Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shadowlord]

But I get it now. That maths mumbo-jumbo you posted is the "meta analysis" which trumps what I posted the (working paper).

I do not think those mean what you think they do.

[Reelya]

mainiac criticized me for responsing to a meta-analysis with a working paper. So clearly he's labeling his argument a meta-analysis. The working paper part was the data source I quoted:

www.nber.org/papers/w11240.pdf?new_window=1

And the only analysis he did was that algebra.

[Shadowlord]

[Reelya]

i'm not making any claim as to what a meta-analysis is, I'm basing what I'm saying off mainiac's usage. He used that term so we have to interpret his meaning on his terms, not dictionary terms. That is why I put "meta analysis" in scare-quotes in my original post just now, because we're not talking objectively about meta-analysis, but about whatever mainiac wants it to mean. I'm just trying to decode wtf his dismissive statement of my reputable data source even means.

And the closest I can interpret it is that he's claiming that his argument which used the algebra is meta-analysis, therefore trumps any data source I post from a "working paper". I dispute that since he's not actually engaging with any studies.

[Shadowlord]

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

[mainiac]

So clearly he's labeling his argument a meta-analysis.

Well either that or the meta-analysis that you provided a link to and I commented on.

[origamiscienceguy]

I think we should get back to the election.

[Baffler]

I think we should get back to the election.

I saw my first Trump 2016 lawn sign when I was driving through Central Ohio yesterday. Four of them in the same town, but no other signs through the whole trip. It know that it doesn't really mean anything ^{_{can't stump the Trump}} but despite having seen the numbers for myself it still kinda surprises me when I see people in real life who have given such a man their full, unironic support.

[TheBiggerFish]

If I ever have the opportunity, I want to slap him in the face.  Trump.

[wierd]

As terrible, and horrific as this statement is---

I fully expect Trump to win.  He's had much more media attention than Hillary, which means that his name is more prominent in the minds of the lay voting public.  This is simple advertising in action.

I will graciously spare the discussion of the ironic implications of this simple fact, when viewed through the lens of American consumerism at large.

Instead I will just say  "The president we deserve."

[SalmonGod]

A Former Planned Parenthood Employee Tweeted This List of "Acts of Terrorism" She Survived

Sigh... 'Murrica

[wierd]

I have some personal, subjective opinions about why this is such a problem in the US.

Namely, if you consider it from this perspective:

In the past 60 years, the US has gone from institutionalized segregation to gay marriage.

you can see how much the cultural landscape of the US has been turned on its head in just one human lifetime. The more rapid the cultural changes, the greater the culture shock, and the greater proportion of the public that will exhibit some form of negative emotional/behavioral consequence.  Don't get me wrong, moving in a more progressive direction is a good thing. But doing it at a break-neck "Fuck all those backwards hicks" modality is only going to radicalize the people that cannot adapt to the changing cultural landscape.

If done at a slower pace, these people (domestic terrorists doing things to a clinic that just hands out condoms and does discount ob-gyn services) would die of old age before they were pushed into radicalization, and the transition would be smoother and with significantly less violence.

The problem I see is that modern progressives see any slowdown as an existential threat to such inevitable progress, and consider "going slower" to be morally unthinkable-- completely discounting, if not outright ignoring the consequences of such rapid social change on an aging population demographic.

Fun activity:  Check the ages of most of these terrorists. I doubt that many will be in the 20 somethings, and that the median will sprawl around age 50.

[SalmonGod]

The problem I see is that modern progressives see any slowdown as an existential threat to such inevitable progress, and consider "going slower" to be morally unthinkable-- completely discounting, if not outright ignoring the consequences of such rapid social change on an aging population demographic.

I think it's more that when progress means stopping the systemic victimization of certain demographics, it's silly to say "No let's slow down and allow this victimization to continue, because the perpetrators might be a little determined..."

In other words, human suffering can happen because we allow it, or because certain people are angry that we won't allow it.  I'll take the latter.

[wierd]

Which is exactly what I just said--

Completely ignores the collateral consequences of rushing the reforms out on a society that is ill equiped to absorb them.

(For an example of just how dangerous radicalization is, look at the middle east. Once radicalization sets in, it is VERY VERY hard to eradicate. Prevention is the better medicine. Dont just handwave away the consequences of having a pretty non-trivial percentage of your population driven toward the radicalization axis of human behavior. )

[mainiac]

I fully expect Trump to win.  He's had much more media attention than Hillary,

I dont even expect Trump to win the nomination.  I dont even expect him to be the runner up (although he might stubbornly stay in the race longer then the candidate who comes in second).

Normally marginal differences matter a lot because fairly mainstream candidates dominate most presidential races.  If Clinton or Sanders or O'Malley was getting the sort of attention that Trump was getting it would matter a lot because there's not that much you can get attention and still be a mainstream candidate.  Trump gets attention by not being a mainstream candidate.  Sure that gets him attention but that also means there are lot of voters who will vote for anyone over the guy with the reality tv show, three divorces and four bankruptcies as long as they have any other options.  He is just ahead because the field is very divided and name recognition wins you polls at this point.  23% is enough to be first place in the republican field but it would make you third place in the democratic field right now.  But name recognition will matter less as voters start paying more attention close to the primaries.

If Trump did beat the odds and win the nomination a lot of republicans would rally around him (people tend to be partisan in general elections) but all his baggage would bite him in the ass.  Normally the candidates are fighting over 10% of the vote that is actually up for grabs.  If a genuine nutjob wins the nomination and starts talking about shutting down all mosques, that alienates a lot of voters who would normally vote on party lines.  Look at the 2002 French presidential election.  It was the sort of lopsided result you normally see in a people's republic.  Next election they were back to a normal result.

People like to bitch that the candidates are the same and there's no choice but that's just the median voter principle in action.  If you genuinely put a candidate who breaks the mold up for election they are a massive underdog.  I think the American streak for insanity means that Trump would run more competatively then Le Pen but he still wouldn't come close to winning unless Hillary Clinton was found in bed with a dead boy or a live girl.