The Second Apocalypse
Miscellaneous Chatter => General Misc. => Topic started by: Madness on November 21, 2017, 03:14:05 pm
-
Great episode (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPqWstVnRjQ) with mycologist Paul Stamets.
-
I don't trust that guy. Too many big statements, where are the publications in high impact journals? Fungi are cool though.
-
I found him fun to listen to. Here's hoping he's right, would be cool to converse with a fungus.
-
Joe Rogan Experience with Dan Carlin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceItMiYZe9Y)
- Dan Carlin's Hardcore History (http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/)
A meandering episode - though, I still thought it was great - and it got especially salient for me nearer the end when they discuss education. HH is definitely worth a listen, though, if you have any interest in history.
-
Thought I'd consolidate.
Andy Stumpf (https://youtu.be/kRo_9g0g9-k) - starts off a little rough and I definitely don't agree with everything he's saying but damn, it gets really good in the latter half. Also, noteworthy for Dora Vee, I believe, spends a minute or two disparaging people who impersonate servicepeople.
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." - James Mattis
-
Where, exactly, but that's a lot of podcast to go through. lolol
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USg3NR76XpQ
-
Jordan Peterson is interesting. He can go from saying things that sound sensible at one moment to complete nonsense like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7GKmznaqsQ&t=43m56s
I wouldn't trust anything coming out of that man's mouth.
-
I had a look at the The Pareto distribution, it looks like it is an accepted statistical tool.
I only saw him as someone mentioned the lauriel university scandal to me and he ended up commenting on it.
-
Been looking through some videos, it's mostly the drama ones that pop up. like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMSmUzDt-7U
-
I meant more the assertion that gender differences are largest in Scandinavian countries and that this gender difference is specifically caused by genetic differences between the sexes. What asshole did he pull that information out of?
-
I meant more the assertion that gender differences are largest in Scandinavian countries and that this gender difference is specifically caused by genetic differences between the sexes. What asshole did he pull that information out of?
Have you ever tried to find out? Or are you asking me to find out for you?
The first google i get is this paper
Countries with Higher Levels of Gender Equality Show Larger National Sex Differences in Mathematics Anxiety and Relatively Lower Parental Mathematics Valuation for Girls
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153857
The next google result stated this documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
My main interest was in the protests about him and how they were conducted, what he was saying was pretty immaterial at the time.
-
summary's of study'(s)
https://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf
http://jamda.ub.gu.se/bitstream/1/833/1/scb_eng_2014.pdf
-
I meant more the assertion that gender differences are largest in Scandinavian countries and that this gender difference is specifically caused by genetic differences between the sexes. What asshole did he pull that information out of?
Have you ever tried to find out? Or are you asking me to find out for you?
The first google i get is this paper
Countries with Higher Levels of Gender Equality Show Larger National Sex Differences in Mathematics Anxiety and Relatively Lower Parental Mathematics Valuation for Girls
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153857
The next google result stated this documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
My main interest was in the protests about him and how they were conducted, what he was saying was pretty immaterial at the time.
A quote from the linked study:
Further, we found that boys reported higher perceived parental valuation of mathematics than did girls, and parents actually rated mathematical development as more important for sons than for daughters. The differential valuation of mathematics between the sexes was larger in more developed countries. Paradoxically, economic and social development was associated with a widening gap between parents’ beliefs about the importance of mathematics for sons versus daughters. We found that in this respect the Nordic countries differ from most other countries: These countries score highest in gender equality and have no (Iceland) or a small (Norway, Sweden, Finland) difference between parental valuation of sons’ and daughters’ mathematical development. Further study of the unique socio-cultural factors affecting sex differences in these specific countries will be of importance for better understanding the relation between gender equality and gender differences in educational attitudes.
I don't see how this harmonizes with the conclusion. Would you also e.g. say that girls just intrinsically find pink to be a more desirable color? But pink only became associated with femininity last century. It's dangerous to make sweeping conclusions about some "intrinsic" variability when we are ALWAYS associated with a specific culture.
Regarding https://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf , when looking at table 1, one of the things that can be seen is that some very well developed countries Far Eastern countries have a very low GSDI. Maybe Western culture is somehow correlated with sex differences? Even if there was a clean trend, it'd still be a premature condition since you'd have to show that these differences are specifically caused by sex and not by socio-cultural tendencies associated with higher human development, i.e. you need to show that this proposition It is proposed that heightened levels of sexual
dimorphism result from personality traits of men and women being less constrained and more able to
naturally diverge in developed nations.
is true, or seems to be true, which it doesn't seem to be IMO given that we are bombarded with culture and ideals all the time.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say that there are no differences between the sexes. What I'm taking issue with are broad politically motivated statements.
-
I'm not qualified to interpret the studies, especially since I don't have access to the full one or the methodology etc.
I'm just answering "What asshole did he pull that information out of?"
I'm totally the wrong person to debate this. I just found hm cause of a conversation about Laurier university and how they lied to a TA that her showing a Peterson clip got complaints then organised a kangeroo court to try her, and if she hadn't secretly recorded it she would have been in the deep shit. The report exonerating her in every way just came out before Christmas.
So i searched Peterson and saw the two videos i posted, me and Madness had spoke about Rogan on Skype (i'm an MMA fan so i know him from commentary on that) and it's a Canadian academic department so posted the link.
There's every chance i'm not even representing his views correctly so any argument would be null anyway.
-
I'm not qualified to interpret the studies, especially since I don't have access to the full one or the methodology etc.
I'm just answering "What asshole did he pull that information out of?"
I'm totally the wrong person to debate this. I just found hm cause of a conversation about Laurier university and how they lied to a TA that her showing a Peterson clip got complaints then organised a kangeroo court to try her, and if she hadn't secretly recorded it she would have been in the deep shit. The report exonerating her in every way just came out before Christmas.
So i searched Peterson and saw the two videos i posted, me and Madness had spoke about Rogan on Skype (i'm an MMA fan so i know him from commentary on that) and it's a Canadian academic department so posted the link.
There's every chance i'm not even representing his views correctly so any argument would be null anyway.
I see. Yeah that thing was pretty awful. Not only was it shameful behavior in itself, but it also helps fuel the fires in the already heated debate regarding SJWs.
-
#1062. Dan Harris is a correspondent for ABC News, an anchor for Nightline and co-anchor for the weekend edition of Good Morning America. With Jeff Warren, writer & meditator, he has written a new book "Meditation for Fidgety Skeptics: A 10% Happier How-to Book" (http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/dan-harris-jeff-warren)
A Cast that dragged for me yet I think is very important to disseminate.
-
JRE #729 - Jocko Willink (http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/jocko-willink) - I've been working through Willink's guest appearances in chronological order before I start listening to Willink's own podcast (pail, if you read this, you'll be happy to know I finally listened to an episode of Waking Up with Sam Harris because of Willink's dialogue with him). Very interesting person.
-
I like the Samster - he seems to be the pinnacle persona of someone making a damn hard try at figuring things out without the degrees. I've read ( audio books ) some of his stuff and it's entertaining and drove me to think on some things, so I find it quality stuff.
That all said, he is an impressive "hack" in that he does not sport the authority on subjects for which his erudition supports. Which is ok with me, having outsiders contribute is fine ( kinda what I feel like I'm doing in this forum ), challenging the experts is worthwhile, but he should make his qualifications more clear. "I've spent a lot of time studying/thinking on this stuff, but not as an academic and none of what I'm talking about stems from a proper study". He's charismatic and forges impressive arguments, but is essentially a published blogger.
-
Yeah he didn't he even do his own experiments on his phd thesis. He also goes back and edits blog posts when he is wrong and doesn't mention it, fortunately he has pissed of a group of ostensibly philosopher's on reddit who now track him so anytime he does something like this.
He also says some ridiculous shit when talking about "Islam"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWhNHG2ETrk
It annoys me he talks about the need for war a lot but hasn't signed up. That's a general gripe of all the war hawks though.
-
Yeah he didn't he even do his own experiments on his phd thesis. He also goes back and edits blog posts when he is wrong and doesn't mention it, fortunately he has pissed of a group of ostensibly philosopher's on reddit who now track him so anytime he does something like this.
He also says some ridiculous shit when talking about "Islam"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWhNHG2ETrk
It annoys me he talks about the need for war a lot but hasn't signed up. That's a general gripe of all the war hawks though.
Yeah, I disagree with him on his stance with Islam ( as I do with Bill Maher, who I worship ) ... both are allowing their decisive criticism of religion creep into other arenas such as politics, war, etc., compromising their approach.
-
The Great Skeptic Himself, Michael Shermer (http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/michael-shermer-3) - Great listening, particularly contextual given the WDYB (Redux) thread.
Bonus Shermer round on Tangentially Speaking (https://chrisryanphd.com/tangentially-speaking/2018/1/9/295-michael-shermer-authorskeptic) With Christopher Ryan.
-
Sorry, couldn't even get past the self-promotion and sponsors. According to the notes, Shermer is a science writer, a historian of science, and "King of the Skeptics" (jk, jk...a little levity, no offense....).
His book looks interesting: "The Scientific Search For The Afterlife, Immortality and Utopia". I will go with the written word. Thanks for the link, Madness!
-
Sorry, couldn't even get past the self-promotion and sponsors. According to the notes, Schermer is a science writer, a historian of science, and "King of the Skeptics" (jk, jk...a little levity, no offense....).
His book looks interesting: "The Scientific Search For The Afterlife, Immortality and Utopia". I will go with the written word. Thanks for the link, Madness!
It's a little over two hours of listening. I'm sure it won't take you that long to dismiss him and save yourself the purchase.
-
Sorry, couldn't even get past the self-promotion and sponsors. According to the notes, Schermer is a science writer, a historian of science, and "King of the Skeptics" (jk, jk...a little levity, no offense....).
His book looks interesting: "The Scientific Search For The Afterlife, Immortality and Utopia". I will go with the written word. Thanks for the link, Madness!
It's a little over two hours of listening. I'm sure it won't take you that long to dismiss him and save yourself the purchase.
Wow.......................................well, OK, then.
As an amateur student of philosophy who was quite the skeptic back in the day (still have my copy of "Atheism: The Case Against God" purchased in the late 70s), I am interested in most forms of skepticism. I'm not, however, interested in Joe Rogan, his touring schedule, or in which state he thinks the city of Charlotte is located.
But, as I said, thanks for the link.
-
Michael Shermer is a shameless self promoter. He actively wanted to get on TV so secretly made an agreement with David Cole the Jewish holocaust denier/revisionist to appear on TV together to get his skeptic credentials.
You've probably seen Cole and Shermer on TV together on the 80's(90's maybe can't remember( they collaborated behind the scenes to get on TV, Cole secretly recorded Shermer and i've heard the tapes.
Cole faked his own death as the JDL has a price on his head but then Irv Ruben went to jail and David Cole became David Stein the republican party animal.
-
As an amateur student of philosophy who was quite the skeptic back in the day (still have my copy of "Atheism: The Case Against God" purchased in the late 70s), I am interested in most forms of skepticism. I'm not, however, interested in Joe Rogan, his touring schedule, or in which state he thinks the city of Charlotte is located.
That is literally the first couple minutes or so of the two plus hours. The youtube link doesn't include the brief adverts.