lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: The future of the Republican Party
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 03-01-2009, 09:06 PM   #121
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Would you want to fly in an airplane where the safety studies were done by someone with a history of skewing the data to make it seem like it was safe when the wings were about to come off?
I'm sure that safety study would never pass regulations. If it said that the wing hanging off is fine, then I doubt it would be allowed on any plane.

Find us proof that this has been manipulated. He got suspended for one study because they knew he had manipulated data. His study has passed regulation thus far, which counts for even more in my book because he'll have people breathing down the neck of his research.

If he is being so watched and kept on a leash for this, then it would only make sense that his further research would be under an even tougher eye. He has passed thus far.

The burden of proof is still on your shoulder to prove, without a doubt, that this information is skewed. You've given opinion and speculation, but nothing else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Not all of it, because it violated quite a few smell tests just based on SkinWalker's posts. I did some looking into the guy's background, and found that the man had been suspended for conducting a similar study only it involved genders if I remember correctly.
You just admitted to creating a strawman. If you don't agree, re-read the definiton of a Strawman.

As I proved in my previous post, you did not read Skin's post or read the actual research. Because you couldn't create a valid argument based on anything but speculation, you instead opted to attack his character.

You are making assumptions and baseless arguments after not properly looking into what you are arguing. That is a strawman, and it is a poor debating tool.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
I read part of it, and how it was presented so are you telling me that SkinWalker misrepresented the data?
Sorry, your argument became invalid after "I read part of it".

You are making without-a-doubt assumptions on a poster, researcher, and study without properly researching any of them. For all of your so called research skills, you've done little to no research thus far. You have not even bothered to fully read the posts of the people you are debating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Any studies that have to do with intelligence of people based on race, gender, and/or religion in my book and based on history are usually subject to blatent bias.
"Statistically, women buy more tampons than men"

That is study based on gender, but it probably isn't skewed unless you have an argument for why men would be buying more than women.

"In my book" is speculation and opinion, both of which you have admitted to forming after doing poor research. You have yet, however, to prove "based on history". The burden of that proof is, again, on your shoulders.

Your argument is based on speculation, and I'm guessing a person beef with the results. But, from what I pointed out, your beef is misplaced due to not properly researching the data you are refuting.

So, again of course it is subject to bias or manipulation. All data is. The thing is, you need to prove that is had been or it is just baseless speculation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Pot calling the kettle black there...
Says the person who has actually admitted to ignoring facts and posts. I've read all of your posts in this thread, and read the study. Pointing out you have done none does not make me a pot. You are calling me a pot because you are trying to justify not doing any further research so that you can stay within your own boxed opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Making a mistake is not the same as deliberately distorting data, the person conducting the study was suspended for deliberately tampering with the data.
So, why hasn't this study been taken down yet?

"Tampering with data" would mean more if you understood what data you are trying to disprove.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Fact is I don't have to prove anything more than I have, the burden of proof is on the researcher in a research study, if they have compromised their credibility it throws other research of a similar nature into question. That's why getting accused of something like this is such a big deal.
See, that is where you are wrong. Burden of proof is on you in this debate, or you can admit you have nothing more than strawmans to show us. If that is the case, then you may as well stop while you are behind.

Then why has this data not been ripped apart and show for being false? You are placing a situation onto something in which there is no proof that situation exists by your admittance.

While it is important to question, you would rather attack the possibility than the data and posts in which you have admitted to not reading.

Go back and read posts and the sources before digging yourself a deeper hole.

------------------------

As for your accusations, read more than wikipedia for a change:
http://www1.jp.dk/dok/kh190806/nyborg_report.pdf

This is the official report.

They found no evidence of Fraud. There is, however, evidence of poor math on two accounts in his paper. He gave unsatisfactory details in a few areas, making them obsolete.

It was not that he "manipulated data" as you point out with your poor research. He was suspended for lack of diligence in his research, and presenting an incomplete study.

Due to his poor math at that time, some of his final data was mathematically impossible to determine so his study was called obsolete and he was suspended for lack of due diligence.

This proves my point that these studies are pulled apart and looked at carefully despite what you say. There have been no official accusations of manipulation, fraud, etc on the study of God and Intelligence.

Your "I put him into google and found problems with the first 2 links" theory are correct as you pointed our earlier in the thread, but you did no research past that. Come back later when you understand what you are debating, and understand your side of this instead of parroting wikipedia.

And, before you try, I will continue to point out what you have not read from now on in this thread. It would be advisable for you to re-read everything in this thread that you ignored before continuing.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-01-2009, 09:17 PM   #122
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelastraz View Post
Indeed. And this is exactly what Skinwalker provided us with. I'm sure you've noticed that anyone here but you considers the research study to be empirically valid.
Thing is, we don't know if the research is genuine due to his history. That's the thing about trust, I can argue you all accept it because it's what you want to believe as atheists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelastraz
You do not. Please demonstrate why we should believe you. And do so by referring to the empirical data, not Nyborg's history.
When there is a history of discrimination of people of religion in academia as I've illustrated, the question becomes also how many people answered the survey honestly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelastraz
So far, your treatment of this research study is akin to saying that Harry Potter sucks because Rowling has a history of writing bad books. Without actually having read Harry Potter.
Bad example because Rowling writes fictional works, it isn't a legit comparison.

@ True_Avery

I didn't just use wikipedia, I used the news link from the University where he worked. That is more relevant than a random link you are posting where I have no idea where it is from.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-01-2009, 10:10 PM   #123
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Thing is, we don't know if the research is genuine due to his history. That's the thing about trust, I can argue you all accept it because it's what you want to believe as atheists.
Oh, so you can't think up a good argument so you ad hominem attack us for our "atheism."

Nice try. Care to dig yourself a deeper hole? I'm sure there are more baseless arguments you can throw at us.

And yet AGAIN your make another baseless accusation without even bothering to research. Here, I'll post it again to give you the chance to read it:

"Interestingly enough, and for those that might think so, I'm not asserting atheists are "smartest" nor is Nyborg. Indeed, the data are clear on this: The Episcopal/Angelican group scored the highest IQ at 113.43 with the Jewish denomination a close second at 112.43. Atheists actually placed 3rd and Agnostics 4th with an average IQ of 109.13." -Skinwalker

Now, if we wanted to believe this just because we are "atheists", then doesn't that contradict your argument? Atheists are 3rd, and agnostics are 4th. If "atheists" are so intent on being #1, then why are we "atheists" apparently content with research that says they are #3?

Again, please do some research and actually read posts.

And, for the record, I do not consider myself an atheist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
When there is a history of discrimination of people of religion in academia as I've illustrated, the question becomes also how many people answered the survey honestly?
Wow. You really have no argument at all if you are going to nit-pick speculation that low. If you are going to go as far as to say the participants lied, then you may as well no longer believe in anything as your argument basically states that nobody tells the truth.

And you call us determined to believe this?

Also, what academia have you illustrated? All you have done is blanket state "academia" and call them out for something you have yet to provide proof for beyond 2 isolated cases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
@ True_Avery

I didn't just use wikipedia, I used the news link from the University where he worked. That is more relevant than a random link you are posting where I have no idea where it is from.
If you had used or even read news links, you would have known that the University put out a report on his work, of which I posted above.

If you had bothered to read my link or do any research on the report you are using for he basis of your argument, you would know that. If you had even bothered actually read the wiki article you would know that.

And who was it by? The Dean of Social Sciences of the University, the Chairman of the same, and 2 professors from Gothenburg and Copenhagen University.
http://www.au.dk/en/news/210906a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_Nyborg

So, again, instead of looking at the link and then dismissing my entire argument, why don't you actually do some research with those skills you keep talking on about on the person you are trying to discredit:
http://www1.jp.dk/dok/kh190806/nyborg_report.pdf from jyllands-poste, Denmark's main newspaper.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-01-2009, 10:11 PM   #124
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
There is, actually, an interesting point of Nyborg's methodology that I have a question about and I've written him to clarify it. Once that's done, I'll be able to use the independent data he obtained and attempt to duplicate his results. If I can use the data in such a way -data sets that were not compiled by Nyborg, then it stands to reason that I can set aside any question of bias or the fallacious insistence that nothing he researches is valid now since he had some math errors in a project from 5-7 years ago.

That aside, its also interesting to note that Garfield has carefully avoided discussing Stankov and Massengill, two of the other studies I've shown which have data demonstrating the negative correlation between conservatism and cognitive ability.

I feel that I must also include a short disclaimer: the data I've cited are regarding general trends only and in no way imply that individuals in any population are necessarily representative of the data. Particularly not individuals who post at LF.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-01-2009, 10:13 PM   #125
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(.)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
@ True_Avery

I didn't just use wikipedia, I used the news link from the University where he worked. That is more relevant than a random link you are posting where I have no idea where it is from.
stand back, i know science


http://www1.jp.dk/dok/kh190806/nyborg_report.pdf -> http://www1.jp.dk/ -> http://jp.dk/ -> jyllands-posten -> largest selling newspaper in denmark



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-01-2009, 10:25 PM   #126
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker View Post
That aside, its also interesting to note that Garfield has carefully avoided discussing Stankov and Massengill, two of the other studies I've shown which have data demonstrating the negative correlation between conservatism and cognitive ability.
I lost track of their study while looking at your first study, also I'm busy doing my own research for a seperate project.

I haven't gotten to those two individuals yet.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-01-2009, 11:58 PM   #127
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism

Garfield is bent on resorting to argumentum ad hominem and on creating straw man arguments rather than analyzing the data presenting in Nyborg. Interestingly enough, since he was able to locate a disparaging word or two about Helmuth Nyborg, he wasn't concerned with the other citations such as Massengill and Stankov, the latter of which demonstrated a clear and empirical negative correlation between conservatism and cognitive function.

There have been several other recent studies which have made similar conclusions. I haven't, as yet, noticed the study which reached an opposite conclusion, however: that there exists a positive correlation between cognitive function/ability and either religiosity or conservatism.

Another recent study was conducted by David Amodio et al, of New York University in 2007. Here's the abstract:
Quote:
Political scientists and psychologists have noted that, on average, conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty. We tested the hypothesis that these profiles relate to differences in general neurocognitive functioning using event-related potentials, and found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater
neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern.
In the methods, Amodio et al used functional magnetic resonance imaging to evaluate event-related potentials associated with neurocognitive activity in the anterior cingulate cortex. Their conclusions included:
Quote:
Taken together, our results are consistent with the view that political orientation, in part, reflects individual differences in the functioning of a generalmechanismrelated to cognitive control and self-regulation13. Stronger conservatism (versus liberalism) was associated with less neurocognitive sensitivity to response conflicts. At the behavioral level, conservatives were alsomore likely tomake errors of commission. Although a liberal orientation was associated with better performance on the response-inhibition task examined here, conservatives would presumably perform better on tasks in which a more fixed response style is optimal.
Kemmelmeier (2008) found a negative correlation between conservatism and ACT/SAT scores. Jost et al (2003) used a meta-analysis to show how several psychological variables predict political conservatism (death anxiety, dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity, low self esteem, etc). They state, "The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat." And Deary et al (2007) found that children with a high g (i.e. higher cognitive ability) at age 10 developed more liberal and less conservative attitudes at age 30.

Studies abound which link cognitive ability to political ideology. That political ideology is a function of cognition is a very intuitive expectation given that how one aligns oneself politically is all about how one thinks, perceives the world, rationalizes his existence, etc.


References:

Amodio, David M., et al (2007) Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism. Nature Neuroscience, 10(10), 1246-1247.

Deary, Ian J., et al (2007). Bright children become enlightened adults. Psychological Science, 19(1), 1-6.

Jost, John T., et al (2003). Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339-375.

Kemmelmeier, Markus (2008). Is there a relationship between political orientation and cognitive ability? A test of three hypotheses in two studies. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 767-772.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-02-2009, 10:10 AM   #128
Vaelastraz
Veteran
 
Vaelastraz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: City 17. It's safer.
Posts: 851
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Bad example because Rowling writes fictional works, it isn't a legit comparison.
Garfield, do you seriously not see that arguments of the following form are deductively invalid?

Premise 1: P conducted research study X.
Premise 2: P conducted research study Y.
Premise 3: Y is skewed and biased.
Conclusion: Therefore X is skewed and biased.
Vaelastraz is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-02-2009, 10:20 AM   #129
Tommycat
>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
I think the real notable thing is that in Nyborg's studies we find that it isn't so much religion itself, but dogmatic devotion. I'm sure we could find a similar relationship with dogmatic eco-nuts and the Democratic/Liberal view and lessened cognitive ability. Perhaps those are the ones that skewed the athiest IQ scores lower than the religious LOL.

I am glad you admit that it isn't so much religious as the more fundamentalist views, since it is obvious that belief in a higher being does not automatically equate to a lower IQ(on average). That tends to indicate to me at least that the conclusion is reached in error.

they also seem to not test for those that did not graduate HS, which as I understand it the conservatives and Republicans have a higher rate of completion. Narrowing it down by race also tends to skew results as well. I mean I could take African American or Hispanic groups and show one trend that would put a negative light on things. Basically what I'm saying is that Conservative/Liberal have little to do with IQ. It is merely your willingness to challenge your own preconceived notions.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > The future of the Republican Party

Tags
discovery institute, escr, focus on the family, gop, roe v. wade

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:36 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.