Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Wed Jul 18 18:38:28 2018

Utopia Talk / Politics / Stop teaching math, it is racist
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jun 28 22:15:10
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/34755/

Sounds like something seb would say.
hood
Member
Thu Jun 28 22:25:10
The fuck else they gonna do? After arithmetic, algebra is as basic as it gets. You literally need algebra for any other kind of math.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jun 28 22:27:00
Hood you racist!

Lol
OsamaIsDaWorstPresid
Member
Fri Jun 29 00:45:15
nigers wunt b hapie until theer is a combined degre in niggering rapin and rappin wear da entrie requirment is haev a gpa of below 1
Seb
Member
Fri Jun 29 02:07:22
Hood:

Geometry? Good enough for Newton to do laws of motion

Stats?

Mechanics?

What level are we talking about?

If we are talking advanced algebra, then I can totally see that there are other mathematical schools that could be appropriate selectors. E.g. stats is conceptually hard but the algebra is easy, and a better statistician could trump someone whose shit hot at advanced algebra for some courses.

And if we are talking linear algebra at an early stage, I can also see how geometry and others might be used as a baseline if the issue is seeking to identify the apt in order to remediate poor prior education.

Seb
Member
Fri Jun 29 02:08:36
Nothing in the article suggests they are saying a pupil should no absolutely no linear algebra.
Seb
Member
Fri Jun 29 02:11:51
I find "algebra is requisite for any mathematical ability" an amusing statement - I'm not sure the ancient Greeks would agree.

Nor many in Europe before the 16th C
Seb
Member
Fri Jun 29 02:17:15
*hood may now point out that you can classify much of e.g. geometry as algebra where one seems the side of an object an arbitrary length to determine a means to express areas etc.

If he does he will be ignoring the fact that this is not what western syllabi often mean by "algebra" as opposed to other branches.

If he does he will be implicitly accepting the premises that there are multiple schools for handling the underlying aptitudes for maths, e.g. abstraction and analytical reasoning.

I hope he doesn't do that.
smart dude
Member
Fri Jun 29 04:29:31
"What level are we talking about?"

If we stop being obtuse for a second and stop FREAKING OUT, we will understand that hood is talking about how standard mathematical curricula in U.S. public schools start with classes called "algebra" when advancing beyond basic arthimetic. For example, my education was this:

8th grade: algebra
9th: geometry
10: algebra ii
11: pre-calculus (they called it some other bullshit, but this is the usual name)
12: calculus i

But whatever. Just go out of your way to be contrarian for no reason.
hood
Member
Fri Jun 29 06:39:43
Seb:

Basic fucking algebra. Graphing, y=mx+b, solving equations. You aren't going to be solving for the magnitude of angles in a triangle if you don't know the basic rules of balancing/solving equations.


What in your fucking insanity made you think anyone was referencing advanced algebra like linear? We are talking algebra 2.
hood
Member
Fri Jun 29 06:40:46
As to smart dudes comment:

Algebra 2 after geometry? Every curriculum I've seen puts geometry after algebra 2.
Seb
Member
Fri Jun 29 07:21:23
Freaking the fuck out is exactly what the article is doing.

The proposal seems fairly anodyne: "lets not assess mathematical ability solely on Algebra".

I have no idea what grade 8 means in terms of age, on account of, you know, not growing up in the US. I don't know what the English national curriculm guidelines are, but in my school (private) we did more geometry before algebra. Unless we are talking very simple linear algebra like

x+1=3 what is x kind of stuff.

Seb
Member
Fri Jun 29 07:29:55
hood:

Yup, as predicted... tangential pedantry.

"What in your fucking insanity made you think anyone was referencing advanced algebra like linear? We are talking algebra 2."

What's algebra 2 when it's at home? Why do you think I asked "what level"?

One thing that was not on my curriculum is "US school taxonomy and syllabi, a firm grounding of the most irrelevant thing for a British citizen ever". It's like I said "Key Stage 4 mate, duh" - it's totally meaningless. I don't even know what ages you do academic selection and streaming in the US system - which this decision seems to be related to. In the UK the natural points are at 11-13 (depending on state vs private), 16, and 18 corresponding to primary school to secondary school switch, the old school leaving point (GCSE) and University entry (A Levels). Your systems is different - not universal.

So, as I said, we did geometry first - classical mathematics did a fuck load of advanced maths without translating anything into the kind of equations we commonly use.

And I think perhaps you are failing to understand that the concepts can not only be taught but actually used operationally to do things like, e.g. design and build buildings. And were done until relatively recently. Rather than doing Tan and worrying about angles, it was all expressed in terms of ratios of the sides of triangles. Which yes, can be viewed as a form of a "solve for x" type scenario - but that's the whole point really - if you can handle geometry but got taught basic algebra badly - then is it better to assess maths purely through performance of the activities associated with the algebra syllabus, or can you also assess maths through performance in say, geometry?

The answer is pretty obvious. Unless you want to say things like "Pythagoras was really bad at maths".

hood
Member
Fri Jun 29 07:35:26
That would be algebra 1. Algebra 2 is 5=3x+7y, turn this into standard form. Factor y=x^2+2x+1. Graph y=(x-3)+2 and determine the intercepts. Hell, fractions are part of algebra 2, as is the intro to Pythagoras.


And if these principals think kids would perform better in geometry than algebra 2, go for it I guess? But they're gonna be behind on concepts if they just jump straight into geometry without algebra 2.

Eliminating the basic algebra requirement and replacing it with an undefined "other math," coming from a school executive, doesn't sound like "hey they can take geometry instead if they want," it sounds like replacing algebra with essentially nothing. If it was as simple as relaxing the requirements for taking other math courses like stats or geometry (both of which require algebra knowledge), they would have just said they want to relax course requirements for other math classes.



"I have no idea what grade 8 means in terms of age, on account of, you know, not growing up in the US."

You don't have access to Google? Takes maybe 10 seconds to figure it out.
hood
Member
Fri Jun 29 07:40:07
"Yup, as predicted... tangential pedantry."

I'm not sure what was confusing about "Basic fucking algebra. Graphing, y=mx+b, solving equations."

Where in the special hell would you ever relate the introduction to making graphs, being introduced to y=mx+b, solving equations with trigonometry (sin/cos/tan functions)?
Aeros
Member
Fri Jun 29 07:54:44
If you can't solve for y in x-x=y you really have no business being in university unless you are doing ethnic or gender studies.
smart dude
Member
Fri Jun 29 10:19:29
"Algebra 2 after geometry? Every curriculum I've seen puts geometry after algebra 2."

Dunno. That's how my school system did it.

"I have no idea what grade 8 means in terms of age, on account of, you know, not growing up in the US."

Age has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The point is the sequence. Are you willfully missing the point?

Seb
Member
Fri Jun 29 10:20:47
Hood:

Hmm, I think you are a little hooked onto an algebra centric view of Maths. Algebra is a powerful tool, and you can use it as the main lens to explore all maths - which is a common approach.

But some people find it rather dry, or abstract.
There are other approaches that do it differently. And this works because underlying it all is a common set of concept approached in slightly different ways.

And it depends what this chap is trying to achieve.

If, for example, you are trying to identify people who might have an aptitude for maths, but are disinterested (or have been badly taught) algebra, then using other branches of maths as an assessment route seems good.

It doesn't sound like "hey, do other branches of maths", it sounds more like "there are other ways of getting into maths, other ways of understanding it, and if you are good at those, we can get you into algebra later".

"
"I'm not sure what was confusing about "Basic fucking algebra. Graphing, y=mx+b, solving equations."

I didn't say your post was confusing. I said it was tangential and pedantic - hope that clears things up.

"You don't have access to Google? Takes maybe 10 seconds to figure it out."

Right, I'm going to go to google and research US grade 8 syllabus and create a detailed policy response when I can encapsulate the general points in two paragraphs, as I did in my OP.


"Where in the special hell would you ever relate the introduction to making graphs, being introduced to y=mx+b, solving equations with trigonometry (sin/cos/tan functions)?"

Er, refuting your point:

"You aren't going to be solving for the magnitude of angles in a triangle if you don't know the basic rules of balancing/solving equations."

Not only was Geometry done for thousands of years *without* using equations in the formal sense of the theory of equations - it was used to design buildings that are *still standing*.

So actually, if you are taught appropriately, you absolutely will be able to calculate the angles in a triangle because you simply express it in the form of a ratio like, for example, the Greeks, Babylonians etc. and use geometric constructions to express what you are trying to get at.

Seb
Member
Fri Jun 29 10:32:05
smart dude:

"Age has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The point is the sequence. Are you willfully missing the point?"

In the UK, sequence and age are bound up with each other. Key stages etc. Mostly schools don't have a policy of holding people back a year if they fail.

And the same thing on sequence applies - there is no universal sequence and order for teaching maths.

I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

The other thing to consider is I got the impression this is about university selection. In the UK, we specialise way earlier than you do. Between 16 and 18 we study three or four subjects in preparation for university courses that traditionally are mono-disciplinary. So between 16 and 18 someone who wants to study physics at university will study Maths, Further Maths, Physics and Chemistry (probably to a greater level of depth than whatever you would do at 18 in the US) - and then spend three or four years doing a Physics course with maybe about one eighth of a years course content on additional subjects. There are very few courses that allow split subjects, and fewer that ape the breadth of US liberal arts degrees. Meanwhile most UK university entrants for non STEM subjects are likely not to have taken any Maths since their GCSE at 16.

So the point stands: 8th grade is meaningless to me - and it wasn't clear at all what sorts of levels people ought to have at the point in question.

I still think my OP sums up either view well. I don't see the problem in this - and your conception of maths seems to heavy on Algebra as being the only tool to understand and process mathematical concepts.
smart dude
Member
Fri Jun 29 10:37:50
"there is no universal sequence and order for teaching maths"

What part of the phrase "my education" made you think I was talking about a universal sequence?
Seb
Member
Fri Jun 29 10:42:42
Read the article again - it's really just saying "why make intermediate algebra a pre-requisite for graduation, particularly for courses that don't require maths".

GCSE Maths is a required subject in the UK, but would cover Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra 2 and Trigonometry and a bit of Stats by the looks of it. So you could likely get a decent mark while failing Algebra components. And you could likely get a C and still get into university if you were going to study e.g. English Literature, a foreign language or other subjects that don't need quantification.

So, uh, yeah - I don't see a problem in assessing people on the other branches of maths rather than just the Algebra element.


(*Often those clearly on a STEM track will typiucally take GCSE a year early and move straight into A Levels)
Seb
Member
Fri Jun 29 10:48:01
Smart dude:

You took issue with me asking "at what level" and suggested I was being contrarian.

If we have established that US grading systems, subject categorisation, syllabuses and teaching sequences are parochial conventions - then do you now perhaps accept that it's perfectly reasonable for me to ask "at what level" - because that is the crux of figuring out whether it is reasonable to say whether specifically Intermediate Algebra should be a pre-requisite for graduating college.

As far as I can tell, in the UK (and most of Europe) it is not. Rather, it is a broader assessment of maths - and there are multiple ways to teach and evaluate those.

So I'd say "er, yeah, this is a no brainer".

obaminated
Member
Fri Jun 29 13:07:40
Your parents pissed away a lot of money on your private education, seb.
McKobb
Member
Fri Jun 29 14:46:16
They are talking about community college pre-req math.
Seb
Member
Fri Jun 29 15:05:43
McKobb:

Yeah, no idea what community college is either. Different system.

Like I said, it sounds like you are making what would be a single module in our GCSE maths course a pass/fail pre-requisite for subsequent education - which seems a bit over the top to me.

And it sounds like the argument the article in the OP was making is simply "hey, lets broaden that to look at other maths modules" - which to me is a no brainer.

Obaminated:
I'm pretty sure - given I went on to get a PhD from one of the worlds top universities, and a pretty fucking awesome job - that they didn't.
Seb
Member
Fri Jun 29 15:10:06
"If you fail Algebra, we are going to assume you are functionally innumerate and unable to do any quantitative reasoning" seems extreme.

Sure, you probably are not going to go on to do a theoretical maths course. But you also might also be dyscalcula but be absolutely fine doing coding.
kargen
Member
Fri Jun 29 16:04:07
I suppose if hotel shampoo can be racist then Algebra can be racist.
Pillz
Member
Sat Jun 30 01:04:14
All I'm seeing in this thread is Seb suggesting we regress mathematical curriculum by several thousand years to help blacks...?
Forwyn
Member
Sat Jun 30 02:19:08
This thread is classic Seb.
Seb
Member
Sat Jun 30 05:30:07
Pillz/Forwyn:

That's cause you are both idiots.

I have not suggested we regress maths several thousand years.

What I have said is that, for people who are not going to go on to study or work in a field requiring substantial mathematical aptitude, Algebra II shouldn't alone be a pre-requisite.

The general arguments being presented are: "but how can you do any other maths without algebra II?? If you can't do algebra II you don't have any mathematical capability" - I've pointed out not only is it possible to do complex maths without knowing the content of Algebra II, that was the norm until the 1500s.

Moreover, most countries are happy to accept overall performance across a range of maths modules, not simply algebra.

And frankly, given us Pisa rankings on Math, you probably want to think about whether you are teaching maths well. The inability to understand that Algebra isn't the lynch pin of maths is worrying - it suggests you just get taught it as a calculation tool so believe without algebra there's no capability to reason quantitatively. Which, as I pointed out, is wrong. There are many ways to do abstraction.
Seb
Member
Sat Jun 30 05:41:31
Also, one has to question anyone who deducts 1500 from 2018 to get a number that has at least 2000.
smart dude
Member
Sat Jun 30 06:00:31
Uh, Pillz never said anything about 1500. You're the one who brought up thousands-of-years-old math. Stop being autistic.
Seb
Member
Sat Jun 30 06:28:33
smart dude:

I've pointed out that for thousands of years up until the 16th century (it's in there!) maths was done without algebra.

Firstly, the point was not "lets go back there", the point was "algebra is not the sole metric for measuring ability to quantiatively reason".

So, to say this amounts to going back thousands of years is wrong. Firstly, that's not my argument - my argument is simply "algebra is not the only valid metric of mathematical ability, and should not therefore be a pre-requisite for future studies where algebra might not be needed".

Secondly, even if it were, it would amount to going back at most 518 years, not thousands. If X is the period we would be "going back to", X = 2018-1500=518. Perhaps Pillz failed Algebra II? If he passed it, he's clearly lacking the ability to reason quantitatively - which really only reinforces the original articles point.

Thirdly, the other non-algebraic branches of maths are still current. Geometric proofs are still used today for example.

So, basically, a big pile of wrong. Pillz should probably have been taught maths better.


Asgard
Member
Sat Jun 30 07:31:16
Oh for fuck's sake, Seb.

OK, take away Algebra.
Then they'll say calculus is too difficult and not a metric for success. Take away Calculus, and then they'll say Statistics is not a metric for success. Eventually, writing and reading will also be claimed to be not a metric for success.

Algebra is just the pick of the day, but those who make the pick will forever thrive on the stupidity of their own voters (which seems to include yourself)
The Children
Member
Sat Jun 30 08:04:28
nigga u wanna math, behold math difficulty level asian.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvhNnwrGBBs

just remember, u aint dealin with humans. we r saiyans, bitches. saiyans.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Sat Jun 30 10:54:33

Racism is racist.

obaminated
Member
Sat Jun 30 11:15:10
I dont understand the point of taking someone like seb seriously enough to keep arguing with him. He is stubborn. He is predictable. He wont change. There is no benefit to consistently arguing with him because he will never realize he is wrong. Everyone on this board realizes the flaw of this, he solely doesn't but refuses to accept that maybe he isnt as smart as he thinks he is.
obaminated
Member
Sat Jun 30 11:17:53
Seb and cuckhat legit have signs of the dunning-kruger effect.
Seb
Member
Sat Jun 30 12:48:24
Asgard:

Yeah, you don't really get it either.

Are you assessed solely and purely on algebra in Israel?

We aren't in the UK. Broadening the metric isn't the same as lowering standards, because algebra isn't objectively better than stats or geometry etc.

Or put it another way, what if we said "Ok, Stats requires a firm understanding of all core mathematical concept. So Stats II is the pre-requisite for university entrants, and anyone failing it will only be able to access non professional jobs" everyone would agree that's dumb.

So, why Algebra?

Seb
Member
Sat Jun 30 12:51:52
Obaminated:

Have you considered the problem is you?

Seriously, what the OP describes is essentially how the UK (and most oecd countries) operate. Maths is a required subject for highschool but consists of a number of modules, and the requirement is aggregate across them, not one course.

The US in PISA rankings is below OECD average and the UK is above it.

So objectively, who is being stubborn here?

Is it because the OP mentioned race, blinding you to the objective merits?
Pillz
Member
Sat Jun 30 13:38:22
Lol seb
Asgard
Member
Sat Jun 30 15:23:02
"Are you assessed solely and purely on algebra in Israel? "

No,
There are 3 groups you can be at when you take your Math finals: 3 points, 4 points, and 5 points. 3 is easy and 5 is for advanced pupils. In 5 Calculus I and II and Algebra are emphasized, while in 3 it's just a little bit of everything for the idiots.

I took 3 because I have an innate issue with numbers, I just can't get my heard around numbers, and trust me I tried. My dad is a PhD in Physics and he tried as well. Didn't work.

I still believe however it is a combination of laziness and/or a certain degree of dyscalcula that I have.

However, I know math is good, and important, and I know Algebra is key in many important things in life and work.
Cherub Cow
Member
Sat Jun 30 17:50:36
“I dont understand the point of taking someone like seb seriously enough to keep arguing with him. He is stubborn. He is predictable. He wont change. There is no benefit to consistently arguing with him because he will never realize he is wrong. Everyone on this board realizes the flaw of this, he solely doesn't but refuses to accept that maybe he isnt as smart as he thinks he is. [/] Seb and cuckhat legit have signs of the dunning-kruger effect.”

+1 Deer.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 01 04:10:57
Asgard:

So the point the OP is making is that on the US system you would fail to graduate any higher of further education.

If I had to make passing one module at that level mandatory for achieving higher or further education it would be one covering stats and probability.

Most people can do the kind of "solve for X" intuitively but many find formal algebra confusing. Intermediate algebra with expanding polynomials is largely irrelevant to most situations and will become more so. Probability and statistics though are increasingly important.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Jul 01 04:47:58
Minorities don’t have a hard time with math, just ask Asians, some groups do.

There is no reason to force math beyond the simplest form down where it does not belong, so in that light these things should be open for review, regardless of what ”minority” groups achieve scholastically. Unfortunatly by dressing it in this language, these proposals will, through the violation of principles, turn a lot of people, who may have supported it, away from it. There is a hearts and mind battle, that some seem dead set on losing.

An area where the diversity interest groups have complained about is tech. This proposal would be detrimental to any effort of getting increased diversity in that area. Another battle that some seem dead ser on losing, no doubt these lost battles will at a future date be used as examples of the racist and mysogynistic structures that bar women and minorities from entry. I am calling it :) *as a note I always found it amusing that all these ”Phds” in women studies and other social sciences complain about the lack of group X in tech.

There is this adage, things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler. You can water things down to a place where it becomes useless for everyone. It may be abstract, but it is very useful to keep in mind.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 01 07:26:04
If people are opposed to this regardless of its merits because it has a diversity impact, that's a problem for the opposers. People who object to diversity in principle... seriously?

As for this harming tech, I can't see it. Either they pass algebra 2, or if they are faili g it, unlikely to get into tech. The small number of people that can code but can't pass algebra 2 might benefit.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Jul 01 09:51:15
It does not harm tech, at all, it harms the efforts of getting more minorities into tech. Big difference though I don't care how many programmers are latino or black.

I object to diversity as a principle, but not in principle. I can only think of a few areas where I think diversity should be a goal to begin with. In other places I don't care and many times the opportunity cost is not worth it and it may have the opposite effect. If you keep whining about how awful (ALWAYS fear mongering exaggerated) the situation of X group is in X area, you could be scaring away those very people.

Education, health care, media and government authority (incl police). There is a benefit in the check and balances that different groups provide by policing each other and I think you need to have "your own image" reflected in certain places so that a social contract based on trust is possible. I could care less that only 10% of programers are women.

"because it has a diversity impact"

Skepticism is warranted.
It is so often the case with interest groups and movements, that they rapidly outrun the relevance of their mandate. The righteous cause becomes indistinguishable from the mere preservation of the movement. Suddenly the entire world is made of nails to be smashed with the hammer of justice.

There is an industry of consultant behind the curtains making money teaching everyone based on rather shaky "scientific" basis how to be better at diversity and less biased. Meanwhile angry mobs both IRL and on twitter trying to shut down any and all discourse on the very topics. You should be skeptical towards the diversity industrial complex, it is the only way to salvage actual diversity and equality from it maws.
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Jul 01 10:17:44
Of course seb is defending this.
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Jul 01 10:25:24
Seb thinks you can code well without algebra?

Ahahahahajahahahahaha

Coding with variables is basically the definition of algebra.

These days the children makes more sense than seb.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 01 10:31:31
Sam:

Having written a fuck load of code, and having worked numerous multi million pound tech projects with devs, it is possible to find people who can code but find algebra challenging.

Object.atribute(method) isn't the same as "expand the following series...".

Now, most of the code you and I have written is explicitly about solving analytical algebraic equations. So if you haven't a boad experience, you may think all coding is basically algebra.

But this is not what most developers do.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Jul 01 10:31:59
I think the diversity movement got so intoxicated by their success that at some point they decided that their PR was going to be about smashing people over the head with how horrible they are, the "jump the shark" moment is that we are unconsciously horrible. At some date, a critical amount of people stopped giving a shit for different reasons. Those people are now for various reasons skeptical towards anything carrying trigger words and phrases. Some of them are no doubt bigoted people

But every time anyone has pointed out this losing battle of the hearts and minds, they are told they are some derivative of fascist. Now, those words only have a bite so many times, but the big problem is that it will illicit a response sooner or later, a response that can be hard to predict but that will inevitably further tear the social fabric. Which I doubt is the goal of the diversity movement.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 01 10:36:47
The other mistake is to confuse performance in algebra 2 with ability.

Context, motivation and approach.
I flunked every foreign language at school.

I picked up Spanish to conversational level in a year living in a Spanish speaking country.

And of course I defend it, it's how most of the oecd all ready operate and the US is below OECD average in maths. So who'd want to follow your demonstrably poor methods?
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 01 10:38:50
Nim:

So you null hypothesis is that you'd expect the make up of professions to differ from that of society - and you think there are no obvious negative consequences that flow from that outcome to boot?

Seb
Member
Sun Jul 01 10:40:51
Nim:

I'll take shale oil salesmen as an acceptable consequence when the negative consequence of race based policies are literal armed Nazis marching on the streets.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Jul 01 10:44:25
You can learn to "code" without math, but to "program" and be good at it, you are not doing that without a deeper level understanding of math and algebra, no. But seb has a point, if we can teach more people to code that is great for everyone. There is tons of utility in people from all walks of profession learning to code.

You should really teach it early in school as a second or third language, in all honesty it should be mandatory. If that can be done without algebra, which I believe it can, there is really no reason to stand in the way. Hell you can even teach algebra with CODE, since you are solving an actual problem it becomes much less abstract. You also have a feedback mechanism telling you you did something wrong. That is actually brilliant, I hope someone has already thought of it.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Sun Jul 01 10:52:00
Coding skills/thought processes are used to teach all kinds of things, including math.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Jul 01 11:03:54
"So you null hypothesis is that you'd expect the make up of professions to differ from that of society"

The evidence suggest that biology and culture produces variance in things like interest and talent.

"and you think there are no obvious negative consequences that flow from that outcome to boot?"

I could not utter such a generic statement one way or another.

But even if there are a lot of "negative consequences" that flow, I don't think that state or me or you should to do something about every negative consequence. It has to decided case by case through multiple variables. I don't believe that there is something inherently wrong with a work place or professional area that is 90% anything. Likely colored by the fact that I am myself always trough virtue of who I am part of the 10% ever and always. In fact it is "much worse", in most spaces I am the 1%.
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Jul 01 11:19:21
"it is possible to find people who can code but find algebra challenging. "

I am sure you make great programs on time and on budget. Lol.
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Jul 01 11:24:20
"
Having written a fuck load of code, and having worked numerous multi million pound tech projects with devs"

A whole few million pounds huh? Lol. That must be a really important project.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Jul 01 11:28:35
Too narrow sam. People with coding skills are useful in non software developing companies. Place that may have a difficult time to even attract a real bona fide programmer to begin with.
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Jul 01 11:31:13
I guess the dmv does need some shitty html page to help gum things up and slow things down. Thanks seb.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 01 12:00:06
NIm:

That's not "a" point, it's a specific example of the entirety of my point.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 01 12:00:06
NIm:

That's not "a" point, it's a specific example of the entirety of my point.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 01 12:01:12
Sam:

£400m in savings an counting.
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 01 12:03:10
If you must know program budgets, then tens to hundreds. If a tech program costs more than a hundred or so:
1. It's going to fail.
2. It's the wrong solution.
3. You are being ripped off.
Asgard
Member
Sun Jul 01 12:50:12
Seb, "So the point the OP is making is that on the US system you would fail to graduate any higher of further education.


Good. I deserve to fail, because I didn't try hard enough. Because I didnt pass math with honors, I explored other means of success to find the niche I am good at.
Asgard
Member
Sun Jul 01 12:55:59
Also, Seb
do you believe in "participation awards"? like, getting the same rewards or awards or grades no matter if you did great or sucked?
Seb
Member
Sun Jul 01 14:49:16
Asgard:

So you don't have any form of higher or further education degree?

're participation awards - no. Why would you think so?
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Jul 01 17:15:50
"£400m in savings an counting."

Given your highly incompetent tendencies, you almost certainly 1) were a meaningless minor player and 2) probably just shifted losses to some other department.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 02 05:33:18
Sam:

your thoughts as a code monkey are always appreciated.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jul 02 10:34:59
NIm:

That's not "a" point, it's a specific example of the entirety of my point.

I did not understand what you leant here. From previous threads I conclude that you and I approach the variation in gender and ethnicity in a specific place differently. You operate on the assumption that something must be ”wrong” or socially injust, I don’t. There are examples where this assumption is true and others where they are not and readily explained by biology and culture. As an example from Sweden, Iranians are under represented in the Police force but are over-represented among dentists and doctors. There are fairly straight forward cultural reasons for this.

Finance (specially in the US) is good example of a sector wich bears all the hallmarks of a women unfriendly zone, though much progress has been made. Important to see how the task and business specific novelties, of a zero sum, highly competitive, high risk(not really) high reward work place comes to play a sigificant role in the type of culture that will emerge.

In fact yours and sams dick meassuring contest bears all the marks of the type of ”toxic masculinity” you would find in finance, but rarely in Engineering, a much more collaborative, interative environment where meassuring individual monetary value can be difficult. Or say in a hospital, where output simply does not scale very well, one way or another.
Seb
Member
Mon Jul 02 11:18:56
Nim:

"I did not understand what you leant here"

When you said I might have a point, what you then went on to outline as your position was the sum total of my position.

Note, I haven't said "do this because of diversity", I've said "do this because it's stupid to make a single maths module the pass/fail assessment of maths ability for people who are not going on to study subjects where algebra and higher maths is core requirement".

RE Diversity, if you were as science oriented as you say, you would not overlook the very large body of evidence that suggests people treat people differently based on how much they feel an association with them - race being one.

So having various functions not reflecting the make up of society does have issues.

And the null hypothesis should be equality - because saying any inequality may be explained by biological differences is a far, far cry from saying that any inequality *IS* due to biological differences - so it just becomes a whitewash argument to legitimise discrimination. The standards for proof that non-equal distributions should be high - and you don't tend to recognise how weak some of your claims often are and where there are un-evidenced gaps in your theory that require leaps of logic to span.


"but rarely in Engineering,"
LOL are you kidding me? Ok, true, in some areas it would be a lot more collaborative, but believe me dickswinging is as much about culture of the environment as it is about. I have been in plenty of engineering environments where dickswinging happens.

Sure, classic toxic masculinity - but this is a toxic environment and I don't believe in non-reciprocal civility where it is never going to be reciprocated.


murder
Member
Mon Jul 02 15:54:31

"What we’re saying is we want as rigorous a course as possible to determine a student’s ability to succeed, but it should be relevant to their course of study."

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Logical even.

Seb
Member
Tue Jul 03 05:20:07
But... But... Diversity!!

Etc. Etc.

It's a no brainer and how the rest of the developed world works, but it must be bad if it would result in more qualified black people.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 03 05:20:07
But... But... Diversity!!

Etc. Etc.

It's a no brainer and how the rest of the developed world works, but it must be bad if it would result in more qualified black people.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jul 03 06:56:24
"When you said I might have a point, what you then went on to outline as your position was the sum total of my position."

*First of let me say that, it is a very very bad omen for this conversation, when you even diminish my giving you the point. I said "But seb has a point", not you "might have a point".*

Indeed, it is that we are all very skeptical since there has not been a single policy proposal posted on this board with the word "equality" or "minority" attached to it that you did not support. I agree with you when I think there is a valid point. I don't dismiss you out of hand, I even looked hard and found something charitable to extract from this "diversity" woo woo.

"you would not overlook the very large body of evidence that suggests people treat people differently based on how much they feel an association with them - race being one."

There are large bodies of evidence showing that stereotypes are accurate, even for race. Then what? I read a lot of behavioral research, probably more than most on this board. I don't think there are a lot of useful things that can be used with any degree of utility. The things I post here I post because they present data that is the complete opposite of the political and social consensus and often also policy. Food for thought if you will, caution before we try to sledgehammer the problems away.

"And the null hypothesis should be equality - because saying any inequality may be explained by biological"

If you were this great scientist you tell us you are, you would not use emotionally loaded words like "inequality". You are looking at difference in outcomes. Those difference could be because of inequality or... OTHER THINGS. Your "null hypothesis" is in the useless not even wrong category.

>>LOL are you kidding me? Ok, true, in some areas it would be a lot more collaborative, but believe me dickswinging is as much about culture of the environment as it is about. I have been in plenty of engineering environments where dickswinging happens.<<

I don't know what to make of this paragraph, you laugh at and instantly agree with what I said to then tell me NOT ALL ENGINEERING! So yes there are assholes everywhere, hence rarely lacking data I have to go on my own experience and those of others. What I was trying to illustrate was how there are factors that are inherent in the type of work and setting that will not only contribute to different work/company cultures but make them. Finance will attract a different type of person than engineering, this isn't very controversial. You are not designing the next car/rocket or whatever alone, but you can make millions in finance more or less by yourself. I feel confident in saying that misogynistic behavior is not very common in engineering and that this is largely due to how the work is done, that in turn attracts people who are more agreeable and collaborative. But of course the trivial point you made is correct, not all engineers. Of course.

>>Sure, classic toxic masculinity - but this is a toxic environment and I don't believe in non-reciprocal civility where it is never going to be reciprocated.<<

But it your choice to engage with those you think are uncivilized in what can only be described as completely unfruitful exchanges. You can predict sams behavior with 95% confidence. Anyway I am not here to tell you who to talk to, just an observation in light of the topic.
Seb
Member
Tue Jul 03 09:28:33
Nim:

I think the fact that everything posted on this board regarding diversity and equality is done so with the express purpose of pointing out how terrible it is; and in this case where the proposal is simply to broaden maths requitements away from algebra for subjects that do not require higher maths (which is no more than to adopt the standard approach globally), the fact almost all the usual suspects immediately disagreed with it, and you evidently had to work so hard to find merit in it says way more about you guys than me.

You lot generally respond to diversity and equality measures with scepticism if not outright hostility with no consideration of the merit at all.

This change is a no brainer on its own merit.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Jul 11 02:44:54
Just you, well not just you, but also people like you. Most of us agree on the principle of equality, we just reject the application in many of the forms they take. There are more ways for people like you to fuck up the application of a principle than there are way to apply it. You are just not a wise person and most of us do not have the time or see any upside in spending hours explaining it for you. That the simple move from principle to application, still, confuses you, is evidence of that.
Seb
Member
Wed Jul 11 17:10:48
Nim:

Your position appears to be a mirror image of mine *at best* - so I don't know where you find the confidence that you are objectively right. Especially when your attempts at putting your beliefs onto a factual basis involve consistent misreading and misrepresentation of science.

In any case, you pretty much admit to argument ad-hominem here: you agree the change proposed has merit in it's own right, but believe it is reasonable to oppose it simply because I support it.


Seb
Member
Wed Jul 11 17:17:18
BTW, I find it hilarious that you think "inequality" is dangerously emotional and unscientific, while using terms like "woo woo".

I think the real question is why you find talk of equality so damn threatening.

"I feel confident in saying that misogynistic behavior is not very common in engineering and that this is largely due to how the work is done"

Again, I wonder where that confidence comes from. Software development being a form of engineering for a start.

To sustain these kinds of arguments you have to outright ignore copious evidence to the contrary, not least the very large volume of complaints by women working in engineering disciplines. It is also possible your view of what constitutes sexism effectively limits it to overt and irrational expressions of hatred - which is essentially meaningless.

I'm a dirty empiricist - you very much remind me of the kind of theorist who insists that something must be true because your theoretical framework demands it.
McKobb
Member
Wed Jul 11 18:30:42
lulz
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jul 12 05:40:13
The proposal has merits, despite the idiot (you) who supports it for all the wrong reasons. The idiot also supports ALL such meassures provided they are dressed in the correct language. That was the ad hominen you missed, it has real topic substans. We can predict your support based on superficial language, alone. I think that has merit beyond a mere insult.

The confidence comes from working in and with more engineering companies than most people (engineers included) with organisational issues among other things, (consultant for many years). These behavioral studies are not merely a hobby, they are of proffesional intrest as well, complex things beyond the understanding of a software developer, apparently.

Fuzzy studies and working with people as the subject requires a degree emotional control and acumen you do not need when developing software or solving math. Fuzzy is difficult, not unserious or unimportant.

You are laughable. I consitently tell you very little in behavioral research can be extrapolated to the general. I present evidence contrary to your unfounded ”right value” type public policies, which you promptly disregard, then turn around and accuse me of doing the above. Talking to you has as much value as talking with Hot Rod, it is a never ending roller coaster of retardation. I genuinly question your general intelligence, you really come off as the stereotypical autistic software developer.



Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jul 12 06:19:40
Also lying piece of shit. I said ”lacking data I have to go on my own experience and those of others.”, which while far from objective is based on years of experience in with very different companies and many companies. It isn’t scientific, it is proffesional opinion about my own proffesion based on a larger sample than most people would experience in a lifetime. When you work as a consultant in management you get to see alot, specifically how people organise and behave in those structures/norms and company cultures. Relevant experience for the topic you’d say?

There are aweful places, places that should not exist (often they do not for long) there are horrible people, they are not the norm in industry or engineers. You happen to work in software, which is extreme even in engineering for having so few women. But even there, no evidence for the world you paint. One explanation, the autistic side of the spectrum is male dominated (several times over) specially functionally autistic people, people who can sit for hours doing rather repetitive things with ”code” and numbers and. Maybe alone in a room or at home, not needing a lot of communication skills when the nature of the game is relatively objective. Those people excel in these environment and they are selected against in other domains.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jul 12 06:20:31
Wouldn’t* experience in a lifetime
Seb
Member
Thu Jul 12 06:21:30
Nim:

You yourself have noted I do not, in fact, support all such initiatives. I defend them in terms of the detail and mechanics not language. And in any case it says no more about me than it does you in that you reject just as many proposals and I could argue with as much force as you do that your basis for opposing them is so purely based on language. Possibly more so as you describe "inequality" as emotionally loaded - i.e. you reject the very language used to describe the phenomenology as being partisan, which is properly Orwellian in the newspeak sense. Use of the term "SJW" unironically is a great giveaway.

I've worked for over a decade in engineering heavy big science. I've also spent a fair bit in the delivery side of government which is about 90% software and IT infrastructure (we do in-house delivery). I think you might be generalising from your particular experience as it does not reflect my experience.

And frankly you don't strike me as the kind of person (based on how quick you are to dismiss obvious causal mechanisms for extremely poorly evidenced genetic influences that are weak at best) who goes out of his way to notice systemic discrimination and as a man wouldn't experience it directly. Which is one reason I'm not really likely to be pursuaded by your personal experience.

Meanwhile objective stats suggest lots of discrimination and harassment, as do various narrative accounts.

"ou do not need when developing software" so, so wrong. 65% of big IT projects fail, and they fail in the requirements stage because of failures of communication between business and and delivery team & lack of empathy with the user to understand their needs rather than generating mechanistic requirements. The bulk of success of Faang style companies in retail product development is heavy investment on user research with techniques borrowed from anthropology, embeded in multidisciplinary teams, forcing developers to identify and understand users.

Consider why Cisco, which had the engineers, market position and finance managed to lose out on cloud to Amazon in the space of a few years.

And on the carrier grade infrastructure, again it means working across teams and building excellent relationships.

The idea you can do much with semi autistic code monkey in a cubicle, or that you can rise to senior engineer, developer, product manager without having very strong social skills is just wrong.

You claim I'm extrapolating to the general. I'm not. I'm doing the reverse: I'm saying this statement of yours below, which is general, seems pretty baseless:

"I feel confident in saying that misogynistic behavior is not very common in engineering and that this is largely due to how the work is done"

There is plenty of evidence for really shitty behaviour towards women in engineering settings, even in collaborative settings.

And you've admitted this is primarily based on personal experience, which I don't think is "behavioural research".
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jul 12 07:22:52
"inequality"

I understand that for a physics major who is trying to argue outside the scope of his intelligence, this is objectionable. But I will repeat, when you see (measure) a difference in outcome between two groups, that is what that is at that point, a difference in outcome.

Woo woo has been the colloqiual term used to describe psudeoscience and bullshitvending since I had these discussions with creationists. It isn’t the hypothesis and topic of discussion, but an off the cuff remark. I have different standards for scientific claims and mere flaming. Seems reasonable, but I understand how that may confuse you, in light of how badly you can keep track of these conversations.

But on a personal note seb, I have no issues defering to greater knowledge or people who are better informed or more intelligent than me. I do it on a daily basis, and many conversations on this board I am just an observer. This is not one of those topics, you are in this context not one of those peiole. And while I claim knowledge, I admit that a. I do not understand it well enough to explain it to everyone and b. even if I could, it is naive to think that everyone (you) are guided by scientific rigor and logic on this one, emotional control is difficult about the topics that can never be detached from the personal (e.g social science). The idea, that if I just present the right evidence, with the right tone of language, you will be convinced. That is incredibly naive, since you have said you think this is all a battle of values (where yours are superior), i.e a religious war. Creationist logic.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jul 12 07:34:04
You are correct. I do not go out of my way to notice systemic discrimination. I rely on data and the knowledge that human systems is a messy and complicated area of study. The big difference between us is that I am far more conservative in how I would act on the data available, I always want to do as little as possible until we have more data, in other words understand the problem better. You are the opposite, you are the hyperallergic immune response that will kill a person because they ate peanuts. You are what one would expect in a politician who is trying to get elected, not a scientist.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jul 12 07:39:53
”There is plenty of evidence for really shitty behaviour towards women in engineering settings, even in collaborative settings.”

I think there is plenty of evidence that would convince someone that thinks difference in outcome = social injustice.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jul 12 07:46:25
This isn’t an either/or discussion for me as it is for you, despite your best attempts to paint it as such. I see shades of grey, I see the entire human nature to nurture spectrum at work. I repeat this not as cop out, but an admission, it is complex, people like you will be disappointed since you approach it with answers in hand, or as you said ”go out of your way to notice”. Funny since you lobbed this criticism at me, but that is the mind set that turns a complex world into one full of nails. Tsk tsk tsk...
Seb
Member
Thu Jul 12 08:55:10
Nim:

I didn't get a fucking doctorate in Physics to be called a *major* :P

I'm no operating outside the scope of my intelligence.

"But I will repeat, when you see (measure) a difference in outcome between two groups, that is what that is at that point, a difference in outcome."

I don't think that at all addresses the point. What is "emotional" and "unscientific" about the term "inequality" to you?

"Woo woo has been the colloqiual term"
I.e. emotional loaded and unscientific. You took me to task for using the term inequality on that basis!

"This is not one of those topics"

Yes, I am aware that scanning a few abstracts has led you to believe you are something of the expert on these matters. Alas, those of us *with* a scientific background largely agree you do not appear to be able to correctly read scientific papers, and posters with a strong background in psychology and biology (with postdoctoral qualifications if I recall) do no subscribe to your supposed expertise in these matters.

I would be careful and recall Feynman's dictum on such matters (often miss-attributed to Einstein), if you believe you understand something yet cannot explain it.

The fact you appear to exclude your own position from being "emotional" is interestinng.

I can be convinced by evidence. I regularly am convinced by evidence. As I have often pointed out, your arguments lack rigor. You will take a few pieces of evidence that can support multiple conclusions, you will pick the conclusion you want it to support, and you will frequently invoke multiple auxiliary hypotheses with no supporting evidence (i.e. assumptions) to support those conclusions you do support but fail to acknowledge that until they too are proven, your conclusion cannot stand simply on the evidence you have cited.

This is basic science, and one of the most infuriating things about you is your inability to grasp what you are doing is therefore not scientific at all, no matter how many abstracts you cite (and having access still to some pay walled journals, I can frequently see you have not read beyond the publicly available abstract at all).

"I think there is plenty of evidence that would convince someone that thinks difference in outcome = social injustice."

Nim, I don't believe that difference in outcome necessarily proves discrimination. However, there is a lot of specific evidence of discrimination such that to exclude it is daft.

Starting from a null hypothesis that all difference in outcome can be explained by genetics is a value judgement in itself. And one that requires absolute discounting of so much evidence of actual acts of discrimination that it is simply incredible to believe.

This is where the biggest biases in science emerge: choice of null hypothesis.


Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jul 12 09:40:52
"I'm no operating outside the scope of my intelligence."

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

"I.e. emotional loaded and unscientific. You took me to task for using the term inequality on that basis!"

An off the cuff remark about your unscientific language to describe the problem you want to talk about, scientifically. You don't get it? You get so lost so quickly in the conversation seb. Come on bro, use that phd level intellect and stay focused!

"Alas, those of us *with* a scientific background largely agree you do not appear to be able to correctly read scientific papers, and posters with a strong background in psychology and biology"

So.. some people, disagree with other people on UP. Have to break it to you, the topic transcended Utopiaforums as a marketplace for exchange. So, yes, like any area where we pursue knowledge, there is disagreement. Right...

"if you believe you understand something yet cannot explain it."

This is true, but that "understanding" in that sense is about theory, pedagogy, expertise is about application, skill. If your car mechanics tells you your breaks are broken, he may not explain exactly why, but you are probably a moron if you drive away with that car. Expertise level understanding, saves lives. It is also the level of understanding needed for me to say that things you say are, retarded, simplistic and wrong more often than right. Also the thing I would have to say to sam adams about his understanding of genetics, because you are both equally wrong, I just do not think sam is as emotionally invested in his story as you are.

Seb
Member
Thu Jul 12 10:51:24
Nim:

Your opinion that I am is unsubstantiated by facts and another example of the kind if unsustainable fluff you come up with.

I'm sorry you can't credibly claim the sole right to speak off the cuff, while simultaneously claiming the term inequality is "unscientific" and "emotionaly loaded" when its a well established term in social research.

"disagree with other people"

I'm pointing out that your very *understanding* of sources you cite are in question here. They frequently do not support the conclusions you attatch to them. On occasion specifically explaining why such conclusions cannot be drawn. That's something you ought to take into account before claiming expertise. This is very different to disagreement within the field of study.

The field of study is nowhere near so developed that you can say "differrnt outcomes can be explained without reference to systemic discrimination" with anything approaching the confidence and certainty of a mechanic saying "your breaks are broken" - and your apparent belief that you can do so likely stems from your unscientific approach to the literature that all of us here with established scientific credentials have pointed out.
Seb
Member
Thu Jul 12 10:52:42
You don't think Sam s emotionally invested despite being responsible for the bulk of such threads, and the intensely personal framing of them?

That's a very interesting take.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 13 05:28:21
Because there is no difference in describing a posters behavior and describing the topic of discussion framed as a scientific goal. The roller coaster of arbitrary things to get upset over while missing the point you yourself is trying to make.

I am not a dogmatic person one way or another, things have a time and place, even calling someone an idiot or using "hyperbolic" language.

"and your apparent belief that you can do so likely stems from your unscientific approach to the literature that all of us here with established scientific credentials have pointed out."

Your mutation of what I say, is very retarded and unscientific, I have heard it several times and I agree. But even with that, this topic is discussed outside the UP bubble where you seem to take the social temperature of the world from. The word on the streets, is that A LOT of people with accredited degrees far more relevant that yours, would tell you the same things I am. Your view is simplistic and going out of your way to find things, will result in finding those things, publishing them to much fanfare and then stay silent as the replication efforts fail to produce statistically significant results.

The assumption and injection of injustice into complex social outcomes will reliably produce outrage providing simple explanations from a field that is marred with issues that I have talked about and posted here. We don't have good enough answers, calm the fuck down.

^Count how many times I have told you this. So you whining about me calling the shit you peddle woo woo, is kinda meh, specially when you have called me all sorts of things, cargo cultist being the most frequently used. So shove it up that hypocritical British ass.

That is not to say injustice does not exist, but that your approach to this (from a sociopolitical view) is awful. We should go in with an open mind, be professional and rigorous and see what we find with as few assumptions as possible. Difficult, impossible for you.

>>You don't think Sam s emotionally invested despite being responsible for the bulk of such threads, and the intensely personal framing of them?<<

No I do not think that sam adams political view hinges on blacks being genetically inferior to whites (some kind of Nazi). He may think that and be wrong, but his values are not at stake, yours are. I think he enjoys fucking with you though. Are you fucking with us seb?

>>The field of study is nowhere near so developed that you can say "differrnt outcomes can be explained without reference to systemic discrimination"<<

vs what I said earlier

"I consitently tell you very little in behavioral research can be extrapolated to the general."

So who said the discussion was over? Not me, I don't think people should be fired for discussing these issues.

These threads are a trainwreck when you are involved, the longer we entertain your stupidity as something useful to respond to, the further away from anything resembling a coherent conversation it becomes. But entertain we do, the show always goes on. Until a point, where by having rendered the topic utterly impossible to discuss with your version of what has been said, you claim victory by walk over (as the reasonable people lose patience) and by virtue of an accredited education.

Keep "winning" bro.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Jul 13 05:47:13
I hope the confusion has settled over why flaming and using rather harsh language to describe each other is not the same thing as using hyperbolic language to describe social problems, while at the same time whining about hyperbolic language to describe social problems.

Now I agree, we could be kinder to each other and more charitable in our interpretation and forgiving when people say "stupid shit", but such charity is wasted on you. We did all the 3 big ones seb, Islam, gender theory and immigration, you failed to stay even reasonably _honest_. Which btw is mainly what I question, not your mathematical credentials, but your honesty. A dishonest person with a PhD, is still a dishonest little shit.
Seb
Member
Fri Jul 13 16:57:43
Nim:

Oh, you were the one that started to use Utopia as a benchmark as I recall.

I've already pointed out just how few people in the actual academic field and literature subscribe to your interpretations (and on occasions the very author of papers you are citing go out of the way in discussion section to explain how it does not support the weight of the conclusion you wish them to bare).

"The assumption"

See this is the bit that basically robs you of any credibility. Do you understand what the word assumption means? Are you *seriously* suggesting there isn't ample evidence of discriminatory practices?

"and injection of injustice into complex social outcomes"

Again, injection, implies you think there is not injustice when there are ample and well documented examples of it.

Your argument boils down to "yes, there are some remarkably unballanced outcomes, but I see no evidence at all for discrimination of any form, and I'm pretty sure if I extrapolate wildly from a few contested results and apply some cod evolutionary theory without bothering too much about verifying and testing any of the assumptions needed to support that extrapolation, there is a plausible case that this is all a perfectly natural result. And goddamit those women complaining about sexism are just complaining about nothing."

"We don't have good enough answers, calm the fuck down."

You keep saying calm the fuck down - you really are the one that comes across as unhinged. You were rambling about threats to democracy a couple of days ago and how I was too calm in the face of draft legislation that actually didn't really ammount to remotely the level of threat you were claiming.

". So you whining about me calling the shit you peddle woo woo,"

No. I think you will find I was pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of claiming "inequality" was emotionally loaded and unscientific while simultaneously you engage in hyperbole like "threat to democracy" and use terms like "woo woo".

You can call it woo woo if you like, your error is far more substantive than you choice of language, but you can't really expect me to take you seriously when you engage in such enormous double standards!

"So shove it up that hypocritical British ass."
I really think you need to improve your comprehension given you are now accusing me of hypocrisy because I accused you of hypocrisy.

"We should go in with an open mind"
Not so open ones brain falls out. You don't go in with an open mind. You go in with an *assumption* that biology explains all - and you will fill any gaps in your argument with unproven assumptions. And you ignore any evidence of discrimination on the basis that you *might* at some point be able to explain it (if you ever get around to validating all the auxillary hypothesis) with your cod-biology.

A scientist values skepticism, not "everything is possible".

"No I do not think that sam adams political view hinges on blacks being genetically inferior to whites"

Despite his endless re-assertion of that gain and again and again at every opportunity, and his creation of god knows how many threads about it? I think at some point you have to take people at face value rather than assume they are being edgelords. That's my policy on anonymous fora such as these - there is precious little point in second guessing people.

In any case, I said emotionally involved, and even if he is trolling, that's still an emotional investment in "proving me wrong" or whatever.

"his values are not at stake, yours are."
In what way are my values at stake Nim? This seems a weird thing. It might seem weird to you but I don't look to Utopia to validate my values. Of course my values inform my position - don't yours? But facts and analysis inform them too. Some things are normative choices: there is no scientific principle that will let you calculate a persons intrinsic worth, for example. Inalienable rights are axiomatic, not empirical.

"These threads are a trainwreck when you are involved,"

Yeah, largely because you throw a meta-wobbly when anyone points out your evidence and argument do not support your conclusion and start warbling on about things like values, emotions and virtue signalling.

As for being bent out of shape that I described your assertion that I was being glib in the face of a threat to democracy posed by article 13 and 11 of the copyright directive "hyperbolic", but, you know, it was. There is no way that's a threat to democracy or a gross violation of freedom of speech. And if you feel the language is undiplomatic, what then is "glib"?

You say I'm dishonest, but really, I think the problem is you are not honest with yourself. Seldom do you seem to look to the weakness in your own arguments.


show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share