Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,287,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

**** Elections thread *****

Page 111 of 111 FirstFirst ... 1161101109110111
Results 8,251 to 8,309 of 8309
  1. #8251
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The tweet I link above claims the boy had tonsillitis and was initially given a bed, then was asked to give it up for an emergency.
    Does this seem plausible to you? That parents take a child to A&E because he has a sore throat? Those must be some super fucking protective parents.

    And even if you accept that, the kid is being given oxygen. You don't give that to someone with tonsillitis, you do it when they're having respiratory issues.

    If it's tonsillitis, it's some serious mutant infection if it's impairing his breathing.
  2. #8252
    Yeah it wouldn't surprise me if it was exaggerated, that's not why I posted the video of Boris being a douche though.
    Fair. Boris was a douche. But so was the journalist. I hate ambush journalism.

    Does this seem plausible to you? That parents take a child to A&E because he has a sore throat? Those must be some super fucking protective parents.
    I've never had tonsillitis, so I have no idea if it's comparable to a "sore throat". That said, if the child has been unwell for a week, then yes it's plausible.

    And even if you accept that, the kid is being given oxygen. You don't give that to someone with tonsillitis, you do it when they're having respiratory issues.
    This is another point that is being mentioned... the fact the kid has an inflated oxygen mask is being challenged by doctors and nurses... if he really needs that, then no way would they let him lie on the floor.

    Three days before an election. Sorry, I'm skeptical. It screams photo op.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  3. #8253
    dont forget traingate where Corbynn claimed he had to sit on the floor for a 3 hour journey and released it as a media stunt until virgin publihed the onboard video showing he had a seat for the trip. No point letting the truth get in the way of the message you are trying to scare voters with.
  4. #8254
    Yep, solid point. Corbyn has form for this sort of thing. Find me a politician who can be trusted, and I'll find you a goose that shits golden eggs.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  5. #8255
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,675
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Remember when Trump was talking about getting the Nobel Prize for his "talks" with N. Korea?

    TIL the word dotard describes an old and senile person, and not somebody who plays Dota badly. I refuse to stop using it the wrong way.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  6. #8256
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Fair. Boris was a douche. But so was the journalist. I hate ambush journalism.
    Not sure I'd call it an ambush though. Seems fair game to say 'here's what happened today, what do you have to say about it?' All Boris has to say is 'mumble, mumble, children are the future, we're doing everything we can, blah blah'. Not steal the guy's phone and then say something about 'call my agent for a proper interview'.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I've never had tonsillitis, so I have no idea if it's comparable to a "sore throat". That said, if the child has been unwell for a week, then yes it's plausible.
    You know what tonsils are though right? And you know 'itis' means inflammation. So basically it means your tonsils are infected, and yeah you have a sore throat. It might be really sore, but any parent with any sense can look at the kids throat, see the inflamed tonsils, and say 'oh fuck, little Billy has tonsilitis, let's take him to a doctor', not 'oh my god, my kid has a sore throat, he needs immediate surgery. A&E here we come!'


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is another point that is being mentioned... the fact the kid has an inflated oxygen mask is being challenged by doctors and nurses... if he really needs that, then no way would they let him lie on the floor.
    So what's the argument? The mask was photoshopped in? Or it didn't have oxygen in it but was a toy mask the parents bought the kid for his fun trip to A&E?



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Three days before an election. Sorry, I'm skeptical. It screams photo op.
    Even if you accept the photo is 'shopped' and the kid only has a cold or some shit, it doesn't change the fact the NHS is severely understaffed.

    I had a student getting constant headaches. Went to the doctor a few times then finally got booked for an MRI. It took 6 months to get that test. Fuck off, that's not proper health care.
  7. #8257
    So, this CMO either doesn't exist or she's just lying to feed the liberal media?

    Do you find her more trustworthy than the random guy on twitter you posted with no sources? Just wondering how deep your paranoia runs...


    Dr Yvette Oade, Chief Medical Officer at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust said: “Our hospitals are extremely busy at the moment and we are very sorry that Jack’s family had a long wait in our Emergency Department. Our Chief Executive Julian Hartley has spoken to Jack’s mum and offered a personal apology.

    “We have seen a significant increase in the number of people visiting our Paediatric Emergency Department, and this week we saw the highest attendances we have seen since April 2016. Despite this, our staff are working tirelessly to provide the best possible care under these extreme pressures.

    “Jack was quickly assessed upon arrival and seen in two different clinical treatment rooms in the Paediatric Emergency Department.

    “Within four hours a decision was made to admit Jack to our Children’s Assessment and Treatment (CAT) Unit for further monitoring overnight. Unfortunately, the unit was also experiencing exceptionally high levels of demand which meant that Jack was required to wait in the clinical treatment room in the Paediatric Emergency Department until a bed became available. Jack was admitted to the CAT Unit later that evening and was discharged home the following morning after a medical review.

    “We are extremely sorry that there were only chairs available in the treatment room, and no bed. This falls below our usual high standards, and for this we would like to sincerely apologise to Jack and his family.

    “We are increasing the bed availability in our Children’s Hospital and our Children’s Assessment and Treatment Unit will be relocating to a larger area in the new year. We are continuing to develop the plans for our new Children’s Hospital in Leeds which will be built in 2025.”
  8. #8258
    You know what tonsils are though right? And you know 'itis' means inflammation. So basically it means your tonsils are infected, and yeah you have a sore throat.
    Yes and yes.I'm sure you do have a sore throat. I wouldn't be surprised if other symptons were sometimes present, such as being sick.

    It might be really sore, but any parent with any sense can look at the kids throat, see the inflamed tonsils, and say 'oh fuck, little Billy has tonsilitis, let's take him to a doctor', not 'oh my god, my kid has a sore throat, he needs immediate surgery. A&E here we come!'
    Most sensible parents would indeed go to the doctor rather than A&E, but I think we both know that there are plenty out there prone to overreacting when it comes to the wellbeing of their offspring.

    So what's the argument? The mask was photoshopped in? Or it didn't have oxygen in it but was a toy mask the parents bought the kid for his fun trip to A&E?
    No idea. I doubt very much it's shopped, that's kind of ridiculous and likely to be exposed very quickly. And it's probably not a toy. I'm also skeptical of those on Twitter who claim to be nurses and doctors, but I don't disregard their comments entirely either.

    Even if you accept the photo is 'shopped' and the kid only has a cold or some shit, it doesn't change the fact the NHS is severely understaffed.
    True. I'm not disputing this.But what makes you think it'd be any better under Labour? It wasn't in 2009. The issue here though isn't the hospital being understaffed, it's a lack of beds, or more accurately, not enough hospitals for the population. If all the beds are taken, then that implies Leeds needs another hospital, not more nurses.

    I had a student getting constant headaches. Went to the doctor a few times then finally got booked for an MRI. It took 6 months to get that test. Fuck off, that's not proper health care.
    Agreed. The NHS has been going down the pan for as long as I can remember. let's not forget Labour have been in power during this time.

    Do you find her more trustworthy than the random guy on twitter you posted with no sources? Just wondering how deep your paranoia runs...
    Will you please try to tone down your sarcasm and attempt to have a civil discussion with me? Just because we disagree on so much, doesn't mean we have to be shitty to each other. I know I have my moments too, but it's not constant like you.

    That CMO doesn't tell us what was wrong with Jack. If he had tonsillitis, or flu, perhaps he's the lowest priority child in the hospital. Perhaps he'd have been better off at home. Should they tell the kid that just came in with a broken leg or whatever to go home? Or perhaps send him to Sheffield?

    I do agree that healthcare needs more investment. In fact, the only time I've ever voted in a GE, I voted for Doctor Richard Taylor, an independent who was campaigning for the restoration of Kidderminster A&E, which had been downgraded in favour of a super-hospital in Worcester, 20-odd miles away. Dr Taylor won, but sadly the hospital remained underfunded.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  9. #8259
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post

    Yes and yes.I'm sure you do have a sore throat. I wouldn't be surprised if other symptons were sometimes present, such as being sick.
    You feel unwell, yes. You don't feel like you can't breathe, not just from tonsillitis.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Will you please try to tone down your sarcasm and attempt to have a civil discussion with me? Just because we disagree on so much, doesn't mean we have to be shitty to each other. I know I have my moments too, but it's not constant like you.
    I'll try. It'd be easier if you actually thought before you spoke instead of just reflexively looking for a way to contradict me with whatever crap you can find on the internet.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    That CMO doesn't tell us what was wrong with Jack. If he had tonsillitis, or flu, perhaps he's the lowest priority child in the hospital. Perhaps he'd have been better off at home. Should they tell the kid that just came in with a broken leg or whatever to go home? Or perhaps send him to Sheffield?
    Reports are the kid had influenza A on top of his tonsillitis. So, not surprising he was having trouble breathing.

    And I'm not questioning how well the hospital does its triage. I'm happy to assume the hospital kicked him out of his bed because the other kid was in bigger difficulty. I'm questioning how a situation arises where a kid needs oxygen but there's no bed for him. It's a problem just like the student who needed a brain scan and had to wait 6 months. And there's plenty more similar stories.

    But you seem more concerned with whether someone tried to make political capital out of it, and with trying to present "evidence" (i.e., something posted on twitter) that it never happened when all the actual evidence suggests it not only did happen, but it's the kind of thing that happens a lot.
  10. #8260
    I'll try. It'd be easier if you actually thought before you spoke instead of just reflexively looking for a way to contradict me with whatever crap you can find on the internet.
    I guess this is why you have such contempt. You assume I'm just deliberately disagreeing with you for fun. I guess that's my own fault, because sometimes I do. But most of the time I don't. I just see the world differently to you. I've actually tried to be neutral in this discussion, because it's not something I felt strongly about. It's just the first activity here for a week. So I chipped in, And I'm more skeptical than you.

    This story will affect how some people vote, Leeds in particular. You have to question the motives of everyone involved. You can't just take stories that are highly politicised three days before an election at face value. This is the nut high time for propaganda. I don't know what to believe. I might be completely legit, it might be faked. How the hell would I know? There's times I've felt like the Conservatives are trying to lose this election. Frankly I just haven't got a clue what the fuck is going on in politics these days. It's a complete shitshow in which everyone is fiercely divided, and I don't think this is by accident. They've socially engineered us this way, probably to distract us and give us the illusion of choice. Fuck knows. All I know is that I don't want any of them to win the election.

    You think I'm paranoid, but I just think the media and politicians cannot be trusted. I don't think that's paranoia, I think that's healthy.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  11. #8261
    More fake reporting. Not the PM being a knobhead at all.

  12. #8262
    Not fake reporting, ambush journalism. Hey Boris, you're live on Good Morning Britain, I know this wasn't arranged but SURPRISE!

    Boris wasn't even that much of a twat there, not like the hospital incident.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  13. #8263
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,675
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    I am so desensitized by Donald Trump's unending stupidity that a prime minister hiding in a walk-in fridge does NOTHING for me.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  14. #8264
    did poop DDOS the forum to avoid the outcome ?
  15. #8265
    What's DDOS and how would it change the election results? If I had known that, I'd have tried it.

    Enjoy your next ten years of being poorer than you are today.
  16. #8266
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,546
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    DDOS = Distributed Denial Of Service

    It's basically an internet attack where a server is overloaded with access requests, shutting it down.

    Like if your phone keeps ringing, but every time you answer it, it's a crank call, then it's hard for you to answer any of the real calls, and all they get is a busy signal.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  17. #8267
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    Enjoy your next ten years of being poorer than you are today.

    There are two main reasons the Tories won by such a large margin - people are sick to fucking death of Brexit uncertainty, and people do not trust Labour's economic model.

    I spoiled my ballot. When can I change my mind? Tomorrow?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  18. #8268
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    There are two main reasons the Tories won by such a large margin - people are sick to fucking death of Brexit uncertainty, and people do not trust Labour's economic model.
    Remain parties won 52% of popular vote, Leave won 48%.

    This, according to some math a guy on the internet taught me, is a decisive victory for Remain.

    The reason Labour didn't win is because people are too dumb to vote strategically and the Remain vote got split between Labour and Lib Dems.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I spoiled my ballot. When can I change my mind? Tomorrow?
    First, lol at people who spoil their ballot. "I want to make a statement with my vote, and that statement is I dislike every party so much I'll take the time to go and spoil a ballot." What is the point? Just stay home.

    Second, legally you'll get another chance to spoil a ballot in five years or less. By then your benefits will probably be too little to get you to the polling station, but at least you will still be eating British fish.
  19. #8269
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    Remain parties won 52% of popular vote, Leave won 48%.
    I mean, I appreciate you're responding to my claim that Labour suffered because of their Brexit policy, but this wasn't a Brexit vote. Brexit was simply the dominant issue. Not everyone who voted Leave voted for a pro-Leave party, and not everyone who voted Remain voted for a pro-Remian party. But that doesn't change the fact that Labour's Brexit policy has cost them dearly. And the Libs.

    SNP got 45% of the populae vote in Scotland. 62% voted to Remain.

    I do agree that the result does not give Boris the mandate he thinks it does, but that's ok because the referendum we had years ago does give him that mandate.

    The reason Labour didn't win is because people are too dumb to vote strategically and the Remain vote got split between Labour and Lib Dems.
    I like the way the Tories won because "people are dumb", rather than because "Labour is unelectable". This is the problem with libs. Blame the masses, rather than the incompetence of people whose actual job it is to do politics and economics.

    Farage did what he had to do. He stood aside and allowed the Tories to walk it. If only Swinson had done the same, huh?

    First, lol at people who spoil their ballot. "I want to make a statement with my vote, and that statement is I dislike every party so much I'll take the time to go and spoil a ballot." What is the point? Just stay home.
    I disagree, and you're in the minority here. The vast majority of people would say the opposite... better to spoil your ballot than to stay at home. Spoiled ballots get counted, and if there's a lot of them, that in itself is a statement. More so than low turnout. I mean, you're entitled to your opinion here, there's not much between the two, but I chose to be actively apathetic, rather than lazy.

    Second, legally you'll get another chance to spoil a ballot in five years or less. By then your benefits will probably be too little to get you to the polling station, but at least you will still be eating British fish.
    Fun fact - I've been in receipt of benefits for the vast majority of ten years of Tory rule. Not once has my income been reduced during this time. Did you read that on the side of a bus or something?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  20. #8270
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post

    SNP got 45% of the populae vote in Scotland. 62% voted to Remain.
    This is so disingenuous as to be funny. The SNP was not the only party in Scotland that supported Remain.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I do agree that the result does not give Boris the mandate he thinks it does, but that's ok because the referendum we had years ago does give him that mandate.
    And now he has 6 weeks (minus xmas) to do what the Tories haven't managed to do in 3 years. This should be interesting. Imho, either

    a) He rams through a shitty deal; or
    b) He fails to ram through a shitty deal, and we're back at square one
    c) He gets a decent-to-good deal.

    What do you assess as being most likely? I'm betting on b) myself, followed by a) and c) seems least likely.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I like the way the Tories won because "people are dumb", rather than because "Labour is unelectable". This is the problem with libs. Blame the masses, rather than the incompetence of people whose actual job it is to do politics and economics.
    Half of the general population has a less than average IQ. I also wouldn't be surprised to find that in uncontested seats, the average IQ of a voter is lower.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Farage did what he had to do. He stood aside and allowed the Tories to walk it. If only Swinson had done the same, huh?
    Exactly. Or if the people had the sense to vote tactically. Either one would have worked.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The vast majority of people would say the opposite...
    1. Citation needed.
    2. See above about what I think about asking dumb people's opinions.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Spoiled ballots get counted, and if there's a lot of them, that in itself is a statement.
    I get that you think it's a kind of protest but seems there's more articulate ways to voice your protest than spoiling a ballot.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I chose to be actively apathetic,
    An oxymoron. You can't care enough to spoil a ballot at the same time as being too lazy to care.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    rather than lazy.
    I prefer the term 'using your time wisely.'

    It may shock you to hear this, but I don't usually vote. The reason is that I understand how little likelihood my vote has of making a difference. In this election, for example, the district I live in was overwhelmingly Tory, and has been for decades. I'm not going to waste my time going to the polls and filling out a ballot just so my side can lose by 49 999 votes rather thann 50 000.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Fun fact - I've been in receipt of benefits for the vast majority of ten years of Tory rule. Not once has my income been reduced during this time. Did you read that on the side of a bus or something?
    There's been no Brexits in those 10 years.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Did you read that on the side of a bus or something?
    I thought you were going to stop being sarcastic?
  21. #8271
    It would be interesting to know how many spoiled ballots are cast deliberately as a means of protest and how many are just people fucking up on the cognitive part of the task.
  22. #8272
    On a related note, I overheard the following conversation in the park yesterday:

    A: "So what now, Scotland is going to separate?"

    B: "Yeah. And who's going to pay for their membership in the EU? Not us, I'll tell you that!"

    These are two people who are allowed to vote where I live. They probably think Britain still pays for things for Canada too.
  23. #8273
    This is so disingenuous as to be funny. The SNP was not the only party in Scotland that supported Remain.
    Fair point.

    What do you assess as being most likely? I'm betting on b) myself, followed by a) and c) seems least likely.
    You missed "no deal".

    Half of the general population has a less than average IQ. I also wouldn't be surprised to find that in uncontested seats, the average IQ of a voter is lower.
    This is how the median works, not the mean. Usually, when people refer to the average, it's the mean. I have no idea if the mean IQ is equal to, higher or lower than the median, but simply saying "half the population has a below average IQ" is probably inaccurate, at least if we're talking about the mean, which is the best measure of "average".

    But even so, there's no reason to think that stupid people vote Tory and clever people vote Labour. Some people would argue the opposite is true, because the high IQ folk are generally well off, and Tory policy tends to favour the rich and successful. I'd be inclined to think that the low achievers are more likely to vote Labour.

    Exactly. Or if the people had the sense to vote tactically. Either one would have worked.
    It's very much debatable that Labour could have won if the Libs stood aside, but certainly it would have been closer. Between Labour and Libs, they just about collected more votes than the Tories. But that doesn't mean more seats than the Tories, even if literally every Lib supporter voted Labour.

    The problem is though, a lot of Lib voters wouldn't have voted Corbyn. This is as much a rejection of his economic policy as it is his Brexit policy. The electorate do not trust Corbyn, people actuallt trust Boris more. That's a damning indictment.

    1. Citation needed.
    Seriously? You really think that most folk prefer a "fuck it stay at home" attitude to a "draw a penis on your ballot" one? This forum is not the only place I discuss politics. There's Twitter and Facebook too. I started off this election saying I was probably going to stay at home, and most people who responded to me said at least go and spoil your ballot. I thought about it and agreed it was better.

    Most people on social media that I have seen discuss the issue of apathy prefer a spoiled ballot to staying at home. If you don't believe me, fine.

    2. See above about what I think about asking dumb people's opinions.
    You sure like to call people dumb for disagreeing with you. Might I ask... what's your IQ?

    [QUOTE]I get that you think it's a kind of protest but seems there's more articulate ways to voice your protest than spoiling a ballot./QUOTE]

    Like what? Start a blog? If I'd stayed at home, you'd probably be laughing, saying I should have spoiled my ballot. I suspect you're just being "opposite" here for the sake of argument. I fail to see how you can feel strongly about this.

    An oxymoron. You can't care enough to spoil a ballot at the same time as being too lazy to care.
    What? It's not that I'm too lazy to care, quite the opposite in fact. If I didn't care, I wouldn't talk about politics. I used the term "lazy" in the context of staying at home instead of spoiling ballot, it has nothing to do with caring. If I didn't care, then I'd stay at home.

    It may shock you to hear this, but I don't usually vote.
    Nor do I. I've voted once in a GE, and once in a referendum. I've spoiled my ballot once, that was last week.

    I'm not going to waste my time going to the polls and filling out a ballot just so my side can lose by 49 999 votes rather thann 50 000.
    Fair enough, but if this is how you feel, don't mock people for spoiling their ballot. There was a party on your ballot that you could vote for, that suits your ideology. Yet you couldn't be bothered because "my vote doesn't count". Meanwhile, there's nobody I can vote for, but I still took a walk, still did my bit, even if my spoiled ballot means fuck all. I'm not going to tell you that you should vote, that your vote means something, because it's bollocks. But don't tell me to stay at home when I want to draw a dick on my ballot.

    There's been no Brexits in those 10 years.
    Oh right, you think we'll have our benefits docked when we leave the EU.

    I'll keep you posted on that.

    I thought you were going to stop being sarcastic?
    No, I asked you to be more civil. But then you called me a "math guy" and said "blah blah blah fish" so I figured I'd be a sarcastic twat too. Besides, I don't mind a bit of sarcasm, it's just your tone of contempt when engaging with me is relentless. I do try to have civil conversations with you, but you don't make it easy.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  24. #8274
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You missed "no deal".
    I include that under "shitty deal"



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is how the median works, not the mean. Usually, when people refer to the average, it's the mean. I have no idea if the mean IQ is equal to, higher or lower than the median, but simply saying "half the population has a below average IQ" is probably inaccurate, at least if we're talking about the mean, which is the best measure of "average".
    In a normal distribution, the mean = the median = the mode. IQ is normally distributed. So yes, half the people are below average IQ. I guess a little less than half since some people will have an IQ of exactly 100, but I'm not overly enthusiastic about average either.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    But even so, there's no reason to think that stupid people vote Tory and clever people vote Labour. Some people would argue the opposite is true, because the high IQ folk are generally well off, and Tory policy tends to favour the rich and successful. I'd be inclined to think that the low achievers are more likely to vote Labour.

    Theres' research to show that in the US, conservatives are 20 IQ points lower on average than liberals. No reason to think it differs in the UK, or anywhere else. It could though.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It's very much debatable that Labour could have won if the Libs stood aside, but certainly it would have been closer. Between Labour and Libs, they just about collected more votes than the Tories. But that doesn't mean more seats than the Tories, even if literally every Lib supporter voted Labour.
    It's an academic question, but I'm pretty sure if you counted it up, the Lib+Labour votes combined in each seat would have won more seats than Tories.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The problem is though, a lot of Lib voters wouldn't have voted Corbyn. This is as much a rejection of his economic policy as it is his Brexit policy. The electorate do not trust Corbyn, people actuallt trust Boris more. That's a damning indictment.
    You don't know why people vote for who they vote for that specifically.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Seriously? You really think that most folk prefer a "fuck it stay at home" attitude to a "draw a penis on your ballot" one?
    You misunderstand me. I think it's irrelevant what most people think and also you have no way of knowing what they think unless you actually have some research to back it up.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This forum is not the only place I discuss politics. There's Twitter and Facebook too. I started off this election saying I was probably going to stay at home, and most people who responded to me said at least go and spoil your ballot. I thought about it and agreed it was better.
    What was the point of doing that? Do you think drawing a penis on a ballot affects the government? It's not like someone at the polling station counts penises on ballots and if it reaches a certain value the government has to debate it in parliament. And what is the difference between 1000 spoiled ballots and 1001? And if there is a difference (which I assert there isn't), is it enough of a difference to make it worth your time? I doubt it.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Most people on social media that I have seen discuss the issue of apathy prefer a spoiled ballot to staying at home. If you don't believe me, fine.
    yeah, your sample is a bit biased if that's the group you polled as 'most people'.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You sure like to call people dumb for disagreeing with you. Might I ask... what's your IQ?
    Don't know, probably above average though given the grades I got in school and the job I ended up with.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Like what? Start a blog? If I'd stayed at home, you'd probably be laughing, saying I should have spoiled my ballot.
    I guarantee you I would never tell someone it's a good use of their time to spoil their ballot.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I suspect you're just being "opposite" here for the sake of argument. I fail to see how you can feel strongly about this.
    I don't feel strongly about it. I just think spoiling your ballot is ridiculous, that's all. You don't have to agree.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    What? It's not that I'm too lazy to care, quite the opposite in fact. If I didn't care, I wouldn't talk about politics. I used the term "lazy" in the context of staying at home instead of spoiling ballot, it has nothing to do with caring. If I didn't care, then I'd stay at home.
    But your action has absolutely zero impact on the outcome. Staying at home has zero impact as well, but costs you nothing.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Nor do I. I've voted once in a GE, and once in a referendum. I've spoiled my ballot once, that was last week.
    Can I ask what your reasons are for not usually voting?



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Fair enough, but if this is how you feel, don't mock people for spoiling their ballot.
    I'm mocking the behaviour, not the people (or at least not directly). Smart people can do dumb things sometimes, myself included.

    I know some people think it's a good use of their time, I just don't see it.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    There was a party on your ballot that you could vote for, that suits your ideology. Yet you couldn't be bothered because "my vote doesn't count".
    This is what I don't understand about people; why so many feel it's necessary to waste your time when your vote is not going to make a difference. Like I said, it doesn't matter one iota whether my side wins/loses by 50 000, 49 999 or 50 001. It just doesn't. So what is the point of trudging somewhere to queue up and tick a box that effectively does nothing? What does this accomplish?


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Meanwhile, there's nobody I can vote for, but I still took a walk, still did my bit,
    "Did your bit"? What does that mean? You went and added a number to a tally that makes absolutely no difference in the outcome of the election? Is that how you see your role in democracy?


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    don't tell me to stay at home when I want to draw a dick on my ballot.
    Is this actually what you did? That seems a bit juvenile if true.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Oh right, you think we'll have our benefits docked when we leave the EU.

    I'll keep you posted on that.
    Are you guaranteed a cost of living increase every year? 'Cause that coming inflation is going to sting otherwise.
  25. #8275
    Here's an idea for how to fix democracy. Not sure how well it would work, haven't given it much thought, but seems better than what we have now.

    https://www.ted.com/talks/brett_henn...eople#t-692414
  26. #8276
    In a normal distribution, the mean = the median = the mode. IQ is normally distributed. So yes, half the people are below average IQ. I guess a little less than half since some people will have an IQ of exactly 100, but I'm not overly enthusiastic about average either.

    I have no idea how anyone could state as fact that IQ is a "normal distribution". By all means, show me.


    From what I can tell from some quick googling, 2/3 of us have an IQ in the 85-115 range, while 1/3 of us have an IQ 115+. Everyone is accounted for here, the sub 85 demographic is negligible. It doesn't look like a "normal distribution" to me. And I'm in the 115+ group.


    Theres' research to show that in the US, conservatives are 20 IQ points lower on average than liberals. No reason to think it differs in the UK, or anywhere else. It could though.

    20? I find this incredibly hard to believe. Incredibly.


    It's an academic question, but I'm pretty sure if you counted it up, the Lib+Labour votes combined in each seat would have won more seats than Tories.

    I doubt it. If you throw in the SNP, then probably. The problem is that a lot of Scottish people vote for Labour and Libs, but hardly any vote for Tory. So if we're talking just Labour and Libs, I can't see how they challenge the Tories in England.


    You don't know why people vote for who they vote for that specifically.

    No, but I have social media accounts and read what people say. How sincere they are is another matter, but the electorate clearly trust Boris more, because he won.


    You misunderstand me. I think it's irrelevant what most people think and also you have no way of knowing what they think unless you actually have some research to back it up.

    Ok. My "research" is my experience. Small sample size, granted, so moving on...


    What was the point of doing that? Do you think drawing a penis on a ballot affects the government?

    Of course not. It amuses me, nothing more. It's exactly the same as putting a blank ballot in the box, or writing "fuck this shit", or "none of the above".


    And what is the difference between 1000 spoiled ballots and 1001?

    One spoiled ballot.


    ...is it enough of a difference to make it worth your time? I doubt it.

    Definitely. People around the world don't have the luxury of democracy. If anything, it makes me feel good to be a part of a democratic process. It doesn't matter that my vote, or lack of vote, makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. What matters is that I like living in a democratic country, I've been lazy most of my life when it comes to elections, and I don't want to continue being lazy. I'd prefer to have someone to vote for, but I don't. The least I can do is enjoy democracy day when it happens.


    yeah, your sample is a bit biased if that's the group you polled as 'most people'.
    I made an assumption, and I still suspect my assumption is correct.

    I guarantee you I would never tell someone it's a good use of their time to spoil their ballot.
    Fair enough. I still think it's a lot better than staying at home. I enjoyed drawing a dick on my ballot, it gave me a few seconds of joy. Plus it got me out of the house for half an hour or so.

    I don't feel strongly about it. I just think spoiling your ballot is ridiculous, that's all. You don't have to agree.
    Well for me, it's less ridiculous than wanting someone to win, but not voting for them because you feel your vote doesn't matter.

    But your action has absolutely zero impact on the outcome. Staying at home has zero impact as well, but costs you nothing.
    Going for a short walk costs nothing either. In fact, it counts as exercise, so it's better than staying at home on that basis alone.

    Can I ask what your reasons are for not usually voting?
    Similar reasons here, except minus the Brexit. No parties represent me. The only time I have voted was for an independent.

    Also, I wasn't really interested in politics when I was in my 20s, I was more interested in sex, drugs and techno.

    This is what I don't understand about people; why so many feel it's necessary to waste your time when your vote is not going to make a difference. Like I said, it doesn't matter one iota whether my side wins/loses by 50 000, 49 999 or 50 001. It just doesn't. So what is the point of trudging somewhere to queue up and tick a box that effectively does nothing? What does this accomplish?
    I think you know the argument to this...

    "...if everyone thought like this..."

    I do understand what you're saying here, and respect your right to not bother voting for whatever reason you like. But for me, I wanted to take part because democracy is important to society, even if on an individual basis it's a waste of time.

    "Did your bit"? What does that mean? You went and added a number to a tally that makes absolutely no difference in the outcome of the election? Is that how you see your role in democracy?
    Frankly, yes. There were just shy of 32,000,000 million votes cast. If you feel like you need a louder voice, well democracy isn't for you.

    Democracy is not about me, it's about society. We just had this discussion, but if you have any better ideas, fire away. What alternatives are there?

    Is this actually what you did? That seems a bit juvenile if true.
    There's definitely a part of me that never grew up. I'm not ashamed of immaturity.

    Are you guaranteed a cost of living increase every year? 'Cause that coming inflation is going to sting otherwise.
    It goes up with inflation. If the cost of living rises above inflation, I might be a few pounds worse off, but I can't say I've noticed a squeeze on my budget over the years.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  27. #8277
    Here's an idea for how to fix democracy. Not sure how well it would work, haven't given it much thought, but seems better than what we have now.
    Ok you offered an alternative. I'll respond to this when I've watched it, maybe later.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  28. #8278
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I have no idea how anyone could state as fact that IQ is a "normal distribution". By all means, show me.


    From what I can tell from some quick googling, 2/3 of us have an IQ in the 85-115 range, while 1/3 of us have an IQ 115+. Everyone is accounted for here, the sub 85 demographic is negligible. It doesn't look like a "normal distribution" to me. And I'm in the 115+ group.
    I don't know where you're getting this information. Maybe you read something by some IQ-skeptic, dunno.

    When you have a variable that is the summation of a large number of other variables, it's going to end up in a normal distribution. IQ is no different from height or weight in this way. The only question is what you decide the mean and stdev are. For IQ they're set to a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    20? I find this incredibly hard to believe. Incredibly.
    It might not be 20, but it's a significant difference. Would have to look it up.





    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Of course not. It amuses me, nothing more. It's exactly the same as putting a blank ballot in the box, or writing "fuck this shit", or "none of the above".
    This seems funny, because it seems like you're just mocking the democracy that you in other places in the conversation seem to hold so dear.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Definitely. People around the world don't have the luxury of democracy. If anything, it makes me feel good to be a part of a democratic process. It doesn't matter that my vote, or lack of vote, makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. What matters is that I like living in a democratic country, I've been lazy most of my life when it comes to elections, and I don't want to continue being lazy. I'd prefer to have someone to vote for, but I don't. The least I can do is enjoy democracy day when it happens.
    This is another thing I hear, we have to 'celebrate democracy'. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of the things that arise from democracy, and the principles it's based on (representation by population is one, btw, that our current system doesn't uphold). It's the voting I find pointless. I get that it has to happen for it to be 'democratic', but I also see the personal futility in it.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well for me, it's less ridiculous than wanting someone to win, but not voting for them because you feel your vote doesn't matter.
    When I was a kid I used to think if I cheered for my hockey team while watching the game on TV that was helping them win. I no longer believe that. Now I believe that actions that don't affect an outcome, however much I might want that outcome, are not worth undertaking.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Going for a short walk costs nothing either. In fact, it counts as exercise, so it's better than staying at home on that basis alone.
    You also got to practice your drawing skills.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I think you know the argument to this...
    I do know the argument. One of my old profs said it to me in fact. And my answer was the only time I ever stumped him in two years.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    "...if everyone thought like this..."
    ...and the retort: I'm not everybody, nor can I control everybody. If I could it would be worth the effort. But I can't so it isn't.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    But for me, I wanted to take part because democracy is important to society, even if on an individual basis it's a waste of time.
    But the part you played was inconsequential. It's like saying you want to help your sports team by buying their jersey. It doesn't make a difference to how they play at all. But I guess if it makes you feel good, then go ahead.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Frankly, yes. There were just shy of 32,000,000 million votes cast. If you feel like you need a louder voice, well democracy isn't for you.
    Not sure what you're getting at here. I never said I shoud be the one to decide an election outcome.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It goes up with inflation. If the cost of living rises above inflation, I might be a few pounds worse off, but I can't say I've noticed a squeeze on my budget over the years.
    Great, more of my taxes going to pay someone to draw a penis on a ballot.
  29. #8279
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    I don't know where you're getting this information.
    The internet. How reliable that info is is another matter. I didn't spend a great deal of time researching this.

    You say the mean is "set" at 100. That... doesn't make sense. The mean will be fluid, it will change as collective intelligence changes. It should increase over time, I'd have thought the mean IQ is higher now than it was in 1900. But I really don't know, I have no idea how IQ is calculated.

    It might not be 20, but it's a significant difference. Would have to look it up.
    20 is a large difference. If that's a sincere figure, I can only assume the study was heavily biased, like it compared university students and lecturers with trailer park trash and George W Bush.

    I'd have been surprised if there's a difference of 5, either way.

    This seems funny, because it seems like you're just mocking the democracy that you in other places in the conversation seem to hold so dear.
    That's how you see it. I see it as mocking those who are standing for election. I aptly illustrated how I feel about politicians, not democracy.

    This is another thing I hear, we have to 'celebrate democracy'.
    We don't have to. I just choose to.

    It's the voting I find pointless.
    Again, from an individual pov, you're right, but from a society pov, you're wrong.

    ...and the retort: I'm not everybody, nor can I control everybody. If I could it would be worth the effort. But I can't so it isn't.
    Try saying this to a psychology prof. I mean, I'm no expert, but there seems to me a heavy hint of "control freak" here. You only want to engage in activities you have control over. There's a fundamental difference between us both. I'm happy to participate in activities that I do not have control over, that is in the hands of the collective. I have 1/32000000th control, which is ok by me. In fact, if I got to choose the leader of this country, I'd find that to be a rather heavy burden. I think I prefer not having control on this matter. I'm not at fault if it all goes wrong, everyone is.

    But the part you played was inconsequential.
    This isn't the point.

    It's like saying you want to help your sports team by buying their jersey.
    Holy shit, a decent analogy! Well done! You're right. One person buying the shirt will make no difference to a team's finances. But 20,000 doing so will. I know 19,999 is, for all intents and purposes, the same as 20,000, but that isn't the point. We're back to "...what if everyone thought like this". You do your bit, however inconsequential it might seem.

    Not sure what you're getting at here. I never said I shoud be the one to decide an election outcome.
    No, not directly, though you did say it would be worth the effort if you could control everyone. And you're arguing that there's no point in voting because your vote is pointless, which is a reasonable observation. But you don't vote because your one vote might make a difference, you vote because as a collective, you hold politicians to account. I don't have a problem that my vote is worth so little. Everyone else's vote is worth equally as little. That's the point. Everyone has an equal influence in the outcome.

    Great, more of my taxes going to pay someone to draw a penis on a ballot.
    You were doing so well, and you finish with this. I'm not sure why you have a problem with people's benefits rising with inflation. Would you actually prefer unemployed people to be proper fucked? Would you prefer the government to slowly squeeze the life out of people who can't get a job?

    Don't be so bitter about how your tax is spent. If unemployed people had to literally fend for themselves, your tax would go up, and crime would increase. More people would be in prison. It costs a lot more to imprison someone than it does to give them a cheap place to live and a pittance to live off.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  30. #8280
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'd have thought the mean IQ is higher now than it was in 1900. But I really don't know, I have no idea how IQ is calculated.
    It has been going up a few points every generation, yes. The data are normalized to a mean of 100 and stdev of 15. So the average voter now is smarter than the average voter in 1900, if that makes you feel better. Still not very smart though.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Try saying this to a psychology prof.
    He was a psych prof, and he had no answer because he knew my logic was airtight.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I mean, I'm no expert, but there seems to me a heavy hint of "control freak" here.
    Haha, that's pretty funny. Everyone who knows me finds me pretty patient and easy to get along with. I certainly don't get accused of being a control freak.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You only want to engage in activities you have control over.
    The debate is not really about me, but no. It's more like I only want to expend effort on things I can influence. I dont go around shouting at the clouds to make them stop raining.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    There's a fundamental difference between us both. I'm happy to participate in activities that I do not have control over, that is in the hands of the collective. I have 1/32000000th control, which is ok by me. In fact, if I got to choose the leader of this country, I'd find that to be a rather heavy burden. I think I prefer not having control on this matter. I'm not at fault if it all goes wrong, everyone is.
    1/320000000 control is statistically indistinguishable from 0 control.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm not at fault if it all goes wrong, everyone is.
    At least you get this much. You don't blame individual people for voting for a party if that party turns out to suck.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This isn't the point.
    It is to me.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You do your bit, however inconsequential it might seem.
    There's a difference between something that seems inconsequential and something that is inconsequential. You don't seem to want to accept that so fine, I'll let it go.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    you vote because as a collective, you hold politicians to account.
    The collective has the same effect whether or not I vote. As such, my individual participation, or lack thereof, is meaningless.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I don't have a problem that my vote is worth so little. Everyone else's vote is worth equally as little. That's the point. Everyone has an equal influence in the outcome.
    That's the great illusion of it and how democracy seems to "work." There are enough people who don't understand how little effect they have as individuals that they go and vote, which results in a collective outcome that reflects the will of the majority (or, in the case of FPTP, the largest share of voters). It's a great way to dupe individuals into thinking they're taking part when they're really only wasting their time.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You were doing so well, and you finish with this. I'm not sure why you have a problem with people's benefits rising with inflation. Would you actually prefer unemployed people to be proper fucked? Would you prefer the government to slowly squeeze the life out of people who can't get a job?
    You missed my point. I don't have a problem with being taxed to give you a pittance, I have a problem with you using that pittance to go and draw a penis on a ballot.

    Someone has to look at that, maybe some old lady, and it's fairly likely they don't share your lack of decorum. So the net effect of your act which you call "mocking the politicians" would be to offend a person who is volunteering their time to help the country, and gets rewarded by seeing a drawing of a penis. Meanwhile the people it's intended to mock never know anything about it. It's just a chidish, antisocial thing to do that has no possible benefit to anyone besides yourself.

    Here's an idea: If you really want to take part in democracy and actually 'do your bit' for it, next time volunteer to work at a polling station.
  31. #8281
    Haha, that's pretty funny. Everyone who knows me finds me pretty patient and easy to get along with. I certainly don't get accused of being a control freak.
    Control freaks aren't necessarily impatient or difficult to get on with. They just like to be in control. I guess it was the comment where you said "if you could control everybody then it would be worth the effort" that made me think along these lines. I might be very much wrong, obviously. But there's definitely a difference in the way we look at such matters. It doesn't bother me that I can't control everyone, that my vote is inconsequential. It does seem to bother you.

    The debate is not really about me, but no. It's more like I only want to expend effort on things I can influence. I dont go around shouting at the clouds to make them stop raining.
    Back to poor analogies. If everyone shouts at the clouds, it still doesn't stop raining. You have 1/32000000th of an influence in an election. Well, much more if we break it down into constituencies, but the point is you do have a tiny amount of influence. It's just too tiny for you to care about.

    1/320000000 control is statistically indistinguishable from 0 control.
    You just said the debate isn't about you, then you imply it is. When 32000000 vote, your 1/32000000 influence is a great deal more than zero. It's one. If it were zero, then 32 million people voting would have no influence.

    I'm not trying to convince you to vote, that's up to you, I'm just pointing out that when you vote, you're part of a collective that has an influence as a whole.

    At least you get this much. You don't blame individual people for voting for a party if that party turns out to suck.
    No, and I don't call people dumb, or racist, or insult them in any way, either individuals (unless they give good reason) or as a mass. I just say the people made a mistake, and hope they learn from it.

    There's a difference between something that seems inconsequential and something that is inconsequential. You don't seem to want to accept that so fine, I'll let it go.
    I think we just differ in opinion on whether a vote "is"or "seems" inconsequential. I'm in the "seems" camp.

    The collective has the same effect whether or not I vote. As such, my individual participation, or lack thereof, is meaningless.
    Sure, but you're not the only person holding this opinion. If everyone who felt like this changed their mind, that would be significantly less inconsequential.

    That's the great illusion of it and how democracy seems to "work." There are enough people who don't understand how little effect they have as individuals that they go and vote, which results in a collective outcome that reflects the will of the majority (or, in the case of FPTP, the largest share of voters). It's a great way to dupe individuals into thinking they're taking part when they're really only wasting their time.
    This is nonsense. I understand I have a tiny effect, I can even quantify it as 1/32000000th of an influence. Most people understand this. But if nobody voted, then democracy doesn't work. It's not a waste of time. This is how we stop tyrants from dominating control of a nation.

    You missed my point. I don't have a problem with being taxed to give you a pittance, I have a problem with you using that pittance to go and draw a penis on a ballot.
    This doesn't make sense. It cost me nothing to draw a dick on my ballot. I doesn't cost you anything at all. I use my pittance of an income to eat and smoke, and occasionally go out and have a drink.

    And what do you care how I spend my time? You talk about me wasting my time taking a walk to the polling station, yet here you are spending more time than I did doing that arguing with me about how it's a waste of my time and your tax.

    I'd say that's as productive a use of my time as most of the shit I do. You should be more bothered that I'm talking shit on the internet than I am looking for work.

    So the net effect of your act which you call "mocking the politicians" would be to offend a person who is volunteering their time to help the country, and gets rewarded by seeing a drawing of a penis.
    Nope, sorry. First off, I don't care if I offend a sensitive soul. It's a picture of a dick, not a swastika. Approximately half the world's population has a dick. Secondly, it might amuse whoever counted it. I doubt very much it's the most offensive thing drawn or written on a ballot.

    It's just a chidish, antisocial thing to do that has no possible benefit to anyone besides yourself.
    Not entirely true. I helped boost turnout, reinforcing democracy, so it does benefit society, albeit very slightly.

    Here's an idea: If you really want to take part in democracy and actually 'do your bit' for it, next time volunteer to work at a polling station.
    Not the worst suggestion I had thrown at me. I currently volunteer for Oxfam, so I'm not against this idea.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  32. #8282
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It doesn't bother me that I can't control everyone... It does seem to bother you.
    No, you're assuming it bothers me. It doesnt bother me, I just recognize it as a fact.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It's just too tiny for you to care about.
    Exactly.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm not trying to convince you to vote, that's up to you, I'm just pointing out that when you vote, you're part of a collective that has an influence as a whole.
    Correct.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I think we just differ in opinion on whether a vote "is"or "seems" inconsequential. I'm in the "seems" camp.
    Ok.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Sure, but you're not the only person holding this opinion. If everyone who felt like this changed their mind, that would be significantly less inconsequential.
    Ok, but again we aren't talking about everyone. I'm not in control of what everyone does, I'm in control of what I do.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    But if nobody voted, then democracy doesn't work.
    It doesn't work now lol. Watch the video I posted and see if you agree with it.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    First off, I don't care if I offend a sensitive soul.
    That's what makes it antisocial. The rest of your argument is irrelevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I helped boost turnout, reinforcing democracy, so it does benefit society, albeit very slightly.

    How so? How is society better off now that 32 000 001 people voted rather than 32 000 000?



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Not the worst suggestion I had thrown at me. I currently volunteer for Oxfam, so I'm not against this idea.
    Seems more productive than what you did this time.
  33. #8283
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    It doesn't work now lol. Watch the video I posted and see if you agree with it.
    I did just watch the video, and I do like it. It's an interesting concept. I'm surprised you find it preferable though because it puts power in the hands of dumbasses. If such a system is truly random, then a sample of 650-odd MPs from a population of something like 40 million would not necessarily reflect the average person. You could have a collective of people with an average IQ of 90 running the country. The probability is small, but over a century or two, it becomes a significant risk.

    I'd be inclined to support this with caveats... a competency test, and significant education and training in advance. But then comes with it the usual problems... those who educate are in a position to indoctrinate, even if unknowingly, and corruption is still a potential problem. Who decides who is and isn't competent? How do we ensure the selection is truly random? And who dictates foreign policy? Can we afford to allow random people to have the collective finger on the button? If not, who controls the military and how do we stop them from taking over?

    It's a great idea in principle, but I feel it works better in relatively small, well educated communities such as ancient Athens.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  34. #8284
    How so? How is society better off now that 32 000 001 people voted rather than 32 000 000?
    Turnout is a fraction of a percent higher. And let's not just think about me, think about everyone who spoiled their ballot. I can't yet find how many spoiled ballots there were nationally, but that info should be available somewhere. Between us we might have increased turnout by a whole percent. I have no idea, but higher turnout shows more confidence in democracy. Which is good, at least in my opinion.

    Yes I know that me, as an individual, have virtually no impact, but I don't see why that means I shouldn't bother. I want to take part and say to myself "this is as good a system as I can hope to live under". Maybe there are better systems out there, but the one talked about in that video raises a lot of questions and I'm in no position to decide which is preferable.

    Seems more productive than what you did this time.
    I had a moment of personal amusement, and participated in a democratic process. Both are productive.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  35. #8285
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I did just watch the video, and I do like it. It's an interesting concept. I'm surprised you find it preferable though because it puts power in the hands of dumbasses. If such a system is truly random, then a sample of 650-odd MPs from a population of something like 40 million would not necessarily reflect the average person. You could have a collective of people with an average IQ of 90 running the country. The probability is small, but over a century or two, it becomes a significant risk.
    A sample of 650 randomly-selected people would have an average IQ very close to the population average. Some would be very smart, some would be dumbasses, and most would be in the middle.

    The advantage is none of them are motivated to be re-elected, they much less likely than politicans to be either power-hungry sociopaths or corrupt, or both, and their job would be to consult with experts and decide things.

    It's like jury duty. You get picked at random to do a job with a bunch of other people. Some will do it better than others, but most will at least try and most will be honest.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'd be inclined to support this with caveats... a competency test, and significant education and training in advance. But then comes with it the usual problems... those who educate are in a position to indoctrinate, even if unknowingly, and corruption is still a potential problem. Who decides who is and isn't competent? How do we ensure the selection is truly random? And who dictates foreign policy? Can we afford to allow random people to have the collective finger on the button? If not, who controls the military and how do we stop them from taking over?

    It's a great idea in principle, but I feel it works better in relatively small, well educated communities such as ancient Athens.
    Individual competence would matter, but these people aren't runnng the entire show. You don't select your PM by random for example. They're MPs, and some of the better ones get cabinet jobs. And just like real MPs, they consult experts and make decisions.
  36. #8286
    Here's another question: You went to the polling station and saw some candidates, none of which you thought were good enough to vote for. What if at the bottom of the list there was another choice, "random person in your riding".

    It could end up being Emmy the student, Tony the bus driver, Mary the teacher, or Joe the retired mailman, or anyone else who lives there.

    Do you think they would likely be better or worse than the other candidates, and why?
  37. #8287
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    A sample of 650 randomly-selected people would probably have an average IQ very close to the population average.
    Added bold for accuracy. But just like you can toss a coin ten times and get all heads, you can randomly select a bunch of dumbasses. It won't happen often, but it only needs to happen once to destroy faith in the system.

    The advantage is none of them are motivated to be re-elected, they much less likely than politicans to be either power-hungry sociopaths or corrupt, or both, and their job would be to consult with experts and decide things.
    This was great until we mentioned "consulting experts". I mean, yeah, we obviously need to do that, but who are these experts and are they accountable?

    Here's another question: You went to the polling station and saw some candidates, none of which you thought were good enough to vote for. What if at the bottom of the list there was another choice, "random person in your riding".
    The problem with that is if a random person is selected, that person has no time to prepare and train. If I were selected at random, I'd want at least two years training and education on matters such as economics, and any other relevant subjects. You can't just throw a random person into government if they are not prepared. That's a really bad idea.

    I do like the idea of random selection, but it has its problems.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  38. #8288
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,546
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    TL;DR: IQ tests are stupid, pointless, hopelessly flawed, and support elitism in their existence.

    There's no meaningful way to measure how smart someone is in a vacuum. We can only compare how smart people are relative to each other on very specific tests. Those tests are biased, and there's no way to make an unbiased test, so comparing results from different regions, or even the same region over decade-scale time spans, is mostly futile. A test favoring one cultural perspective will work better where that culture is dominant, but not so well where it's not.

    Hypothetically, an IQ test that works well in North Korea is going to look completely different than an IQ test for Birmingham. Even so, in order to get a fair and accurate result for the entirety of Birmingham, you'd still need multiple tests.

    Those tests are intended to be similar... I.e. 2 people roughly equally smart should score roughly equally on the most appropriate IQ test for them. However, how can it be proved that the tests are appropriately designed for this?

    Further complicating things, the results of each test are scaled to the group of testees. IQ is "Intelligence Quotient;" it's literally a percent from average.

    If you gave kindergartners (and no one else) a math test with 20 counting questions and 80 calculus questions, then scored it as an IQ test, the mean would still be 100 IQ. The fact that none of the participants could correctly answer 80% of the questions is just shuffled off the table. You're not comparing the test group to some outside group (people who haven't taken this test), only to itself.
    Give that same test to college students, and now the 5 year-olds look brainless. What was actually a not-too-bad test for the 5 year olds is now destroyed by including a group with a different cultural background in the same test results, and the college students score significantly above average.


    Take that with the fact that you can't use the same test anywhere year after year, because the culture in that spot changes over time, and you're left with a load of nonsense, that is only anecdotally comparing the relative ability of a sample population to perform on a specific, biased test.

    OK, but what if it's still useful?
    It's not.
    It's used in this forum as ad hominem and appeal to authority falacies.
    "My IQ is higher than yours, so you should trust me, you simpleton." type of stuff.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  39. #8289
    Another problem, and this would drag down the average IQ of any given government, is that the more intelligent people are probably earning more money than most politicians. Or, to put that another way, they wouldn't quit their job, they would decline their selection. Someone with an IQ of 150+ is probably not interested in quitting his job as a doctor, and we certainly should make it a legal requirement for him to do so.

    We'd have to set a minimum threshold, perhaps an IQ at at least 95, or some other measure of intellectual competency. That would be a good place to start.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  40. #8290
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    There's no meaningful way to measure how smart someone is in a vacuum.
    Chess.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  41. #8291
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,546
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    "Intelligence" isn't a well-defined term.

    Social intelligence is useful to politicians.
    Logical intelligence is useful to scientists.
    Physical intelligence is useful to athletes and musicians.
    etc.

    The assumption that a person with the skillset that makes a good medical doctor translates to a good politician seems absurd to me.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  42. #8292
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,546
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    "Chess"

    Then you'll be happy to know that I'm functionally retarded.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  43. #8293
    Then you'll be happy to know that I'm functionally retarded.
    I'm sure had you taken up chess at the age I did, you'd be better than I am.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  44. #8294
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Added bold for accuracy. But just like you can toss a coin ten times and get all heads, you can randomly select a bunch of dumbasses. It won't happen often, but it only needs to happen once to destroy faith in the system.
    30 is considered a large sample according to the Law of Large Numbers. 650 is a lot bigger than that.

    It would be virtually impossible to draw a sample of n=650 with a mean IQ outside the range of 98-102. If it were 95 that would be a statistical catastrophe. And 95 isn't that much different from 100.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This was great until we mentioned "consulting experts". I mean, yeah, we obviously need to do that, but who are these experts and are they accountable?
    They're people educated on the topic who provide opinion in return for a fee.

    Going back to the court example: if you have DNA evidence you don't ask the jury to evaluate it. You provide an expert opinion.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The problem with that is if a random person is selected, that person has no time to prepare and train. If I were selected at random, I'd want at least two years training and education on matters such as economics, and any other relevant subjects. You can't just throw a random person into government if they are not prepared. That's a really bad idea.

    I do like the idea of random selection, but it has its problems.
    A person who gets elected for the first time has no time to prepare and train either, or at least no more than the random person would.
  45. #8295
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    TL;DR: IQ tests are stupid, pointless, hopelessly flawed, and support elitism in their existence.
    They're certainly not flawless, but if they're not measuring intelligence it's hard to imagine what they are measuring.



    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    There's no meaningful way to measure how smart someone is in a vacuum. We can only compare how smart people are relative to each other on very specific tests. Those tests are biased, and there's no way to make an unbiased test, so comparing results from different regions, or even the same region over decade-scale time spans, is mostly futile. A test favoring one cultural perspective will work better where that culture is dominant, but not so well where it's not.
    No-one has designed a proper, validated IQ test that has a particular cultural perspective for 100 years. The people who make these tests aren't stupid, they know you don't ask a person from Poland questions about baseball.



    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Hypothetically, an IQ test that works well in North Korea is going to look completely different than an IQ test for Birmingham. Even so, in order to get a fair and accurate result for the entirety of Birmingham, you'd still need multiple tests.
    Not sure what you're talking about here. How is math (for example) different in NK than it is in Birmingham? How is a logical puzzle different? Or the ability to mentally rotate and compare objects? These are basic intelligence skills that don't depend on the culture where you grow up, unless the culture doesn't bother to educate people.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Those tests are intended to be similar... I.e. 2 people roughly equally smart should score roughly equally on the most appropriate IQ test for them. However, how can it be proved that the tests are appropriately designed for this?
    You can't PROVE it in the sense you can prove two people are the same height. But, you can provide a measure that has a reasonable degree of certainty.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Further complicating things, the results of each test are scaled to the group of testees. IQ is "Intelligence Quotient;" it's literally a percent from average.
    Right, and the group one is compared to is the most relevant group. You wouldn't compare me or you to someone from 1880 with a 6th grade education.



    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    If you gave kindergartners (and no one else) a math test with 20 counting questions and 80 calculus questions, then scored it as an IQ test, the mean would still be 100 IQ. The fact that none of the participants could correctly answer 80% of the questions is just shuffled off the table. You're not comparing the test group to some outside group (people who haven't taken this test), only to itself.
    Give that same test to college students, and now the 5 year-olds look brainless. What was actually a not-too-bad test for the 5 year olds is now destroyed by including a group with a different cultural background in the same test results, and the college students score significantly above average.
    That's why you don't compare five year olds to college students. When they say a five year old has an IQ of 120, they mean he's smarter than the average five-year old, not that he's smarter than the average college student.



    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Take that with the fact that you can't use the same test anywhere year after year, because the culture in that spot changes over time, and you're left with a load of nonsense, that is only anecdotally comparing the relative ability of a sample population to perform on a specific, biased test.
    The culture? An IQ test doesn't ask you who Taylor Swift is. It asks you questions that test your intellectual skills.

    And yeah, they do basically give the same test every year. They might replace some of the questions with others of equivalent difficulty, but that's only so people taking the test multiple times don't keep getting better through practice alone.

    Only the scaling of the test changes because of overall increases in IQ, mostly associated with education, but probably also nutrition and whatnot.



    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    OK, but what if it's still useful?
    It's not.
    It's used in this forum as ad hominem and appeal to authority falacies.
    "My IQ is higher than yours, so you should trust me, you simpleton." type of stuff.
    Actually no-one is using it that way. I am smarter than most people by anyone's definition of intelligence. I understand things lots of people can't grasp. Same with you, same with Ong. There's no reason to pretend we're not smarter than others.

    That said, there are arguably lots of types of 'intelligence' that aren't covered in those tests, if you define the term broadly enough to include any kind of mental skill. Motor intelligence, creativity, perceptual skills, etc.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 12-17-2019 at 02:12 PM.
  46. #8296
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Another problem, and this would drag down the average IQ of any given government, is that the more intelligent people are probably earning more money than most politicians. Or, to put that another way, they wouldn't quit their job, they would decline their selection. Someone with an IQ of 150+ is probably not interested in quitting his job as a doctor, and we certainly should make it a legal requirement for him to do so.
    Nope. We don't have an opt-out for jury duty or getting drafted into the army in time of war (besides something serious like you're too sick or whatever). This would be considered your civic duty and you'd be required to do it.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    We'd have to set a minimum threshold, perhaps an IQ at at least 95, or some other measure of intellectual competency. That would be a good place to start.
    We don't have a minimum IQ threshold for people to run for office now. But yeah, probably not a lot of IQ 70 types running. So yeah, I think someone would have to have finished high school at least.
  47. #8297
    Going back to the IQ debate, scores on different subsets of IQ tests (e.g., verbal, maths, spatial, logical) tend to correlate fairly highly with one another. IOW, people who score highly on one subset tend to also score highly on the others, and people who score lowly on one subset tend to score also lowly on the others.

    The only reason this would occur is if the different subsets are all tapping into the same general mental ability to learn and understand things.
  48. #8298
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    It would be virtually impossible to draw a sample of n=650 with a mean IQ outside the range of 98-102. If it were 95 that would be a statistical catastrophe. And 95 isn't that much different from 100.
    I'm just going to take your word for this. The maths is just too complex. I'm sure if I set about it I could do it, but I am lazy when it comes to using my brain for menial tasks.

    We don't have an opt-out for jury duty
    Furst of all, jury duty takes weeks, not years. Also, you can be excused, for example if your employer refuses to give you time off.

    or getting drafted into the army in time of wa
    This is a last resort in time of national emergency.

    This would be considered your civic duty and you'd be required to do it.
    This is no longer more appealing than the system we have.

    We don't have a minimum IQ threshold for people to run for office now.
    We don't need it. Dumb fucks won't get voted in. Say what you like about Boris, but if you think he's stupid, you're mistaken. I doubt very much Trump is as stupid as some people think he is, either, but I really don't want to get into American politics at a time when British politics is stressful enough.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  49. #8299
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    you can be excused, for example if your employer refuses to give you time off.
    Is that true? I mean I get it if you're needed for some task no-one else can do that saves lives like cardiac surgeon, but I don't think your boss can say 'sorry Fred, you can't do jury duty we need you on the night shift packing widgets'. Pretty sure that's illegal.
  50. #8300
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post

    This is no longer more appealing than the system we have.
    Or let's say you could opt out ahead of time if you don't want the job. Better?
  51. #8301
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,546
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    They're certainly not flawless, but if they're not measuring intelligence it's hard to imagine what they are measuring.
    They measure intelligence and a ton of other things.
    The other things dominate unless the person taking the test is one whom the test is biased toward.

    No-one has designed a proper, validated IQ test that has a particular cultural perspective for 100 years. The people who make these tests aren't stupid, they know you don't ask a person from Poland questions about baseball.
    Are you saying there's no cultural bias in IQ tests (in the last 100 years)?
    I don't even know what to say to such a clearly absurd statement being delivered unironically.

    I'm not sure we understand each other's use of words on this one.

    What counts as intelligent behavior in the poorest communities is not equivalent as what counts as intelligent in the most affluent communities. The way intelligence expresses itself is a function of the values of the culture.
    How do you fairly compare the streets' smartest thug and the city's smartest CEO?

    Inability to do so is bias. That's what I'm calling cultural bias.

    Not sure what you're talking about here. How is math (for example) different in NK than it is in Birmingham? How is a logical puzzle different? Or the ability to mentally rotate and compare objects? These are basic intelligence skills that don't depend on the culture where you grow up, unless the culture doesn't bother to educate people.
    It's not that those ideas are different. It's the assumption that the knowledge of those ideas is indicative of intelligence that is wrong.
    A person growing up in an impoverished community and/or abusive home values very different things than those you've stated. Their lack of skill in those tasks is not related to their intelligence, but reflecting that they don't have the luxury of security that the test takes for granted.

    You can't PROVE it in the sense you can prove two people are the same height. But, you can provide a measure that has a reasonable degree of certainty.
    That's just it, though. You can't provide that. You can only assert as much and hope you're right.
    You can make a test that accurately measures the intelligence of thugs, and one that does similar for CEO's.
    Comparing those results, though... It's basically mysticism.

    The tests must be different to accommodate the bias that makes them fair.
    That's a big deal.
    It means the results of the tests are only roughly comparable, not directly comparable. They're measuring totally different things, all under the banner of "intelligence."

    It's the inherent flaw in trying to boil something so vastly interesting and complex down to a single number, IMO.

    Right, and the group one is compared to is the most relevant group. You wouldn't compare me or you to someone from 1880 with a 6th grade education.
    Then how can we compare thugs and CEO's? How can we compare farmers and city-folk? How can we compare prisoners and ... um... non-prisoners? Missourians to Congolese?

    How can you assert that IQ's are "generally increasing over time" or however you phrased it?

    That's why you don't compare five year olds to college students. When they say a five year old has an IQ of 120, they mean he's smarter than the average five-year old, not that he's smarter than the average college student.
    No. That's how you disenfranchise impoverished communities.

    You give the same test to affluent communities as you give to the impoverished communities.
    That's only fair, right?
    Then you show that the artificially lowered scores of the impoverished communities and the artificially boosted scores of the affluent community are the reason those communities are what they are.

    Of course [minority] live in slums... they're not as smart.
    Of course [minority] doesn't deserve our sympathy. They're genetically predisposed. We can't change that. Not our fault.

    Elitism.

    The culture? An IQ test doesn't ask you who Taylor Swift is. It asks you questions that test your intellectual skills.
    See above.
    In order to do so, it must presuppose your environment and project a value system which delineates what is "worth knowing."

    Only the scaling of the test changes because of overall increases in IQ, mostly associated with education, but probably also nutrition and whatnot.
    "basically" - meaning it's not the same.
    "[...] through practice alone" - I find that hard to believe.
    What psychologist is testing the same patient with the same test multiple times?
    I was tested a few times, but never with the same test twice.

    The tests change to reflect advances in the relevant psychological fields of study. Among them is the acknowledgement that changes in the cultural background in which the testee has lived render certain questions useless.

    Only the scaling of the test changes because of overall increases in IQ, mostly associated with education, but probably also nutrition and whatnot.
    So you agree that access to education and nutrition are significantly relevant factors!?
    I wish you'd lead with that.

    Do you agree that those 2 things vary wildly across even the population of a single city, let alone a nation or the world?

    Do you agree that variance in those 2 factors is more often indicative of cultural status of the community in which the testee was raised than anything related to the intelligence of either the testee or their parents?

    Do you agree that those 2 are not the only confounding factors in these tests?

    Actually no-one is using it that way. I am smarter than most people by anyone's definition of intelligence. I understand things lots of people can't grasp. Same with you, same with Ong. There's no reason to pretend we're not smarter than others.
    Lol. I disagree about how it's used.
    When someone bring up their own IQ, it's never intellectually honest.

    I bet if I followed you around for a day, I could list more than a handful examples of your lack of intelligence.
    You certainly would if you followed me.
    I'm good at some things, OK at some things, and terrible at most things. Just like the rest of us.

    Just because we test well, and have a skillset that makes us better than most at book-smarts, doesn't mean we're smart.
    It's more that we're lucky the things we're good at are valued as "smart" by the cultures we've lived in.

    That said, there are arguably lots of types of 'intelligence' that aren't covered in those tests, if you define the term broadly enough to include any kind of mental skill. Motor intelligence, creativity, perceptual skills, etc.
    If you don't, you're not being intellectually honest, and are probably virtue signalling, IMO.


    If you don't, it's hard to interpret any direct relevance or predictive power of the IQ score, anyway.
    It's not indicative of a person's dedication, commitment, loyalty, leadership, etc.
    It's not indicative of whether a person has capacity for good or bad.
    It's not indicative of how observant, patient, empathetic, or compassionate a person is.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  52. #8302
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    Is that true? I mean I get it if you're needed for some task no-one else can do that saves lives like cardiac surgeon, but I don't think your boss can say 'sorry Fred, you can't do jury duty we need you on the night shift packing widgets'. Pretty sure that's illegal.
    According to the government's website, yes it's true. Although, I did more digging to see what obligations employers have, and they have to give a reason. Moreover, they can only do so if it will "seriously harm their business". Further, they can only do it once in a 12 month period. So Fred who works for the widget business could be excused, assuming the business was small, understaffed, and had a large order of widgets to sort. Basically, if no replacement was available and his presence was necessary to protect the business' commercial interests. It's pretty unlikely that such a company will suffer "serious harm" if an employee is missing, but it's also not out of the question, so sure, Fred's employer, in extreme circumstances, can block his civic duty.

    Or let's say you could opt out ahead of time if you don't want the job. Better?
    Yeah, I don't think it's the kind of job you can enforce on someone, not for a period of years anyway. And it's a job you'd need for years. You have to be able to opt out. I think also the right to resign has to be present, some people might not be able to handle the pressure that comes with such a role.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  53. #8303
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    They measure intelligence and a ton of other things.
    The other things dominate unless the person taking the test is one whom the test is biased toward.
    What things? Are you saying someone who performs a logic puzzle better than another person, can do mental rotation more accurately, or has a larger vocabulary and better comprehension is reflecting something besides intelligence?


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Are you saying there's no cultural bias in IQ tests (in the last 100 years)?
    I don't even know what to say to such a clearly absurd statement being delivered unironically.

    I'm not sure we understand each other's use of words on this one.
    Yeah I don't think we are. I was referring to the kinds of knowledge you get as a function of growing up in a particular culture, like the baseball example I used.



    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    What counts as intelligent behavior in the poorest communities is not equivalent as what counts as intelligent in the most affluent communities. The way intelligence expresses itself is a function of the values of the culture.
    How do you fairly compare the streets' smartest thug and the city's smartest CEO?
    Ah, ok.

    "Street smarts" or more generally, "wisdom" are forms of social intelligence. I'm referring here to cognitive intelligence (i.e., the kind tapped into by IQ tests, and what most people mean when they use the word 'intelligence'). These are largely independent as far as I know and in fact rely on different parts of the brain. Happy to elaborate on that if you want.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    It's not that those ideas are different. It's the assumption that the knowledge of those ideas is indicative of intelligence that is wrong.
    A person growing up in an impoverished community and/or abusive home values very different things than those you've stated. Their lack of skill in those tasks is not related to their intelligence, but reflecting that they don't have the luxury of security that the test takes for granted.
    If you don't have the time or motivation or security to develop your intellectual abilities, then it's not surprising you become less intelligent. It doesn't follow from that that IQ tests aren't measuring intelligence.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    That's just it, though. You can't provide that. You can only assert as much and hope you're right.
    You can make a test that accurately measures the intelligence of thugs, and one that does similar for CEO's.
    Comparing those results, though... It's basically mysticism.

    You can do very straightforward tests that measure cognitive abilities and provide very clear data about them, which is in fact as clear as a measure of a person's height or weight. For example, if you measure someone's reaction times or decision-making times to onset of stimuli, or measure their ability to inhibit a response to a stop signal. You can measure their working memory capacity. You can measure their visuoperceptual acuity. The results you get are measured in milliseconds or items of memory, so very precise. A person's scores on these kinds of tests correlates very highly with their scores on more conventional IQ tests.

    The smart brain is very likely operating in a quantitatively better way than the dumb brain. It's faster and more accurate, and so can learn more and learn it better.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    It's the inherent flaw in trying to boil something so vastly interesting and complex down to a single number, IMO.
    It's important to keep in mind that a number like IQ is only measuring certain kinds of intelligence that are cognitively-rich and closed-ended and so on. But it's still measuring intelligence.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Then how can we compare thugs and CEO's? How can we compare farmers and city-folk? How can we compare prisoners and ... um... non-prisoners? Missourians to Congolese?
    Why can't you compare them? The only problem I see is comparing Missourians to Congolese, if there are differences in language that make translation impractical. Otherwise you give them all the same test and see how they do. Note again you're only measuring cognitive intelligence (verbal, math, reasoning, logic, spatial) and not other kinds (social, motor, creativity, musical, etc. etc.) with conventional IQ tests.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    How can you assert that IQ's are "generally increasing over time" or however you phrased it?
    Because when they give the same test to large groups of people across long time spans, the scores go up over time. Do you find this hard to believe? Education gets better, people stay in school longer, people have better nutrition, more access to learning materials, etc. I don't think it's surprising we get smarter (as a group) over generations.




    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    No. That's how you disenfranchise impoverished communities.

    You give the same test to affluent communities as you give to the impoverished communities.
    That's only fair, right?
    Then you show that the artificially lowered scores of the impoverished communities and the artificially boosted scores of the affluent community are the reason those communities are what they are.

    Of course [minority] live in slums... they're not as smart.
    Of course [minority] doesn't deserve our sympathy. They're genetically predisposed. We can't change that. Not our fault.

    Elitism.
    I agree with you. And I wouldn't make those arguments. I would say the lower IQ in the slums reflects the lack of access to proper education/nutrition/etc., not a genetic inferiority.

    But we are talking about what IQ tests measure here, not the social ramifications of how they can be abused by people with bad intentions.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    In order to do so, it must presuppose your environment and project a value system which delineates what is "worth knowing."
    Sure.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    "basically" - meaning it's not the same.
    "[...] through practice alone" - I find that hard to believe.
    What psychologist is testing the same patient with the same test multiple times?
    I was tested a few times, but never with the same test twice.
    You were tested in school I presume? So was I. Those tests are geared towards the age of the children they're testing. That's why they don't have grade 11 math questions on a grade 5 test.

    Psychologists' tests for the general public of adults are applied more rarely, usually following brain injury or assessment of dementia (remember the test Trump took?) but there's lots of them, and they are cross-validated (at least the good ones are), meaning that if three tests say your IQ is 100 and the fourth one says it's 140, the fourth one is invalidated and people stop using it.

    And yes, a lot of the questions are basically the same. It's fairly clear that, e.g., 4x+2y=8 is functionally equivalent to 2x + 6y = 10 in terms of who can and can't solve it.

    For vocab tests, they test a large number (say 30) words, and in the next test a large number of words matched on difficulty. And in both, there will be some people who score higher than others.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    The tests change to reflect advances in the relevant psychological fields of study. Among them is the acknowledgement that changes in the cultural background in which the testee has lived render certain questions useless.
    This has been known for a long time. When the US entered WWI in 1917, they used an IQ test that asked a lot of culturally-biased questions (such as 'how many are on a baseball side'). Not surprisingly, people born in the US scored higher than immigrants from English-speaking countries, who scored higher than immigrants from non-English speaking countries). Also not surprisingly, racists abused these results for their own ends. Also not surprisingly, the test has since been modified to avoid these kinds of problems. Even the army learned it's lesson on that one.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    So you agree that access to education and nutrition are significantly relevant factors!?
    I wish you'd lead with that.
    Of course they are. So is exercise and whether or not you smoke and if you're slim or a fatty. All factors relating to health affect the brain.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Do you agree that those 2 things vary wildly across even the population of a single city, let alone a nation or the world?

    Do you agree that variance in those 2 factors is more often indicative of cultural status of the community in which the testee was raised than anything related to the intelligence of either the testee or their parents?
    I agree with all of this, yes.



    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Do you agree that those 2 are not the only confounding factors in these tests?
    Only if you ascribe test scores purely to genetics and not acknowledge the impact of these other factors. But this question is different from 'what does an IQ test measure?' This question assumes it measures some kind of cognitive abiity(s) and describes the source of a person's IQ score as being purely innate as opposed to what it really is, a combination of genetics and environment.




    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Lol. I disagree about how it's used.
    When someone bring up their own IQ, it's never intellectually honest.
    Well in our convo, Ong brought up my IQ, not his own. Not sure what you think that means but anyways...



    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I bet if I followed you around for a day, I could list more than a handful examples of your lack of intelligence.
    Letting you follow me around for a day would be the first one. And sure, you'd see some examples of things I do that aren't very smart. I'm fairly sure you'd also see more than enough examples of things that are smart enough to convince you that overall, I'm smarter than the average bear.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I'm good at some things, OK at some things, and terrible at most things. Just like the rest of us.
    I don't think most people are terrible at most things. They're certainly not expert at everything, but that's not what IQ is measuring.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Just because we test well, and have a skillset that makes us better than most at book-smarts, doesn't mean we're smart.
    It pretty much does though by the standard definition of intelligence.




    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    It's more that we're lucky the things we're good at are valued as "smart" by the cultures we've lived in.
    I agree it's more fortunate to be smart than to not be smart.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    If you don't, you're not being intellectually honest, and are probably virtue signalling, IMO.
    Maybe, but it remains the case that most people think of the term 'intelligence' in terms of cognitive abilities rather than those other things. So it's not disingenuous to use the word in that sense imo.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    If you don't, it's hard to interpret any direct relevance or predictive power of the IQ score, anyway.
    It predicts a lot of things. It predicts that it takes an intelligent person less time to read and understand something. It predicts they can follow a chain of logic. It predicts they are good at math.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    It's not indicative of a person's dedication, commitment, loyalty, leadership, etc.
    It's not indicative of whether a person has capacity for good or bad.
    It's not indicative of how observant, patient, empathetic, or compassionate a person is.
    Nor was it ever meant to indicate any of those things. It's an intelligence test, not a 'how good a person are you' test.
  54. #8304
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    According to the government's website, yes it's true. Although, I did more digging to see what obligations employers have, and they have to give a reason. Moreover, they can only do so if it will "seriously harm their business". Further, they can only do it once in a 12 month period. So Fred who works for the widget business could be excused, assuming the business was small, understaffed, and had a large order of widgets to sort. Basically, if no replacement was available and his presence was necessary to protect the business' commercial interests. It's pretty unlikely that such a company will suffer "serious harm" if an employee is missing, but it's also not out of the question, so sure, Fred's employer, in extreme circumstances, can block his civic duty.
    Fair enough.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yeah, I don't think it's the kind of job you can enforce on someone, not for a period of years anyway. And it's a job you'd need for years. You have to be able to opt out. I think also the right to resign has to be present, some people might not be able to handle the pressure that comes with such a role.
    Seems right. You can resign from any other job. If you got this job and then realised you don't know wtf you're doing and you're stressing out, or if you get sick, or whatever, quitting has to be an option.
  55. #8305
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,546
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    What things? Are you saying someone who performs a logic puzzle better than another person, can do mental rotation more accurately, or has a larger vocabulary and better comprehension is reflecting something besides intelligence?
    No, I'm saying that a high score is probably indicative of the type of intelligence the test was testing for, but a low score could indicate a wide range of things, most of them not related to the test.

    But also, YES, I would say that.
    You've listed examples of knowledge, not intelligence. Measuring one and calling it the other is weird.

    "Street smarts" or more generally, "wisdom" are forms of social intelligence. I'm referring here to cognitive intelligence (i.e., the kind tapped into by IQ tests, and what most people mean when they use the word 'intelligence'). These are largely independent as far as I know and in fact rely on different parts of the brain. Happy to elaborate on that if you want.
    This is a huge problem, and failure to incorporate all forms of intelligence into IQ tests is misleading.
    Or rather, failure to comprehensively expand the testing process to show the many, nuanced ways intelligence expresses in humans renders the results useless without the handful or more other numbers to get an actual glimmering of someone's intelligence.

    I've never heard anyone equate "street smarts" and "wisdom" before. Having high wisdom will lead to more street smarts if you spend time on the streets, but not otherwise.

    "What most people mean [...]," citation needed.
    Do you mean the people you spend the most time with? or most of the people you spend time with?

    If you don't have the time or motivation or security to develop your intellectual abilities, then it's not surprising you become less intelligent. It doesn't follow from that that IQ tests aren't measuring intelligence.
    As far as I understand, a 5 year old with a ~140 IQ is most often going to mature into a teenager with a ~140 IQ and then an adult with ~140 IQ, provided things go well enough (e.g. no head trauma).
    Ergo, intelligence is not dependent on how you spend your time. However, your ability to score well on a given IQ test certainly is if it's asking vocabulary questions and visualize a rotating shape questions.

    The smart brain is very likely operating in a quantitatively better way than the dumb brain. It's faster and more accurate, and so can learn more and learn it better.
    Then why are you talking about memorization as an indication of smarts?
    You should be measuring how fast a person is at incorporating new information and accurately applying it, right?
    I.e. intelligence cannot be measured based on the past, but only based on the present, right?

    It's important to keep in mind that a number like IQ is only measuring certain kinds of intelligence that are cognitively-rich and closed-ended and so on. But it's still measuring intelligence.
    It's important to remember that when describing a pizza, I'm only really talking about the pepperoni... which your pizza may not have, but "most people's" do. But I'm still describing a pizza.

    Why can't you compare them?
    Comparing the IQ's of test subjects from different cultures is bogus. Each group is normalized to itself, and there's no mathematical way to compare the mean of one group to the mean of another group, since the tests themselves are different.
    We can say, "people who are on the top of the bell curve in one group will tend to be on the top of the bell curve in another group." That's fine. What we can't say is, "This group scores systematically higher/lower than that group."

    Because when they give the same test to large groups of people across long time spans, the scores go up over time. Do you find this hard to believe? Education gets better, people stay in school longer, people have better nutrition, more access to learning materials, etc. I don't think it's surprising we get smarter (as a group) over generations.
    Hard to believe? No, the opposite. Previously novel ideas embraced by only a few become ubiquitous knowledge over time, and therefore no longer reflect an "advanced" knowledge of anything. Other ideas, once ubiquitously agreed upon as "true," are shuffled out of the culture, as their importance and "truth" is not really all that.

    A test based on cultural norms becomes outdated as culture evolves.

    Education getting better doesn't make people smarter, it makes them more knowledgeable. Same for additional schooling. Good nutrition increases security and free time, allowing more time for whatever intelligence to express itself on non-survival based thoughts, which are not prized as "smart" in our culture.

    Grog the cave man was as statistically as likely of being a genius by today's standards as a child born today. The human genome hasn't changed since his time. Intelligence hasn't changed in many tens if not hundreds of thousands of years. There is 0 evidence that people have "gotten smarter" over the entire human geological record.
    Maybe you can't agree with me based a genetic record. Fine. I'm a bit dubious on that assertion, myself.

    Ancient history, the oldest writings, Ancient Egyptian culture... if you study it at all, you will see the genius of those people. The smartest people alive today are not in consensus about how the Egyptian pyramids were built. They had genius 6,000 years ago.
    What has changed is culture, not intelligence.

    But we are talking about what IQ tests measure here, not the social ramifications of how they can be abused by people with bad intentions.
    You've solidly agreed with me that the tests are biased toward the cultural status of the testee, and that comparing results of disparate cultures on the same test is bogus.
    We already know you can't directly compare the results from different tests, so ...
    I don't see how the result (some bigotry) is anything but a foregone conclusion.

    You were tested in school I presume?
    Yep. Bunch of condescending douchbags. (the testers)

    If I locked you in a room with nanners (as opposed to a nice person) and he was testing your IQ, do you think that would tend to increase or decrease your score on that test?
    Is that more a reflection of your intelligence, or your patience?
    Maybe your determination to remain focused despite distraction?

    The tests are sensitive to so many unquantifiable factors beyond what they're designed to test.

    This has been known for a long time.
    Also not surprisingly - an expert such as yourself continues to deny the extreme relevance of cultural bias to the tests and their results until after you've spent a couple paragraphs saying some things that any statistician should get all squinty-eyed at.
    "You can't do well on any of the tests unless you could do well on all (or most) of the tests."
    you say while sweeping this under a rug:
    "while a high score tends to indicate intelligence, a low score indicates nothing at all."


    ***
    This is too long.
    White flag.

    I'll try to respond in summary on these long topics. The wall of text thing is fun, but overwhelming and daunting to read, IMO.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  56. #8306
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    As far as I understand, a 5 year old with a ~140 IQ is most often going to mature into a teenager with a ~140 IQ and then an adult with ~140 IQ, provided things go well enough (e.g. no head trauma).
    Ergo, intelligence is not dependent on how you spend your time.
    Sure it is. If you take two five year olds with an IQ of 140 and one goes to school everyday and studies and the other's parents decide school is for suckers and pull him/her out of it and lock him a closet for 10 years, the former is going to end up ahead of the latter at age 15 on IQ.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Then why are you talking about memorization as an indication of smarts?
    You should be measuring how fast a person is at incorporating new information and accurately applying it, right?
    Working memory is memory for the last 30 seconds or so. I think you're conflating that with long-term memory, which is beyond 30s and forms the basis of what we consider 'knowledge'.

    WM is pretty critical for doing anything that requires you to hang onto information while you process it (and as such, makes it easier to acquire long-term knowledge). If you can't remember what you just read in the previous sentence (context), the storyline will be harder to comprehend, and you will suffer on an IQ test of verbal comprehension. Similarly, if you're doing math or logic tests. So if you have a larger WM capacity, you'll be better at these things than someone who forgets where they started from when they get halfway through a task.




    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Also not surprisingly - an expert such as yourself
    not at all an expert, but I've learned some things about it here and there along the way.



    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    continues to deny the extreme relevance of cultural bias to the tests
    well, I don't really. I've said repeatedly that environment (including culture) affects intelligence and hence IQ scores.

    Or, if by that you mean the cultural bias in how we define intelligence, this is changing. There are now tests to assess social intelligence, moral intelligence, musical intelligence, creativity, etc.. They just arent incorporated into standard IQ tests- and maybe they should be. But that just means IQ tests are limited, not that they're bogus.



    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    and their results until after you've spent a couple paragraphs saying some things that any statistician should get all squinty-eyed at.
    I'm more of a statistician than I am an expert on IQ. Pointing out the existence of correlations isn't in the least bit questionable.



    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    "You can't do well on any of the tests unless you could do well on all (or most) of the tests."
    Not what a correlation means, nor what I said. I said you are more likely to do well on one subset of an IQ test if you do well on another subset of an IQ test, and similarly for other more objective tests of cognitive processing speed and working memory capacity. These are established facts, and not controversial.

    I added something along the lines of it seems likely from this that these different subtests are tapping into some underlying cognitive ability. I don't think there's anything outrageous about that statement. You can disagree, but then you have to provide some alternate explanation for the existence of this matrix of correlations among all these various things that prima facie seem to be measuring intelligence.
  57. #8307
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,546
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I disagree with your view of what constitutes intelligence. I think you're pigeon-holing human intelligence into too simple a model to be in any way meaningful or useful.
    Intelligence is multi-faceted and turns up in many and surprising ways, IMO. Any attempt to describe something so complicated with one piece of information (a number) is going to be hollow.


    I don't need to provide any "alternative explanation" than what I've been offering this whole time.
    The tests are measuring things that are valued by our culture. People that are good at those things we currently value are called "smart."
    Those "smart" people are also good at other tests which measure things we value in our culture.
    People that are good at the things we value in our culture remain good at tests which probe exactly that.

    I've never denied that the tests can measure intelligent behavior. When a person is actually smart, that intelligence manifests in lots of ways, and so long as the test hits on some of those ways, it will probably be good enough to earn a high score.

    I cite that high test results are probably indicative of high intelligence, but low test results don't indicate anything at all.

    I cite that the tests are biased in their nature, and that trying to use a single test on too large a group is going to skew the results. Furthermore, the bias is toward the majority (by design, to accommodate the largest number of test-takers) and skewed in their favor and against any minorities.
    Frankly, the more I think about this one, the harder it is to see it as unintentional that some bigotry comes out of it.

    ***
    It just goes on and on. The tests are bad because they're based on a flawed idea. The whole notion that human intelligence is 1-dimensional and can be boiled down to a single number is just nonsense.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  58. #8308
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,546
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    The House Impeached Trump, BTW.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  59. #8309
    The moment Kanye wins the 2024 election:

    On the debate stage, one of the press asks him why he would run as a Republican since everybody knows that Republicans are such super dooper racists.

    Kanye tilts into the mic slightly and says "Abraham Lincoln is a Republican."

    And every brain in the country goes "hmm".
    Last edited by wufwugy; 03-25-2020 at 10:22 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •