House of Eratosthenes

It’s funny. Whether the victim-class is defined according to race, gender, creed, obesity, language, immigration status, income level or sexual preference, the rules are always the same.

1. We should never hold the members of that class to any kind of a standard, be it a standard of performance or a standard of behavior;
2. We should treat it as a human-rights violation if any member of that class wants something, and ends up not getting it;
3. If any member of that class falls short of what they were supposed to do or screws up, we’re not allowed to notice it or talk about it;
4. They should never, under any circumstances, at all, anywhere, whatsoever — have to prove anything.

To those, I suppose there is a fifth one we might add that says when a member of the victim class ends up in some kind of conflict with someone else, they should prevail. Trouble is, occasionally a member of one victim-class comes into conflict with a member of another victim-class. Then things aren’t quite so clear-cut. Seems we’re in the process of hashing out some sort of pecking-order. One example that immediately springs to mind is when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had to hash it out during the entire summer of 2008, over who was to be poised to be the Greatest!! Presidential Candidate!! EVAR!! And…well, that got kinda ugly didn’t it.

People who insist on unquestioning fidelity to these rules, from everyone they know & see & hear, without specifically listing the rules — they’re the ones who say they’re “for equality.”

What a crack-up.

Update: It’s as if someone said, “Hey, what that Morgan Freeberg said in that blog over there doesn’t make any sense, we’d better do something so that what he said makes more sense.” Equality between the two sexes, or among the many sexes, whatever, is not the objective. If that were the objective then women in the Marines would have to do their pull-ups. We’re going to send girls into combat in order to accomplish something. Would a rationally-thinking country not have a better idea of what that something is?

Equality isn’t it. Winning battles clearly is not it. Until someone provides evidence showing there’s a benefit I haven’t considered, the sensible conclusion is that there’s no benefit. And when do we do costly impractical things that we know provide no benefit? When an outside force compels us to. When we follow rules.

High time someone went through the trouble of writing down these rules.

mkfreeberg: the rules are always the same

Never heard of ’em. Did you just it up? If anything, minorities often have to exceed the norm just to be given an even chance.
- Zachriel | 12/29/2013 @ 10:02
Z: Did you just it up?

Did you just make ’em up?
- Zachriel | 12/29/2013 @ 10:08
If anything, minorities often have to exceed the norm just to be given an even chance.

And, often that’s true of the non-minorities. According to established rules.
- mkfreeberg | 12/29/2013 @ 10:24
mkfreeberg: And, often that’s true of the non-minorities. According to established rules.

Your original post didn’t allow for “often”.

The U.S. Navy’s First 4-Star Female Admiral “was asked whether it was tougher dealing with sexism or racism in the service. ‘Sexism within the service, and racism outside the service,” she responded. “Maybe that’s because we started to integrate the officer corps starting at the end of World War II, as far as race was concerned.'”
http://swampland.time.com/2013/12/13/navy-names-first-4-star-female-admiral
- Zachriel | 12/29/2013 @ 11:28
Your original post didn’t allow for “often”.

My original post didn’t mention “all” or “always,” either; it mentioned “rules.” Are y’all trying to deny these rules are in place?

Mustard and Parys, 2011 might have something to say about that.
- mkfreeberg | 12/29/2013 @ 11:34
I’m going with “Did you just it up?” because internet.
- vanderleun | 12/29/2013 @ 11:46
mkfreeberg: My original post didn’t mention “all” or “always,” either; it mentioned “rules.”

Yes, you stated it was a rule, not a tendency.
rule, prescribed guide for conduct or action.

mkfreeberg: Mustard and Parys, 2011 might have something to say about that.

Sure. The study indicates that when accounting for cognitive and non-cognitive skills, grading is slightly biased to favor white boys.
- Zachriel | 12/29/2013 @ 12:37
rule, prescribed guide for conduct or action.

Which may or not be always observed. Once again, y’all envision absolutes being stated, and exceptions being disallowed, when that is not what was said. Reading comprehension.

The study indicates that when accounting for cognitive and non-cognitive skills, grading is slightly biased to favor white boys.

Reading comprehension. That is not what it said.

Using data from the 1998-99 ECLS-K cohort, we show that the grades awarded by teachers are not aligned with test scores, with the disparities in grading exceeding those in testing outcomes and uniformly favoring girls, and that the misalignment of grades and test scores can be linked to gender differences in non-cognitive development. Girls in every racial category outperform boys on reading tests and the differences are statistically significant in every case except for black fifth-graders. Boys score at least as well on math and science tests as girls, with the strongest evidence of a gender gap appearing among whites.

However, boys in all racial categories across all subject areas are not represented in grade distributions where their test scores would predict.

Page 23:

Our paper shines a light on the teacher’s role in assessing academic achievement. If, as the data suggest, young girls display a more developed “attitude toward learning” and teachers (consciously or subconsciously) reward these attitudes by giving girls higher marks than warranted by their test scores, the seeds of a gender gap in educational attainment may be sown at an early age, because teachers’ grades strongly influence grade-level placement, high-school graduation and college admission prospects.

It would seem there is some kind of “rule” in place against absorbing the findings of this report…and, other reports calling out similar problems. Once again, I see when y’all challenge me to provide evidence, y’all simultaneously provide the evidence needed. Or would, I suppose, maybe, if we had better information about who y’all are.

Y’all’s own example has to do with a woman being promoted to the very highest peacetime Naval rank. What is the point of this? That she beat a more qualified man? How do y’all know that?

Her promotion comes in the wake of the Army’s decision to tap Ann Dunwoody for four stars in 2008, and the Air Force move to promote Janet Wolfenbarger to its highest rank in 2012.

This really doesn’t tell us that “minorities often have to exceed the norm just to be given an even chance.” Women aren’t even minorities. If they were, I don’t know anything from the data y’all have brought about how they had to exceed the norm just to be given an even chance.
- mkfreeberg | 12/29/2013 @ 14:16
mkfreeberg: Which may or not be always observed.

In this case, it hardly seems to constitute a rule. You just make that up.

mkfreeberg: Reading comprehension.

this less favorable treatment essentially vanishes when non-cognitive skills are taken into account.
- Zachriel | 12/29/2013 @ 18:09
Right! I just made it up. There isn’t a shred of truth to support it, anywhere.

And Barack Obama really is the Greatest President EVAR and He has reformed the health care system so it works for everyone, nobody’s losing their coverage, healthcare.gov has always worked awesomely.

It’s like folders on a network. I say the folder exists, y’all fault me for saying so just because with your reduced permissions profile, y’all can’t see the folder. Except — y’all are the ones who trimmed down y’all’s own network privileges. Y’all are the ones who made the decision that this inconvenient information, that a U.S. President who happens to be a minority, rolled out some plans that didn’t work out that well; that somehow becomes my problem, it becomes my job to explain things y’all can’t see, because y’all won’t see them. Somehow, that becomes my little puzzle to solve. I’m supposed to explain to y’all’s satisfaction things that are outside y’all’s peripheral vision, because y’all have pushed them out there, just like network users who have revoked their own permissions…

What is that, if it isn’t “rules”? Thanks again for proving my point. As far as me explaining it so y’all can make sense out of it, well…that would be an attempt to circumvent the security protection on the network, wouldn’t it? So we’ll have to make do with the status quo, with the proviso that just because y’all can’t see it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Because that’s how it works. Y’all chose it that way.
- mkfreeberg | 12/29/2013 @ 18:53
mkfreeberg: Right! I just made it up. There isn’t a shred of truth to support it, anywhere.

People will draw their own conclusions about your inability to defend your position.
- Zachriel | 12/30/2013 @ 06:07
From what?
- mkfreeberg | 12/30/2013 @ 06:30
mkfreeberg: From what?

From when errors are pointed out in your position.
- Zachriel | 12/30/2013 @ 09:08
Alas, from all appearances, Zachriel, you appear to be unable to point out these errors, which means that, as far as I can tell, that you cannot defend, nay, even enunciate your position. Ah, as you say, people will draw their own conclusions…….
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 12/30/2013 @ 17:47
Robert Mitchell Jr: you appear to be unable to point out these errors, which means that, as far as I can tell, that you cannot defend, nay, even enunciate your position.

Z: The study indicates that when accounting for cognitive and non-cognitive skills, grading is slightly biased to favor white boys.

mk: Reading comprehension. That is not what it said.

this less favorable treatment essentially vanishes when non-cognitive skills are taken into account… For some specifications there is evidence of a grade “bonus” for white boys with test scores and behavior like their girl counterparts.
- Zachriel | 12/30/2013 @ 17:51
I see you have inherited Zachriel. I do believe he is the same group that used to hang out at “Maggies Farm”. Haven’t seen him there much lately as it seems his constant defense of AGW wore thinner and thinner as AGW was getting debunked. They don’t get anymore progressive/collectivist than Zachriel.
- indyjonesouthere | 01/01/2014 @ 19:55
OFF-TOPIC

indyjonesouthere: Haven’t seen him there much lately as it seems his constant defense of AGW wore thinner and thinner as AGW was getting debunked.

http://www.nature.com/climate/index.html

indyjonesouthere: I do believe he is the same group that used to hang out at “Maggies Farm”.

We stopped posting when our comments became subject to arbitrary deletion.
- Zachriel | 01/02/2014 @ 06:02
The journal is accepting manuscripts through its online submission system.

Huh. Well, there’s the answer to that problem.
- mkfreeberg | 01/02/2014 @ 06:06
mkfreeberg: Well, there’s the answer to that problem.

Not sure your point.
- Zachriel | 01/02/2014 @ 06:13
Nature.com probably would not be subjecting your submitted manuscript to arbitrary deletion once it’s published. And, you wouldn’t have to contend with people actually replying to y’all’s points and critiques with those bothersome questions, like “salvage from what?,” or providing more complete excerpts from things, making it clear that teachers grade with a bias in favor of girls, when y’all would rather cherry-pick two lines at a time to create an impression of the opposite.

I’m really not sure why y’all choose the comment sections of blogs as y’all’s medium. I’m not the first one to wonder. The transparency inherent to them is not good for what y’all seem to be doing, but essays published in a journal might be more your bag.

Rush Limbaugh has occasionally commented on this. Newspaper editorials tend to lean left and radio talk shows tend to lean right, because if a talk show host says something silly and nonsensical the rebuttal is instant. Those can be screened, but if the original comment was too silly then that becomes harder to do. Whereas, if you see a liberal editorial make a silly point, all you can do is write in, with remarks that may or may not ever see the light of day.

So maybe y’all should consider writing manuscripts and submitting them to the web link y’all provided. What was that supposed to prove, anyway?
- mkfreeberg | 01/02/2014 @ 06:55
mkfreeberg: making it clear that teachers grade with a bias in favor of girls, when y’all would rather cherry-pick two lines at a time to create an impression of the opposite.

The paper concerned non-cognitive differences. Girls got higher grades based on cognitive skills, but the difference disappeared when accounting for non-cognitive skills. Did you even read the paper? Did you at least read the title of the paper you cited?

mkfreeberg: Nature.com probably would not be subjecting your submitted manuscript to arbitrary deletion once it’s published.

Still not sure your point. They don’t publish blog posts rehashing climate science for climate change deniers.
- Zachriel | 01/02/2014 @ 06:59
Rush Limbaugh: Those can be screened

Of course they’re screened.
- Zachriel | 01/02/2014 @ 07:00
Still not sure your point. They don’t publish blog posts rehashing climate science for climate change deniers.

Aaaaaand again, here we are wondering what the fucking point is. The very word “denier” means that one party in the exchange thinks the other cannot, by definition, be convinced of the truth.

Holocaust deniers, for instance, don’t call themselves “Holocaust deniers;” they claim to be historians. The word “denier” only got applied after they refused to acknowledge their many errors, omissions, and distortions, and kept asserting something that was patently false. Real historians don’t argue with Holocaust deniers, because there’s no point.

Why, then, do y’all do it? Y’all are convinced of the “truth” of global warming. The regular commenters here are not — a point which y’all acknowledge, by throwing the word “denier” around. Which makes the whole thing not just pointless, but frankly pathological.
- Severian | 01/02/2014 @ 08:57
Severian: The word “denier” only got applied after they refused to acknowledge their many errors, omissions, and distortions, and kept asserting something that was patently false.

Okay.

Severian: Which makes the whole thing not just pointless

It’s not pointless to point out inaccurate statements, whether about the Holocaust, or climate change, or evolution.
- Zachriel | 01/02/2014 @ 09:00
It’s not pointless to point out inaccurate statements, whether about the Holocaust, or climate change, or evolution.

Ok, champs…. if y’all say so. It seems like a complete waste of time to argue about the Holocaust with Stormfront, or the One True Religion with the Ayatollah — Einstein’s definition of insanity and all that — but whatevs. I guess I just have a richer and more varied social life than y’all.
- Severian | 01/02/2014 @ 09:26
Severian: It seems like a complete waste of time to argue about the Holocaust with Stormfront, or the One True Religion with the Ayatollah

Not sure that’s a fair characterization of this blog. In any case, people speak out in opposition to those groups.
- Zachriel | 01/02/2014 @ 09:34
Heh. Reading comprehension really isn’t y’all’s thing. Y’all should make that a New Year’s resolution.
- Severian | 01/02/2014 @ 09:42
I’m gonna have to agree with that.

Did you even read the paper? Did you at least read the title of the paper you cited?

My excerpt > y’all’s excerpt. Did y’all read those?
- mkfreeberg | 01/02/2014 @ 20:51
mkfreeberg: My excerpt > y’all’s excerpt. Did y’all read those?

Surely we did. Girls are graded somewhat better compared to cognitive skills, but the difference disappears when including non-cognitive skills.
- Zachriel | 01/03/2014 @ 07:29
mkfreeberg: My excerpt > y’all’s excerpt.

If you mean length of the excerpt, then you couldn’t possibly have found a more vacuous comparison when quoting from a scientific paper.
- Zachriel | 01/03/2014 @ 07:30
Length of the excerpt? What…y’all mean, character-count?

What makes y’all think I was referring to that? Please describe the thought process in detail.

Because — if this-thing-that-is-entirely-unsupported…then…this thing that is superlative, therefore, not too probable. But then y’all go on to this lecturing, which can be relevant only if the fanciful possibility turns out to be true. But isn’t terribly likely. But, I guess, carries some measure of appeal…
- mkfreeberg | 01/04/2014 @ 00:17
[…] The Pyre “Trained to be Insulted” Is That the Model? A Lesson in Evaluating Evidence Victim Class Rules Feeding the Ether Laziness Becoming More “Learned” by Knowing Less “They Too Must […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 01/04/2014 @ 07:59
mkfreeberg: What makes y’all think I was referring to that?

It would normally be up to you to clarify your own views.

The whole point of the paper was to show that girls are graded somewhat better compared to cognitive skills, but the difference disappears when including non-cognitive skills. This might indicate the need for change in education.
- Zachriel | 01/04/2014 @ 08:10
Normally an author can expect his readers to make a good-faith effort to understand what he’s written. But y’all don’t, won’t, most likely can’t. Several folks here have made several good suggestions to y’all for improving y’all’s woeful reading comprehension. Give ’em a try.
- Severian | 01/04/2014 @ 09:02
It would normally be up to you to clarify your own views.

Right! It would. But it’s okay, because I’m just making an inquiry.

It’s important because y’all have shown a repeated tendency to rely on scholarly articles at the expense of validating your ideas through experience, and I notice y’all never did show any signs of taking me up on my suggestion that y’all write a computer app. People think in a certain way when they’re Prof. Sowell’s definition of an intellectual — someone whose vocation begins in the realm of ideas and ends there as well, so that their “product” is never tested against reality — and, they think in an entirely different way when their ideas have to meet up with reality.

The round-robin exercise of writing code y’all think will do a certain thing, then pushing a button and having to contend with what the compiler thinks of it…that would have been good for y’all. Think y’all need that. Y’all need to go through the process of contending with someone else’s ideas. Or, reality.

That y’all can read a scientific paper that says teachers are biased in their grading to the benefit of girls, and come away insisting that the finding is that boys are the beneficiaries of this skew, is a revelation that throws all of y’all’s citations into serious question.

It’s like y’all are picking the one area where y’all want to confine y’all’s energies, which is reading papers, and y’all are lousing it up. Kinda like Katie Couric being smarter than Sarah Palin because Couric’s occupation is confined to pulling in strong ratings, but oops, that’s her one gig and she can’t do that, so who’s really the dummy in that duo.

Y’all figure out what’s so just by reading papers, apparently shunning the experience of validating against reality, but y’all have been criticized repeatedly for y’all’s reading comprehension deficits, and when the rubber meets the road y’all can read one of these papers and come away thinking it says the opposite of what it really says.

Y’all’s one gig. And y’all are botching it because y’all evidently skip over the 90% of the paper that doesn’t say what y’all want it to. This is how y’all were tripped up over that “Robert Proctor coined the term [agnotology]” thing.

For the record, the > symbol in “my excerpt > y’all’s excerpt” was a reference to alignment with the paper’s overall conclusion. It had nothing to do with length of the excerpts. I was commenting on the fidelity of what the excerpts were saying, compared to what the paper overall was saying. That would be the common sense assumption to make about a statement comparing two excerpts from the same paper, against each other. Y’all somehow leaped to the conclusion I was talking about word count.

In view of all that, when y’all read a paper and come away with a different impression of what it says than somebody else who read the same paper, who should we presume is in error? When y’all cite some work that isn’t accessible to the general public, what presumptions should we form about how accurately y’all are summarizing that paper?
- mkfreeberg | 01/04/2014 @ 09:03
Severian: Normally an author can expect his readers to make a good-faith effort to understand what he’s written.

Sure, which is why we stated it as a conditional, while returning to the topic, waiting for clarification—which never came.
- Zachriel | 01/04/2014 @ 09:05
mkfreeberg: It’s important because y’all have shown a repeated tendency to rely on scholarly articles at the expense of validating your ideas through experience,

While experience is invaluable, experience doesn’t substitute for scientific investigation. We did read your citation, but apparently you didn’t understand it before posting it.

mkfreeberg: and I notice y’all never did show any signs of taking me up on my suggestion that y’all write a computer app.

Computer app to do what?

mkfreeberg: The round-robin exercise of writing code y’all think will do a certain thing, then pushing a button and having to contend with what the compiler thinks of it…that would have been good for y’all.

Yes, we’re aware that computers execute explicit algorithms.

mkfreeberg: That y’all can read a scientific paper that says teachers are biased in their grading to the benefit of girls, and come away insisting that the finding is that boys are the beneficiaries of this skew, is a revelation that throws all of y’all’s citations into serious question.

We quoted the study correctly. Grades are skewed towards girls based on cognitive skills, but the difference disappears when accounting for non-cognitive skills. It’s the whole point of the study you yourself cited!

mkfreeberg: For the record, the > symbol in “my excerpt > y’all’s excerpt” was a reference to alignment with the paper’s overall conclusion.

Thank you for the clarification. The primary conclusion concerned non-cognitive skills. At least read the title! “Non-cognitive Skills and the Gender Disparities in Test Scores and Teacher Assessments: Evidence from Primary School”
- Zachriel | 01/04/2014 @ 09:11
While experience is invaluable, experience doesn’t substitute for scientific investigation.

What is scientific investigation, if not experience?

We quoted the study correctly.

Accuracy of the excerpts is not in dispute. The dispute is about what the paper says overall. I think that much should be obvious to anybody reading the thread, regardless of which side they would think is doing a better job characterizing that particular paper.

Y’all leaped to the conclusion I was faulting the correctness of y’all’s quote. Y’all leaped to the conclusion I was comparing the excerpts based on word count.

Y’all could acquire some experience — experiencing things. Or, not. Either way, since it seems the only way y’all want to learn anything is by way of reading of the experiences of others, and within that y’all see things that aren’t there & fail to see things that are there, I’ll just keep that in mind whenever y’all put up a citation.
- mkfreeberg | 01/04/2014 @ 09:18
mkfreeberg: What is scientific investigation, if not experience?

Science is systematic study, in particular, hypothesis-testing.

mkfreeberg: The dispute is about what the paper says overall.

The paper says the girls are graded better based on cognitive skills, but the difference disappears when accounting for non-cognitive skills. It’s right in the abstract.
- Zachriel | 01/04/2014 @ 09:21
Oh, I get it! It’s our old friends, magic words!!!

It is not possible that a paper’s conclusion doesn’t match up with its data. After all, it says right there in the abstract that “this paper shows blah blah blah.” Which is always 100% true, no matter what. It’s the same reason that National Socialists aren’t socialists, no matter what they did or said — “common usage” says they’re on the right, and so they are! It’s also why those “global warming” researchers aren’t trapped in the arctic ice this very moment — “consensus” says that’s not possible, and so they’re actually tootling right along, looking at all the polar bears swimming for their lives in lukewarm seas.

You don’t need to actually look at the data. These aren’t the facts you’re looking for. Move along… move along.
- Severian | 01/04/2014 @ 09:40
Severian: It is not possible that a paper’s conclusion doesn’t match up with its data.

It’s quite possible. By the bye, it was mkfreeberg’s citation. He thought is supported his position for some reason.
- Zachriel | 01/04/2014 @ 11:06
Our paper shines a light on the teacher’s role in assessing academic achievement. If, as the data suggest, young girls display a more developed “attitude toward learning” and teachers (consciously or subconsciously) reward these attitudes by giving girls higher marks than warranted by their test scores, the seeds of a gender gap in educational attainment may be sown at an early age, because teachers’ grades strongly influence grade-level placement, high-school graduation and college admission prospects.

Huh! So, yes. By all means, let’s sit around with our thumbs up our butts wondering why I thought this paper supported my position.

Meanwhile, about this…

Sure, which is why we stated it as a conditional, while returning to the topic, waiting for clarification—which never came.

I notice this is a recurring theme in y’all’s comments: Y’all politely requested clarification which never came. Funny thing, that: When I wait for clarification which never comes, my first impulse is to define as concretely as I possibly can what it is I’m wanting, that’s missing.

Can y’all do that? I doubt it. Y’all haven’t. All I see y’all doing there is repeating the same dirge over and over…feeding the ether.

Someday, y’all should learn how to actually discuss things. You know, participate in this “exchange of ideas” y’all say y’all want.
- mkfreeberg | 01/04/2014 @ 18:51
mkfreeberg: Huh! So, yes.

The study shows that teachers reward a more developed “attitude toward learning”, regardless of gender.
- Zachriel | 01/05/2014 @ 08:13
The study shows more than that, and the major emphasis of the study is that the boys are being short-changed in the grading process due to the human factor. If y’all need me to, I can post the relevant excerpt again. But that’s likely just as futile as throwing more examples to y’all.

Guess we need a fifth rule: After we make sure members of the victim class benefit from these lowered standards, we should go to great lengths to pretend that is not the case, or even that the double-standard is reversed, so that the victims remain victims.

Here y’all are looking right at the study that says the boys are getting short-changed in the grading process, reading it as the girls being short-changed. “It’s right there in the abstract.” Two people look at the same thing, and see different things. The O.J. Simpson Trial effect.

Well. At least y’all are following the rules!
- mkfreeberg | 01/05/2014 @ 08:31
mkfreeberg: The study shows more than that, and the major emphasis of the study is that the boys are being short-changed in the grading process due to the human factor.

They showed it wasn’t due to preference for girls, but a more developed “attitude toward learning”.
- Zachriel | 01/05/2014 @ 08:34
…and teachers (consciously or subconsciously) reward these attitudes by giving girls higher marks than warranted by their test scores…

Once again, we see y’all’s interpretations might have a shot at making sense, if we ignore personal experiences. Most boys who have had to go to school have a good understanding of how this works.

Which brings me to something I’ve been wanting to revisit, interesting things to be learned here:

Z: While experience is invaluable, experience doesn’t substitute for scientific investigation.

M: What is scientific investigation, if not experience?

Z: Science is systematic study, in particular, hypothesis-testing.

That last one doesn’t quite answer the question. Hypothesis-testing relies on some sort of…experience. All the time. If ever that is not the case, there’s no test being applied.

Very difficult to make sense out of the science-over-experience comparison. It would be very silly to say “while raw broccoli has lots of vitamins and nutrients in it, it is no substitute for cooked broccoli.” In fact, yes, it’s a perfect “substitute”; if you want cooked broccoli and all you have is raw broccoli, you just…cook the damn broccoli.

It would be a bit easier to make sense out of “while crude oil is certainly valuable, it is no substitute for gasoline.” That, too, reveals an ignorance of the fact that gasoline is made from crude; but, most of us do not have access to the resources needed to do the refining.

So y’all’s statement makes sense, if and only if it is from the context of being unable to figure out what things mean — leaving this process to outsiders who are called “scientists.” And when I said something about “internalize the reasoning process” y’all had not a clue what I was trying to say…hmmm, interesting.

Yes, experience is invaluable. Every thinking process that possesses any degree of complexity at all, and has something to do with reality, relies on it.

Including science.
- mkfreeberg | 01/05/2014 @ 08:43
mkfreeberg: Once again, we see y’all’s interpretations might have a shot at making sense, if we ignore personal experiences.

We merely read the paper you cited. The paper concluded the difference was due to non-cognitive skills, not gender discrimination.

mkfreeberg: Hypothesis-testing relies on some sort of…experience.

Your use of the word “experience” clearly meant personal experience, rather than objective observation validated through the scientific method. As we said, personal experiences are invaluable, but doesn’t substitute for the scientific method when attempting to reach objective conclusions. Most scientific discoveries are contrary to common experience.

mkfreeberg: And when I said something about “internalize the reasoning process” y’all had not a clue what I was trying to say…hmmm, interesting.

Sure, but it’s a poor phrasing. The common usage is thinking rather the use of external modes. You apparently have a different use in mind, the opposite of reliance on authority.

mkfreeberg: Yes, experience is invaluable. Every thinking process that possesses any degree of complexity at all, and has something to do with reality, relies on it.

That’s right, but personal experience doesn’t substitute for science, which is a formal method that relies on objectivity and hypothesis-testing. The historical results of scientific inquiry speak for themselves.
- Zachriel | 01/05/2014 @ 08:59
The paper concluded the difference was due to non-cognitive skills, not gender discrimination.

Not true. The paper never eliminated gender discrimination as a factor. If you take the time to read it, what they’re doing is as good as blaming the teachers for discrimination, because they “(consciously or subconsciously) reward these attitudes by giving girls higher marks than warranted by their test scores.”

That’s a direct quote. This is the part where y’all agree with me, and we all get on with our lives.

Your use of the word “experience” clearly meant personal experience, rather than objective observation validated through the scientific method.

Not true, and as the guy who wrote it, I should know. Poor wording on my part? Doubtful. I said experience. I meant experience.

Sure, but it’s a poor phrasing.

Also not true. Or if it is true, a question naturally arises as to why y’all didn’t propose a better way to word it, since y’all were explicitly invited to do so.

Since y’all didn’t, my phrasing is the very best available. There may be a better way to get the job done but nobody has stepped forward with one.

That’s right, but personal experience doesn’t substitute for science, which is a formal method that relies on objectivity and hypothesis-testing. The historical results of scientific inquiry speak for themselves.

Historically, science that has found something out that’s done anybody any good, has been science that relies on somebody’s experience.

Y’all seem to be advocating an entirely different sort of science, a science that lies entirely outside of that. Word-and-idea science; untested, trendy, fraudulent-consensus-science. That sort of science hasn’t provided mankind with anything but a bunch of phobias.
- mkfreeberg | 01/05/2014 @ 14:06
mkfreeberg: If you take the time to read it, what they’re doing is as good as blaming the teachers for discrimination, because they “(consciously or subconsciously) reward these attitudes by giving girls higher marks than warranted by their test scores.”

The study showed that teachers discriminate in favor of non-cognitive skills. Those skills are more prevalent in girls. The solution they suggest is to improve non-cognitive skills in boys.

mkfreeberg: I said experience. I meant experience.

Heh. So you offer your usual non-clarifying clarification.

Experience as you used it above, and as you use it below refers to personal experience, rather than objective evidence. We infer the existence of electrons, but don’t directly observe them. We infer the existence of black holes, but don’t directly observe them. We infer the existence of fields, but don’t directly observe them.

mkfreeberg: Also not true.

If you use a term that already has an accepted meaning, it can lead to confusion. It is incumbent on you to clarify your unorthodox terminology.

mkfreeberg: Or if it is true, a question naturally arises as to why y’all didn’t propose a better way to word it, since y’all were explicitly invited to do so.

The contrary of appeal to authority is reliance on evidence.

mkfreeberg: Historically, science that has found something out that’s done anybody any good, has been science that relies on somebody’s experience.

Again, your use of the term “somebody’s experience” implies personal experience rather than objective evidence. Do you understand the difference?
- Zachriel | 01/05/2014 @ 18:12
Science that exists outside of experience. It’s a fascinating concept, if not a useful one.
- mkfreeberg | 01/05/2014 @ 19:22
mkfreeberg: Science that exists outside of experience.

Heh. So you offer your usual non-clarifying clarification.

Science is based in objective observation. However, not all experiences are objective.
- Zachriel | 01/06/2014 @ 06:03
Asperger’s Syndrome: “an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication, alongside restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development. Although not required for diagnosis, physical clumsiness and atypical (peculiar, odd) use of language are frequently reported.”

Just because y’all don’t understand his expressions, dear Cuttlefish, doesn’t mean they’re not quite clear to normal folks. Seek help.
- Severian | 01/06/2014 @ 06:30
Severian: Just because y’all don’t understand his expressions …

The way to resolve that is to explain your position, in particular, to answer questions about your position. Unless the position isn’t worth explaining, of course.

Did you disagree with this: Science is based in objective observation. However, not all experiences are objective.
- Zachriel | 01/06/2014 @ 06:39
I notice this is a recurring theme in y’all’s comments: Y’all politely requested clarification which never came. Funny thing, that: When I wait for clarification which never comes, my first impulse is to define as concretely as I possibly can what it is I’m wanting, that’s missing.

Can y’all do that?
- mkfreeberg | 01/06/2014 @ 07:02
mkfreeberg: my first impulse is to define as concretely as I possibly can what it is I’m wanting, that’s missing. Can y’all do that?

Yes, and we did above, and will do so again.

mkfreeberg: It’s important because y’all have shown a repeated tendency to rely on scholarly articles at the expense of validating your ideas through experience…

This seems to use the term “experience” to refer to subjective experience.

mkfreeberg: What is scientific investigation, if not experience?

We said that personal experience is invaluable, but that it doesn’t substitute for scientific investigation, adding that science is more than subjective experience, but that science depends on objective observations. For instance, most people experience the Earth as stationary, but scientific investigation shows that the Earth moves (Copernicus 1543, Galileo 1633). This is where you might clarify your use of the term experience.

Furthermore, we didn’t rely strictly on scholarly articles, but responded to your own citation to a scholarly article. The article found that the difference in grading was due to non-cognitive skills regardless of gender.
- Zachriel | 01/06/2014 @ 08:00
They can’t, because they have mental “difficulties.”

The machine-prose, the insistence that words can only be used one very specific way, the constant repetitions (including cut-n-paste of crap from 2005), the monomania…. classic Sperg. I was willing to cut them a break — I’ve been around lots of grad students; it’s ASD on parade — but they’re obnoxious even by Sperg standards.
- Severian | 01/06/2014 @ 08:02
By the way, have you independently confirmed Eratosthenes’ calculation of the Earth’s size?
- Zachriel | 01/06/2014 @ 08:03
Severian: the insistence that words can only be used one very specific way

No, but consistency would help to avoid possible conflation.
- Zachriel | 01/06/2014 @ 08:04
Experience.

There. Clarification done. Completely, in every way anybody could ever possibly want it to be done. No gaps remaining.

Glad we got past that.
- mkfreeberg | 01/06/2014 @ 18:16
mkfreeberg: Experience.

You seem intent on not clarifying your use of words, or your ideas. Not sure why. Do you understand the difference between subjective and objective?
- Zachriel | 01/06/2014 @ 18:39
What, if anything, has been left unexplained about my use of this word?
- mkfreeberg | 01/06/2014 @ 19:36
Another free Overcoming Asperger’s tip: Words have different shades of meaning depending on their context. Thus, social awareness is crucial. When nobody else in the conversation has any difficulty following the meaning of the words used in context, the problem is you.

It’s ok to politely ask for one clarification, but if you still don’t understand what’s going on, you’ve missed a social cue. Which happens — that’s a large part of what autism is — but social grace requires that you leave the conversation at that point, or at least not attempt to contribute again until you’re sure you’ve picked up both the dictionary meaning of the word, and its use in context. Persistent attempts at “clarification” when everybody else is following along not only stop the conversation, but cause the rest of the party to think you’re weird and obnoxious.
- Severian | 01/07/2014 @ 07:24
It could be they’ve got some really cool beat-down planned to embarrass me when it’s revealed I don’t understand the difference between the subjective and the objective, but halfway through they realized it’s a non-starter. Because 1) I meant the broadest possible application of “experience”; 2) this means my criticism is for science that lies entirely outside of all this; 3) experience and experiment come from a common Latin root, and for a very good reason; and 4) their criticism for misleading or vague phrasing falls flat, since this means I meant exactly what I said.

In the same way we have lazy reporters who simply repeat what other reporters have said without checking it out, we have lazy scientists reaching “scientific conclusions” without eliminating any other alternative explanations, therefore without testing much of anything, and it’s become a problem…especially with the subject under discussion, that victim classes are remaining victimized. But it’s good that y’all were able to show exactly how that happens, how people can look right at a study that says boys are being disadvantaged during the grading process, and see the exact opposite of that.

Meanwhile, the five victim-class rules are still in common practice. I shall have to add the fifth one to the list when I get a minute or two.
- mkfreeberg | 01/07/2014 @ 08:07
mkfreeberg: What, if anything, has been left unexplained about my use of this word?

Let’s look at your explanations, shall we?

mkfreeberg: Y’all could acquire some experience — experiencing things.
mkfreeberg: What is scientific investigation, if not experience?
mkfreeberg: Hypothesis-testing relies on some sort of…experience.
mkfreeberg: I said experience. I meant experience.
mkfreeberg: Experience.

You certainly seem to be conflating personal experience with scientific observation. Both have their place, but they are not identical. Do you understand the difference between subjective and objective?
- Zachriel | 01/07/2014 @ 08:50
Severian: Words have different shades of meaning depending on their context. Thus, social awareness is crucial.

And the context clearly implied mkfreeberg was conflating different meanings of the word experience by lumping the subjective with the objective.

mkfreeberg: Because 1) I meant the broadest possible application of “experience”; 2) this means my criticism is for science that lies entirely outside of all this; 3) experience and experiment come from a common Latin root, and for a very good reason; and 4) their criticism for misleading or vague phrasing falls flat, since this means I meant exactly what I said.

There is no science that lies outside of objective observation, so your “criticism” is a non sequitur.
- Zachriel | 01/07/2014 @ 08:56
Here again, when y’all are the only ones in a conversation having trouble comprehending something, the problem is y’all.

It’s tough, I know, but y’all can learn to pick up on social cues, and maybe raise y’all’s social functioning a bit. Actual dates might be out of the question, but y’all might learn to talk to attractive people without completely embarrassing yourselves. Aim to be moderately high-functioning. Practice makes perfect.

PS lots of philosophers of science would argue that there is no such thing as objective observation, so Morgan’s “criticism,” far from being a non sequitur, could well be in line with a main stream of modern thought. Provided, of course, y’all actually understood his words….
- Severian | 01/07/2014 @ 09:37
Severian: lots of philosophers of science would argue that there is no such thing as objective observation

There is no such thing as perfect objectivity, but there are methods to overcome human biases.

–
There are some oddities in the perspective with which we see the world. The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be, but we have done various things over intellectual history to slowly correct some of our misapprehensions. — Douglas Adams
- Zachriel | 01/07/2014 @ 09:58
It’s ok that y’all are ignorant of the philosophy of science — after all, that requires a nuanced understanding of words that y’all aren’t capable of. There’s no shame in knowing one’s limitations. This is progress. Keep it up!
- Severian | 01/07/2014 @ 10:35
Severian: It’s ok that y’all are ignorant of the philosophy of science

Did you disagree with the statement? There is no such thing as perfect objectivity, but there are methods to overcome human biases.
- Zachriel | 01/07/2014 @ 10:42
See, there’s that Sperg thing again. Normal people would read this

lots of philosophers of science would argue that there is no such thing as objective observation, so Morgan’s “criticism,” far from being a non sequitur, could well be in line with a main stream of modern thought

and realize that this is a statement about the philosophy of science. It can be true or false, but the maker of the statement need not have an opinion on it one way or the other.

A more commonplace example: If I say “the Yankees finished fifth in their division this year,” it’s a statement about where the Yankees finished in their division. I don’t need to have an opinion on the matter, as it will be true or false depending on the Yankees’ record vis-a-vis their division. Note also that it will be true or false regardless of how I happen to feel about it.. Lots of day-to-day human interaction works this way, so y’all should try very hard to grasp this.

Similarly, normal people would take this

Did you disagree with the statement? There is no such thing as perfect objectivity, but there are methods to overcome human biases.

as a non sequitur, especially as it was seemingly made in direct response to a feeling-statement, here:

It’s ok that y’all are ignorant of the philosophy of science — after all, that requires a nuanced understanding of words that y’all aren’t capable of. There’s no shame in knowing one’s limitations. This is progress. Keep it up!

That was me expressing my sympathy with y’all’s developmental difficulties, and encouraging y’all to keep studying day-to-day human interaction, in order to function just a little bit better out in the normal world. It had nothing to do with whether or not I endorsed a particular commonplace in the philosophy of science.

Were y’all ever taught to diagram sentences back in junior high? Y’all should try doing that for a while. Identify the subject, object, and verb of each comment. Make sure you understand who is speaking, and to whom, and about what, before y’all sit back down to the keyboard. I know it’s tough, but y’all are making a bit of progress. Keep it up!
- Severian | 01/07/2014 @ 13:04
Severian: and realize that this is a statement about the philosophy of science.

Sure, and we then asked you a question about the philosophy of science. Did you disagree with the statement: There is no such thing as perfect objectivity, but there are methods to overcome human biases.
- Zachriel | 01/07/2014 @ 13:25
Kids, kids, kids…. you’re regressing. And I had such hopes we were making progress.

When you follow this

Severian: It’s ok that y’all are ignorant of the philosophy of science

with this

Did you disagree with the statement? There is no such thing as perfect objectivity, but there are methods to overcome human biases.

normal people don’t see that as a question about the philosophy of science; they see that as a head-scratching non sequitur, an attempt to force the conversation back on itself. Y’all have probably noticed this on the rare occasions you’re invited to social gatherings — you keep insisting that the conversation should go back to whatever topic has stuck in the forefront of your Asperger-y consciousness, while the people you’re “conversing” with mumble and shuffle their feet and try to get on with the organic flow of chat. If you notice that type of behavior — sometimes punctuated with sighs, eye rolls, and/or comments like “okay… moving on” — realize that you’ve committed another social faux pas. Your best move is to keep silent and try to focus on the new topic of conversation; be sure you understand it (did y’all try diagramming sentences yet? you really should) before you venture another comment.

A helpful hint: people don’t behave according to the scripts y’all have written for them in your heads. Several folks on this very blog have pointed out to y’all how frustrated y’all get when we don’t recite our lines. Y’all spent I-can’t-even-recall-how-many comments trying to get Morgan to say “I believe Mitt Romney is a conservative” a while ago, just as y’all have spent three or four comments here trying to get him to say something about “subjective vs. objective.” And now y’all are trying to get me to say something about “objectivity” as well. I’m sure y’all have got some scintillating insight or devastating beatdown all queued up… but alas, we just won’t parrot our lines, and so the show can’t go on.

Try observing what people actually do and say, rather than making them characters in some movie in y’all’s heads. You’ll feel a lot less frustrated…. and who knows? Maybe people will stop avoiding you in the cafeteria.
- Severian | 01/07/2014 @ 14:10
Severian: don’t see that as a question about the philosophy of science

Of course it’s a question in the philosophy of science, and directly related to your statement that “lots of philosophers of science would argue that there is no such thing as objective observation”. You never attempted to answer the question.
- Zachriel | 01/07/2014 @ 14:33
Of course it’s a question in the philosophy of science

Oh dear. Regression. Again y’all demonstrate a complete inability to see context. In a conversation between developmentally normal humans, sentences don’t stand alone. Let’s try an exercise. Consider this excerpt (I’ve replaced the statements with variables, so y’all don’t get lost in the meanings of the words):

Severian: When you follow {statement X} with {statement Y}, normal people don’t see that as {topic Z}; they see that as a head-scratching non sequitur, an attempt to force the conversation back on itself.

Now: Who is the speaker? To whom is he/she speaking? Most importantly, what is the subject of the speech act? When you’ve deduced all those, you’re ready for the final exam: What meaning is the speaker conveying? Here’s a hint: It has nothing to do with {topic Z}.

You never attempted to answer the question.

Very good. You’ve managed to pick up on one context clue. It’s a baby step, but it’s progress.
- Severian | 01/07/2014 @ 15:00
Severian: You’ve managed to pick up on one context clue.

You obviously have no intention of discussing the topic. Good luck with that.
- Zachriel | 01/07/2014 @ 16:49
I’ll be happy to discuss it with y’all. When you finish your homework.
- Severian | 01/07/2014 @ 17:05
Let’s look at your explanations, shall we?

mkfreeberg: Y’all could acquire some experience — experiencing things.
mkfreeberg: What is scientific investigation, if not experience?
mkfreeberg: Hypothesis-testing relies on some sort of…experience.
mkfreeberg: I said experience. I meant experience.
mkfreeberg: Experience.

You certainly seem to be conflating personal experience with scientific observation. Both have their place, but they are not identical. Do you understand the difference between subjective and objective?

If I say “cars” there may very well be a failure on my part to differentiate between red cars and blue cars, between sedans and trucks, between automatics and stick-shifts. That is perfectly OKAY if my meaning is entirely unrelated from and independent of matters of color & style & transmission.

Cars.

Y’all would be welcome to endlessly nit-pick automatics and five-speeds and six-speeds. That’s called going off on a bunny-trail. If my context is one of: “Driving a car is usually faster than walking” — y’all are obsessed with an irrelevance, and (probably deliberately) missing the point.

Subjective and objective? Gee, I guess that’s an important consideration…in other contexts, not in this one.

Experience.
- mkfreeberg | 01/07/2014 @ 20:01
@Morgan,

I really don’t think it’s deliberate. I used to — they seemed too obtuse to live. But then I started reading up on Autism Spectrum Disorders, and now I really think they can’t see the point. Look at their manifest inability to understand normal human interaction when it’s explained to them (and their refusal to even try). I think they’re actually,literally learning-challenged.

Which is probably actually a plus in the fever swamps of grad school, but a real handicap everywhere else.
- Severian | 01/07/2014 @ 20:31
I dunno about that. I’m noticing an almost perfect correlation; when I catalog “inconvenient truths” I guess we can call them? About how we have these Victim Class Rules, and about primer caps and heavy pendulums, and how people react around the “ethereal object” when they Feed The Ether. If the thing I’m noticing is inconvenient to liberal orthodoxy, reliable as a sunrise, here comes a tangent that is entirely unrelated to the main point.

I’ve come to see it as a tactic. Nothing more, nothing less. The cuttlefish have actually come out and said they’re not addressing us, they’re putting on their little show for the benefit of “readers.”

Who, I think, must look at such matters, along with all the things life has to offer…through a straw.
- mkfreeberg | 01/07/2014 @ 20:48
mkfreeberg: If I say “cars” there may very well be a failure on my part to differentiate between red cars and blue cars, between sedans and trucks, between automatics and stick-shifts.

The distinction may or may not be relevant, depending on the discussion.

Let’s review. You made a claim “the rules are always the same”. When asked for evidence of these rules, you pointed to a study that determined that difference in grading between girls and boys was due to better non-cognitive skills in girls, not gender discrimination by teachers.

Your only other argument was “y’all have shown a repeated tendency to rely on scholarly articles at the expense of validating your ideas through experience”. You introduced the scientific study. When asked for clarification, your answer was “Experience.” Furthermore, your original use of “experience” was clearly is meant as a counterpose to scientific study, yet now you pretend otherwise.
- Zachriel | 01/08/2014 @ 06:42
We actually don’t need to review that much. Y’all are confused about these distinctions within “experience” after I made the observation that something exists outside of experience. That is equivalent to:

M: This cake is not pie.

Z: We’re confused. What kind of pie do you have in mind? Do you understand the difference between Rhubarb and Banana Cream?

Something on your side of the net needs fixing. It’s either reading comprehension or it’s set arithmetic. But it’s on your side and it isn’t my problem.
- mkfreeberg | 01/08/2014 @ 07:10
mkfreeberg: Y’all are confused about these distinctions within “experience” after I made the observation that something exists outside of experience.

* Of course “something exists outside of experience”.
* Your analogy is not a correct restatement of our views.
* Your original use of “experience” was clearly meant as distinct from scientific study.
* You complain about scientific studies immediately after having introduced a scientific study.
- Zachriel | 01/08/2014 @ 07:31
Your analogy is not a correct restatement of our views.

That’s outside of its intended scope, as if y’all managed to express a view there, it escaped my notice.

It is, however, an accurate presentation of the nature of y’all’s question. When I say “This is outside of that,” making inquiries along the lines of “exactly what kind of ‘that’ do you have in mind?” is just being distracting and silly.

So let’s just agree to this: I noticed something, y’all don’t want me noticing it, and y’all are handling that the way y’all usually do by needlessly complicating the discussion. And that no one is falling for it.
- mkfreeberg | 01/08/2014 @ 07:40
mkfreeberg: That’s outside of its intended scope

You originally used “experience” to point to a particular type of experience, that which is outside the scientific method. YOU drew the distinction saying “y’all have shown a repeated tendency to rely on scholarly articles at the expense of validating your ideas through experience”. When asked to clarify what you meant by experience you say “Experience.” You are obviously deflecting.
- Zachriel | 01/08/2014 @ 07:46
Boy, if they’re putting on a show for the benefit of their “readers,” I guess we know who keeps putting those Dan Brown novels on the bestseller lists. Although it does raise an interesting meta-question: What’s the reading comprehension level of people who read people who so obviously suck at reading comprehension? Are their “readers” even allowed near a monitor without wearing a crash helmet? It’s like a Mobius strip of retarded.
- Severian | 01/08/2014 @ 10:13

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Victim Class RulesSunday, December 29th, 2013

Victim Class Rules
Sunday, December 29th, 2013