Print

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

[smjjames]

... and now trump has suggested pre-debate drug tests. I wonder what he's going to do if clinton calls him on it?

I saw that one just now http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-we-should-take-a-drug-test-prior-to-the-debate-229839 I was like 'what?....'

Sounds like a response to the joke that Howard Dean made about Trump snorting coke, what with the sniffing, then apparently one of his top supporters made a crack about Clinton being jacked up on meth (caffene is more likely). So, I don't know if he actually believes it, is being sarcastic, or is just playing along with the joke, or trying to.

Also, funny how he is willing to take a drug test, but not release his taxes....

[Reelya]

How about they make it a test-by-drugs. Whoever can handle the most bongs during the debate is declared the winner. Would you trust a light-weight to run the free world?

[martinuzz]

I an I can see them I-lections becoming very I-ree, Jah bless!

EDIT: crap. Now I'm stuck with a mental image of Trump with dreadlocks. Where's my Xanax

[alway]

Well it's named after a part of the female genitalia, because the condition does actually disproportionately affect women, just as other mental disorders disproportionately affect men. There's actually a conspiracy theory about this, that the condition (originally called hysteria) was concocted to keep uppity women down. Another one which is gendered is Dissociative identity disorder. It's 9 times as likely to be diagnosed in women than men. The mirror-image of autism-spectrum disorders, which are 10-to-1 male-to-female. I'd argue that the reason these conditions came to be known as "hysteria" wasn't because of sexist doctors labelling uppity women, but they actually noted the real conditions which were prevalent in women, and gave them a gendered name because of that valid observation. Sure, their explanation was dumb (linking the uterus to mental disorders), but it was a "correlation is not causation" issue rather than doctors making shit up.

Cool stories bro, too bad they're wrong. And harmfully so.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2356266
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-37221030

[nenjin]

it's clear that, factually, he has committed a string of sex attacks

These may seem like clear facts to someone who approaches every new piece of evidence dead-set on using it to incriminate Trump. But to an objective observer, it's clear that many of these 'facts' are nothing more than shoddy supposition. You don't care about justice, you just want to see Trump burn. Frankly, it's a disgrace to the real victims of sexual assault to be associated with this type of farce.

Hey, I'm just looking to confirm what Trump has already boasted of. In a sense, I'm trying to support Trump! The guy who says he just uncontrollably kisses women and they just take it because he's so damn famous and rich. These women are affirming what he already claims is one of his virtues.

Nice try though trying to shame anyone by saying objecting to Trump's speech and stated behavior is somehow demeaning to the group he's affecting. No Trump didn't forcibly penetrate anyone that we know of so far. But he's on the same sliding scale of scumminess, and what he says he's done is a crime if ANY OF IT is true. He's a spokesperson for the kind of mentality that promotes sexual aggression. Why aren't you're fucking pissed about that, in the name of these sexual assault victims you seem to care oh so deeply about? (More that you're using them as a shield to defend Trump, just like we're using them as a sword to attack him. Except in this case the sword actually belongs in our hands.)

Because his integrity (which is now in question) is more important than what he says he stands for when it comes to women? (Which is not in question because he won't shut the fuck up about it.) You're going to put what he says in his campaign speeches (some of which is fucking ridiculous) over what he said in private when he thinks no one would hear about it?

Either you're trolling or you're full up to your eyeballs with the Koolaid.

[smjjames]

Also, Folly, ironically, you say you're not voting Trump, yet you seem to act like an ardent supporter. So, which is it?

[Reelya]

Well it's named after a part of the female genitalia, because the condition does actually disproportionately affect women, just as other mental disorders disproportionately affect men. There's actually a conspiracy theory about this, that the condition (originally called hysteria) was concocted to keep uppity women down. Another one which is gendered is Dissociative identity disorder. It's 9 times as likely to be diagnosed in women than men. The mirror-image of autism-spectrum disorders, which are 10-to-1 male-to-female. I'd argue that the reason these conditions came to be known as "hysteria" wasn't because of sexist doctors labelling uppity women, but they actually noted the real conditions which were prevalent in women, and gave them a gendered name because of that valid observation. Sure, their explanation was dumb (linking the uterus to mental disorders), but it was a "correlation is not causation" issue rather than doctors making shit up.

Cool stories bro, too bad they're wrong. And harmfully so.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2356266
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-37221030

When women are autistic, it's usually markedly less debilitating than men. There's a reason it's not diagnosed. But studies have found everything from 16-to-1 to 3-to-1. 10 to one is in the middle. I see no reason to assume that there's parity, because none of the data suggests that. Even 3 to 1, which is a single study and is an outlier, still means 75% of sufferers are male. All that BBC article does is quote a single study from 1993, and a single study from 2015 that seems close to the 1993 study. But hundreds of other studies have given higher numbers than the single data points in 1993 and 2015. Two random data points from different places 20 years apart happen to match each other, and not match anything else as far as I can tell. That's not really a convincing article. It's just another example of "this new study contradicts all previous studies - as it strokes our biases it must be true. Another study done decades ago got a similar result! How's that for confirmation?"

Also citing a single study on histrionic personality disorder from 1990 that looked at one city in particular, that goes against any number of previous - and later - studies doesn't really "prove" anything. The very fact that that's a single 30 year old study in just one city is a bit suspect. Is that replicated anywhere else? The fact that you needed to single out a localized study from 1990 itself kinda makes the assertion suspect. Is that replicated?

[sluissa]

Well it's named after a part of the female genitalia, because the condition does actually disproportionately affect women, just as other mental disorders disproportionately affect men. There's actually a conspiracy theory about this, that the condition (originally called hysteria) was concocted to keep uppity women down. Another one which is gendered is Dissociative identity disorder. It's 9 times as likely to be diagnosed in women than men. The mirror-image of autism-spectrum disorders, which are 10-to-1 male-to-female. I'd argue that the reason these conditions came to be known as "hysteria" wasn't because of sexist doctors labelling uppity women, but they actually noted the real conditions which were prevalent in women, and gave them a gendered name because of that valid observation. Sure, their explanation was dumb (linking the uterus to mental disorders), but it was a "correlation is not causation" issue rather than doctors making shit up.

Cool stories bro, too bad they're wrong. And harmfully so.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2356266
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-37221030

When women are autistic, it's usually markedly less debilitating than men. There's a reason it's not diagnosed. But studies have found everything from 16-to-1 to 3-to-1. 10 to one is in the middle. I see no reason to assume that there's parity, because none of the data suggests that. Even 3 to 1, which is a single study and is an outlier, still means 75% of sufferers are male. All that BBC article does is quote a single study from 1993, and a single study from 2015 that seems close to the 1993 study. But hundreds of other studies have given higher numbers than the single data points in 1993 and 2015. Two random data points from different places 20 years apart happen to match each other, and not match anything else as far as I can tell. That's not really a convincing article.

Also citing a single study on histrionic personality disorder from 1990 that looked at one city in particular, that goes against any number of previous - and later - studies doesn't really "prove" anything. The very fact that that's a single 30 year old study in just one city is a bit suspect. Is that replicated anywhere else? The fact that you needed to single out a localized study from 1990 itself kinda makes the assertion suspect. Is that replicated?

I haven't done any recent study on it, so I have no evidence or sources to back it up, but I was under the impression that diagnosed autism in women tended to be on the more severe end as opposed to male autism which covered a wide spectrum. Maybe this is because women are diagnosed less often and the less severe cases might not be caught. But where you said that female autism tends to be less severe goes against what I've heard multiple times in the past.

[mainiac]

Also, Folly, ironically, you say you're not voting Trump, yet you seem to act like an ardent supporter. So, which is it?

When this Bataan death march of a conversation started last week, Folly didn't seem to be that much on the Trump train.  I think he has radicalized.  I dont know why.

[Reelya]

Autism is diagnosed less often in women precisely because it tends to be less severe in women. Which means they're objectively not as clearly affected by it. This is an interesting study, basically they did a twin study (from the general population rather than diagnosed population), and found that when girls have measurable autistics traits, there's a higher hereditability - e.g. women needed to inherit significantly more genes for autism risk to have the same level of impairment as a boy. And since gene inheritance is gender-neutral, we can say the risk of showing autistic traits is in fact higher in the male population.
http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/22/why-girls-may-be-protected-against-autism/

[Calidovi]

Also, Folly, ironically, you say you're not voting Trump, yet you seem to act like an ardent supporter. So, which is it?

When this Bataan death march of a conversation started last week, Folly didn't seem to be that much on the Trump train.  I think he has radicalized.  I dont know why.

because it gets responses

Autism is diagnosed less often in women precisely because it tends to be less severe in women. Which means they're objectively not as clearly affected by it. This is an interesting study, basically they did a twin study (from the general population rather than diagnosed population), and found that when girls have measurable autistics traits, there's a higher hereditability - e.g. women needed to inherit significantly more genes for autism risk to have the same level of impairment as a boy. And since gene inheritance is gender-neutral, we can say the risk of showing autistic traits is in fact higher in the male population.
http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/22/why-girls-may-be-protected-against-autism/

autism confirmed sexist, more at 11

[mainiac]

While normally campaign internal poll releases are taken with a grain of salt... well the internals that the Trump campaign tweated out are extremely interesting:
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/786963073722703872

1) They aren't using a campaign pollster.  They are using public polls.  That would be extremely unusual in a congressional campaign let alone a presidential campaign
2) They apparently can't afford a copy of excel
3) General Flynn is making decisions about polling analysis?  WTF?
4) They are cherry picking polls.  Now normally a campaign releases it's internals to try to change the narrative by showing that they aren't losing after all (e.g. deliberately skewing to show you are ahead when everyone knows you are losing).  But that's makes sense because campaigns are usually releasing their own polls in a race without many polls.  And the tracking poll they Trump campaign likes has some epic failures in it's sample weights that have been widely discussed among poll watchers.  While there is some interesting information in there, it's not being used right.  Which leads to...
5) Their poll watcher appears to be an amateur who knows nothing whatsoever about statistics.  If a high school student asked me to look at this I would do my best to gently tell them they need to start learning statistics from the very begining.

So yeah... about that hiring the best people and getting it done for cheap...  There is a reason other people pay money for this kind of stuff.

[Calidovi]

look, I love the poll people
theyre great people, ive employed thousands of pollsters...

[Starver]

And since gene inheritance is gender-neutral,

Is that strictly true if the problem is carried by the Y (doesn't affect females) or carried by an X and mitigated/unmitigated by either the Y or the other X (in whatever combination makes sense for the effect 'desired')?

Top of my head, that thought, but at the top of a Google search: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25412-genetic-risk-of-alzheimers-has-gender-bias/

Not sure if this applies in the case of the current distraction, but whilst we're distracted I thought I might say...

[smjjames]

TBH, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to read that. Sort of looks like they are trying to explain how they think 'well, it went up and down in the past, why not in the future?' or something.

I didn't take statistics class and I can see other issues as well, I think..... Besides arbitrarily splitting it between the two campaigns without saying their methodology. But yeah, they're cherrypicking to the max and using that LA poll which has showed a tie a few times. I've seen in various places that that pollster isn't very good, and is an outlier.