'RWA' ='AFAF'
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Saturday, November 13, 2010 23:37
VIEWED: 5915
PAGE 1 of 1
This is not to get into an argument, just to say one thing. I've thought about a few things that were brought ot my attention and just wanted to offer this.
When I have written "RWA", plesae know that it was never intended to be a blanket statement about all conservatives, "righties", Republicans, etc., or even all of those on this board. I only notice it and mention it when I see perfect examples of the mentality, so I'm "calling it as I see it". I don't want people to think I'm insulting them just because they're on the right politically, and will attempt in future to use another term.
I realize it is a derrogatory term, and I don't want the reasonable people on the right here to think I'm "hurling it" at THEM. I generally refer to it in response to a specific person's post, but when I do said "our RWAs", I meant those who specifically show the mentality of the posited RWA thinking:
Submission: Those who go way beyond the norm and submit to those whom they consider “authorities” even when they are dishonest, corrupt, unfair or evil
Hostility: People who aggress in cowardly ways, “in the dark”, and who will do whatever they can to avoid responsibility for what they said, which is easy on the internet (i.e., sockpuppets or even just the anonymity of the internet allowing complete lack of self-control). While more aggressively persecuting those with whom they disagree, they go easy on or make allowances for those who agree with them who are themselves hostile, and often join in the attack.
Conventionalism: Believing that everybody should have to follow the norms and customs in which they believe. For example, traditional family structure of father-as-head, mother as subservient to her husband and caretaker of the children, kids as subservient, period, same-sex marriage as evil, as are illegal immigrants, those who don't believe in God, people who smoke dope, etc. There’s more, but those are examples. Any belief in things "unconventional" by their standards is despised.
In general, RWAs, to me, exhibit impaired thinking a lot more than most people do, utilizing sloppy reasoning, highly compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy, self-blindness, a profound ethnocentrism, and--to top it all off--a ferocious dogmatism that makes it unlikely anyone could ever change their minds with evidence or logic. Their ideas are poorly integrated with one another. It’s as if each idea is stored in a file that can be called up and used when the authoritarian wishes, even though another of their ideas--stored in a different file--basically contradicts it.
Now, all of us possess some or all of these aspects to one degree or another. But those who take it to extremes are what I call RWAs or High RWAs. Only those; and almost always, only when they post things that exemplify them.
That is how and why I use the term RWA. I wish there were another term I could use as shorthand, because I realize "right wing authoritarian" politically denotes anyone on the right, but that is not my intention. In future I will use "AFAF", "Another fucking authoritarian follower" (taken from AFGE, "Another fucking growth experience" 
), instead, because I freely agree that this kind of thinking exists BOTH on the left and on the right. It's just that the most obvious examples HERE are hard-core right-wingers.
None of this is important to anyone but me, I realize, nor is it a real world event. It's just something I wanted to share, after thinking about what's been written here, and other things.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You sure do go a long way to attempt to dismiss , out of hand, anyone who is a conservative.
"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Raptor: What I wrote was quite clear. You're an AFAF. No sense trying to talk sense to you.
You just can't contain yourself from responding with a snark to anything I put up, can you? Sad.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If you say so. Nothing like a lecture from some old washed up hippie bi-sexual. Thank you. Now, if you would only spend more time in the shower and less time blathering here.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not a conservative and even I find most of that post offensive.
I'm referring to Niki's post, not the others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki's observations are based in fact.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_
backfire/
Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even STRONGER.
On its own, this might not be a problem: People ignorant of the facts could simply choose not to vote. But instead, it appears that misinformed people often have some of the strongest political opinions.
The participants who self-identified as conservative believed the misinformation on WMD and taxes even MORE strongly after being given the correction. With those two issues, the more strongly the participant cared about the topic — a factor known as salience — the stronger the backfire.
In addition, there is a field of widely reproduced research on authoritarian mindsets, you can get an idea about it here
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki
1) All sides hold conventions of proper believe or behavior, and expect others to hold to those. Some are held by nearly everyone, some held by small small groups, partisan and not.
2) You see right wing hostility because you're in the line of fire, but the left does its fair share to the right.
3) All humans submit to authorities. Submitting to the Alpha dominant in a group is principle primate behavior. People under more fear probably do it more. It says something about their govt. and society more than about them.
The Milgram experiment proved that any human can be driven to this level of submission.
But even so, I'm not buying.
The US govt. left and right, since 1991, deliberately tortured, raped, maimed and murdered in a premeditated fashion anywhere from 150,000 to 2.6 million men women and children... and instead of expressing some dissatisfaction at that, much of the left decides to devote their energy to debasing portions of the American electorate such as the tea party...
And I don't mean you don't care about those issues, I'm sure you do, but it's the balance of where you're directing your attack.
And yes, I knew that when you started this you were not referring to me, just as I know that when Pirate News is ranting, he also doesn't mean the I am the evil force destroying the world. But I still tell him that he needs to redirect his aim.
Specifically, I think my main point was not that RWA was attacking the right unfairly, though it was, it was that the underlying psychology was bunk, IMHO. It was based on the analysis of surface wedge issue positions, prone to influence by any media exposure. It was not based on how personalities develop, such as child psychology.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It was not based on how personalities develop, such as child psychology.
Doesn't make it any less correct an assessment.
I been meanin to bridge that gap by explaining how and why, but that'd be a loooong bit I don't have the time for - not to write, but to crush the knowledge down into a couple paragraphs instead of pages, that takes time...
But really, do I *have* to explain how the brutal, sadistic methods of Dobsen, Ezzo and others in combination with the vicious doctrine of most mainstream religion create folk like this as efficiently as an assembly line... again ?
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem,
Sorry this is a little long, read through it though, if you can.
I don't doubt that the authoritarian type exists or that it can be created, just as psychopaths can be created (and I don't believe they are born) but this theory has two basic flaws:
1) the analysis isn't very scientific, it takes surface views that seem to be no more than talking points.
2) it attaches it to a population that it doesn't like, which smacks of intellectual superiority complex.
We live in a society where self appointed elites assume themselves perfect and tell us what is wrong with the rest of us. That is where this theory is coming from.
Maybe they're some sort of authoritarian themselves, but I think they come about it something like this:
"Hey kid, you're bright, and not very popular in school, all these dumb kids score much lower on tests than you do, but much better on dates. That's because society is all wrong and you should be in charge."
That's one of the many socialist college sells, it's the one that I got, and you don't have to be any personality type to buy it, you just have to be a moron, like I was.
Here's another one:
"You're a member of a downtrodden group. We (Whites/Blacks/Women/Gays/Christians/Jews/Aryans) have to stick together. The reason we're downtrodden is that the power is oppressing us. But here's the solution: Join us, because we're the group of you, we're the only group that really support you, who are defined by some random social or genetic traits you were probably born into! Of course, because you join us, you will believe as we do, because these are not just the beliefs of us, these are the beliefs of you."
That's worth a re-read. I may not put it as best I could but I ran into this again and again.
But before the screwed up college sell, comes the screwed up childhood, especially before the jackboot is created. The healthy upbringing is not about to buy the "you should be a jackboot" sell, but healthy is an elusive thing, and yes, I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.
I have a friend who says he was raised to be a neolib/neocon but also raised to be so social that it was an utter fail because he lacks any real feeling that he should put his will over someone else's. That and listening to Ron Paul, but the thing is that all the above messages and many more are received by humans who have different levels of receptivity to different messages dependent on their past and present.
What you can't really do is take a random set up beliefs and draw up a personality archetype from there and get an accurate picture of who they are or how they got there. At the very least what I've seen so far of this theory not only completely fails to do so, I think it's absolutely on a par with the 1920s genetic criminality, and probably weaker than some of the stuff Pirate News posts.
Also, it's a glass house to be throwing stones. Sure, Rap posts divisive partisan propagandistic threads and threadjacks that distract people and divide them, but two thoughts about that, 1) Isn't it sort of what you expect given his job, and didn't passed MI people kind of do the same thing? and 2) I think the house is a little too glassy for Niki to be throwing stones on this one, since she does the same thing at least as often?
I don't think that this reflects their personality types, or really anything about them other than their jobs. That doesn't mean that no authoritarian personality exists, but it's not something we should hurl at each other, and it's certainly not something which is explained by this theory.
Ultimately, just because some behavior exists, and a theory to explain it has been written doesn't make it so. PN can say it was just caused by Jews and that's becomes a theory. Actually, I confess it's a better theory. But it's still nonsense.
It's like CTTS is having a hell of a time on the GW thread with just raw science which I thought was pretty solid: greenhouse theory of pollution is just insufficient to explain the effects we see. That doesn't make anyone a deny pollution
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
You sure do go a long way to attempt to dismiss , out of hand, anyone who is a conservative.
You sure do go a long way to play the "victim card".
She just said that there are authoritarians ON BOTH SIDES, and that calling out RIGHT-WING Authoritarians only was unfair.
In other words, she went a long way to explain why she DOESN'T dismiss anyone who is conservative, but rather dismisses anyone who is blinded by ideology on either side.
Naturally, being blind yourself, you missed 100% of the point, and will no doubt insist that not a single one of the authoritarian traits could be applied to you. Hell, I'm about as left-wing a poster as anyone here, but even *I* can recognize some of those traits in my own behavior.
And as Niki pointed out, we ALL have them to some degree.
The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT: Normally a bright person, you are nearly 100% wrong in your assessment. Humans do not have "alpha dominant" males because humans are not harem species; our specie's reproductive strategy is far more complex.
The left-wing often finds itself in a position of telling RWAs that yes, 2+2=4, the earth is round, and there is no Santa Claus. I'm sorry if reality seems hostile to RWAs (and you) but facts are facts.
Also, there ARE born psychopaths. Saying there are no born psychopaths is like saying there are no born autistics and no born schizophrenics. It is prolly a developmental- epigenetic result and not fundamentally genetic, but there are about a zillion ways for human brain development to fall out of the norm, and this is one.
I think the difference between authoritarians and otherwise is that authoritarians are first and foremost believers. They will believe what the authorities tell them, without questioning their own assumptions or banging contradictory ideas together. They may believe in the power of money or the necessity of blood sacrifice, but either way they never challenge their own ideas. It's not their ideas per se... even the author of the book says so... but they way those ideas are handled. If you want, I can tell you my a priori assumptions; I doubt an authoritarian can do that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I’m just getting back now; something happened yesterday that put me “out of commission” as it were and I never got back.
I find some interesting comments in this thread, but it seems as if the point I was trying to make got lost in there somehow. I was talking about US, here on FFF, and my reasons for using RWA to refer to some people here, the fact that it had been brought to my attention that it might offend all conservatives, and that being why I was choosing another term. I wasn’t defining how all “authoritarians” (in the more general sense) are, and I mostly only use the term, now AFAF, when one of the FEW truly AFAFs here spouts something that shows them clearly to have that mentality. For the most part, they know who they are, and they hate me pretty virulently already.
I’m sorry it offended you, Gordon, that was the opposite of my intent.
Excellent post, Kiki, and specifically explains one of the reasons I feel the way I do. Especially “it appears that misinformed people often have some of the strongest political opinions”, as has been obviously one of the things that upsets me about the mindset. Thank you. I had read the first article for which you provided a link, and it summed up some of what I believe about AFAFs here perfectly.
Ironically, the second link is TO the very book which, upon reading, I found explained a lot of what I have seen and experienced, and from where I got the term RWA. It won’t convince anyone here, because as you might have read, DT dismisses it entirely on his own grounds, as I have no doubt others do. If Altemeyer’s theories have been discussed elsewhere by objective scientists or others, it might help those like DT understand or accept it more, but I feel that even if such were cited, they would be rejected as biased as well. But it made me smile that you cited the very book, containing the concepts, from which my references to RWA originated. :bigsmile: It’s something someone here referred me to some time ago, and it was so on point and so well studied, with experiments, etc., that it impressed me deeply and, when I see the aspects of RWA exhibited so strongly here by some, why I called it out.
DT, I disagree.
1) As an example, those some of you call “libs” often believe in the sanctity of personal choice in such things as abortion, same-sex marriage, civil rights, etc. It’s not a matter of aggressively believing everyone should agree, and those things aren’t generally considered “conventional”, it’s more a matter of recognizing them and WISHING everyone felt the same. And don’t believe in legislating against any of them. Nor do we believe in educating AGAINST the things that are “conventional”. I know there’s a lot of grey in there, such as prayer in schools, but the EFFORT is to create a level playing field, if you will, where everyone has the right to do as they believe as long as it doesn’t impinge on others. That is true of people on the right and left in that many don’t believe in the government forcing people to “be” against what they believe in.
2) As to the hostility, my intent in using AFAF or RWA is about the people HERE, and if you don’t think we libs receive the major amount of hostility, and the most virulent in how it’s expressed, you’re deliberately blinding yourself. With only a couple of exceptions, what is said about “libs”, etc., is vicious and often obscene, and very, very personal in my case. I know only two people who return the favor somewhat in kind, yet I see extreme hostility to anything I post from several on the right. I’m responding to that.
3) I don’t think people responding to fear in general is something we can put on the government or society. And specifically here, what I see is exactly what was documented by Altemeyer, the extreme fear that “If we don’t do such-and-such, America as we know it is dead” and talk of revolution and the apocalypse, etc. That’s what I mean by fear. I don’t believe as you do that all people submit to authority equally, I see peop
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Siggy, I can't seem to FIND the bloody thing, but I did wanna get your opinion on something relative to your field as I understand it.
I was reading a piece on how Oxycontin caused people under it's influence to become more protective and supportive of those within their "monkeysphere" - but also realized almost by accident within the study that they become *exponentially* more hostile and aggressive to those outside of it, as well as their positions and beliefs, something seemingly related to the mental "retrenchment" which these folk engage in when confronted with facts in opposition to their preciously held beliefs...
And it got me thinkin about some of your own comments about the dopamine-reward rush and it's seeming addiction causing behaviors that would otherwise seem nonsensical.
There has GOT to be some relation here, but I wouldn't have the first damn clue how to go about getting a handle on it, other than maybe trying to hand it off to Doc Perrys people if I can somehow manage to even explain it coherently.
The irony is that it does give credence to my assessment that these people are clinically insane, in the scientific sense of the word, and maybe some bio-chem insight into perhaps WHY.
Also, thank you muchly for those research links regarding possible trigger factors for vaccine damage risk assessment, although from what I understand of what the folks workin on it are trying to tell me, sorting this into a coherent brief is gonna take a LOT longer than expected, and of course I am frustrated by dealing with a process I don't even comprehend enough to assist...
This is also complicated by many scientific personnel tending to hold certain beliefs with an almost religious fanaticism even in the face of contrary evidence - something I wouldn't have expected amongst them, but just goes to show that people are human, and everyone has their own biases and prejudices, really.
Still, if this leads to better isolating those risk factors so alternate solutions can be adapted, it's worth the effort - and despite my dislike and distrust of them, apparently someone within the CDC had a similar idea and they are also doing some research on those risk factors, we wound up kind of tripping over them while doing follow up and someone pointed out they'd been asked the EXACT SAME QUESTIONS by the CDC quite recently, so I hope to hell they have better qualified people workin this one than I do - although I still don't trust them and for damn good reasons.
Anyhow, any insight you can give on the neuro-bio-chem aspect of this would be most welcome, although I do know and respect the fact that you're damn busy as of late.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've been accused of being an RWA.
The idea is laughable.
I bend my knee to noone. Man or woman.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You are actually THE most perfect exampe of an AFAF on this board, Wulf...to the point where I sometimes wonder if you spout what you do deliberately to sound like one. You couldn't be more of a stereotype if you TRIED, and I think I'd rather believe you're putting us on deliberately than you actually believe what you spew.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
According to you Nix, and those of your kind who are still stuck in the slave-mentality.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig,
1) I never said male, not did I intend to. Ever seen a group of highschool girls go to a shopping mall? How about a group of older women going out to a brunch? You never noticed any women in either group deferring automatically to one member of the group?
Much of these so called theories are about what people *want* to believe. The nature of our species however is pretty much out there for anyone to study. It's not that different from the behavior of apes.
2) I can reject the idea of born psychopaths because:
a) There's no scientific proof
b) I find the idea innately fascist, and believing in it would lead one to support a fascist society in which we would be trying to determine who those psychopaths were at a very young age before they could do any harm and..
Consider this one very seriously:
such a society would put its children through hell in the process.
Not to mention, they would make errors in this determination.
c) It's a free country, I can believe the moon is made of green cheese if I want, but honestly, I think psychos are made, not born. I invite anyone to study the childhood of Charles Manson. I didn't for a long time, and then I ran into it, and at the end, I didn't say "Oh what a shock he did this" I thought, "of course, how could anyone expect anything different."
d) I'm dubious about the born mental states. There's so much that goes into it, including prenatal chemical events which are fairly common in our society and have profound effects like those I described below to Frem. Autism and schizophrenia, while more scientific than psychopathy, are not really scientific themselves. Early childhood trauma is also a likely suspect in both cases.
I'm fairly sure that being born with an abnormally high dopamine level which they now call "psychotic" is not going to lead you to behave in a psychopathic nature. In fact, I don't think it even increases the chances that you will.
Quote:
I was talking about US, here on FFF, and my reasons for using RWA to refer to some people here
Niki, here's a humble suggestion:
Don't.
I mean, you're free to do what you want, but I think it's a really bad idea. Read Orwell's Politics in the English Language and you'll get what I mean.
Personally, I oppose all infighting or demonization of any user. Haven't you noticed that I have at times defended, I believe, every single user here? No one should be opposed to, or stereotyping fellow browncoats, (or fellow humans IMHO, but that's another matter). I mean, it's bad enough when, as frem said, we're too busy fighting about how to fix the hole in the bottom of the boat to actually do anything about it... it's worse if we start shooting at each other.
Frem,
Oxycontin is an opiate, which means it's an ampetamine receptor agonist, which is going to fuck with a lot of dopamine and serotonin systems, including the one you mentioned, but would also have a profound affect on norepinephrine systems. The key here is that the opiate use causes *instability* in the levels of receptors and available neurotransmitters. That instability would mean a great increase or decrease, and a fluctuation between the two, which is somewhat predictable, but to some extent random.
What happens is that changes in one direction in brain chemistry cause a systematic correction, sort of like a car which is losing its power steering: Rather than come back to center, it swings too far in the other direction.
I liken it to throwing a rock into a pond. The waves ripple back and forth, sometimes reinforcing or negating, but only time will cause them to level off. The common treatment ideas of the psychopharmacological community in this analogy are the same as those of self medicating addicts, in that they both amount to attempting to calm the waters by chucking more rocks into the pond.
Protective behaviors are linked to beta-adrenal receptors. The problem that is being cause here is one of a feedback loop. Two things are driving the adrenal instability:
1) The addiction mechanism. Th
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT: I don't recall you defending everyone, but I certainly accept it's possible, given what I know of you and what I read. Have YOU ever noticed that I have done the same? Even those who abuse me on a consistent basis, I have at one time or another agreed with and/or defended, AS WELL AS speaking up against others on the side considered "mine".
I don't feel the use of AFAF is "demonizing" anyone, but rather calling out a flaw in thought patterns. It's CERTAINLY not demonizing in any way compared to the words used to describe and address me!
By the way, I happen to believe sociopaths and psychopaths are BOTH born and created, just as an afterthought. For me, some are born, as those of us with mental disorders, with a gene causing a "propensity", not a gene which guarantees, and I certainly feel they can be "created", just as borderline and other "personality disorders" (as opposed to "genetic disorders" like bipolarity).
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Submission: Those who go way beyond the norm and submit to those whom they consider “authorities” even when they are dishonest, corrupt, unfair or evil
Like the ACORN goons look toward Obama ?
Quote:
Hostility: People who aggress in cowardly ways, “in the dark”, and who will do whatever they can to avoid responsibility for what they said, which is easy on the internet (i.e., sockpuppets or even just the anonymity of the internet allowing complete lack of self-control). While more aggressively persecuting those with whom they disagree, they go easy on or make allowances for those who agree with them who are themselves hostile, and often join in the attack.
Like the union thugs who put that black vendor into the hospital ?
Or the nut job Democrat supporter who bit off the tip of a man's finger ?
Quote:
Conventionalism: Believing that everybody should have to follow the norms and customs in which they believe. For example, traditional family structure of father-as-head, mother as subservient to her husband and caretaker of the children, kids as subservient, period, same-sex marriage as evil, as are illegal immigrants, those who don't believe in God, people who smoke dope, etc. There’s more, but those are examples. Any belief in things "unconventional" by their standards is despised.
Now this is the part where I really begin to feel sorry for you. You're literally making up 'stuff' , simply to flesh out your little self reinforcing fantasy about how everyone who doesn't see things YOUR way is wrong.
What a piece of work.
"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I don't feel the use of AFAF is "demonizing" anyone, but rather calling out a flaw in thought patterns. It's CERTAINLY not demonizing in any way compared to the words used to describe and address me!
It's not so much "demonizing", but it IS rather dismissive and dehumanizing, I think. It calls to mind the dismissive new-guy-naming conventions during the Viet Nam war era, where you didn't bother to learn the new guy's name until he'd survived a month or so in the boonies. Until then, he was just addressed as "FNG" - Fuckin' New Guy.
It's a way of telling someone they're not worth knowing, not worth learning their name, etc. As such, I find it a bit more demeaning than simply calling them an authoritarian.
And frankly, it seems the only ones who really got upset about being called RWAs (Right-Wing Authoritarians) fell into two groups: Those who AREN'T RWAs, but felt they were being unfairly grouped into such a category simply by dint of being conservative, and those who definitely DO fall into that group, and don't believe it themselves.
The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Raptor, you're not worth responding to because for every instance to which you point, several equally objectionable instances can be pointed to on the right...like the recent stomping on that woman's head. Ergo: Irrelevant.
Mike, I freely recognize that using AFAF is "dismissive and dehumanizing"...to me that mentality IS something to dismiss, and I see no reason to try to "humanize" those who exhibit the mentality here, as they have done their very best to dehumanize me. It's not tit for tat--if it were, I'd throw the kind of things at them that they throw back at me, which would be a waste of time as well as against what I believe. However, pointing out their illogical thought processes is downright civil in comparison, and either way, it's calling out a mentality when I see it, which I would do to anyone.
I think you're right about the two types here who are offended by it; I can't stop them being offended, but I wanted to make it clear it's not a generalization but a reference to specific people and their specific statements, and to use a different terminology so that those who are NOT RWAs can hopefully understand that I'm not referring to them, given RWA is "right-wing", which they might feel includes them. That's all.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
According to you Nix, and those of your kind who are still stuck in the slave-mentality.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
Says the guy who cheers anyone who claims to be for the Tea Parties, regardless of the actual background, history, plans or statements.
Sheesh.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
I don't feel the use of AFAF is "demonizing" anyone, but rather calling out a flaw in thought patterns. It's CERTAINLY not demonizing in any way compared to the words used to describe and address me!
It's not so much "demonizing", but it IS rather dismissive and dehumanizing, I think. It calls to mind the dismissive new-guy-naming conventions during the Viet Nam war era, where you didn't bother to learn the new guy's name until he'd survived a month or so in the boonies. Until then, he was just addressed as "FNG" - Fuckin' New Guy.
It's a way of telling someone they're not worth knowing, not worth learning their name, etc. As such, I find it a bit more demeaning than simply calling them an authoritarian.
And frankly, it seems the only ones who really got upset about being called RWAs (Right-Wing Authoritarians) fell into two groups: Those who AREN'T RWAs, but felt they were being unfairly grouped into such a category simply by dint of being conservative, and those who definitely DO fall into that group, and don't believe it themselves.
Nah, the targets of this epithet never responded at all I don't think. some of the backlash came from democrats, I think it was most obviously divisive nonsense to people who consider themselves to be in the middle, like me. I never thought it applied to me or was meant to.
BTW, just between us.. oh fuck, if it's just between us I'll tell you in an email.
Quote:
Niki:
I freely recognize that using AFAF is "dismissive and dehumanizing"
That was priceless
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:Raptor, you're not worth responding to because for every instance to which you point, several equally objectionable instances can be pointed to on the right...like the recent stomping on that woman's head. Ergo: Irrelevant.
Well, ya did respond, and tried to tell me why you weren't going to respond, by giving this phony quid pro quo nonsense about for 'every instance' I bring up , you can give several equally objectionable cases.
However, fact is, you have it exactly backwards.
For the several I could give, you can muster up exactly ONE , and that one is marginal, at best. ( There was no 'stomping ' on the woman's head, FYI ) It was mostly her shoulder, and even then, it was more of a holding down,with the foot, and not a kick or a 'stomp'. Of course, me pointing out that finer detail will be hysterically seen by you and others as some sort of condoning or excusing away the actions of the jack wagon who committed the heinous, cowardly act. And while he didn't send the little moveon.org protester to the hospital, ( at least, not for any legitimate injuries ) that still pales in comparison to the instances which the Dems committed on folks who were quite literally going about their business. and not shoving signs into candidate's car windows.
But you're not responding to me, so I guess this isn't a response to you , either.
"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You don't know what RWA means, Wulf. RWAers don't think independently... in fact, they depend on others not only to do their thinking for them, but also to do their discussion for them. RWAs are often angry and violent. They see things as black and white. They fear the world as a whole and see it as "us" versus "them". Because they are violent, they view themselves as "independent".
I've been accused of being an RWA. The idea is laughable. I bend my knee to noone. Man or woman.
Sorry to say that you hit all the points.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I saw the video Rappy. I just hope someone does that to you someday.
I'm sure YOU'LL be fine with it! 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I saw the video Rappy. I just hope someone does that to you someday.
I'm sure YOU'LL be fine with it!
I'd like to see them try.
However, if I did anything as ridiculous and idiotic as trying to shove a sign or anything into the window of a passing vehicle, I'd probably deserve such treatment too.
"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, finally, at least some consistency! Next time some tea-bagging neoliberal get manhandled, I'll remind you of your opinion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, finally, at least some consistency! Next time some tea-bagging neoliberal get manhandled, I'll remind you of your opinion.
I don't need any reminding. It's MY opinion, and one which you plainly stated was consistent to my own view.
Don't get stuck on stupid.
"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My problem with 'RWA' (or any of its derivations), is not just that it's demeaning, but also that it doesn't really seem to be that accurate. If we're going to insult right wing ppl the least we can do is be on the money. My criticisms:
Quote:
Submission: Those who go way beyond the norm and submit to those whom they consider “authorities” even when they are dishonest, corrupt, unfair or evil
This doesn't chime for me. I don't see right wing folk (in America at least) as servile or submissive to authority. The way they can be 'controlled' comes more from the fact that they have strong emotions that can be manipulated, and stirred up.
Quote:
Hostility: People who aggress in cowardly ways, “in the dark”, and who will do whatever they can to avoid responsibility for what they said, which is easy on the internet (i.e., sockpuppets or even just the anonymity of the internet allowing complete lack of self-control). While more aggressively persecuting those with whom they disagree, they go easy on or make allowances for those who agree with them who are themselves hostile, and often join in the attack.
I think conservatives would say the same about kwicko on this board. My thoughts on this are that conservatives view liberals as 'the problem', and liberals view conservatives as 'the problem'. So when one of our own steps out of line we are forgiving, but when one of the enemy does it we are much less so - because they are the problem!
Quote:
Conventionalism: Believing that everybody should have to follow the norms and customs in which they believe. For example, traditional family structure of father-as-head, mother as subservient to her husband and caretaker of the children, kids as subservient, period, same-sex marriage as evil, as are illegal immigrants, those who don't believe in God, people who smoke dope, etc. There’s more, but those are examples. Any belief in things "unconventional" by their standards is despised.
Again, they're not blind followers, they're emotional followers. They have an emotional connection to convention/tradition: roles of men and women, gays in society etc.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What is being missed over and over again here is that I'm NOT using RWA specifically because it denotes "right wing", and I'm not using it to refer to anyone of any political party, or generalizing to a political party. Yes, in MY experience, I have run into these qualities more often in people on the right, but I know it exists everywhere, so I am not intending to "insult right wing ppl", I'm calling out a way of thinking of specific people on this board...admittedly here the most aggressive and hostile posters are on the right, but that's not true everywhere and I'm fully aware of it.
When you consider "authority" as their leaders, not the government, etc., yes, in my view there is a submissiveness evident, in that they parrot what their leaders (and there definitely ARE leaders in the Tea Party) say and cannot conceive of anything else; if, for example, Sarah Palin said it, it must be true.
What you need to bear in mind is not all Tea Partiers OR Republicans are AFAFs, and there are people like that in all parties. I'm not using it to denote either party, but specifically people on this board who show an overabundance of AFAF mentality. Also, to be an AFAF, one needs to possess all the qualities of one, and to a degree that is more than the norm. Everyone has one or more of these thought patterns, people in all political spectrum can be authoritarian FOLLOWERS, and I'm using it only to refer to those who post the stereotypical mindset. I also generally only use the term when they have posted something SO indicative of the mindset that it jumps out at me. The most common, and absolutely most stereotyped AFAF here is Wulf, and the things he posts are so obviously authoritarian follower mindset that it's amazing. He's not as aggressive as the other couple, but makes up for it in every other aspect of the stereotype. Whozit, on the other hand, doesn't even deserve to be called an AFAF, as the sum total of him seems to be an obsessive hatred of Keith Olbermann.
Personally, I don't consider conservatives as "the problem". I think there are good points in both ideologies, and neither should have full power. But, again, SOME who call themselves conservatives and/or Tea Partiers on this board ARE the problem, and their inability to partake of any meaningful communication--the way they do it, especially--typifies the mindset, to me.
If you want to say "emotional" followers rather tan "blind" followers, you're certainly free to see it that way, and there is a certain validity in that, in my view. But there's a lot more to it than that...plus emotions DO blind us, and when leaders utilize those emotions to get followers, that is the essence of authoritarianism.
Authoritarian LEADERS play on emotions, are hypocritical in that they don't actually believe in things they espouse, and are power hungry. So playing to emotions like fear, hatred, racism, etc. is a way to control their followers via emotions. Once controlled, their followers will extend this emotional connection to other things their leader(s) are for or against. So I don't think they're purely "emotional followers".
I never expected this discussion to go on this long, I was just trying to explain something. I have no problem with it continuing, I just feel it's kind of self-involved in that it's only about how I feel about a few people here. If it gets expanded, as it seems to be doing, to more generalized debate, that's actually neat, but please understand that for ME, it's only about a few specific people here who show an overabundance of AFAF tendencies, nothing more; no generalization to only right wingers, tho' I freely admit my own experience has shown these tendencies to be more often expressed by the right (ESPECIALLY the religious right!!).
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If I was actually opposed to you guys, I would support you 100%, because this is the most moronic idea I think that's been posted, except maybe, okay, but it's up there.
You're arguing for the right to use an epithet, and defend it with total BS pseudo science. to dehumanize and marginalize your own allies, meaning, the people here on FFF.
If you can't see that everyone here is an ally, than your world is likely really small, and shrinking. Just use your heads, rethink this one, and please, don't go off trying to invent a better epithet, just try giving up on being divisive or insulting.
Just a plea for sanity here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
Hostility: People who aggress in cowardly ways, “in the dark”, and who will do whatever they can to avoid responsibility for what they said, which is easy on the internet (i.e., sockpuppets or even just the anonymity of the internet allowing complete lack of self-control). While more aggressively persecuting those with whom they disagree, they go easy on or make allowances for those who agree with them who are themselves hostile, and often join in the attack.
I think conservatives would say the same about kwicko on this board. My thoughts on this are that conservatives view liberals as 'the problem', and liberals view conservatives as 'the problem'. So when one of our own steps out of line we are forgiving, but when one of the enemy does it we are much less so - because they are the problem!
I don't think I aggress "in the dark", or with sockpuppets, or avoid responsibility for what I've said. I'm pretty upfront about owning what I've said. I'm careful with my words, because I happen to believe words matter. I don't take kindly to people inferring things they *think* I *might* have implied when no such thing was ever said or hinted at by me, and I call them out on it when they do so.
But hell, I've posted just about everything but my physical address here; if anyone has a real problem with me, I'll be happy to post that as well. :)
The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just refer to them as bootlickers or lackeys. Toadeys works. Or jackboots. Henchmen. Rabble-Rousers.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh, trust me Rappy, if past performance is any indication of the future, you'll be the first to whinge about how awful it was.
I don't need any reminding.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT, I don't consider it an epithet, but I respect your right to your opinion and will merely agree to disagree. I will say one last time that, given the wording used about and to me, libs, dems, Obama, etc., being all up in arms about calling out a specific mentality which I believe does exist but which isn't very important is pretty absurd.
Elvis, I would if I thought that's what it indicated. I don't consider them any of those, and those are (a mild form of) what they call me, but definitely what I DO consider "epithets".
Mike; I meant to point out all of what you wrote, my apologies for forgetting to do so. Everything you said is what I would have wrote; you're up front about what you post and from what I know of you, wouldn't resort to sickpuppies to get your licks in. I may decry you sinking to their level, but I don't think the comparison is appropriate, given that the OTHER things they post aside from personal attacks reflect what I believe is AFAF mentality; you do not.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Mike; I meant to point out all of what you wrote, my apologies for forgetting to do so. Everything you said is what I would have wrote; you're up front about what you post and from what I know of you, wouldn't resort to sickpuppies to get your licks in. I may decry you sinking to their level, but I don't think the comparison is appropriate, given that the OTHER things they post aside from personal attacks reflect what I believe is AFAF mentality; you do not.
That *almost* sounds like a compliment.
The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's not a "compliment"...to me that is saying something false to make someone happy, or to like you or something. It's my opinion based on what I've observed. In the sense that, yes, I don't think you stoop to their level in those respects, I guess it's a positive remark. Just callin' 'em as I see 'em.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
What is being missed over and over again here is that I'm NOT using RWA specifically because it denotes "right wing", and I'm not using it to refer to anyone of any political party, or generalizing to a political party.
I thought you were using a term for certain types of conservative/conservatism, but not all of them. Seriously, you would use RWA to describe some liberals?
Quote:
I'm calling out a way of thinking of specific people on this board...
Okay but I still don't personally agree with the analysis - even in your text book cases such as Wulf. Submissive to authority?
Quote:
Personally, I don't consider conservatives as "the problem".
I do
Or some strains of conservatism, at least. By which I guess I mean there are people on the left that I disagree with just as much, but whose 'wrongness' doesn't concern me as much. I tend to see right wing wrongness as more powerful, and concerning.It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Okay but I still don't personally agree with the analysis - even in your text book cases such as Wulf. Submissive to authority?"
HAH!!!!!
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
oh my goodness...Wulf is "submissive" to EVERY kind of authority--which he sees as "authority". His "rebellion" is just the authority of the people who are screaming "second amendment solution"..."tree of democracy, blood of..." It's not true rebellion,it's submitting to the emotional "call" of some kind of "purity", return to "traditional values", "taking back America". He submits to their propaganda, submits to their beliefs, submits so hard ands o much he can barely stand UP, certainly not think for himself!
As to liberal AFAF, try Communism. And yes, we have liberals (tho' I don't see any on FFF) who are just as blind followers as what "RWA" denotes.
I agree with your last sentence, I feel much the same way. But I don't see them as THE problem...one of them, currently, no question about that, but not THE problem.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wulf, to be fully free people need to be free of emotional compulsions and unexamined assumptions. Otherwise they're forced willy-nilly down courses of action like water down a chute. That is a force to be channeled by others for their purposes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If you look at the body of research in social psychology, from Milgram's obedience experiment to Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment on down, you'll find a pattern. People, as a whole, often act in gullible, irrational, conformist, obedient, and submissive ways. This doesn't apply to just one type of personality or one type of ideology. It applies to most normal, regular people. Regular people like you and me.
Here is a list of some of the most famous ones:
http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/10-piercing-insights-into-human-natur
e.php
It is easy to come up with a label for people we perceive as authoritarian or obedient. But more likely than not, we ourselves have those traits too. We just don't see it when we ourselves do obedient, blind-faith, dogmatic, authoritarian stuff. WE tell ourselves we have good and correct reasons for our beliefs and behavior--THEY don't.
So the way I see it, if I invent a label for a certain trait, I would describe it in such a way that I could apply it to myself as well.
Demonization of ANY group of people is a bit dangerous. We are ALL "we." There is no "they."
JMHO.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I decided many years ago to square up what I do with what I believe. I don't work for a place whose mission I don't believe, I don't pass by anyone who needs help, I sniff test what I am asked to do.
There may be things I accept - like FACTS on global warming - but I don't blindly accept things just b/c an authority said so. OTOH I don't blindly rebel, either. Either blind path is a road to being manipulated to someone else's ends.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTTS
Well said.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
There may be things I accept - like FACTS on global warming - but I don't blindly accept things just b/c an authority said so.
We all define "facts," and "blind," and "authority" differently.
My point is, we have a tendency, as a people, to cut ourselves more slack for our own submissiveness and rationalize our own obedience more than for others. We simply don't look at ourselves as critically as we do people of a different persuasion.
Let me ask you, Kiki, why do you believe the FACTS of global warming? Is it because so many scientists cite such-and-such data, arrive at these factual conclusions, and you believe those scientists?
You're not blindly accepting them because you've seen the data. Or, unless you are a climate scientist generating raw data yourself, it is more likely you simply believed them when they said this is the data and believed them when they interpreted the data in certain ways. You believe in the self-correcting mechanisms for science, that if one of the were wrong, the others would catch them. You believe so many scientists agreeing on one thing could not be wrong about what the data means.
I am NOT saying the belief and trust is not warranted. I am saying simply that we all have this belief and trust from certain authorities and systems and not others.
----
We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children.
-- Ancient Indian Proverb
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But only some of us are right.
We all define "facts," and "blind," and "authority" differently.
Fact: A big rig is bearing down on you as you're crossing the street. Do you... Deny it's existence? Jump out of the way? Insist that you have just as much a right to be there as the truck?
If you believe in reality... in other words, if your a piori assumption is that our senses mean something more than just a complicated and entertaining dream state... There is a certain irreducible, undeniable quality to reality. We may cook up all kinds of ideas about it, think that it represents some sort of authority figure or another and give it names of gods and goddesses, or rebel against it, but in the end reality will have ITS way.
Of course, if you fully believe that all of this means nothing, then feel free to step in front of the truck.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fact: A big rig is bearing down on you as you're crossing the street. ...There is a certain irreducible, undeniable quality to reality.
Question: Did you see the big rig with your own eyes, or did you hear it from someone you trust? How big is it? How do they know how big it is? How fast is it moving? How do you know THAT? Where will it end up? How do you know? What is the probability that it will miss you? (Just insert "how do you know" after each question from here on.) What will it cost to jump out of the way? What is the ratio between the cost of jumping and the probability that it will hit me? Would the big rig hit me anyway, even if I jump? Is it too late, so I might as well do my last jig before I die?
Direct empirical observations are as close to facts as we get. But then we have to subjectively INTERPRET those observations into larger conclusions. The interpretations are where the debates lie.
The direct readings of the instruments measuring C02 levels are facts. Summarizing all the readings for the day or month or year is an interpretation. Putting those reading in context of recent and ancient history is an interpretation. What we should do with the interpretations are interpretations.
----
Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.
-- Richard Feynman, physicist (1918 - 1988 )
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, you see it with your own eyes. (Since there is crossover between this thread and Norfolk Island, in the case of carbon dioxide measurement, I can say I've seen it with my own eyes, since we measure it and I have personally witnessed 30 years of values.)
Question: Did you see the big rig with your own eyes, or did you hear it from someone you trust?
Quote:It's a big rig. Yanno... tractor trailer with 18 wheels. 35,000 to 80,000 pounds, depending if loaded or not. Big.
How big is it?
Quote:Typical speeds where you would expect to be crossing a street (ie not freeway) but still bear the weight of a tractor-trailer. And undivided urban route... say 30-50 mph.
How fast is it moving?
Quote:You don't. But it's unlikely you'll be calculating, since most humans are pretty good at estimating when something is likely to hit them. If that were not the case, we could never catch a ball.
How do you know THAT?
Quote:You are standing in the same lane, and the truck is close enough that you judge that if you do NOT move out of the way, the truck won't have time to stop or swerve and it will hit you.
Where will it end up? How do you know? What is the probability that it will miss you?
Quote:Nominally, about 50 calories.
What will it cost to jump out of the way?
This is the only decent point so far... if the traffic is very heavy in all lanes, you could stand a good chance of getting nailed by another vehicle in another lane. (Anyone ever play Frogger?) Let's assume that the chances of getting hit by another vehicle are not as ... er... immediate as getting hit by the truck. Quote:But one which can be realistically made. For example, everyone knows about sampling error (If you oversample one area and undersample another). Easily corrected for.
The direct readings of the instruments measuring C02 levels are facts. Summarizing all the readings for the day or month or year is an interpretation.
Quote:But you can put those readings in the context of observable fact. If you have the choice to eliminate interpretation, then do so wherever possible.
Putting those reading in context of recent and ancient history is an interpretation. What we should do with the interpretations are interpretations.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is very far afield of the original intent of the thread. Sorry about that Niki!
Like I said in Norfolk Island, be leaving on a trip and got to get ready. Later 'gator.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Don't worry, as long as Niki starts all threads, all threads will be jacked. I used to be in the position of the person who started all threads. It's an unenviable one.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"You're not blindly accepting them because you've seen the data."
I have seen it. Not in raw form - instrument readings on a chart or readouts from a datalogger for example, b/c that is the RAW form of all data - but in tabular form. I've read the papers that presented the data, I've read the technical papers about how that data is acquired. Not ALL of them, but enough to understand the data is credible. I may be at sea when it comes to complex mathematical models, but I know a lot about acquiring data. And the CO2 data and temperature data are sound.
ETA
CTS, I'm going to make an observation about you, which is closer to the topic of the thread b/c it is, after all, about people. You CLAIM to be impartial. In fact, you are not. Your outlook is highly skewed b/c of your fear and hate of anything which even appears to have authority, even if it just the authority of experience and knowledge. The minute anyone claims knowledge superior to yours and says 'these are the facts' you rebell.
If you were to look IMPARTIALLY at ALL the data available - about global climate change, the efficacy of vaccinations, 9/11 - you would find overwhelming trends backed by research and reasoning. You would put the naysayers in the SAME perspective as you do the yeasayers and conclude that, on balance, the yeasayers had better data.
Instead, you refuse to give any credit to the yeasayers - subjecting their arguments to truly ridiculous objections - which can be brought to the futile endpoint of 'what is the nature of reality'. You are driven to question EVERYTHING, even down to the nature of your own existence, in order to not give that data any credit - at all.
OTOH you will believe ANY argument and set of data proposed by the naysayers, no matter how contradictory, unsupported by fact, or illogical.
Is that the essence of impartiality?
You are to me a fine example of how it is most people (except sociopaths) are driven by emotion, and how vulnerable most people are to a manipulator who has a handle on their driving emotion. Your handle is fear and hate of authority.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have no problem with "my" threads being jacked, usually, and especially this one. I put things up; where they go from there is up to others. Thread jacking, maybe half the time, means the conversation has moved off in another direction, and hey, it's still a conversation! That's what we're here for, right?
And I don't start all threads, just to clarify. PN is way "ahead" of me...he's been ahead of everyone since I came. Anthony used to start as many as me, but I can't coax him back. 
Wulf and Whozit start a fair number, and others. For the most part, mine are attempts to find topics we might enjoy discussing; this was an exception.
I’m with Kiki:Quote:
Aside for not working for a place in whose mission I don’t believe (I DID work for lawyers most of my career...), I do the same. To the best of my ability-—I know I fail at times; but how often have we seen Wulf or Kane ever admit they’re wrong or even MIGHT be wrong? Rather, the attacks on anyone disagreeing with them are consistent and anyone stating anything else is considered stupid, childish, etc. That’s AFAF, in my view.
I decided many years ago to square up what I do with what I believe. I don't work for a place whose mission I don't believe, I don't pass by anyone who needs help, I sniff test what I am asked to do.
There may be things I accept - like FACTS on global warming - but I don't blindly accept things just b/c an authority said so. OTOH I don't blindly rebel, either. Either blind path is a road to being manipulated to someone else's ends.
But as to where the jacking has gone; the corrollary of a truck bearing down on me is, in my opinion, invalid. That's a case where it's pretty obvious one would accept that a truck IS bearing down on me, and not have to do a lot of calculations.
CTTS, you are missing the point. Of COURSE we all have aspects of the same things as AFs...Altemeyer caveats with that over and over again. The difference is that AFs take it to the EXTREME...it’s like mental illness; if some aspect of bipolarity or OCD or PTSD seriously affects your ability to function, it is a disorder. If it doesn’t, it’s just part of your personality. In personality disorders, it can be cured; in mood disorders, it can (supposedly) be minimized with meds, psychotherapy and many other things (most of the other things being depending on US for which to take responsibility).
Also, one of the aspects of AFs is that they DO think they’re always right and have good and correct reasons for the way the believe...they also, according to his experiments, believe they are better people. That doesn’t change the fact that when something is proven wrong beyond reasonable doubt that it is sensible to believe it. The prime example is “Bush’s book is established history”. When Bush HIMSELF admitted there were no WMD, out of his own mouth numerous times, then in his book states there WERE, the dichotomy is pretty obvious. Given the untruths we saw many times during his Presidency, to say his book is established history shows no questioning whatsoever of one’s beliefs or the authority who imparted them. That’s an AF trait; inability to ever question one’s beliefs or even consider one might possibly be wrong. I know I’m wrong sometimes, and I’ve freely admitted it.
As to Climate Change and most of what we hear, we cannot be 100% certain of ANYTHING, by your criteria. We are not able to view things with our own eyes when it comes to stuff like that, and are forced to determine what we believe by some other means. As for me, I've seen and read about the melting ice caps, the extreme weather happening around the globe (which was predicted), and other things besides the scientific data I've read. It's not specifically about global warming, it's climate change, and I believe it's happening.
Given the impact we've had on everything else, from air, water, land, ocean, etc., I BELIEVE it reasonable to assume we'v
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi CTS,
(As I prepare to post this, I notice that you've gotten a couple lengthy replies ahead of mine. I hope you don't feel piled on if I post this anyway, even if it covers some of the same ground as others.)
This discussion is reminding me of the kinds of arguments I got into in college. The winner of such arguments was never the person with the clearest understanding of the issues, but the person who could most consistently undermine the arguments of others. It was never about what anyone knew, it was about how lame you could make the other person's argument appear.
If we look at your actual argument as an argument FOR something, rather than a system of undermining OTHER's arguments, what are you advocating? That we know nothing? That reality is beyond our poor senses to perceive accurately? That if we come across someone who believes differently from us, we must concede that their beliefs are veridically indistinguishable from our own?
Does it really serve your argument to tell Signy that she doesn't know when a truck's gonna hit her because her perception of the truck is based on assumptions? Do you interrogate every detail of your perception before stepping out of the way when you see a truck bearing down on you?
The big, big problem with this kind of argument, this radical subjectivity, is that it is used to rationalize abuse of all kinds, even, historically, fascism. Because when "right" doesn't make "might"--because "right" is hopelessly subjective--then "might" will happily step in and make "right." It's Carl Rove telling us that there are no facts, only opinions (liberals, who are perversely fond of this kind of relativistic thinking, are particularly befuddled by this argument, while conservatives just make a point to have as much might on their side as possible, so it doesn't matter who's right).
Have you ever been in an abusive relationship? Did you ever rationalize your partner's abuse by saying to yourself that you didn't appreciate how it must seem from their point of view, the extraordinary pressures they must be under? We never get out of such relationships until we realize that our perceptions are more than mere opinion.
Quote:I'm afraid your studies are no help, mired as they are in self-defeating notions of human nature. Ironically, it's science itself that undermines its own credibility by ignoring its most basic assumptions. These studies all perpetuate the grand "conflict" between reason and emotion. Scientists so often see themselves as fighting some tragically doomed Götterdämmerung against emotionalism. Emotion is the enemy, emotion must be done away with, or at least subdued, before reality can be apprehended with anything approaching fidelity. But if they've studied psychology at all, they know perfectly well that it is impossible; that in the end, human beings are emotional
Originally posted by canttakesky:
If you look at the body of research in social psychology, from Milgram's obedience experiment to Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment on down, you'll find a pattern. People, as a whole, often act in gullible, irrational, conformist, obedient, and submissive ways. This doesn't apply to just one type of personality or one type of ideology. It applies to most normal, regular people. Regular people like you and me.
Here is a list of some of the most famous ones:
http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/10-piercing-insights-into-human-natur
e.php
It is easy to come up with a label for people we perceive as authoritarian or obedient. But more likely than not, we ourselves have those traits too. We just don't see it when we ourselves do obedient, blind-faith, dogmatic, authoritarian stuff. WE tell ourselves we have good and correct reasons for our beliefs and behavior--THEY don't.
So the way I see it, if I invent a label for a certain trait, I would describe it in such a way that I could apply it to myself as well.
Demonization of ANY group of people is a bit dangerous. We are ALL "we." There is no "they."
JMHO.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HK
I think CTTS and I are on the same page: Advocating responsible solutions to actual problems, like deforestation, desertification and overfishing.
What we worry about is that well-intended environmentally concern will be redirected to create a global tax to support neocon thinktanks, which is where cap and trade came from, and where that money will go.
I've seen this happen too many times. "Ban the Bomb" was cleverly morphed into "Nuclear Free" with lots of covert help from the fossil fuel industry, and the result was a ban on the construction of nuclear reactors. What makes this even sadder is that now all of the reactors we have except for 2 are "chernobyl" style reactors, when modern reactors are far safer and far more efficient. We also might not be bombing Appalachia with more explosives than we used on Iraq and Afghanistan if we weren't still using coal powered reactors.
I saw this again with concern for endangered species and animal welfare being rerouted to the "Cruelty Free" campaign. Oh, yes, I'm against torturing small fuzzy animals, but every movement of the people which actually succeeds has some major corporation behind it, and this ban on animal testing was pushed by corporations who didn't want to do animal testing because it was expensive, delayed the release of products to market, and sometimes turned up nasty toxic side effects that meant the product had to be shelved entirely. Now those fancy new products are tested on we the people.
There's a lot of science out there on global warming, co2 changes, and then there are serious environmental concerns that so many environmentalists are ignoring because they're chasing the ball the neocons put out there. And that's the trap: This all ends in a global cap and trade, which is not just a tax to support the noecons, it's also a derivatives scheme.
I think CTTS is advocating thought here.
Quote:
Niki:
And I don't start all threads, just to clarify. PN is way "ahead" of me...he's been ahead of everyone since I came.
Niki
I said started threads, not posted little islands
To be a thread it need to be a conversation that leads to discussion, with other posts by other people.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HKC
Much food for thought, as always. You are way ahead of me on this, and I can see it will take a lot of reading for me to understand your words, let alone your premise.
Thank you for joining the conversation.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
You CLAIM to be impartial.
Do I? Hmmm. I must have been absent the day that happened, because I don't remember ever having claiming any such thing.
Did you read where I said we ALL have our blind spots? Including me? Wasn't that the MAIN point of my last post?
It is true many of my views are influenced by my personal value system of anarcho-pacifism. I am a leftish libertarian, and that will color my positions.
But to be clear, I don't disbelieve everything just because it is supported by authority. I am only open, perhaps more than most, to the idea that authority may be wrong, even if *I* believe they are right.
So end result? I believe in gravity; I happen to agree with authorities that gravity exists. I just don't scorn at those who question it. See?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"You CLAIM to be impartial."
"Do I? Hmmm. I must have been absent the day that happened, because I don't remember ever having claiming any such thing."
Here, from another thread, where you were very much partial to your own position but dismissive of others, all while claiming objectivity:
I study the evidence. Any expert interpretation of data has to stand up to skepticism and challenges--NO MATTER who they are, no matter whether you like what they say or not. That is what scientific objectivity means.
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=46080
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
That’s an AF trait; inability to ever question one’s beliefs or even consider one might possibly be wrong. I know I’m wrong sometimes, and I’ve freely admitted it.
Maybe the problem is that I see this in everyone. I also see it in a good number of liberals here in RWED, as extremely as you see it in as Rap and Wulf, where they never apologize or admit error. They go on similar vicious personal attacks. The only difference I see? The liberals appear to be better educated and well spoken; they are not as vulgar and are more sophisticated in their ad hominems. But the AFAF part? Yeah, all there.
So for me, the AFAF trait, as you describe it, appears to be the rule rather than the exception.
Quote:That is fine. I have no problem with anyone believing what they want to believe (unless it is something untrue about myself, but I'm just sensitive that way).
It's not specifically about global warming, it's climate change, and I believe it's happening.
Quote:
By your criteria, we would believe NOTHING for certain. That means you can't NOT believe in Climate Change OR believe in it.
Very astute, and absolutely right. Let me explain.
If you want to believe in Climate Change as a lifestyle, a value system, or a religion, I have absolutely no objection. Have at it, and have fun! :)
If you want to believe in Climate Change as a scientific theory, well, I won't stop you, but I am less enthused. Why? Because science is not about belief. There is no room for belief in science. It is an unending method of discovery, constantly challenging assumptions, trying to sort out spurious relationships from causal ones. Once you BELIEVE in a hypothesis or a theory, you lose that precious scientific objectivity and self-correction mechanism.
So you are right. In my view, in science, you can't believe in something or not believe in something. That is the only way for science to advance. I was trained as a scientist. I married a research research scientist. Science is my true love in a way that no other field can be. It breaks my heart whenever someone talks about "belief" and "science" in the same breath. It makes me sad enough to cry.
Quote:
That's not logical to me; going through life not believing anything is true isn't a way to live.
I believe in plenty of things. I just try to separate ideology from science. I can treat the same subject, e.g. medicine, very differently depending on whether I am speaking of medicine as a philosophy or medicine as a science. When I have my scientist hat on, I try my darndest to not to believe anything. But only when the scientist hat is on.
I hope that clarifies where I am coming from.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Here, from another thread, where you were very much partial to your own position but dismissive of others, all while claiming objectivity:
CTS: "I study the evidence. Any expert interpretation of data has to stand up to skepticism and challenges--NO MATTER who they are, no matter whether you like what they say or not. That is what scientific objectivity means."
Yes, I claimed to be objective when studying scientific evidence. I never claimed to be impartial--as a person. They are not the same thing.
Please allow me to explain. I have my biases and blind spots, like any other person. I am NOT impartial.
But when I study scientific evidence, I put on my scientist hat. I become objective. I'm not saying that prejudices never slyly creep in, cause I am only human. But I am aware of them most of the time, and it is a priority for me to catch them.
I actually have some nice tried and true tricks to try to catch myself being biased. For example, one of them is to read a research paper I find myself really excited about or rolling my eyes at, and pretend it found the opposite results. How would I find fault with the methodology, or rationalize the methodology, then? That helps me "blind" myself, as it were, to the results, to focus critically on methods and statistics.
When my scientist hat is off, I quite enjoy my biases. :) Hope that helps clarify matters.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Yes, I claimed to be objective when studying scientific evidence."
But you are so demonstrably not that, b/c you don't give both sides equal treatment in terms of objections and acceptance. I give you credit for trying, though.
How about this experiment: take an idea you 'believe' in, like gravity for example, which is relatively neutral and impersonal. Find a way to put it so you can feel your hackles rise. Scientists find that falls are an overwhelming cause of injury and death among elderly people, and the government will make safety measures such as handrails mandatory, for example, which is intrusive and personal. Whatever idea, whatever approach works for you. Try and figure out which element sparks that reaction. It may not be the facts per se, but the implications. If you can separate your reactions and see where they are coming from, you might get a better idea of how they are coloring your perceptions.
Your response to the IMPLICATIONS of global climate change - that the world will have to address it in a concerted effort - may be clouding your read of the actual science.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I appreciate the concern. I am just flattered I am getting so much attention.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I hope you don't feel piled on if I post this anyway, even if it covers some of the same ground as others.
Quote:
If we look at your actual argument as an argument FOR something, rather than a system of undermining OTHER's arguments, what are you advocating? That we know nothing? That reality is beyond our poor senses to perceive accurately? That if we come across someone who believes differently from us, we must concede that their beliefs are veridically indistinguishable from our own?
I advocate being skeptical in science. I advocate seeing science as a journey rather than a destination, a process of unending discovery rather than a body of "facts." I advocate thinking critically about where data come from, and asking if we had measured data differently, would we get different "facts"?
Siggy's example about the big rig was not the best analogy for the scientific process, and I see now it has confused readers. So yes, if I see a big rig coming towards me, I would jump out of the way. I am not questioning direct sensory observation.
But if the big rig were a metaphor for an important scientific finding that had implications for human behavior, absolutely, I would ask all those questions and challenge every interpretation of the facts. That is what science is about.
Quote:Yes, absolutely, if the truck is a metaphor for global warming or any other scientific theory. No, absolutely, if the truck is a literal truck.
Does it really serve your argument to tell Signy that she doesn't know when a truck's gonna hit her because her perception of the truck is based on assumptions? Do you interrogate every detail of your perception before stepping out of the way when you see a truck bearing down on you?
Quote:Yeah, I'm not in favor of radical subjectivity. I'm sorry you misunderstood my analogy.
The big, big problem with this kind of argument, this radical subjectivity, is that it is used to rationalize abuse of all kinds, even, historically, fascism.
Quote:Yes.
Have you ever been in an abusive relationship?
Quote:Interestingly, I never rationalized during the relationship. I just hated that person. After getting out and healing, I rationalized in my journey to forgiveness. But that's neither here nor there. :P
Did you ever rationalize your partner's abuse by saying to yourself that you didn't appreciate how it must seem from their point of view, the extraordinary pressures they must be under? We never get out of such relationships until we realize that our perceptions are more than mere opinion.
Quote:I didn't get that when I read about these studies. To the best of my knowledge (but I may be wrong), the authors did not interpret these studies that way. They were looking more at cognitive mechanisms than emotional ones.
These studies all perpetuate the grand "conflict" between reason and emotion. Scientists so often see themselves as fighting some tragically doomed Götterdämmerung against emotionalism.
Quote:Sounds okay. Empathy, self-esteem, boundaries = good mental health. No argument here.
The two pillars of mental health are high self-esteem and clear boundaries, ...They are importantly not reducible to a set of rules, because rules engender rigidity...The key to reducing such rigidity is empathic awareness.
Quote:The empathy Science doesn't have and the empathy mentally healthy humans need are two separate entities. Science doesn't need good mental health; it is just an objective method of discovery.
And empathy is the first thing to go when Science sets down to analyzing its data.
Quote:If that is true, there appears to be a lot of subjects with low self esteem. :)
I'd say low self-esteem is behind all the conclusions in your 10 studies.
Quote:
In my view, these experiments are unwittingly designed to make the inevitable triumph of e
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I like that. How clever.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
How about this experiment: take an idea you 'believe' in, like gravity for example, which is relatively neutral and impersonal. Find a way to put it so you can feel your hackles rise.
But no, that would not make me NOT believe in gravity.I know you don't believe me, but I DO know how to separate my political ideology from my scientific evaluation of evidence. I can see the difference between an objective scientific observation and the awful political things people want to do with it.
Quote:No. If that were it, I would know, and I would tell you.
Your response to the IMPLICATIONS of global climate change - that the world will have to address it in a concerted effort - may be clouding your read of the actual science.
I simply do not find sufficient evidence to substantiate certain conclusions GW proponets accept as dogma. It doesn't mean I have discounted or dismissed them. I just think they are premature. Climate science is a very, very young science with very little experimentation and empirical feedback. Their methodologies are very limited. The kind of certainty GW proponents seek simply is not possible at this stage with our limited understanding of climate. Science is slow that way. Very frustrating for policy and practical purposes, but that is how it is.
If we want to change our lifestyle, we have to forge ahead based on values and philosophy, without claiming scientific backing. We need to focus on the HOW of solving the problem, as Frem says, instead of the nitpicking of WHY before taking action. If you look at my Pollution Solution thread, most of suggestions would take care of GW, without my having to "believe" in it at all.
----
We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children.
-- Ancient Indian Proverb
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I would ask all those questions and challenge every interpretation of the facts. That is what science is about."
Not quite. What you are doing is more like denial. Again, b/c you don't approach things equitably. When your biased facts are answered with more complete facts, when your contradictory logic is uncovered, when your erroneous assumptions are made explicit, you change venue. You are not seeking the best truth available at the time, you are stonewalling it.
There's a difference, and what you are doing is most definitely NOT science, no matter how much you call it that.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And I absolutely agree. There have been several times in my scientific life when someone has proposed a hypothesis (along with supporting evidence) which ran counter to current scientific fashion, and I've smacked myself on the forehead and thought "DOH!" When you find a hypothesis that ties so many observations together, even if it runs counter to the current interpretation... well, that's like Christmas, birthday and the tooth fairy all rolled into one. I'm not even buying into the Big Bang theory. Most influential book? "Man Against Myth", which prefaces with unexamined assumptions. Believe me, I'm all about examining previously unnoticed assumptions!
I advocate being skeptical in science. I advocate seeing science as a journey rather than a destination, a process of unending discovery rather than a body of "facts." I advocate thinking critically about where data come from, and asking if we had measured data differently, would we get different "facts"?
Quote:On the other hand... are we all to go about our merry way without examining the assumptions underlying our CURRENT behavior? "Humans are too small to have a long-term impact on the environment"? " or "Individual freedom is the most important metric of human existence"? or "Not rocking the boat is more important than survival"?
But if the big rig were a metaphor for an important scientific finding that had implications for human behavior, absolutely, I would ask all those questions and challenge every interpretation of the facts. That is what science is about.
I obviously don't know which assumptions are driving our current setup, but they are clearly dysfunctional and causing us to ignore critical data.
And I see Kiki and I xposted along the same lines. Skepticism is all well and good provided (1) it sprays out equitably in all directions and (2) it yields to the preponderance of evidence. Beyond that it just becomes partisan opposition.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS
Sigh, I'm going to reply to you just once more - ever - b/c frankly, you are boring and a waste of my time.
I put 'believe' in quotes so you would understand that I wasn't talking about what most people think of as 'belief'. I don't know that there's a word for it, except it's something so reliable you don't question it anymore. There are things like that in your world, things you don't question even when they are part of accepted wisdom - or authorized fact.
I picked gravity b/c you mentioned it, but it was only an example.
You go FAR beyond questioning the conclusions - you deny the basic physical measurements of CO2 concentration, physically measured temperatures, the CO2 absorbance spectrum in the infrared, and so on. These things are the scientific equivalent of the truck coming down the street, the scientific sensory data. When they are carefully done, as they are; when they are repeatedly reproduced, as they have been; they reach a higher level of certainty, like the truck coming down the street.
But oddly enough, you don't subject alternative claims to the same scrutiny. You don't demand PROOF that the volcano vents CO2, that the CO2 being vented creates the Keeling curve stretching over decades, or even that the measurements are contaminated at all with volcanic CO2.
It's the blatant asymmetry that gives you away. And it's pretty obvious to others how truly biased you are. So, while you specialize in 'clever' arguments, the only person you're fooling is yourself.
ANYWAY, I'm done with you. I have better things to do with my time than to debate some random person's fantasies.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Instead, you refuse to give any credit to the yeasayers - subjecting their arguments to truly ridiculous objections - which can be brought to the futile endpoint of 'what is the nature of reality'. You are driven to question EVERYTHING, even down to the nature of your own existence, in order to not give that data any credit - at all.
OTOH you will believe ANY argument and set of data proposed by the naysayers, no matter how contradictory, unsupported by fact, or illogical.
Such as stating that the oil industry would support the big "global warming hoax" in order to cash in on sequestration, yet not being willing to discuss the possibility that the industry would make a helluva lot more money out of denying climate change and avoiding emission limits, and that the industry has a well documented record of doing just that.
No, CTS, I'll not let that one go, now that you've reminded me about it. It was such a ridiculous claim that I still can't quite believe that it was meant seriously.
CTS: "But when I study scientific evidence, I put on my scientist hat. I become objective."
Wow. Unless someone wants to discuss the nitty-gritty of the scientific evidence you cite, cause then you claim that you are not a scientist and do not have to actually understand or explain any of that science stuff.
Yeah, I won't let that one go either, not when you keep doing the same thing. How can you claim to be forming impartial scientific "beliefs" (the fact that you continue to use that word shows that the science hat really doesn't fit you well) when you refuse to question the actual science? Or I guess, as Kiki says, you only question that which doesn't agree with what you already believe.
You are a strange one, CTS. I understand that I rub you the wrong way, and I really don't mean to. I seriously had forgotten that you were the one from the Ruddiman discussion until you brought it up again. But now that I'm looking closer, you do seem to follow the pattern that Kiki pointed out, and honestly I find it a bit fascinating.
Relating this to the "AFAF" deal: I have noticed that when people have their assumptions questioned, especially if the questions expose the biases they don't even realize they have, they tend to interpret the questions as personal attacks and get extremely defensive. That way they need not address the questions, nor be forced to see and face their blindspots. And by not backing down from the question, I only prove myself to be that much more the attack dog in their minds. I really don't mean to. I just want to discuss the issue.
BTW, I have a bunch of pictures of an exhibit from U of Alaska Fairbanks Museum that shows, quite clearly, a significant increase in temperature - not some computer model, but actual thermometer temperature measurement in Alaska over the past 50-100 years. The exhibit also had several past/present pictures of glaciers disappearing and the vegetation changing as temperatures increased.
Unfortunately, I've lost the cable that transfers pictures from my digital camera to my computer. But here are two my dad took. The temperature graph is, unfortunately, poorly framed so you can't see the data plotted off to the right. But it was fascinating - and it was real, actual temperature data, that showed an obvious trend.
Someday I'll find that data cable and put of those graphs up. I was thinking of the Ruddiman thread when I took the pictures last summer.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Never been my argument.
Originally posted by SignyM:
"Humans are too small to have a long-term impact on the environment"? "
Quote:For me, it's compassion.
"Individual freedom is the most important metric of human existence"?
Quote:Hahaha. You KNOW that doesn't apply to me, right?
"Not rocking the boat is more important than survival"?
Quote:You and I agree on this. We just don't agree what "preponderance of evidence" is.
Skepticism is all well and good provided (1) it sprays out equitably in all directions and (2) it yields to the preponderance of evidence. Beyond that it just becomes partisan opposition.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What a relief! Have a nice life!
Originally posted by 1kiki:
ANYWAY, I'm done with you. I have better things to do with my time than to debate some random person's fantasies.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi CTS,
What makes the analogy of the big rig meaningful to me is that one's judgements about where it's headed is a matter of survival, as is the issue of GW. Folk stand on the GW side of this argument and see you interrogating the data as if the result doesn't matter either way. Your lack of urgency, your resistance to interpreting the evidence as cause for alarm, leads folk to think you've made up your mind already. If you were remotely interested in really considering the possibility of global warming, you wouldn't be so nonchalant about it all, and you wouldn't be presenting these ludicrous, wholly unsympathetic analogies like pouring a cup of boiling water into the ocean--see what I mean? It gives folk the (false???)impression that you believe GW is pure crap, or a conspiracy, or a religion, or anything but a scientifically arrived at conclusion requiring immediate action from all of us. When there are lives at stake, the rhetorically winning retreat into pure scientific integrity comes across as nearly inhuman, or at least condescending. I don't have much of a dog in this fight, myself, and I know you and Signy are hereditary enemies from the Time Before Time, but I see you address all advocates of GW theory with the same contempt you feel Signy has earned.
How is it that you are so convinced that GW is untrue, while you claim to maintain skepticism toward all conclusions? At what point do you feel it is important to stop endlessly debating the minutia and actually do something to stop a cataclysm from happening, knowing that you will never have absolute certainty to guide your steps?
Quote:Well, yes, that's what they were looking at, but not necessarily what they were actually dealing with. I find the assumptions I noted extremely problematic, both dealing directly with emotional reality (the impact of warmth and kindness in a professor upon students, and the presumption that any action "A" can be objectively defined as "boring" or "not boring"). I have a wholist perspective on these matters, while scientists tend to concern themselves with particulars and what they perceive as isolated, isolable, cases. All too often, what the scientist thinks she can limit her focus on looks to me like carving out a piece from a living whole and making far reaching pronouncements about that whole, because the tiny bleeding portion she's taken back to her lab doesn't move.
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:I didn't get that when I read about these studies. To the best of my knowledge (but I may be wrong), the authors did not interpret these studies that way. They were looking more at cognitive mechanisms than emotional ones.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
These studies all perpetuate the grand "conflict" between reason and emotion. Scientists so often see themselves as fighting some tragically doomed Götterdämmerung against emotionalism.
Quote:What I meant was that the Scientists themselves jettison empathy the way zoologists jettison "anthropomorphism" before they even get started. I submit that taking emotion out of their reasoning damages their ability to reason. Repeat after me: HK is not SignyM, HK is not SignyM.Quote:The empathy Science doesn't have and the empathy mentally healthy humans need are two separate entities. Science doesn't need good mental health; it is just an objective method of discovery.
And empathy is the first thing to go when Science sets down to analyzing its data.
Quote:Well, yeah. Most? Nearly all? We teach our children to focus on punishment/reward, teach them to find validation only in sources external to themselves, in authority and obedience and then study our warped children to learn about human nature??? It's disgusting.Quote:If that is true, there appears to be a lot of subjects with low self esteem. :)
I'd say low self-esteem is behind all the conclusions in your 10 studies.
Quote:Quote:
In my view, these experiments are unwittingly designed to make
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Such as stating that the oil industry would support the big "global warming hoax" in order to cash in on sequestration, ...
No, CTS, I'll not let that one go, now that you've reminded me about it. It was such a ridiculous claim that I still can't quite believe that it was meant seriously.
You don't have to let it go, Mal. But I am.
You kept insisting I believed and said things that I didn't believe and say. I tried various different ways to clarify what I really meant, but you didn't seem to understand me. I simply don't think I communicate in a way that makes sense to you. That happens sometimes. In these cases, I just usually give up rather than keep banging my head against the wall. Or the other party does, as Kiki just did.
I hope you do not take it as an insult. It is not meant to be. You have my warm regards.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What everyone else sees as a big rig about to crush me, I see as an indistinguishable dot in the far horizon. My lack of urgency comes from my attitude of, "I think it is premature to panic. Let's take a closer look at it before we jump to conclusions."
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Your lack of urgency, your resistance to interpreting the evidence as cause for alarm, leads folk to think you've made up your mind already.
Quote:I am interested, or I wouldn't be looking hard at that dot in the horizon. I can't help it if all I see is a dot.
If you were remotely interested in really considering the possibility of global warming, you wouldn't be so nonchalant about it all,
Quote:That is unfortunate and certainly not intended. I try very hard to be civil and uncontemptuous, to not deal out the kind of contempt I feel I receive. Then again, maybe you all have a different definition of contempt than I do. I dunno.
but I see you address all advocates of GW theory with the same contempt you feel Signy has earned.
Quote:How is it that you are so convinced that I believe GW to be untrue? I am not saying there is no big rig. I am saying, I am not sure it is a big rig. For me, there is a difference.
How is it that you are so convinced that GW is untrue,
Quote:How do you know I am not already doing something? Have you read my thread, Pollution Solution? I have posted many times that I absolutely support doing something BEFORE being sure.
At what point do you feel it is important to stop endlessly debating the minutia and actually do something to stop a cataclysm from happening,
Quote:LOL.
HK is not SignyM.
Quote:
But it isn't used as a "soft probability" it is invoked as definition of human nature and the rationale you use to tell Niki that she can't possibly know what motivates other people to do what they do.
What I actually said was this. Please note where I capitalized this time for emphasis:
Quote:
CTS: If you look at the body of research in social psychology, from Milgram's obedience experiment to Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment on down, you'll find a PATTERN. People, as a whole, OFTEN act in gullible, irrational, conformist, obedient, and submissive ways. This (pattern) doesn't apply to just one type of personality or one type of ideology. It applies to most normal, regular people. Regular people like you and me....(insert link)
It is easy to come up with a label for people we perceive as authoritarian or obedient. But MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, we ourselves have those traits too.
So first, I did NOT tell Niki that "she can't possibly know what motivates other people to do what they do." I said and implied no such thing, HK.
Second, everything I said, I said in the context of a soft probability. Note the words I capitalized for emphasis this time around: pattern, often, more likely than not.... I did not invoke any definition of human nature. Frankly, I don't know where you are getting it.
----
The use of strawman arguments, when you put words into my mouth that I never said and proceed to tell me why those imaginary words are all manner of horrible, is dishonest in civil discourse. I appreciate refrain from such tactics.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, to get back to topic ... I suppose it comes down to the question - can a complex mind encompass itself enough to know itself?
Logically, there is an argument to be made that the answer is no. So one might then conclude that people will never be able to know how they think, let alone how another person thinks. But that would be unwarranted to conclude. B/c it implies that since you can't know everything, you can't know anything. And that's simply not true.
To go back to the example of the truck coming at you - what is the nature of gravity? How do we know that the truck simply won't float off? Or that you won't? What is the nature of inertia? How is it that kinetic energy is 'stored' simply b/c one object is in relative motion to another? Maybe the truck will be able to stop. What is the nature of friction? Why wouldn't the bonds between molecules - whatever they are - simply instantaneously fix the truck in place?
I could go on, but my point is that what we might think of as a 'simple' situation is deeply unknowable to us in its complexity.
But while we don't know everything, it's not like we don't know anything. We do know some things, enough to act and get out of the way.
So, when it comes to trying to figure out how people work - it is possible to learn some things. As long as we keep in mind that they are rough approximations, that more information or better interpretation may come along, we will be OK discussing that which we have learned.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
But oddly enough, you don't subject alternative claims to the same scrutiny. You don't demand PROOF that the volcano vents CO2, that the CO2 being vented creates the Keeling curve stretching over decades, or even that the measurements are contaminated at all with volcanic CO2.
It's the blatant asymmetry that gives you away.
This comment is not addressed to Kiki, but to Sig and whoever else. Kiki brought up a good point I felt I should address.
If someone challenged the idea that the volcano vented CO2 or that the CO2 data was contaminated with volcanic contributions that had to be corrected for, I would ABSOLUTELY give that challenge the same scrutiny. But as far as I know, all global warming proponents stipulate this as true, so I have nothing to scrutinize there.
(I never asserted that the Keeling curve was created by volcanic CO2, so that is a non-issue.)
If you all must know, on most issues I argue with you all on, I am just as unwelcome in the other camp. When I am there, I criticize their arguments just as harshly. Nobody likes me anywhere. Well, ok, maybe they like me a tad more than you guys do. But only a tad.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I never asserted that the Keeling curve was created by volcanic CO2, so that is a non-issue."
"There are those who challenge the Keeling curve; they do know that Mauna Loa is an active volcano, and CO2 is a volcanic gas right? ;)
The point is, there IS a debate, based on how one measures and defines the "amount of carbon dioxide.""
See what I mean, Mal? This is the pattern of her 'debate': I never said that. I never used those words, exactly. You misunderstand me. I didn't mean it. I can never explain myself. I'm just a poor defenseless victim being picked on. " In these cases, I just usually give up rather than keep banging my head against the wall." And when proved wrong, she will simply go away, though completely convinced she's right of course.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This one is truly my bad. I thought it was clear the second part was a joke. Note the ;) wink. I wanted to put it in parenthesis so it could appear more "jokey" but the parenthesis would interfere with the wink. Anyway, I apologize for this misunderstanding.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
CTS: "I never asserted that the Keeling curve was created by volcanic CO2, so that is a non-issue."
CTS previously: "There are those who challenge the Keeling curve; they do know that Mauna Loa is an active volcano, and CO2 is a volcanic gas right? ;)
It's not that there isn't an issue with volcanic contributions (any time data has to be corrected, caution is introduced), but those corrections are not the main reason for the dispute with the Keeling Curve.
Here is what Tom Segalstad, a Norwegian geologist at the University of Oslo, says is his dispute:
Quote:
During the same period atmospheric CO2 measurements were started near the top of the strongly CO2-emitting (e.g., Ryan, 1995) Hawaiian Mauna Loa volcano. The reason for the choice of location was that it should be far away from CO2-emitting industrial areas. At the Mauna Loa Observatory the measurements were taken with a new infra-red (IR) absorbing instrumental method, never validated versus the accurate wet chemical techniques. Critique has also been directed to the analytical methodology and sampling error problems (Jaworowski et al., 1992 a; and Segalstad, 1996, for further references), and the fact that the results of the measurements were "edited" (Bacastow et al., 1985); large portions of raw data were rejected, leaving just a small fraction of the raw data subjected to averaging techniques (Pales & Keeling, 1965).
http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.htm
Another challenge to the Keeling curve has a mixture of the other debates re CO2 (mentioned right before this quotation): the Ernst Beck data, dispute over the ice core proxies, etc. They put the Keeling curve in a different context, where it doesn't look like a smooth dramatic rise.
BUT, more importantly than a badly worded and misplaced joke, is the fact that I mentioned the challenge to the Keeling curve as an example that the debate exists regarding CO2 levels. Please note that OTHERS are doing the challenging, not me. Here is another case of confusing me with the people I cite as examples of dissenters.
Even with the joke misunderstanding, *I* never asserted that the Keeling curve was created by volcanic CO2. So again, it is a non-issue.
Quote:Yes. I stand by that.
CTS: The point is, there IS a debate, based on how one measures and defines the "amount of carbon dioxide.""
----
"The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn't misled you into thinking you know something you don't actually know."
-- Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
THERE IS NO DEBATE - NONE AT ALL.
The IR technique is a completely validated and accepted method. While SOME may have had questions about it compared to wet-chemical techniques in 1958, it is now the preferred method of measuring CO2. The technique is fully validated and accepted, which means that the "issue" of IR measurement is one that's been dead and buried for four decades. As that argument should have been. But which you posted. Despite your claims of diligent impartiality, which WOULD have uncovered that simple fact if you had bothered to question the source. Instead you accepted a ridiculous claim at face value without any shred of your self-proclaimed skepticism and impartiality, simply b/c you agreed with it.
As for the claimed 'sampling errors', that is the beauty of reproducing the data with many measurements made in many places around the globe with many different techniques by many different people. No? I've pointed this out already, as has SignyM, but you, apparently blew right by it. Again, if you truly were impartial, you would have uncovered that simple fact. But you aren't, and you didn't.
I really don't want to repeat myself yet again on what should be a simple point. This trend is well validated. Global CO2 has gone up. Get over it.
And just to point out, I did a pretty good job predicting what you would do - 'I didn't mean it.' And the 'I'm just this well intentioned misunderstood victim who would never stoop to such a thing, and everyone is just SO mean to me' act.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi HK,
I wanted to address the psych study comments separately from the GW arguments.
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
What I meant was that the Scientists themselves jettison empathy the way zoologists jettison "anthropomorphism" before they even get started. I submit that taking emotion out of their reasoning damages their ability to reason.
Ahhh, I see. Very interesting. You may well be right on this count.
Quote:Well, some do, but usually not in the domain of social psychologists.
Scientists don't want to touch emotion unless it's with a ten foot pole, preferably with a low level electrical charge.
Quote:This is an excellent point. Certainly, this is a huge confounder in the experiment.
But, where I come from, art expresses meanings, particularly emotional ones, and the choice of a favorite work is exceptionally meaningful. ...--would you be surprised that choosing one piece as your favorite might imply things about your emotional nature?
Now I see your point. The hidden emotional content is a big confounder in all the experiments. It puts them all in a different context. Yeah, I see.
Thanks for clarifying. Good points.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS, I will refer you to near the end of THIS thread, where I was essentially sayin much the same, only (no offense, HKC, you're usually far more coherent than I!) in a fashion that might be a little more accessible to us non highbrow kinda folk.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=46114
Quote:
The whole of it is actually better summed up by it's extremism - cause I kinda reject "Lucifer Effect" of the type suggested by the Stanford Prison, Milgram and other related experiments, as well as propaganda like Lord of the Flies due to both essential sample corruption, and that they seem to be "cooked" in a fashion to support a premise that is at best flawed, if not unsustainable.
You can't take a sample from a society in which folks have their humanity crushed out of them from the very cradle, pull it from one of the most authoritarian institutions on the planet (public/college "education") and then suggest that humans are naturally inhumane and authoritarian - because your "study" has been inadvertently pre-loaded to produce that exact result whether you meant it or not.
That is why the MK-Ultra and other experiments failed, cause via mass-media, propaganda (like Hearst, father of yellow journalism) and other social interventions, often times downright physical ones, like seizing children from "undesirable" subcultures (native americans, mormons) and "re-educating" them - we'd ALREADY *been* involved in pyschological manipulation and programming/conditioning on a grand scale, and the damn fools running things didn't seem to realize they were running their experiments in an ant farm which was itself a larger experiment by people who'd been doing it ever since Plato suggested it.
Lest one forget, I am a Rosseau-Kropotkinist, a belief I did not come by arbitrarily, but by seeking the CAUSES of behavior, rather than their outcomes, and the singlemost disastrous concept we have is that "People are naturally evil, and must be controlled for thier own good!" - a concept for the most part offered to us with one hand BY people offering a leash in the other, for their own reasons...
So you can't take a group of people CONDITIONED for twenty some (or even ten, as in Lord of the Flies ) years to a certain behavior, and then try to make the case that it's inborn, that's bloody ridiculous - and many recent studies by researchers overseas have shown it, by pointing out that unconditioned children for the most part do not display those behaviors.
If I wanted to spike the hell out of Milgram, I'd simply select the sample from entirely FreeSchool/HomeSchool children, and lay good odds you'd not find one in ten who would follow through.
Genetics might load the gun, but it's environment which pulls the trigger - and sure, while there's some exceptions to that, misfire an whatnot, this is the bulk of humanity, they're trained to a behavior that is unnatural, unhuman even cause for a fact were we really inherently like this - how the hell did we ever build civilization in the first place ?
Cause if you buy into all that rot, you wind up with a chicken-and-egg problem - namely, how did we build civilization to civilize us, if we need to be forcibly civilized to get anything done ?
(And I use the term civilized in a very tongue in cheek sense here!)
Which is, of course, always and ever my stance on that particular topic.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
If I wanted to spike the hell out of Milgram, I'd simply select the sample from entirely FreeSchool/HomeSchool children, and lay good odds you'd not find one in ten who would follow through.
Sure! Milgram would have no problem with that. In fact, he repeated the experiment under various settings, with different populations, and in different countries.
I don't think either he nor I ever argued that the experimental findings were a result of genetics. Or that ALL people will behave this way.
Something like this, it is simply an observation that regular people, raised in the regularly awful ways you and HK describe, tend to behave in certain patterns. A soft probability that if you picked an "average" person off the street, there is some likelihood that he might behave in this pattern.
There is no discussion about what causes it. Psychology is far from the ability to determine causation. And always, the regular disclaimers about generalizability apply.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow. Great debate, what joy. I'm not educated enough on the concepts you guys got into, so I won't express an opinion.
The only one I will address isQuote:
I think the fact that at least one person besides me got the impression you dismiss or don't accept climate change shows that at least in expressing your point of view, you indicate a disbelief in climate change. You say you haven't made up your mind and aren't dismissing it, but your arguments do tend to "debunk" the idea. So it makes me wonder what facts exactly it would take for you to believe in the theory...and to wonder if you, and those who feel like you (not to even mention those absolutely convinced it DOESN'T exist) would be skeptical no matter what, OR would retain their skepticism to the point of no return?
Skepticism is all well and good provided (1) it sprays out equitably in all directions and (2) it yields to the preponderance of evidence. Beyond that it just becomes partisan opposition.
Isn't there a point, when things affect us seriously, that one needs to make a determination of what is true and what is not true, in order to act for one's self-preservation? Back to the truck, tho' you're right in that it's not a good analogy, but I'll use it to make this point. If it's bearing down on you, how long do you take to determine if the threat is real and you need to move? In that case the threat is direct and our brains make the determination faster than we "think" about it, but things such as climate change happen slowly, take the effort of many to change, and we can't know the complete outcome.
So if one stays skeptical of everything, doesn't one chance staying skeptical so long as to make any action too late?
I would also like to know how you have weighed what facts have been presented both pro and con climate change, and why you have rejected one and not the other (if true) and what it would take for you to definitively come down on one side or another.
Snark on a totaly different subject; maybe our discussions/debates need to be more complex and intellectual to avoid the snarks of the uglies...I notice they're missing from this one for quite some time now. Maybe it's too much to read or too complex for them? Dunno, just found it amusing that there are no nasty one-liners in the most recent back-and-forth in this thread.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If GW were a religion, I consider myself an agnostic, not an atheist.
Originally posted by Niki2:
I think the fact that at least one person besides me got the impression you dismiss or don't accept climate change shows that at least in expressing your point of view, you indicate a disbelief in climate change.
Quote:THT just asked something like this recently. So I started a new thread to discuss it. I can't speak for other skeptics, but I know what would convince me.
So it makes me wonder what facts exactly it would take for you to believe in the theory...and to wonder if you, and those who feel like you (not to even mention those absolutely convinced it DOESN'T exist) would be skeptical no matter what, OR would retain their skepticism to the point of no return?
The Great Global Warming Debate
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=46205
Quote:I have no problems with taking voluntary precautionary actions just in case there really is a truck bearing down on me. I just don't like it when people want to FORCE everyone to move or when people want to say, "It's scientifically proven, so that gives me the right to force you to move." So in a nutshell, jump out of the way if you want to, but don't call it science and don't force it on others.
If it's bearing down on you, how long do you take to determine if the threat is real and you need to move?
Quote:Very good question. I'd like to answer it on the other thread, if you don't mind posting it there again. And thank you for your kind civility. I know it is silly, but civility in RWED is sometimes so rare that I'm tickled pink every time I see it.
I would also like to know how you have weighed what facts have been presented both pro and con climate change, and why you have rejected one and not the other (if true) and what it would take for you to definitively come down on one side or another.
Quote:Oh, the snarks were there. They were just more sophisticated, coming from better educated folk. I'm not innocent either, though I do try to be.
Dunno, just found it amusing that there are no nasty one-liners in the most recent back-and-forth in this thread.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have nothing against snarks, it's pure, intentional ugliness I abhor. I always TRY to be civil; with some it's harder than with others, and with some things people SAY it's harder.
I read the other thread (as much as I could understand on it), but it's too complex for me. I thought there might be a simpler way for one to determine pro or con. I have a question to ask, so I'll do it there.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I laugh in your general direction CTS! You said, not just a few days ago:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Such as stating that the oil industry would support the big "global warming hoax" in order to cash in on sequestration, ...
No, CTS, I'll not let that one go, now that you've reminded me about it. It was such a ridiculous claim that I still can't quite believe that it was meant seriously.
You don't have to let it go, Mal. But I am.
"Then I just remembered you were the one who kept on misconstruing everything I said, with a certain measure of hostility no less, back when we were talking about Ruddiman's book.
Right. History of communication impasse. Cease communication.
Have a nice day."
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=46080#813755
You let it go my ASS. You ONLY DAYS AGO refused to get into a discussion with me over a completely non-related topic because of your poor wittle hurt feelings over the Ruddiman thread. You really don't get how blatantly you prove yourself wrong, huh?
CTS said: "I tried various different ways to clarify what I really meant, but you didn't seem to understand me. I simply don't think I communicate in a way that makes sense to you."
OK - so rather than whinging about your hurt feelings, actually get into that whole making sense thing. Give me hard numbers as to how the petroleum industry would make more money out of carbon sequestration than it would out of denying climate change. Tell me about all those non-existent temperature readings that show no climate change, and use real scientific language to explain away the many that do. (And referring to some random web page does NOT suffice.)
I've posted some poorly taken pictures, and on that other thread I put in a whoooooole bunch of data plots that you never addressed because of those hurt feelings of yours. So how about getting over it and talking science? Put on that unbiased scientist hat girl! Wear it proudly! Show us that you can handle the heat!
Let me guess: you can't, can you? You'll continue to vilify me, and bemoan the "communication failure", because you have no other recourse. You have no actual facts to back up your "beliefs."
That's because you have beliefs, while the rest of us have scientific theories.
Kiki said: "See what I mean, Mal? This is the pattern of her 'debate': I never said that."
Yes. I've been there. CTS is incredibly dishonest intellectually, but as you've said, the one she's trying so hard to fool is herself. She does a good job with that.
And so I consider threads like this more an investigation of the mind that can fool itself then a discussion of science or economics. Which is quite interesting in its own way.
A really telling thing: CTS continues to compare climate change (though you'll note she still cannot say "climate change", no matter how often it is explained to her, but must continue to call it "GW") to a religion. She has no capacity to separate a belief system from an observation-backed scientific theory.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I have never been entirely comfortable with assigning labels to people.
It's human nature to do so. I do so without thinking about it. Classifying things for easy identification, and assigning behavioral response routines to them, is essential to survival. Survivalists do this. Garden Snake and Coral Snake and Cobra and Anaconda all need to be classified differently and assigned response routines for optimal survivability. That's just a simple, gross example.
Unfortunately, our society is a higher-function construct than mere 'survival' and so we at times have to fight our instincts.
This is the most important thing to understand: It doesn't even matter if your classification system is *usually* right.
In a society, once you assign a classification to someone and name them, you have armed yourself with a host of oppressive tools. You can chain them with your expectations and preconceived notions, unwilling to accept that they may have behavior outside the limits you've assigned to them. You can frame them for others and infect other people with your classification system. Finally, you can use the classification as a stick and beat them. It's a simple IF/THEN thing. IF they are Bad/Dangerous/Misguided/Unteachable THEN we must respond THIS WAY.
It's essentially a version of pre-crime. If we know you are X type of person then we can just ignore/oppose you right off the bat and not deal with you as a unique individual.
So what if your classification and behavior system is right 99/100 times? I doubt anyone here would be happy with a 99% effective death penalty, one that only executed innocent people 1% of the time. Many of the same people anxious to slap labels on folks would oppose the death penalty on principle for many reasons, not the least of which is: You can't be completely sure.
If you operate on labels and pre-programmed expectations, you will not only place limits on others, but also upon yourself. You will not experience reality, but rather a pre-programmed perception of reality that you have chosen, your personal ideal 'survival filters.' Worse, you may obliterate the only tools available to make bridges between your Self and the Other.
The harder question is how to separate survival classifications from social classifications. I have no idea. I'm as biased as anyone, fully loaded with offensive programming and selective lenses.
--Anthony
Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm sorry CT,
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:What everyone else sees as a big rig about to crush me, I see as an indistinguishable dot in the far horizon. My lack of urgency comes from my attitude of, "I think it is premature to panic. Let's take a closer look at it before we jump to conclusions."
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Your lack of urgency, your resistance to interpreting the evidence as cause for alarm, leads folk to think you've made up your mind already.
I think you're misunderstanding why I posted this stuff. Not your fault, I wasn't entirely clear. I was hoping that my questions might lead you to consider the issue in another light. But I fear you've just added me to your list of "them" and lost anything fresh that I might have brought to the conversation.
As I said, I don't have a lot invested in the GW debate at all. Psych and human nature? Dear god, yes (and thanks, btw, for the kind words about my analysis of the infamous psych experiments
)! But GW is not my issue. I just thought I noticed a disconnect here: Signy and others passionately invested in this debate and you acting like they were idiots. Calling your fellow scientists idiots is not the fast track to making friends. "But I didn't call them idiots!" you cry.
I'm sorry, but when you say that what they see as a mac truck speeding to run them down is really nothing but an "indistinguishable dot in the far horizon," you're calling them idiots.
It seemed to me a fair amount of the harshness in this thread might be attributable to your disregard for their very real fears. I thought if you saw the issue in something closer to their emotional context, communication might become easier for everyone.
You weren't just disagreeing with their science, you were lampooning their fears, lampooning the debate per se, and it seemed unkind. If people you care about are terrified of something you don't perceive as a threat, do you automatically ridicule them? Can you blame them if they get angry?
Quote:No, you can't help it, but you certainly could show a teensy bit of compassion for the folk who see an imminent threat, even when you don't--especially, when you don't. When you disregard their feelings on the matter, you might as well say, "Oh no, I agree with you, I just think you're an idiot!" See what I'm saying?Quote:I am interested, or I wouldn't be looking hard at that dot in the horizon. I can't help it if all I see is a dot.
If you were remotely interested in really considering the possibility of global warming, you wouldn't be so nonchalant about it all,
Quote:Uh-oh. What's this "you all" now? Remember: HK is not Signy (hereafter to be referred to as the HINS axium). Seriously, don't play that game. We both know what contempt is. When you ask a question which you know is absurd and to which you already know the answer--a question along the lines of "...is it like pouring a cup of boiling water into the ocean?"--you've crossed the line, don't you think?Quote:That is unfortunate and certainly not intended. I try very hard to be civil and uncontemptuous, to not deal out the kind of contempt I feel I receive. Then again, maybe you all have a different definition of contempt than I do. I dunno.
but I see you address all advocates of GW theory with the same contempt you feel Signy has earned.
You've been called out on this attitude before and you keep saying that is not your intent, and yet you don't change your behavior. It's a little bit like if a person says, "Hey, you're standing on my foot!" and you reply, "Oh, I assure you, that was not my intention!" but you don't remove your foot!
Quote:
If you look at the body of research in social psychology, from Milgram's obedience experiment to Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment on down, you'll find a PATTERN. People, as a whole, OFTEN act in gullible, irrational, conformist, obedient, and submissive ways. This (pattern) doesn't apply to jus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My goodness, this is still going on? Not a problem, just got a giggle out of where it's gone.
Anthony, I'm sorry, I just can't stop: Sooo kewl to see you again!! And your rational, relatively unjudgmental remarks. You make my day. 
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I find there are two ways not to be an authoritarian, no matter which end of the political spectrum you're from.
One way is to be objective, or at least try to be.
We all have an analog "model" of the world in our heads: what observations are important and which can be ignored, how they interact with each other and us, how they interact within a larger context. Some people's models are relatively limited and not well thought out. Emotions are evoked in some contexts but not others (For example, Finn would say "Human life is sacred" in the context of abortion but dismiss civilian deaths as "Collateral damage" in the context of war.) etc. That is the nature of human thinking: it IS contextual, and often driven by our lizard-brain, which remembers, correlates and acts without our conscious knowledge.
To be objective, one must take one's biases into account and eliminate them as much as possible, and bang one's assumptions, hypotheses and predictions against the real world. IF you can explain more of the data than anyone else and you can make accurate and timely predictions about the future, then you prolly have a better grasp of underlying reality than those who do none of the above. So for example, the fact that I accurately predicted the previous economic meltdown and am predicting another one should give more weight to anyone who trying to objectively think about the world. But BEING OBJECTIVE IS DIFFICULT.
The other way is HKs. And that is not to deny emotion and bias, but to use it to understand the world even better.
Quite frankly, I have no idea how HK does what he does. It's all very mystical to me, but the depth of insight that HK brings to the board astounds me, especially since I can't even begin to fathom how it happened. I SUSPECT THAT EMOTIONAL WISDOM IS EVEN HARDER THAN BEING OBJECTIVE.
Both paths are difficult, but that is presumably what makes us independent. Authoritarians are those who rely on other to tell them how the world is, and then seek to impose that viewpoint on others. Independent thought is the antidote IMHO.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I see what you're getting at now, HK.
First, thank you for taking the time to share your concern and observations re my communication (ahem) problems.
Quote:Goddamn it. I hate you. No, you're right. I do think they are idiots. I tell myself I am being civil to them. I try not to call them idiots the way they call me an idiot. But apparently, my underlying emotions show through. And I hate you for seeing through that and calling me on it. I guess I was kidding myself that if I didn't call them "fucking illiterate retards," it was enough. (It's good you called me on that. Painful, but good. Goddamn you all the same though. I bet your psychotherapy patients hate you too, but keep coming back.)
I just thought I noticed a disconnect here: Signy and others passionately invested in this debate and you acting like they were idiots.
Quote:That's just it, HK. I don't see them as fellow scientists. Obviously, they don't see me as one.
Calling your fellow scientists idiots is not the fast track to making friends.
Quote:Yeah, I get it now. I think the harshness is attributable to my being an arrogant ass. No wonder no one likes me.
It seemed to me a fair amount of the harshness in this thread might be attributable to your disregard for their very real fears.
Quote:Yes, indeed. Thank you. But only if I stop being an arrogant ass.
I thought if you saw the issue in something closer to their emotional context, communication might become easier for everyone.
Quote:
it seemed unkind. If people you care about are terrified of something you don't perceive as a threat, do you automatically ridicule them? Can you blame them if they get angry?
No. Though, if I may offer one word in my own defense, their overt hostility towards me by calling me cowardly, dishonest, uneducated, blind, idiotic, etc is ALSO unkind. It makes me not care about them so much. Not an excuse for my lack of compassion, but just sayin'.
Quote:Actually, that was more patronizing than contemptuous. That is how I teach my 10 year old about what significance means. But yeah, I get it. Patronizing, contemptuous, cut it out.
We both know what contempt is. When you ask a question which you know is absurd and to which you already know the answer--a question along the lines of "...is it like pouring a cup of boiling water into the ocean?"--you've crossed the line, don't you think?
Quote:Well, no. I've been called names before, like "You arrogant ass." My response is, "I don't mean to be an arrogant ass, I'm sorry." But I don't change it because I just think they're namecalling, and I'm not REALLY an arrogant ass.
You've been called out on this attitude before and you keep saying that is not your intent, and yet you don't change your behavior.
You're the first person who has taken the time to explain WHY I'm an arrogant ass, in a nice and non-name-calling way so that I can think about it seriously. It's different.
Quote:I have to disagree with you here. I can sort of see how you read it that way. But while I may have implied that her assertions are not objective and criticized them, I was not attacking Niki personally at all. I do not have any ill feelings the way I do for.. ahem.. some other folks here.
The gist of your quote in that context is: "If you look at the psychological evidence, you don't have a leg to stand on, do you? Because you lack anything remotely resembling objectivity."
I gotta run, but thanks, HK.
Edited to add: I had to run before completing this. I don't know if my attempt at buddy humor went awry or not. If it did, I don't hate you or curse you. I appreciate the insight. Many times, I have wanted to leave RWED, and I have. I keep coming back because of moments like this. Thank you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
This, along with DT's remarks about being called an arrogant ass, is communication style. It gets to me, too, I admit it, and I react rather than being objective. But I've been called a lot of names, here and elsewhere, for my "style", and it's not meant to be condescending or like I know it all (except when it is sarcastic or deliberately condescending
You've been called out on this attitude before and you keep saying that is not your intent, and yet you don't change your behavior. It's a little bit like if a person says, "Hey, you're standing on my foot!" and you reply, "Oh, I assure you, that was not my intention!" but you don't remove your foot!). It's how I write. From y time here, I would say it's the same sort of thing for DT, and the internet complicates things by omitting tone of voice, facial expression, etc. I have difficulty with his style from time to time, but I empathize.Quote:
Excellent point.
communication is not unilateral; it is collaborative, dependant on a meeting of minds. We all need to try our best to at least see the context in which our words are received, if not share that context for the sake of the discussion. Your intended meaning is only part of the story, and if you ignore, as I think you continue to do here, the inflammatory emotional context of the discussion, claiming to be "plain" and "objective," pushing all the emotional responsibility onto others, you're just gonna keep alienating people.
I'm glad you wrote what you did, Cav. I didn't even REALIZE how or why what DTw rote was frustrating me, but you nailed it. The sense of dismissiveness seemed to obviate any effort to get across that for me, it's a very real danger, along with pollution, etc., and one I take seriously. Thank you, you helped me understand my own reactions.
While there are some, I think I would change it to "calling SCIENTISTS" idiots, not just fellow scientists. One can rationally disagree with scientists, and some of them are overbearing louts for sure, to dismiss them isn't logical, to me; to refute their theories or methods or something is valid, but to just call them idiots is wrong. Becoming a scientist pretty much precludes being an "idiot" as the term is understood, doesn't it?
It also pretty much negates ANY scientific theories put forth on the subject, which makes communication and especiallyd ebate on the issue impossible.
I would also again reiterate my comment that everything AFs, etc., display are things we all have and all display; where the correlation disappears is that these are people I view as having an extreme version of these aspects, extreme to the point where communication becomes impossible. I'm not talking about the traits themselves, just the extreme version of them.
And, as an aside, when it comes to the terms RWA and AF, I never thought you were attacking me personally, I'm just frustrated that you dismiss these concepts out of hand and rely on your opinion that they are biased, ergo totally invalid. And you didn't "imply" that my assertions were not objective, when it came to RWA, you said it straight out, in pretty derrogatory terms...not just about my assertions, but to the point of dismissing Altemeyer completely in a distinctly negative way. You may not agree with him--obviously you don't--but that doesn't automatically mean his theories are bullshit; it's your opinion, that's all.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I have to say that I KNOW I come across as being arrogant, dismissive, condescending, patronizing etc. And I do it on purpose. I do.
Because if I bring something real to the table, only to get jerked around time and time again, I get kind of annoyed, and after a while I don't even bother to try to communicate. It's not very productive, I know. If I can't communicate nicely, I should just stop.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:My 1-2-3 is real. I brought that to the table and feel jerked around because I get told everything that is wrong with ME, but still no one would take the request seriously and just give me a damn mean and SD. Or take it seriously and say, no, the SD doesn't exist, so you'll never be convinced until it does--which is absolutely true.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Because if I bring something real to the table, only to get jerked around time and time again,...
I already know the SD doesn't exist. That is why I can put out the challenge so confidently. And I understand why it doesn't exist. The reasons why it doesn't exist is precisely the why climate science will always be, for me, a "soft" science, a science of probabilities rather than certainties. If it ever did exist, as it does in other sciences, then I would be convinced, just as I said.
I was hoping one of you would just come out already and say the SD doesn't exist. Then I'll say the SD is the climate equivalent of WMDs in Iraq, and we can move on. We would finally get to the bottom of it, which is what I have said before: Climate science is a young science with a lot of inherent limitations that will NOT allow its conclusions to be certain for a long, long time. You'll disagree and we'll never talk climate again.
But then, all I get is, "You've seen it already." Which I know is completely untrue, because even if I have Alzheimer's, I cannot have seen something that doesn't exist.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
YOUR 1-2-3 is bogus. You say you will only accept evidence that meets your (very narrow) criteria. Like I said in the Global Warming thread, if that is how you approach evidence, then you are not a scientist in any sense of the word. Evidence comes by many different pathways. The world is like the elephant and the blind men, and deciding ahead of time that you will only accept some observations and not others is a sure path to folly.
The only way to get to the truth is to stay open. A scientist's job is to figure out what the evidence is telling her, not to put preconditions on what she will or will not accept.
However, let me assure you that the data you are seeking exists. Scientists have been taking temperature measurements and carbon dioxide measurements around the globe for decades. That data was accessed and processed for the UN report, and in fact the average global temperatures have been reported yearly for at least a decade now. You would have to assume there is some grand conspiracy at work... that unless you can see the raw data FOR YOURSELF.... all of the scientists involved in the effort are just making shit up.
Here's one site
www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
There are a lot more.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
And, as an aside, when it comes to the terms RWA and AF, I never thought you were attacking me personally, I'm just frustrated that you dismiss these concepts out of hand and rely on your opinion that they are biased, ergo totally invalid. And you didn't "imply" that my assertions were not objective, when it came to RWA, you said it straight out, in pretty derrogatory terms...not just about my assertions, but to the point of dismissing Altemeyer completely in a distinctly negative way. You may not agree with him--obviously you don't--but that doesn't automatically mean his theories are bullshit; it's your opinion, that's all.
I assume you are talking to me, and not HK anymore?
First, let me just say, everything I say IS my opinion. If I say, there are no WMD's in Iraq, that's my opinion, even if I say it like it's a fact. It is just hard to preface everything I say with, "IMHO." So I just assume everyone knows everything that comes out of my keyboard is my opinion.
If I think that some notion is invalid, in my opinion obviously, I would just say so. I think I should be allowed to say so, and you are allowed to disagree, right? I did think you were biased in seeing the pattern in Rap and Wulf but not in others, which is also my opinion. Whether I shouted this opinion or implied it as I imagined--well that doesn't matter--that's what I think. I am not sure what the problem is here, that you are frustrated with my opinion. You disagree. We're not going to agree on everything. I'm sure there are plenty of things I say that you think is invalid and biased. Eh, that's where debates come from.
The part that bothers me is that I used "derogatory terms" to say you were biased. I don't really see where the derogatory terms are and definitely did not mean to do that. Like I said, I like you and have no ill feelings towards you like other RWEDs who attack me every chance they get. You're cool. I thought I was just offering an alternative viewpoint. Sigh.
Just as an afterthought, it is weird to me that I get all this grief for being an arrogant ass and using derogatory terms I didn't know I used--when people are calling me dishonest and fraudulent and stupid outright--and I don't see anyone giving THEM any commentary about using "derogatory terms."
------
I'll work on not being an arrogant ass. But don't expect miracles overnight.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
While there are some, I think I would change it to "calling SCIENTISTS" idiots, not just fellow scientists. One can rationally disagree with scientists, and some of them are overbearing louts for sure, to dismiss them isn't logical, to me; to refute their theories or methods or something is valid, but to just call them idiots is wrong. Becoming a scientist pretty much precludes being an "idiot" as the term is understood, doesn't it?
What gets me is how some people spend an hour here, an hour there looking at some scientific theory, and then they claim they see huge gaping holes in the research that scientists who spent a lifetime working on this stuff somehow missed. It's such conceit! Like antimason and his anti-evolution. Like CTS and her anti-climate change "but there are NO temperature measurements!"
And then, to make it worse, when I put time and effort into presenting the facts to them, they brush it off and refuse to address the holes in their own reasoning. So - they put themselves up on a pedestal of judgment, but refuse to be judged themselves. On top of conceit, I add hypocrisy. It's easy to poke holes in what other people do (especially when you don't understand it) Less easy to answer to people questioning YOU.
Yeah, I get frustrated with this, and I lose all respect and empathy with people who put so much effort into preserving their ignorance and their biases. And while I wish I had the saintliness to forever talk all nice to them, I don't. I get snarky and condescending, which doesn't help, but hey - lost cause.
Which relates back to the AFAF thing. Even I did try as hard as possible to be cordial forever, it wouldn't matter. I am challenging their ingrained beliefs, so they will see me as an attacker. They will MAKE me into an attacker if they have to.
I'll note that those who've built an obvious resentment towards me, those who think I'm the Big Bad, won't find anyplace I called them names. They have to twist my posts to find the attack in there. Because I never attacked them personally, I only questioned their arguments and tried to make them think.
Some people really really hate to think. Well, they hate to think new thoughts anyway.
Quote:Niki - are you talking to DT? I've been astounded at how you've made such a deliberate effort to explain that this is not an anti-conservative thing, yet he absolutely insists on seeing it that way. Again there's that underlying conceit: he knows what you're thinking and saying better than you do. He can't respect you enough to hear and believe what you've told him several times.
And, as an aside, when it comes to the terms RWA and AF, I never thought you were attacking me personally, I'm just frustrated that you dismiss these concepts out of hand and rely on your opinion that they are biased, ergo totally invalid.
I hadn't thought this AFAF mentality applied to him until I saw how these recent threads went. I wouldn't call him Authoritarian exactly, but I do think he's got some particular reality processing handicaps.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The existing evidence I've seen tells me that the earth MIGHT be warming, and CO2 levels MIGHT be rising.
Originally posted by SignyM:
A scientist's job is to figure out what the evidence is telling her,
Quote:The preconditions are for what will convince me that the earth IS warming, and CO2 levels ARE rising. See the difference? Those are my standards for a higher level of certainty.
not to put preconditions on what she will or will not accept
Quote:Then show it to me.
However, let me assure you that the data you are seeking exists.
I'm betting the little dignity I have in RWED that the evidence doesn't exist. So prove me wrong and rub my face in it. Go ahead. You know you want to.
Quote:Nope. I've told you 2x now, I have never asked to see raw data. I want to see THE MEAN that is calculated from raw data. The mean only, not the raw data. If I ask for a lasagna made out of 5 cheeses, I don't want to be taken to a cheese cave. I want the lasagna, the end product.
that unless you can see the raw data FOR YOURSELF....
Go to the other thread. I even wrote out a fictitious answer in the format I would accept, as an example. No raw data in it.
Quote:Yeah, my 1-2-3's not there, Siggy. It's temperature data to be sure, but there is no absolute GAST (global average surface temperature) that I can find. And there certainly are no SD's of the absolute GAST.
www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And speaking of reality processing...
I have a relatively easy time seeing the blindnesses that people bring to scientific theories. I just ask questions, and if I get defensiveness and hostility rather than rational discussion, that's a pretty telling sign.
But as much as I get frustrated with these people, I know I'm not immune to the same thing. I have my own blindspots; I have in the past, and I'm sure I've got some going now. Not toward science so much, because I know how to be skeptical and open to contrary evidence there. (Not to say I don't take sides, but I'm pretty damned sure I'll put full consideration into challenges, and can be swayed by scientific evidence.)
But how do I test my biases outside science, the things that aren't so measurable? That are in fact invisible to me? We all have blindspots, ideas that we unwittingly hold to, even if they make no logical sense. But if we're blind to them by definition, how do we make ourselves see them?
So I'm curious - how do you folks out there uncover your own biases? Do you even try?
We're all susceptible to being AFA, right. So how do we minimize it?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wow. And you still don't see the dishonesty of this? You, a non-scientist as you've told me you are (yet you've also claimed to be very well acquainted with the scientific method) have predefined the scientific evidence - the one and only bit of scientific evidence - that could possibly reveal truth. And you refuse to do any work yourself, refuse to educate yourself, but sit back and wait for others to bring you what you demand.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Nope. I've told you 2x now, I have never asked to see raw data. I want to see THE MEAN that is calculated from raw data. The mean only, not the raw data. If I ask for a lasagna made out of 5 cheeses, I don't want to be taken to a cheese cave. I want the lasagna, the end product.
Go to the other thread. I even wrote out a fictitious answer in the format I would accept, as an example. No raw data in it.
It's beyond disingenuous.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME