we limit the definition to size and scope of the federal govt then: * the tea party is not conservative as they favor a large federal govt wealth redistribution for retirement healthcare and social security * Rick sanatorum is not conservative as he favors a large fed government presence in your personal s3x life (illegal contraception, abortion, etc) * George w bush was not conservative as he grew the fed govt more than any president since Johnson. In other words the definition is meaningless. On Feb 16, 2012, at 7:56 AM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 09:00 PM

Researchers are starting to develop fairly reliable questionnaires on political beliefs. While its not my area, the reported psychometics are pretty good. For instance: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17470910902860308 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1643954 http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163600 The functional MRI study is pretty interesting. I'm going to have to download the full article: Giovanna Zamboni, Marta Gozzi, Frank Krueger, Jean-René Duhamel, Angela Sirigu & Jordan Grafman Individualism, conservatism, and radicalism as criteria for processing political beliefs: A parametric fMRI study Social Neuroscience, Volume 4, Issue 5, 2009, pages 367-383 Politics is a manifestation of the uniquely human ability to debate, decide, and reach consensus on decisions affecting large groups over long durations of time. Recent neuroimaging studies on politics have focused on the association between brain regions and specific political behaviors by adopting party or ideological affiliation as a criterion to classify either experimental stimuli or subjects. However, it is unlikely that complex political beliefs (i.e., ?the government should protect freedom of speech?) are evaluated only on a liberal-to-conservative criterion. Here we used multidimensional scaling and parametric functional magnetic resonance imaging to identify which criteria/dimensions people use to structure complex political beliefs and which brain regions are concurrently activated. We found that three independent dimensions explained the variability of a set of statements expressing political beliefs and that each dimension was reflected in a distinctive pattern of neural activation: individualism (medial prefrontal cortex and temporoparietal junction), conservatism (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex), and radicalism (ventral striatum and posterior cingulate). The structures we identified are also known to be important in self?other processing, social decision-making in ambivalent situations, and reward prediction. Our results extend current knowledge on the neural correlates of the structure of political beliefs, a fundamental aspect of the human ability to coalesce into social entities. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Gruss Gott <grussgott@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 10:20 PM

in the US it is pretty much meaningless as the neo-cons are not conservative but the have co-opted the word.  This study in in Britain though... so... not drawing ing any conclusions til when and if I go look at the questionnare I guess On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Gruss Gott <grussgott@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 12:45 PM

On 2/16/2012 9:37 AM, Sam wrote: > > You do realize your FACTS don't add up? > If our brains are hard wired so one can predict political stance, than > how do we explain the people that change their positions? I guess this needs repeating: >> it *says* that complex thought involves more areas of the brain than that, >> so the results are a bit puzzling. I am not going to get into social and cultural factors, the effect mass communication has on perception, or other theories, but there are many possible, additional influences that deal with your question.  In general, people are predisposed to all sorts of things.  That does not mean that they are forced to act or think completely within the boundaries of those dispositions. > Think about it, 90 random people in a London college and half are > conservatives. What are the odds of finding even two conservatives in > a university. Most college kids start liberal and mature into > conservatives. But according to this study that's impossible because > only the anterior cingulate cortexside is capable of growing -- with > training they say. Actually, college aged kids' brains are still undergoing changes.  I remember when my perception of the passage of time changed.  It was dramatic enough that I noticed it.  It was a bit surreal.  Anyway, the average age for a brain to become fully developed is 25. Besides, you cannot simply dismiss something because it does not give you a complete answer.  The study said that there are other things to consider, but suggests that brain structure, at whatever level of development, seems to be enough of a contributing factor that predictions can be made within an acceptable margin of error. Yes the study was inconclusive as far as offering concrete proof and yes, it was suggested that more research is required, but the reason more research is required is because the results support the hypothesis well above random occurrence. Now, if the study itself is flawed, then that is one thing and the next person to investigate can call the original experimenters on their BS, but the results were valid enough to at least make it to peer review.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 01:05 PM

I dismissed it because it didn't state what Larry claimed it did, the funding was totally biased and the results only work if people don't change their mind. I would have to believe half of us are conservative and the other half liberal but we can switch sides at will. If it was a legitimate study I might give it more of a chance. As for peer reviewed, I know how that process works and it's not pretty. Plus you're still reviewing what you're told by folks who appear to have an agenda. Speaking of peer reviews, where do I find them? I could see any links to actually reviews. . On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:45 PM, PT <cftodd@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 04:22 PM

you keep saying that. I spent all day yesterday telling you to post your proof if you have some.  I'm not available for nursery school games today but I just thought I would put that out there. You had nothing and it was painfully obvious that you had nothing . Why not just say -- I don't understand it but I can't refute it. Perfectly valid position; mine in fact. Instead you have to be the smart guy talking about how crooked everyone is. I am tired of listening that stuff. Put up or shut up. Meanwhile, quit whining that you don't like it. It doesn't matter that you don't like it. But's a hell of a lot more scientific than implying that you don't don't see conservatives in universities. Especially a British university that serves the middle class, eyeroll. Either make a serious attempt to disprove this or go wa wa wa all the way home, my lad. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 05:53 PM

And I posted my proof. You are not listening. But I like the way you defend an insult and turn it into a "The science is clear" discussion. Stupid shit that is. But now that we're discussing the actual science, which you swear by even though you don't understand it, let's get a review. Nice anal tangent but here we go: http://neurocritic.blogspot.com/2011/04/liberals-are-conflicted-and.html Comments are good too. http://neurocritic.blogspot.com/2007/09/david-amodio-responds.html Here one of the authors responds with little nuggets like this: "Americans are more conservative on average, and so more extreme conservatives usually rate themselves as moderate conservatives, whereas moderate liberals tend to rate themselves more extremely (see Linda Skitka?s work and comments on the paper). It?s a scaling issue that psychologists deal with all the time." Who can argue with science like that? Like I said, when you start an experiment knowing the results they tend to work out for you. The comments are even better. . On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 06:02 PM

A good point was raised that it doesn't show what came first...the differences in the brain or the changes.  In either case, the conclusion was true.  Conservatism is based more on fear than liberalism is.  If you use a muscle more, it gets bigger...same goes with brain matter... Eric On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 07:01 PM

I detect a blog. A blog, Sam. No input validation at all, yanno? Bzzzt. Still SAMMYDONTLIKE IT. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 08:58 PM

If you read the stupid blog you would have realized it's based on this: http://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=4MrZ9zMAAAAJ&citation_for_view=4MrZ9zMAAAAJ:u5HHmVD_uO8C Short link here http://www.edvul.com/voodoocorr.php It's was cited a couple more times then your peer reviewed infallible study. Because we all know that if it was peer reviewed it is perfect and there is no arguing with it's findings. I'm conflicted . On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: > > I detect a blog. A blog, Sam. No input validation at all, yanno? > Bzzzt. Still SAMMYDONTLIKE IT.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 09:04 PM

I'll have to study this a bit, but I see a few errors in how the authors conducted the meta analysis that may invalidate their conclusions. And yes Sam I do know a bit about the field, so I think I am qualified to respond. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 09:52 PM

All of this sounds so much more interesting than web development... On 2/16/2012 9:04 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote: > > I'll have to study this a bit, but I see a few errors in how the > authors conducted the meta analysis that may invalidate their > conclusions.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/17/2012 09:08 AM

You only see the end results. I broke down the hours someone who does this sort of research typically spends, Lets say its at an academic psych department, typically you're required to teach 3 courses per semester. that's 5-6 hours per week of prep time and class time per course. 18 hours. Then there's departmental and other meetings, typicaly 1.5 hours and 3 to 5 of them per week, I'll spit the different, 4 meetings at 1.5 hours 6 hours. Grad student advising, you may have 4 or 5 students, 2 hours per student per week. 10 hours. Grading essays, tests and quizzes (you may be able to dump the quizzes on the grad students though), another 12 hours at least. Many universities require outside community involvement of all profs, 2 hours per week may be typical. Only part of your salary is covered by the department. Typically they expect you to bring in about the equivalent per semester of around 40% of your salary in the overhead portion of the grants. So you spend some time report writing and proposals for grants. 6 hours. Peer review and other journal/conference related activities (reading abstracts, sitting on conference committees etc) 6 hours. So even before doing any research you're already at 60 hours per week. So doing research related activities, - literature searchers, experimental design, data analysis, conducting the studies, writing up the research, 10 to 20 hours. I'd rather do the web development, much easier. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:52 PM, PT <cftodd@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 09:56 PM

The plain English version: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=brain-scan-results-overstated . On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 10:43 PM

I am on deadline and don't have time to play. But I know, shades of grey, quite a concept, eh? History says that if I download this article I will find out that it doesn't mention the article Larry posted. If it does say they calculated it wrong  -- and maybe that is what Larrry wants to look at -- then hey, we have science at work here and we need to see who else can repeat one or the otherl By the way, you were going to post a link about Firth paying some people off, remember? On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 11:04 PM

Doesn't matter does it. It was published in a peer reviewed journal. And it is actually cited. . On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 11:38 PM

in terms of the stuff in the article that is upsetting you it may matter. Assuming you looked and it mentions this article. More likely it's a meta-analysis for methodology for whatever he was looking at when he wrote it, which is not to say that the remarks in methodology may not apply to the University research.... would have to compare the two and I probably won't. To me it's another journal article. If you think they never contradict each other, i dunno what to tell you. I am not sure, assuming he is even talking about the article Larry posted, whether the thingies he says where counted wrong were the bits I was asking Larry about, the leave one out analysis times a thousand, which I think deals with scoring the MRIs, or whether it's in the questionnaire. If I ever can be bothered to look that won't be tonight, because I am doing stuff. Larry may be doing it, also, in which case I will if he explains it. If not... I am not that invested in proving or disproving this, whereas you, if I may say, seem to be taking it as a personal affront. And none of the above changes the basic inequalities journal article>blog post journal article>what comes out of Sammy's mouth ' On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/17/2012 12:31 AM

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: > > in terms of the stuff in the article that is upsetting you it may matter. It's not upsetting me. My common sense says it's biased. The facts say it's biased. Other scientists say it's biased. You will die defending it without knowing anything about it. You wonder why I call you Larry's twin. This is it. You'l defend to no ends something ridiculous just because you don't like people that disagree with you. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Wow, you asked fro google scholar and you got it, now it's just a journal article because it doesn't suit you? I should point out it has 334 cites while the study you didn't read or understand has two. But your point is if it's peer reviewed it cannot be denied. Yet here it is and you're trying your darndest to deny it. > If I ever can be bothered to look that won't be tonight, because I am doing > stuff. Larry may be doing it, also, in which case I will if he explains it. > If not... I am not that invested in proving or disproving this, whereas > you, if I may say, seem to be taking it as a personal affront. You are the one that can't seem to let it go. If you walked away as you attempt to do above by saying you don't care either way that's fine. But you belittle me with how successful you were at make the fool of me. That's the only thing driving this discussion, your personal attacks. Realize that and you have no reason to hate me and we can talk like adults. Never happen. > And none of the above changes the basic inequalities > > journal article>blog post Dana> journal article 8 pages 2 cites Sam > journal article 290 pages 334 cites .

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/17/2012 01:02 AM

I *don't* care and I don't have time to download and parse it right now. I'm not denying or anything --- I am just not believing your description of it, because that is *always* a mistake. It's just another journal article. There are a lot of them out there. Some of them contradict one another. Does this one specifically address the other one, or does it just sat that when you are trying to correlate MRI readings to personality traits you need to do the math *this* way not *that*? Because in that case we need to go see if that's the methodology they used. Except it's not going to be me doing tonight. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/17/2012 01:04 AM

er, am not denying or *Idefending* anything. I don't know and that's what I've been saying all along On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/17/2012 02:30 AM

Other scientists...are they neuroscientists?  Or just scientists in another field who are probably conservative and disagree with it for the same reasons you do rather than actually having looked a the data and commenting from a position of expertise?  If an astrophysicist says something about a star and a biologist says he disagrees with it...I am probably going to side with the astrophysicist.  If another astrophysicist says something, then that makes a world of difference. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: > > in terms of the stuff in the article that is upsetting you it may matter. It's not upsetting me. My common sense says it's biased. The facts say it's biased. Other scientists say it's biased. You will die defending it without knowing anything about it. You wonder why I call you Larry's twin. This is it. You'l defend to no ends something ridiculous just because you don't like people that disagree with you. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Wow, you asked fro google scholar and you got it, now it's just a journal article because it doesn't suit you? I should point out it has 334 cites while the study you didn't read or understand has two. But your point is if it's peer reviewed it cannot be denied. Yet here it is and you're trying your darndest to deny it. > If I ever can be bothered to look that won't be tonight, because I am > doing stuff. Larry may be doing it, also, in which case I will if he explains it. > If not... I am not that invested in proving or disproving this, > whereas you, if I may say, seem to be taking it as a personal affront. You are the one that can't seem to let it go. If you walked away as you attempt to do above by saying you don't care either way that's fine. But you belittle me with how successful you were at make the fool of me. That's the only thing driving this discussion, your personal attacks. Realize that and you have no reason to hate me and we can talk like adults. Never happen. > And none of the above changes the basic inequalities > > journal article>blog post Dana> journal article 8 pages 2 cites Sam > journal article 290 pages 334 cites .

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/17/2012 10:25 AM

Basic rule of science is when a scientist speaks about something outside their own field, their opinion is worth as much as any nonscientist who is ignorant of the same thing,. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/17/2012 10:46 AM

I don't know if I'd call someone from the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT ignorant of the topic. . > > Basic rule of science is when a scientist speaks about something > outside their own field, their opinion is worth as much as any > nonscientist who is ignorant of the same thing,

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/17/2012 02:33 AM

Saying your "common sense" saying anything holds about as much water as a spaghetti strainer.  What facts say that it is biased?  You really haven't stated any facts Sam...just the conjecture and opinion of a programmer who is not also a neuroscientist. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: > > in terms of the stuff in the article that is upsetting you it may matter. It's not upsetting me. My common sense says it's biased. The facts say it's biased. Other scientists say it's biased. You will die defending it without knowing anything about it. You wonder why I call you Larry's twin. This is it. You'l defend to no ends something ridiculous just because you don't like people that disagree with you. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Wow, you asked fro google scholar and you got it, now it's just a journal article because it doesn't suit you? I should point out it has 334 cites while the study you didn't read or understand has two. But your point is if it's peer reviewed it cannot be denied. Yet here it is and you're trying your darndest to deny it. > If I ever can be bothered to look that won't be tonight, because I am > doing stuff. Larry may be doing it, also, in which case I will if he explains it. > If not... I am not that invested in proving or disproving this, > whereas you, if I may say, seem to be taking it as a personal affront. You are the one that can't seem to let it go. If you walked away as you attempt to do above by saying you don't care either way that's fine. But you belittle me with how successful you were at make the fool of me. That's the only thing driving this discussion, your personal attacks. Realize that and you have no reason to hate me and we can talk like adults. Never happen. > And none of the above changes the basic inequalities > > journal article>blog post Dana> journal article 8 pages 2 cites Sam > journal article 290 pages 334 cites .

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/17/2012 09:16 AM

Actually that meta-analysis that Sam cited has nothing to do with the neuropsych of political beliefs. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/17/2012 10:36 AM

does it make methodological critiques that in any way apply? I mean, I am sure that Sam didn't get past the abstract but you never know, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and based a fast glance, MRI, feelings, ok, it might maybe be in the right discipline at least... shrug, gotta go, this other thing needs to be done in 90 minutes do or die, and I am behind now, spent too much time on this. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/17/2012 10:05 AM

The meta analysis touches on some areas in neuro imaging that's I've had my doubts about for a while. I need to spend some time carefully digging through it, there's a lot there. One immediate issue is that the study does not address the neuroanatomical covariants of political belief. Rather it looks at the reported relationship between activation and personality traits. So in one sense this study is not relevant to the discussion. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/17/2012 10:33 AM

That is true, no mention of politics. Out of the 55 articles about measuring anterior cingulate cortex and amygdala response most were insignificant yet they were reported as high in what appeared to be a bias, maybe to gain more attention. Who wan't to publish a study that says they discovered nothing? Now they were heavily criticized from the beginning for using the word voodoo so they later changed it to puzzling. Matthew D. Lieberman and others wrote a paper criticizing his paper and they did a bunch of back and forth on the research which I think is healthy. I'm not saying Ed Vul et al  is right or wrong and I'm not saying Rees et al is right or wrong. I'm stating the Rees study is very suspicious due to too many factors and it appears most studies that return strong results from that part of the brain are suspicious. Now Dana said the Rees study was solid because it was peer reviewed. Then you both wanted me to dispute the data itself so I found someone who questions the measurement of the data. I can not request the actual data because it would be useless to me. Apparently nobody else did either since it seems to have been dismissed out of hand, sort of like I did in the beginning. I mean it's around for two years and only two cites. For something of this magnitude? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/17/2012 10:40 AM

I don't actually think the Rees thing is that earth shaking. I mean my life certainly hasn't changed. I have not looked at the Vul article because I am doing stuff but are you actually saying that it critiques the Rees article in particular? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/17/2012 10:50 AM

It was written before the Rees study, so no. But it talks about the accuracy for those types of studies. Measuring that part of the brain. "a disturbingly large, and quite prominent, segment of social neuroscience research is using seriously defective research methods and producing a profusion of numbers that should not be believed." So technically that Rees study could be perfect. . > > I don't actually think the Rees thing is that earth shaking. I mean my > life certainly hasn't changed. > > I have not looked at the Vul article because I am doing stuff but are > you actually saying that it critiques the Rees article in particular?

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/18/2012 04:26 PM

so.... not to revive this zombie thread, but I can't resist restating this. You don't know whether your journal article even applies. Larry, the local neuropsych and statistics wonk, says no, although he seems to think there might be a different problem. If I sank several days into the statistics I might be able to evaluate the statistics part, but you wouldn't believe me if I did, and I don't think I know enough neuropsych to even attempt that. If these methodology problems were pointed out before the Rees study, then he, as a researcher in the field, could well have been aware of them. Maybe even have taken them into account in his study design. If he didn't, yeah, that might be a problem. But can you yourself tell whether he did or not? You're doing what you accuse him of doing, looking for support for a conclusion you have already drawn based on "common sense." This is why I dismiss your arguments most of the time, because they invariably emerge as a huge waste of time and bandwidth. You could, days ago, have said "something must be wrong with that, because it doesn't make sense." You would not have convinced anyone, mind you, but you still haven't, and in the meantime you have impugned the integrity of the researchers in a multiplicity of ways. Maybe they are evil people indeed, but you have produced no proof of this beyond the fact that Firth, who did not carry out the actual testing, said something that offended you. I just don't understand the unceasing nastiness. You must be a very unhappy person to think like this.  An analogy to your argument in this thread: Jimmy Carter has committed hate crimes because he comes from a southern state. Facepalm. OK now... as you were, just had to say. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/18/2012 05:35 PM

> so.... not to revive this zombie thread, but I can't resist restating > this. You don't know whether your journal article even applies. Larry, > the local neuropsych and statistics wonk, says no, although he seems > to think there might be a different problem. If I sank several days > into the statistics I might be able to evaluate the statistics part, > but you wouldn't believe me if I did, and I don't think I know enough > neuropsych to even attempt that. Why do you think you have to? I said I could probably debunk it without even knowing which study he was referring to. You decided that was your mission of the week to hold me to that. So I did. It was funded by an idiot and his radio station for the sole purpose of belittling people that didn't agree with him. The guy that did the study appears to have agreed and did the study to help prove the stupid point. The study itself is extremely suspect because it doesn't make sense. A team of MIT researchers surveyed 55 similar studies and showed they were always overestimated. You want to spend all week crunching numbers to prove they were right. My question is why? Why do you care if I don't trust the study to be legit? > If these methodology problems were pointed out before the Rees study, > then he, as a researcher in the field, could well have been aware of > them. Maybe even have taken them into account in his study design. If > he didn't, yeah, that might be a problem. But can you yourself tell > whether he did or not? You're doing what you accuse him of doing, > looking for support for a conclusion you have already drawn based on > "common sense." They were paid to get a certain set of results. Do you think if the first study came back as no difference they would have been funded for two more larger ones? Yes I dismiss study that sound stupid until more studies are done to back them up. This is not the case. It was a publicity stunt and a short lived one at that. > This is why I dismiss your arguments most of the time, because they > invariably emerge as a huge waste of time and bandwidth. You made it a waste of time. I said Larry was insulting me by saying I can only think in black and white. You targeted in on the stupid study. > You could, > days ago, have said "something must be wrong with that, because it > doesn't make sense." I did. >You would not have convinced anyone, mind you, > but you still haven't, Since when did you speak for everyone? I find it hard to believe that everyone that's read this stupid thread stands behind your study 100% as you do. > and in the meantime you have impugned the > integrity of the researchers in a multiplicity of ways. They did that to themselves by accepting money from radicals in the name of science. > Maybe they are > evil people indeed, but you have produced no proof of this beyond the > fact that Firth, who did not carry out the actual testing, said > something that offended you. I didn't call them evil and if you're not offended by Firth's statement than I hope you agree with everything he's ever said. > I just don't understand the unceasing nastiness. You must be a very > unhappy person to think like this. Like a broken record, I've been extremely polite considering how nasty you were to me and everyone that you disagree with. But you see me as being the nasty one, go figure. > An analogy to your argument in > this thread: Jimmy Carter has committed hate crimes because he comes > from a southern state. Facepalm. WTF is wrong with you? You are seriously messed up. > OK now... as you were, just had to say.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/18/2012 06:21 PM

> Why do you think you have to? I said I could probably debunk it > without even knowing which study he was referring to. You decided that > was your mission of the week to hold me to that. So I did. No, you didn't, actually. Do you really think you did? It was > funded by an idiot and his radio station See, I have no idea who the dude even is or why he is famous. Nor do I really care.  But I strongly  suspect that he is not an idiot, and that it is not "his" radio station. Wasn't this a BBC program? You're doing it again, throwing mud and ignorance around. for the sole purpose of > belittling people that didn't agree with him. Maybe he, like you, has trouble framing questions in any other way. But, I submit, you really don't know what his purposes were. The guy that did the > study appears to have agreed and did the study to help prove the > stupid point. Maybe he said to himself hmm, wonder why that is. Maybe he thought more data would shed some light? Or, maybe you're right and he decided that "to help prove the stupid point" was SO IMPORTANT that he would fudge his data and risk his reputation in his professional field for an article a few people read and which can, most charitably, only be said to raise further questions. See, if we admit your common sense we have to admit mine. Someone who would do what you allege would not have put in the work to go into neuropsychology.  He would have majored in political science in the first place. The study itself is extremely suspect because it doesn't > make sense. many studies raise questions and have results that cannot immediately be explained. That doesn't make them "suspect". This is how science works. Someone else does a different experiment looking for an explanation, or tries to reproduce the results. If they cannot, the explanation may have to do with study design. A team of MIT researchers surveyed 55 similar studies and > showed they were always overestimated. Right, and.... what does this have to do with this subsequent study? I mean, really. It's a total red herring. These other studies over here have flaws, so this one must have too, even though it would have had the benefit of that critique when the study was first designed. > You want to spend all week crunching numbers to prove they were right. I don't, actually. > My question is why? Because there is too much mudslinging in the world that operates on the assumption that nobody will check, so you can say what you want and by the time your misstatements are shown to be what they are, the harm will already have been done. You're just the local example. > Why do you care if I don't trust the study to be legit? I don't care what you *think* but when you emit such thoughtless and malicious aspersions without the slightest thought that hey maybe you should check your facts, you pollute my incoming data stream and I get tired of deleting you. Deal with it. You can say what you want, but that also means I can call you on it, and call  the liar that you always are, any time I fact-check your statements. > They were paid to get a certain set of results. Do you think if the > first study came back as no difference they would have been funded for > two more larger ones? You keep saying this. You have not demonstrated funding, first of all, and second, who knows? Maybe they thought it was an interesting question. Maybe their funding came from somewhere else. What it boils down to is that their results offend you and you assume that therefore they are crooked and cheated, because that is what you would presumably do in their place. I'd rather not know that you think like that, actually. > Yes I dismiss study that sound stupid until more studies are done to > back them up. This is not the case. It was a publicity stunt and a > short lived one at that. Do you know that more studies have not been done? Would you believe them if you were? A publicity stunt for what? Firth is presumably already well-known. You don't go into neuropsychology to become famous. University College doesn't need media coverage. > You made it a waste of time. I said Larry was insulting me by saying I > can only think in black and white. You targeted in on the stupid > study. Huh ;) you mean you don't? I don't think you can prove otherwise based on this thread. You don't agree with a statement, therefore the people making it lack integrity and must be bought off. That logic offends me. >> You could, >> days ago, have said "something must be wrong with that, because it >> doesn't make sense." No, you didn't. You made a series of accusations that you were forced, one by one, to admit were  completely without any factual basis. > Since when did you speak for everyone? I find it hard to believe that > everyone that's read this stupid thread stands behind your study 100% > as you do. Dude. *I* am not behind the study 100%. I just give science considerably more likelihood of representing some part of the truth than any accusations you may make based on your "common sense". See, it's a shade of grey, that's why you are having trouble seeing it. > They did that to themselves by accepting money from radicals in the > name of science. Radicals? Who is a radical? Firth? You seem to just assume that he must be, because you don't agree with him. And again, you *still* haven't provided any evidence about the funding. You just figure that that must be the case. > I didn't call them evil and if you're not offended by Firth's > statement than I hope you agree with everything he's ever said. I don't give a flying fuck about Firth either way. > Like a broken record, I've been extremely polite considering how nasty > you were to me and everyone that you disagree with. But you see me as > being the nasty one, go figure. go figure, you don't think you're nasty at all, do you ;)

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/18/2012 07:32 PM

The only thing I have seen him in was "The King's Speech" where he played a speech therapist who treated King George VI, who had a speech impediment. As a result of his therapy, he was able to give one of the more rousing speeches of WWII Britain.  It was a good movie and based off of a true story. > Why do you think you have to? I said I could probably debunk it > without even knowing which study he was referring to. You decided that > was your mission of the week to hold me to that. So I did. No, you didn't, actually. Do you really think you did? It was > funded by an idiot and his radio station See, I have no idea who the dude even is or why he is famous. Nor do I really care.  But I strongly  suspect that he is not an idiot, and that it is not "his" radio station. Wasn't this a BBC program? You're doing it again, throwing mud and ignorance around. for the sole purpose of > belittling people that didn't agree with him. Maybe he, like you, has trouble framing questions in any other way. But, I submit, you really don't know what his purposes were. The guy that did the > study appears to have agreed and did the study to help prove the > stupid point. Maybe he said to himself hmm, wonder why that is. Maybe he thought more data would shed some light? Or, maybe you're right and he decided that "to help prove the stupid point" was SO IMPORTANT that he would fudge his data and risk his reputation in his professional field for an article a few people read and which can, most charitably, only be said to raise further questions. See, if we admit your common sense we have to admit mine. Someone who would do what you allege would not have put in the work to go into neuropsychology.  He would have majored in political science in the first place. The study itself is extremely suspect because it doesn't > make sense. many studies raise questions and have results that cannot immediately be explained. That doesn't make them "suspect". This is how science works. Someone else does a different experiment looking for an explanation, or tries to reproduce the results. If they cannot, the explanation may have to do with study design. A team of MIT researchers surveyed 55 similar studies and > showed they were always overestimated. Right, and.... what does this have to do with this subsequent study? I mean, really. It's a total red herring. These other studies over here have flaws, so this one must have too, even though it would have had the benefit of that critique when the study was first designed. > You want to spend all week crunching numbers to prove they were right. I don't, actually. > My question is why? Because there is too much mudslinging in the world that operates on the assumption that nobody will check, so you can say what you want and by the time your misstatements are shown to be what they are, the harm will already have been done. You're just the local example. > Why do you care if I don't trust the study to be legit? I don't care what you *think* but when you emit such thoughtless and malicious aspersions without the slightest thought that hey maybe you should check your facts, you pollute my incoming data stream and I get tired of deleting you. Deal with it. You can say what you want, but that also means I can call you on it, and call  the liar that you always are, any time I fact-check your statements. > They were paid to get a certain set of results. Do you think if the > first study came back as no difference they would have been funded for > two more larger ones? You keep saying this. You have not demonstrated funding, first of all, and second, who knows? Maybe they thought it was an interesting question. Maybe their funding came from somewhere else. What it boils down to is that their results offend you and you assume that therefore they are crooked and cheated, because that is what you would presumably do in their place. I'd rather not know that you think like that, actually. > Yes I dismiss study that sound stupid until more studies are done to > back them up. This is not the case. It was a publicity stunt and a > short lived one at that. Do you know that more studies have not been done? Would you believe them if you were? A publicity stunt for what? Firth is presumably already well-known. You don't go into neuropsychology to become famous. University College doesn't need media coverage. > You made it a waste of time. I said Larry was insulting me by saying I > can only think in black and white. You targeted in on the stupid > study. Huh ;) you mean you don't? I don't think you can prove otherwise based on this thread. You don't agree with a statement, therefore the people making it lack integrity and must be bought off. That logic offends me. >> You could, >> days ago, have said "something must be wrong with that, because it >> doesn't make sense." No, you didn't. You made a series of accusations that you were forced, one by one, to admit were  completely without any factual basis. > Since when did you speak for everyone? I find it hard to believe that > everyone that's read this stupid thread stands behind your study 100% > as you do. Dude. *I* am not behind the study 100%. I just give science considerably more likelihood of representing some part of the truth than any accusations you may make based on your "common sense". See, it's a shade of grey, that's why you are having trouble seeing it. > They did that to themselves by accepting money from radicals in the > name of science. Radicals? Who is a radical? Firth? You seem to just assume that he must be, because you don't agree with him. And again, you *still* haven't provided any evidence about the funding. You just figure that that must be the case. > I didn't call them evil and if you're not offended by Firth's > statement than I hope you agree with everything he's ever said. I don't give a flying fuck about Firth either way. > Like a broken record, I've been extremely polite considering how nasty > you were to me and everyone that you disagree with. But you see me as > being the nasty one, go figure. go figure, you don't think you're nasty at all, do you ;)

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/18/2012 08:18 PM

oh. I heard it was a good performance. From there to slavish defense of anything he may say, which Sam seems to think we must be engaged in,  is a mighty big leap. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/18/2012 07:32 PM

Damn I thought this was about zombies. What a waste.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/18/2012 08:19 PM

Only in the sense that Sam's brain is a zombie. And yes, it is a waste ;) > > Damn I thought this was about zombies. > > What a waste.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/18/2012 07:32 PM

http://kingsspeech.com/ > Why do you think you have to? I said I could probably debunk it > without even knowing which study he was referring to. You decided that > was your mission of the week to hold me to that. So I did. No, you didn't, actually. Do you really think you did? It was > funded by an idiot and his radio station See, I have no idea who the dude even is or why he is famous. Nor do I really care.  But I strongly  suspect that he is not an idiot, and that it is not "his" radio station. Wasn't this a BBC program? You're doing it again, throwing mud and ignorance around. for the sole purpose of > belittling people that didn't agree with him. Maybe he, like you, has trouble framing questions in any other way. But, I submit, you really don't know what his purposes were. The guy that did the > study appears to have agreed and did the study to help prove the > stupid point. Maybe he said to himself hmm, wonder why that is. Maybe he thought more data would shed some light? Or, maybe you're right and he decided that "to help prove the stupid point" was SO IMPORTANT that he would fudge his data and risk his reputation in his professional field for an article a few people read and which can, most charitably, only be said to raise further questions. See, if we admit your common sense we have to admit mine. Someone who would do what you allege would not have put in the work to go into neuropsychology.  He would have majored in political science in the first place. The study itself is extremely suspect because it doesn't > make sense. many studies raise questions and have results that cannot immediately be explained. That doesn't make them "suspect". This is how science works. Someone else does a different experiment looking for an explanation, or tries to reproduce the results. If they cannot, the explanation may have to do with study design. A team of MIT researchers surveyed 55 similar studies and > showed they were always overestimated. Right, and.... what does this have to do with this subsequent study? I mean, really. It's a total red herring. These other studies over here have flaws, so this one must have too, even though it would have had the benefit of that critique when the study was first designed. > You want to spend all week crunching numbers to prove they were right. I don't, actually. > My question is why? Because there is too much mudslinging in the world that operates on the assumption that nobody will check, so you can say what you want and by the time your misstatements are shown to be what they are, the harm will already have been done. You're just the local example. > Why do you care if I don't trust the study to be legit? I don't care what you *think* but when you emit such thoughtless and malicious aspersions without the slightest thought that hey maybe you should check your facts, you pollute my incoming data stream and I get tired of deleting you. Deal with it. You can say what you want, but that also means I can call you on it, and call  the liar that you always are, any time I fact-check your statements. > They were paid to get a certain set of results. Do you think if the > first study came back as no difference they would have been funded for > two more larger ones? You keep saying this. You have not demonstrated funding, first of all, and second, who knows? Maybe they thought it was an interesting question. Maybe their funding came from somewhere else. What it boils down to is that their results offend you and you assume that therefore they are crooked and cheated, because that is what you would presumably do in their place. I'd rather not know that you think like that, actually. > Yes I dismiss study that sound stupid until more studies are done to > back them up. This is not the case. It was a publicity stunt and a > short lived one at that. Do you know that more studies have not been done? Would you believe them if you were? A publicity stunt for what? Firth is presumably already well-known. You don't go into neuropsychology to become famous. University College doesn't need media coverage. > You made it a waste of time. I said Larry was insulting me by saying I > can only think in black and white. You targeted in on the stupid > study. Huh ;) you mean you don't? I don't think you can prove otherwise based on this thread. You don't agree with a statement, therefore the people making it lack integrity and must be bought off. That logic offends me. >> You could, >> days ago, have said "something must be wrong with that, because it >> doesn't make sense." No, you didn't. You made a series of accusations that you were forced, one by one, to admit were  completely without any factual basis. > Since when did you speak for everyone? I find it hard to believe that > everyone that's read this stupid thread stands behind your study 100% > as you do. Dude. *I* am not behind the study 100%. I just give science considerably more likelihood of representing some part of the truth than any accusations you may make based on your "common sense". See, it's a shade of grey, that's why you are having trouble seeing it. > They did that to themselves by accepting money from radicals in the > name of science. Radicals? Who is a radical? Firth? You seem to just assume that he must be, because you don't agree with him. And again, you *still* haven't provided any evidence about the funding. You just figure that that must be the case. > I didn't call them evil and if you're not offended by Firth's > statement than I hope you agree with everything he's ever said. I don't give a flying fuck about Firth either way. > Like a broken record, I've been extremely polite considering how nasty > you were to me and everyone that you disagree with. But you see me as > being the nasty one, go figure. go figure, you don't think you're nasty at all, do you ;)

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/18/2012 08:04 PM

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000147/ Both parents were university profs, so I guess by Sam's definition poor Colin was doomed to be a liberal. > > http://kingsspeech.com/

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/18/2012 08:14 PM

eyeroll. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/18/2012 10:43 PM

We all know we are our parents. Are you really going to start thinking like Dana? . > > http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000147/ > > Both parents were university profs, so I guess by Sam's definition > poor Colin was doomed to be a liberal.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/19/2012 09:05 PM

<g> this is the guy who thinks he's polite. shrug ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/18/2012 10:41 PM

This just changed from real boring to train wreck and I should do the right thing and look away... but you used up all your sympathy passes. I'm trying to figure out if you intentionally ignore everything I say that's proves you're wrong or it's just to complex for you to understand. This last tirade convinces me it's the later. What's real comical is your supercilious attitude while spewing meandering comments AS I said before, you can stop any time you want. But I won't stop you :P . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/19/2012 07:06 PM

I've been stying out of this discussion mainly because I've been reading the article that Sam provided a link to.  I'm still going through the article, but first and foremost it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Vui et al were looking at the unexpectedly high correlations between personality traits and vartious systems within the brain. Last I checked the psychological constructs known as personality traits are not political orientation. Even someone who has taken an intro to psychology course at the high school level should have picked up that one. Did ytou actually read the article Sam? Second the main thrust of the criticism was how these personality traits were correlated with problematic measures of brain activation. The study I mentioned looked at the differences between specific groups. In  other words a very different form of statistical analysis was used. This meta-analysis you cited does not address that. There are other criticisms I could make about the methodological approach the authors take. However everyone else would find it completely boring. I also think that this study is important for entirely different reasons than Sam gave and those reasons are not at all relevant to this discussion, mainly involving recent research in the neuophysiology of personality. In a nutshell Sam you need to actually read and attempt to understand the material you present in cases like these. That way you do not come across with so much egg on your face. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/19/2012 08:48 PM

The article Vul et el did was on studies of functional MRI (fMRI) scans which use voxels and apply some sort of gaussian smoothing to determine which ones to use. Same exact method Firth et al used. http://www.edvul.com/pdf/VulHarrisWinkielmanPashler-PPS-2009.pdf These basic steps common to most fMRI data analyses yield matrices consisting of tens or hundreds of thousands of numbers indicating activation levels in different voxels. These can be (and indeed generally are) displayed as images. However, to obtain quantitative summaries of these results and do further statistics on them (such as correlating them with behavioral measures—the topic of the present article), an investigator must somehow select a subset of voxels and aggregate measurements across them. This can be done in various ways. A subset of voxels in the whole brain image may be selected based on purely anatomical constraints (e.g., all voxels in a region generally agreed to represent the amygdala, or all voxels within a certain radius of some a priori speci?ed brain coordinates). Alternatively, regions can be selected based on ‘‘functional constraints,’’ meaning that voxels are selected based on their activity pattern in functional scans. For example, one could select all the voxels for a particular subject that responded more to reading than to nonlinguistic stimuli. Finally, voxels could be chosen based on some combination of anatomy and functional response. In the articles we are focusing on here, the ?nal result, as we have seen, was always a correlation value—a correlation between each person’s score on some behavioral measure and some summary statistic of their brain activation. The latter summary statistic re?ects the activation or activation contrast within a certain set of voxels. In either case, the critical question is, ‘‘How was this set of voxels selected?’’ As we have seen, voxels may be selected based on anatomical criteria, functional criteria, or both. Within these broad options, there are a number of additional more ?ne-grained choices. It is hardly surprising, then, that brief method sections rarely suf?ce to describe how the analyses were done in adequate detail to really understand what choices were being made. We display the raw results from our survey as the proportion of studies that investigators described with a particular answer to each question (see Fig. 2). As some questions only applied to a subset of participants, we display only the proportion of the relevant subset of studies. The raw answers to our survey do not by themselves explain how respondents arrived at the (implausibly high, or so we have argued) correlations. The key, we believe, lies in the 53% of respondents who said that ‘‘regression across subjects’’ was the functional constraint used to select voxels, indicating that voxels were selected because they correlated highly with the behavioral measure of interest. Figure 3 shows very concretely the sequence of steps that these respondents reported following when analyzing their data. A separate correlation across subjects was performed for each voxel within a speci?ed brain region. Each correlation relates some measure of brain activity in that voxel (which might be a difference between responses in two tasks or in two conditions) with the behavioral measure for that individual. Thus, thenumber of correlations computed was equal to the number of voxels, meaning that thousands of correlations were computed in many cases. At the next stage, researchers selected the set of voxels for which this correlation exceeded a certain threshold, and reported the correlation within this set of voxels. What are the implications of selecting voxels in this fashion? Such an analysis will in?ate observed across-subject correlations and can even produce signi?cant measures out of pure noise. The problem is illustrated in the simple simulation displayed in Figure 4. First, the investigator computes a separate correlation of the behavioral measure of interest with each of the voxels (Fig. 4a). Then, he or she selects those voxels that exhibited a suf?ciently high correlation (by passing a statistical threshold; Fig. 4b). Finally, an ostensible measure of the ‘‘true’’ correlation is aggregated from the voxels that showed high correlations (e.g., by taking the mean of the voxels over the threshold). With enough voxels, such a biased analysis is guaranteed to produce high correlations even if none are truly present (Fig. 4). Moreover, this analysis will produce visually pleasing scattergrams (e.g., Fig. 4c) that will provide (quite meaningless) reassurance to the viewer that s/he is looking at a result that is solid, is ‘‘not driven by outliers,’’ and so on. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 12:06 AM

Sam. Weren't you just declaiming how offensive it was to say that political beliefs are associated with personality traits? Larry is saying they are different, and you are arguing with him. Facepalm. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 11:13 AM

How would you know what I claim, you seem to forget what we're discussing with every post. Are you really this clueless or are you playing? . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 03:05 AM

Fig. 4c is SUCH a pile crap and you know it. On Feb 19, 2012, at 5:48 PM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 11:14 AM

Please elaborate . > > Fig. 4c is SUCH a pile crap and you know it.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 03:21 PM

Don't be coy. On Feb 20, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 05:59 PM

see, he hasn't read it, or at least hasn't understood it if he did. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 06:00 PM

btw, good one ;) ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 08:39 PM

Actually I read it and picked out the pertinent parts so even you could understand it. My bad. . > > see, he hasn't read it, or at least hasn't understood it if he did.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 09:47 PM

Suuuure, you were just testing use, right? Right. Then why ask Gruss to elaborate? Re-read your own post, dude. Eyeroll. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 09:52 PM

Because he was making a weird joke that I didn't get. The graphic made perfect sense. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 09:55 PM

really? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 04:26 PM

there's a good question. Look around, maybe on about us, and see if they talk about their peer review process. They won't have posted the actual review though I don't think. You could also run the study title and the author names through Google Scholar to see if anyone has tried to reproduce this, is another thought. Have a nice day. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 04:40 PM

I don't remember the name of the publication without going back to the Smithsonian Article, but it was a Biology publication.  It was <something> Biology...I remember the name began with an A... On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 05:08 PM

current Biology Here's the link again http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/ On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Eric Roberts < owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 09:42 PM

If you had simply said all of this to begin with, like this, then I believe the discussion might have gone differently.  Opening with a slam against the study because an actor's name was tied to it, while certainly a conversation starter, was probably not the best way to introduce your views on the subject.  :) I don't know of any other studies yet.  I haven't looked.  I haven't cared.  The results are out there in the open if anyone cares to try to disprove the findings. On 2/16/2012 1:05 PM, Sam wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 10:16 PM

Well, I said he was trying to insult me with a study that I knew could be debunked without even knowing what it was, just by the description of it. She then ran with how perfect the study was and over a hundred messages later still claims anything peer reviewed is unquestionable. So this was about an attempted insult and I was attacked on my brushing off the study backing the attack. Her typical deflection status. So it is my fault that I gave an opening but I never thought it would go this far. At this point I have to say I'm enjoying reading up about this stuff. This list might occasionally give me agida but I do learn interesting things when I'm forced to back up my opinions. I do appreciate your staying above the fray. It's refreshing. . On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:42 PM, PT <cftodd@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 10:32 PM

but you haven't backed up your opinion. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 11:03 PM

I did. Actually, the MIT dude and friends say pretty much what I've been saying from the beginning. . On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: > > but you haven't backed up your opinion.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 10:31 PM

no, because he keeps saying the funding is a bias but he doesn't have any actual evidence about how it was funded at all, except for the word "commission" in that first experiment or whatever But yeah, I don't actually care about this study either. I just got a bellyful after a few years of listening to Sam, cause he is always I don't like L clerly they are lying, I don't like it, they are in it for the money, I don't like it because it does not conform to my world view so clearly it is wrong. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:42 PM, PT <cftodd@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 10:59 PM

If a study can be disregarded because of the funding source, then every clinical trial that has been funded by a pharmaceutical company will have to be tossed. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: > > no, because he keeps saying the funding is a bias but he doesn't have any > actual evidence about how it was funded at all, except for the word > "commission" in that first experiment or whatever

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 11:07 PM

So why is every scientist that ever earned a dime from big oil irrelevant? BTW, that wasn't THE point, it was A point. . On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Maureen <mamamaureen@gmail.com> wrote: > > If a study can be disregarded because of the funding source, then > every clinical trial that has been funded by a pharmaceutical company > will have to be tossed.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 11:45 PM

I don't know. Since you are the only one saying the scientists who have been paid by big oil are irrelevant, why don't you explain it. Seems to me that you made "A" point that funding affects the validity of research, and under that criteria your statement below would be accurate. However, that is certainly not my view. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/17/2012 02:28 AM

I think it does in some cases.  If I see an environmental impact study that says if we drill here everything is just rosy and I see that the study was funded by the company that wants to do the drilling, I would look at that study suspiciously.  It might be legit and the company is on the up and up...but experience tells me otherwise.  He needs to shopw where he is getting this info that the study was funded by Mr. Firth...in a concrete manner....not just from some right wing blogger that I have never even heard of before.  Even if it was from a right winger that I don't necessarily trust, but have at least heard of...that would give his claim at least a little credibility...but I am sure a study has to list it's funding source. Does anyone have access to that Biology journal by any chance? I don't know. Since you are the only one saying the scientists who have been paid by big oil are irrelevant, why don't you explain it. Seems to me that you made "A" point that funding affects the validity of research, and under that criteria your statement below would be accurate. However, that is certainly not my view. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/17/2012 03:07 AM

I spent about a year working on the RJ Reynolds litigation, doing data massage. They had plenty of studies too. I dunno if they were peer-reviewed, but... point is, funding is one of several things you can look at when trying to determining credibility. Author's other papers. Peer review. You asked about access to Current Biology  -- I don't but if you wanted to move the discussion forward the link Sam posted goes to a free PDF. If you could determine whether the article directly addresses the Rees article, first of all, and if so what it says -- if not (if you can) see if you can get the gist of what he thinks is wrong with the methodology. Then we need to see if Rees made that error. If we can, and if we care enough to hassle about this. I am pretty sure we will wind up discovering that it's a journal article on another topic. That is usually the way these things go. But I suppose you never know..... On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Eric Roberts < owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/17/2012 02:23 AM

That begs a question...if this was funded by Colin Firth (which you still haven't shown us anything to back that claim up outside of a right wing blog entry) makes it biased...why do you argue that studies on Climate Change and other issues that are openly funded by the oil industry and other corporate sources legitimate to you?  That's being pretty hypocritical Sam.  It's is ok in one situation but not ok in another just because you disagree with it or are offended by it?  Please...show us where it says that Colin funded anything other than what he said about the 2 politicians.  None of the other studies done were funded by him as far as I can tell.  These all look like university studies.  Reis also has some pretty serious neuroscience credentials according to the site you posted. Eric So why is every scientist that ever earned a dime from big oil irrelevant? BTW, that wasn't THE point, it was A point. . On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Maureen <mamamaureen@gmail.com> wrote: > > If a study can be disregarded because of the funding source, then > every clinical trial that has been funded by a pharmaceutical company > will have to be tossed. >

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 11:23 PM

well it would be a little more intelligent than it must be bullshit because whoever heard of a conservative college student, you have to admit. That's where he was yesterday. baby steps. Just maybe he has realized that there are things undreamt of in his philosophy. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Maureen <mamamaureen@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/17/2012 10:06 AM

I am sure that the college republicans who attended CPAC here last weekend will have some comments about that. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 11:01 PM

New research commissioned by the Today Programme and led by Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellow Professor Geraint Rees http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1012/10122301 Keep laughing, you're logic is very flawed. . On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/17/2012 09:14 AM

Researchers are in it for the money? That's laughable. Until you've done about 20 years salaries are usually under 40,000 a year. That's if you can get a tenure track position in the first place. For psychology at least the real money is in private practice or Industrial Organizational consulting. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 08:06 PM

that's true. It's more a study than 2 people. But really big studies are in the thousands. You can't call it definitely proven without a shadow of a doubt. However, if the sample was properly chosen, it doesn't matter, at least theoretically. I am not going to swear that randomization best practices were followed as I can't be hassled to go look up what I would need to look up for that, although I realize you can't prove it by this thread. I just think that if it's in a peer-reviewed journal it gets a tentative, hmm, wonder why that is. I am sure that if someone made the effort they could probably find a number of ways to critique it, starting with where did they get their sample anyway? Just saying that it's not valid because of what someone else said about it, is not on the other hand a demonstration that the study is bullshit. If he had some sort of proof of a financial or political bias on the part of the researchers, that would be possibly respectable as an argument. But no. He's just offended. And because he's offended we are not supposed to talk about it. Fuck that. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 08:56 PM

It's called confirmational bias, and there are people on this list on both sides of the political spectrum with the worse cases of it I have ever experienced. But it's nothing new. Look at how they treated the first person to say the earth was not the center of the universe, even after he proved it, simply because it wasn't in the benefit of those in power to accept it. > > Just saying that it's not valid because of what someone else said about it, > is not on the other hand a demonstration that the study is bullshit. If he > had some sort of proof of a financial or political bias on the part of the > researchers, that would be possibly respectable as an argument.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 09:21 PM

Not really. It depends on the stats that are used. When looking at statistical results, the way to interpret statistical significance is as follows. Let's say the researchers found the two groups showed a significant difference of p < 0.05 . This means that if you replicated the study an infinite number of times, 95% of these results would fall very close to the difference found in the first study. How meaningful that spread is depends on the standard error of the studies, and other factors. It also mean that in order to show a significant difference with a smaller sample you'd need a much larger difference to achieve statistical significance. So you can make very accurate predictions based on fairly small samples. It all depends on the statistical power of your experiment. I'm too burned out to really discuss it now, but if interested Wikipedia has a pretty good explanation of it   - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_power ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- people ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- are a ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- said >> > if >> > > I had participated in whatever thread you are talking about, but let's ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- you) ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- completely >> > > beside the point. Concentrate on Larry's journal article. What is wrong ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- that ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- the >> > > selection criteria, or does it affect the sample size? You're offended. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- doing >> > > whatever you are doing, but I am here because a whiny little bitch likArchive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:346951 > Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm > -- Larry C. Lyons web: http://www.lyonsmorris.com/lyons LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/larryclyons There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Issac Asimov

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 09:33 PM

what not really -- the meaning of standard deviations? If so yeah you are right, I think but what Maureen and  I said is an .... ok 10 words or less version. In this case p=0.011 so theoretically if they did everything else right, these results should replicate 99% of the time. And not, 1%. I realize that's it's not a given that the 1% is random or that it won't occur the next time you repeat the experiment, but I think that is a rather fine distinction for our purposes. Kinda like the difference between Springfield and Tyson's Corner, as seen from California, yanno? If I don't have that right then fine, tell me,  but if you're going to crank up your statistical powers I'd rather hear an explanation of that leave one out thing they did a thousand times, because that part I do not understand at ALL. On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 10:00 PM

You are not the only one. On my desk at home is a notebook with all my notes for the next version of my meta-analysis application. 150 pages and counting - most of which are botched formulae for calculating statistical power effect sizes and converting obtained probability values to effect sizes. Makes me wish at times I stayed with single case designs. 10 word or less that is really difficult. Can I go for 30? But you've essentially got the idea. I left out a lot, range estimation and correction for error andthat sort of thing, but yes. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- rather ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- very >> close to the difference found in the first study. How meaningful that >> spread is depends on the standard error of the studies, and other factors. >>  It also mean that in order to show a significant difference with a smaller ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- It >> all depends on the statistical power of your experiment. I'm too burned out ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- at ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I'd ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- they ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- inferior. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- with

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 10:11 PM

ok thanks realized after I sent the email that you were talking to Tim, but i am glad to hear that I do indeed semi-remember this stuff. I m kinda curious about the calculation they did a thousand times if you are able to formulate a description. But it doesn't need to be right now. Take your time, and hey :) fifty words even. On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 10:14 PM

Without going into detail, it involves power analysis, and I remember darned little of the matrix algebra course I took years ago. > > ok thanks realized after I sent the email that you were talking to Tim, but ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- and ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- are ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- right, ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- won't ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- your >> > statistical powers I'd rather hear an explanation of that leave one out >> > thing they did a thousand times, because that part I do not understand at ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- as ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- samples. >> It >> >> all depends on the statistical power of your experiment. I'm too burned >> out >> >> to really discuss it now, but if interested Wikipedia has a pretty good ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- basis ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- beat ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- 90 ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- drug ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- them ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- but ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- it. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- (or ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- the ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- is ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 10:17 PM

oh... it's matrix algebra? I used to like that stuff. And I don't remember anything about it either. OK good enough. On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 10:11 PM

Forgot to mention the really difficult part is correctly figuring out the range of those results. A good well controlled study will have a very narrow range. A study that has problems with reliability, sample size, etc, will have a very wide range. Another way to look at it is if the range of differences encompasses 0 by any substantial amount, most likely it means that the differences are not meaningful. Speaking of such, I'm prepping a statistical criticism of the latest book byCharles Murray, author of the Bell Curve. Want to join in? > You are not the only one. On my desk at home is a notebook with all my notes for the next version of my meta-analysis application. 150 pages and counting - most of which are botched formulae for calculating statistical power effect sizes and converting obtained probability values to effect sizes. Makes me wish at times I stayed with single case designs. > > 10 word or less that is really difficult. Can I go for 30? > > But you've essentially got the idea. I left out a lot, range estimation and correction for error andthat sort of thing, but yes. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- less ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- rather >> fine distinction for our purposes. Kinda like the difference between >> Springfield and Tyson's Corner, as seen from California, yanno? If I don't ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- replicated >>> the study an infinite number of times, 95% of these results would fall very >>> close to the difference found in the first study. How meaningful that >>> spread is depends on the standard error of the studies, and other factors. >>>  It also mean that in order to show a significant difference with a smaller ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- samples. It >>> all depends on the statistical power of your experiment. I'm too burned out ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- basis at ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I'd ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- with

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 10:15 PM

Maybe? I'd have to look at it to know whether I could. Is this something that's on google books? NM I'll look myself. On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 10:29 PM

that's pretty interesting. And no, it's not on Google books, but I read the NY Times review. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/books/review/charles-murray-examines-the-white-working-class-in-coming-apart.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 10:40 PM

here's a different view. At by the way, there is in fact a partial version on Google Books; it just doesnt come back in the first page of results for whatever reason. Call me spoiled ;) http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/what-charles-murray-gets-right/ ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 10:42 PM

You can start here http://www.amazon.com/dp/0307453421/ref=as_li_tf_til?tag=washpost-books-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0307453421&adid=1BVPCPMAZESPRHXFP17B Here's a shorter article. Murray is up to his same routine, the gross misuse of stats to prove a racially charged point. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-white-people/2012/01/20/gIQAmlu53Q_story.html > > that's pretty interesting. And no, it's not on Google books, but I read the > NY Times review. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/books/review/charles-murray-examines-the-white-working-class-in-coming-apart.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- the ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- of >>> differences encompasses 0 by any substantial amount, most likely it means ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- book ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- and >>> counting - most of which are botched formulae for calculating statistical ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- estimation ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- out >>> >> thing they did a thousand times, because that part I do not understand ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- larryclyons@gmail.com ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- is ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- fall ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- that ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:346969 > Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm > -- Larry C. Lyons web: http://www.lyonsmorris.com/lyons LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/larryclyons There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Issac Asimov

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 06:15 PM

On 2/15/2012 4:38 PM, Dana wrote: > > That's not the usual meaning of predetermined, Sam. You might want to look > these big words up before you use them. Indeed.  I believe he is objecting on the assumption that the results were going to show exactly what they did, no matter what, and the scientists knew it, so the entire study was only done to support some actor's off the cuff smart-ass comment about something being wrong with conservatives.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 07:11 PM

yeah and that would be a valid reason to dis it, if that was what happened. But he just keeps saying how offended he is by what whosis said, and as far as I can tell, whosis is only an author because he generated the hypothesis. If he were in a position to fudge the results, even.... but he wasn't ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 01:59 PM

It was University College in London...and I posted it...not Larry ;-) it's a different study, assuming it actually happened, isn't it? I wasn't sure what I thought of Sam's source, but if the Smithsonian says it happened I guess it did. However, per Mind Hacks, the Colin Firth one is two British politicians, and the study Larry is citing involved a group of American students. I think. ::scrolls up:: On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Eric Roberts < owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 01:53 PM

Makes sense, any decent researcher will do that. Recently I heard of one major chemistry paper that was based on what a fifth grade kid came up with. She ended up getting credit as an author of the study. Als its not the first time in history that it has happened. Spectrum jumping, which wireless is dependant on, was conceived of by Heddy LaMar, the 1940's actress. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 02:02 PM

Are you still pretending this is legit? . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 02:07 PM

Yup...she discovered a new molecule that can store intense amounts of energy http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/5th-grader-plays-with-nitroglycerin -2012027/ Her teacher brought it up with a friend of his who is a research scientist. When he published a paper on it, he included her as a co-author... Makes sense, any decent researcher will do that. Recently I heard of one major chemistry paper that was based on what a fifth grade kid came up with. She ended up getting credit as an author of the study. Als its not the first time in history that it has happened. Spectrum jumping, which wireless is dependant on, was conceived of by Heddy LaMar, the 1940's actress. > > http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2011/06/colin-firth-actor-writ > er-aca > demy-award-winner-scientist/ > > Wow...I stand corrected...but he actually only gave the scientists the idea. > The Coauthor thing was crediting him for the idea.  He didn't actually > do the study.  So to say it is his study is stretching the truth quite a bit... ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- you see it. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 01:35 PM

Are you trying to say that the right doesn't attack the intelligence of people?  If they are not questioning the intelligence they are calling anyone that can put coherent sentences together an elitist... No really, it's the Actor that co-wrote this research for a radio show. http://mindhacks.com/2011/04/10/the-oscar-for-best-neuroscience-research-goe s-to/ If you  want to discredit all of my sites because it doesn't fit you view at least recognize a publicity stunt disguised as hate speech when you see it. Ask yourself why the left always attacks the intelligence of people that disagree? It's not very smart. The Right could easily do the same yet they don't, more mature I guess. Well, Michael Savage did write a book "Liberlism is a Mental Disorder" but he has his own issues. . > > Yanno, at the risk of fueling your misconceptions, Sam, I have to go > with Larry here. You don't seriously think that, do you? You always go > for cheapo debate points, and that makes it very hard to actually talk to you. > > He backed up his statement, and since you didn't want to back down you > used the old distract-them-with-stupid method. Everyone here has a > decent brain, and has tried the baffle-them-with-bullshit route > themselves at least once in their lives, so we know it when we see it, > even though some of us have given you the benefit of the doubt more than once. > > It gets old. This thread is old.  So, more in sorrow than in anger: > > <delete>

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 10:05 AM

Yes...because the author's name is the same as an actor, it must be the actor.  I guess that means I must have a sister name Julia?  This is the same lack of logic and intellectual integrity that brings us "The Nazis were socialists...look it's in their name...If it's in their name it must be true..."  Seriously Sam?  I know you were an ass, but I figured that, being a programmer and all, you weren't stupid... You seriously think the actor is also a pathologist and doctor of internal medicine?? Eric That's a study by the actor Colin Firth for a radio show. Do you really want to site a neurological study co-authored by an Oscar Winner as proof of your silly claim? . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- adults. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 09:45 AM

"Both NPR and PBS have reported on investigations on major sponsors in the past. When has Faux Snooze done so?" In the past?  Before they took corporate sponsors maybe?  And please don't try to put me into a postion to defend Fox News.  It's not going to happen. Anyway Larry, sometimes stories get so big that even the compromised media will have to cover them.  For example, John Edwards.   The compromised media tried so hard to ignore the story until the National Enquirer embarrassed them into covering it.  Let me say that again:  the National Enquirer. And unlike the Edwards situation, the compromised media goes into damage control for the sponsors.  Do you really think they will run with a story without getting the okay from their huge sponsors?  They get the material that the sponsor deems okay to run with.  Here's an example: http://www.anh-usa.org/send-a-message-to-pbs-frontline-what-frontline-covered-up-in-their-biased-report-on-%E2%80%9Cthe-vaccine-war%E2%80%9D/ Accomplished pediatrician, author, and teacher Dr. Jay Gordon has a commonsense approach to vaccinations? and an unwillingness to be coerced into either the ?pro? or ?anti? vaccine camps. PBS Frontline recently interviewed the noted pediatrician at length for a show called ?The Vaccine War.? Although Dr. Gordon spent hours interviewing with Frontline, PBS producers omitted not only 100% of his interview but the entire ?third camp? approach to vaccinations. It is obvious that PBS wanted to create a simple tabloid news piece with the all-knowing doctors on one side vs. crazed parents on the other. This is disturbing. It is even more disturbing given the level of financial support provided to public television by drug and related companies. You won?t easily find information about drug company support for public television on the internet. But you can find some of it on a fundraising website run by WGBH, the public station that produces Frontline: www.SGPTV.org. There are so many stories out there now that could win a Pulitzer, but no one ones to write them.  Investigate the corrupt ties between unions and politics, the  pays offs elected officials give to their cronies, the use of the stimulus package a slush fund to pay political backers, the continued American militarism in the Middle East, the corrupt leadership of the UN, and so on. "For the record, 'reich-wing' is excessive if it refers to all conservatives" I think we determined that this actually refers to the left wing since the Reich was a left wing organization :) J - When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Martin Lut

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 10:14 AM

Don't get me started on the anti-vax crowd. 4 kids are now out of my kid's school because they're sick  with whooping cough - parents refused to vaccinate. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 10:58 AM

"Don't get me started on the anti-vax crowd. 4 kids are now out of my kid's school because they're sick  with whooping cough - parents refused to vaccinate." There you go again.  Shifting the discussion (btw - whooping cough wasn't a big deal until the US stopped enforcing immigration - which is another potential pulitzer prize winning story). Anyway, the show about vaccinations removed a respected doctor who took the middle road.  The show was turned into "Vaccine War" (the actual name): You had a point to prove and removed material from your show which made the narrative balanced. ?Distraught, confused moms against important, well-spoken calm doctors? was your narrative with a deep sure voice to, literally, narrate the entire artifice. Here's another quote from the doctor: I trusted you by giving you two or three hours of my time for an interview and multiple background discussions. I expressed my heartfelt reservations about both vaccines and the polarizing of this issue into ?pro-vaccine? and ?anti-vaccine? camps. I told you that there was at least a third ?camp.? There are many doctors and even more parents who would like a more judicious approach to immunization. Give vaccines later, slower and with an individualized approach as we do in every other area of medicine. What did you create instead? ?The Vaccine War.? A war. Not a discussion or a disagreement over facts and opinions, but a war. This show was unintelligent, dangerous and completely lacking in the balance that you promised me?and your viewers?when you produced and advertised this piece of biased unscientific journalism. ?Tabloid journalism? I believe is the epithet often used. Even a good tabloid journalist could see through the screed you?ve presented. The vaccine war isn't of interest in this discussion (hence the lack of comment aside from yours about the formerly almost eradicated in the US whooping cough). It would make a good thread on its own though.  What the point is here is the lack of integrity of Front Line and the media in general. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. J - I've always thought the right wing was the ones who were inflexible and intolerant, and now I'm coming to realize that the orthodoxy at NPR, if it's representing the Left, is just unbelievable -

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 11:14 AM

idk, i havent ever had a problem with sam, sure he says some shit, everyone does. id miss ya sammy ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 11:48 AM

Thanks. . > > idk, i havent ever had a problem with sam, sure he says some shit, > everyone does. > > id miss ya sammy

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 12:35 PM

On 2/15/2012 8:50 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote: > What I am struck with about this work is how it may explain why > conservatives and progressives find it so difficult to communicate > with each other. All too often they are talking past one another. > These results may explain why. It also touches on some communication theory and the identity of self as related to social and cultural identity. It's nature and nurture.  Something has to account for extreme views bordering on irrational and it only makes sense that it can be attributed to differences in brain chemistry/structure.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 12:59 PM

That applies to extremism in any form. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/15/2012 08:37 AM

Data are data. That study has been replicated in England, Europe and in the US with both students and non students on and off campus. If you are offended perhaps its time to look at yourself and decide why you are so overly sensitive. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 07:52 PM

This is Sam we are talking about... How in god's name did you infer that from those two lines?  Really. Tell me.  I want to know. Yes, Fox News makes up news to suit their needs.  No, I don't like it. Do I think they should "go down"?  No.  The time and effort would be a waste.  They have their place, like any other media outlet.  The important thing is to remember where they are coming from.  I can't help it if someone doesn't. As far as "No matter how it is done".  Those with a good grasp of reading comprehension understand that I was was objecting to this guy's proposed tactics. So, in concise statements: I do not think Fox News should go down. I do not agree with "no matter how it is done". On 2/14/2012 1:42 PM, Sam wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- skirmish. >> >> If that guy is serious, he needs to be wedgied.  Twice.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 07:58 PM

To re-post my personal epiphany from a couple of years ago: You can ignore Sam or you can try to to reason with him. Both have the same effect, but the latter wastes less time. On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Eric Roberts < owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 07:58 PM

er, the former wastes less time. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 08:07 PM

Sam, I am going to break my own guidance to myself and tell you that I thought your remarks to Erika were way, way out of line. Where to you get off calling her a bitch? You bitch way more than the entire rest of the list, and frankly, your depressingly  hateful world view makes things a little sadder and tawdrier every time I encounter it. And you never ever ever learn when the spin you signed up for and spewed all over the list is demonstrated to be wrong. Your characterization of this list and of the entire rest of the political landscape is mindless, two-toned and usually wrong to boot. You insist on lumping Larry and I together despite our mutual disdain. It's apparently beyond your ken that some of us can vehemently disagree yet respect one another personally. In my case, Michael Dinowitz, Cameron, Hatton and Robert come to mind. (Which is not to say that I don't respect the rest of you, just that Sam might conceivably think at least some of you are lefties.....) Seriously, Sam, when a WHOLE LOT of people are telling you that maybe it's time to review what you are feeding your brain, maybe you should. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 09:23 PM

> Sam, I am going to break my own guidance to myself and tell you that I > thought your remarks to Erika were way, way out of line. Where to you get > off calling her a bitch? You bitch way more than the entire rest of the > list, and frankly, your depressingly  hateful world view makes things a > little sadder and tawdrier every time I encounter it. And you never ever > ever learn when the spin you signed up for and spewed all over the list is > demonstrated to be wrong. I'm still waiting for that to happen. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I know, you always insult people that don't agree with you. It's not a good way to debate. It's a childish way to admit that you're wrong . You've often sent personal attacks to the latter two and we know why you won't attack the boss. > Seriously, Sam, when a WHOLE LOT of people are telling you that maybe it's > time to review what you are feeding your brain, maybe you should. Apply everything you said to your self and think about it. YOU and the few attacking are the ones doing most of the personal attacks. But that's old news.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 01:07 PM

I'd rather watch the BBC, live, from the UK. Not the Americanized version. > > "Fox News? Really can this be called a News channel?" > > >

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/10/2012 10:25 AM

Someone *Really* wasn't paying attention then. The other issue is that Fox has been caught several times doing these things to further a certain point of view in complete contradiction to fact. I guess that is why folks aren't as prepared to give them the "it was an error" pass. Because on more than a few previous occasions it was intentional, and meant to appeal to those without much knowledge about the topics at hand (Hence the uneducated/ignorant. Not stupid). On 10 February 2012 11:01, GMoney <gm0n3y06@gmail.com> wrote: > > OR is it possible that sometimes people, even large groups of well > organized and well intentioned people.....make mistakes? > >

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 08:51 PM

> https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/s320x320/5289_115439157020_623597020_2687373_3341209_n.jpg > > What's wrong with this picture? > > > TV News is bogus, TV is just tv; Entertainment. Just like audio books, news is much nicer to read, but of course advertising it eating up online news sites could be just as bad ;-)


<< Previous Thread Today's Threads Next Thread >>

Search cf-community

June 19, 2013

<<   <   Today   >   >>
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
             1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30             

Designer, Developer and mobile workflow conference

Latest Fusion Authority Articles

Designer, Developer and mobile workflow conference

Want a number like 800-ColdFusion?

My Toll Free 800 Number provides a vanity phone number service to clients who want more than just digits. How would you like 800-coldfusion?

www.MyTollFree800Number.com