Octopus Overlords

Hillary Clinton was on Rachel Maddow's show this week. She seems impressively sane.

One of the takeaways is this clip, where she offers a speculative what-if about how wrong it is to accept campaign help from foreign espionage:



Need it be mentioned that right-wing media is snipping soundbites out of context to make it sound like HRC is actually asking for this?

HRC is clearly asking for this and I think it's brilliant.

His tie is barely past his belt here. Can we trust his MAGA?

I would argue it's more of a testament to American ignorance, with a side serving of bigotry.

His other one is just as interesting:

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 11:48 am His other one is just as interesting:

I agree that the people who know the name would likely vote that the theory should be taught, but it would be pretty easy to get a 53% No response to teaching the Big Bang in my neck of the woods.

stessier wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 1:13 pm I agree that the people who know the name would likely vote that the theory should be taught, but it would be pretty easy to get a 53% No response to teaching the Big Bang in my neck of the woods.

Sorry, that's the wrong twitter post. There's one that breaks it down by ideology which is the important part. It's just showing bias and Dunning-Kreuger.

You don't have to be prejudiced to think a creation theory shouldn't be taught in science. When is the Big Bang ever referred to as a creation theory?

I totally agree. 'creation' means something in this context. The question is massively misleading.

That's your bias showing.

Yeah, that's one of those questions designed to make a group feel even more smug than they believe they already are. It's the equivalent of talk show hosts going out on the street and asking dumb questions to see if they can get a dumb response.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 1:54 pm That's your bias showing.

It is misleading but then so is the Arabic numbers question. It's designed to expose ignorance. People who do assessment for a living do this all of the time if their goal is to find out if you really know something.

What's amusing to me is the person in the twitter link being critical is "Edu. assessment designer". She asks why the trick question and then suggests the whole poll to make people looked bigoted and leaves subtext the pollsters should be called in to question.

https://www.uwosh.edu/testing/faculty-i ... ectiveness

Really what's revealing to me is the amount of people not willing to say no opinion. Ignorance is what it is. Professing to be in the right from a position of ignorance is at issue. I can only make an weak assumption that "is what is being said about the pollsters" as far as what they are trying to get a feel for.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 1:54 pm That's your bias showing.

How is it bias?

LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 2:24 pm It is misleading but then so is the Arabic numbers question.

There's a difference in that the phrase itself ("creation theory") has been appropriated with a different meaning. "Creationism" is pretty much the exact opposite of Lemaitre's original hypothesis. There's no way to misread the "Arabic numerals" question - either you know what that means or you don't.

gilraen wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 2:35 pm

LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 2:24 pm It is misleading but then so is the Arabic numbers question.

There's a difference in that the phrase itself ("creation theory") has been appropriated with a different meaning. "Creationism" is pretty much the exact opposite of Lemaitre's original hypothesis. There's no way to misread the "Arabic numerals" question - either you know what that means or you don't.

I don't buy that. The sameness is that the questions were designed to see if you would focus on a trigger word that would probably get you to answer the opposite of what you really believe the case.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 2:28 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 1:54 pm That's your bias showing.

How is it bias?

I think it's because you are suggesting the Big Bang theory is not a description of creation.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 2:28 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 1:54 pm That's your bias showing.

How is it bias?

You assume it's Creationism because it's a priest/religion proposing a theory.

If someone asked you for your theory on creation, you'd (most likely.. I don't know your personal belief) tell them the Big Bang Theory without blinking an eye.

Is Twitter destroying productive public discourse? Yes, yes it is

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 2:46 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 2:28 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 1:54 pm That's your bias showing.

How is it bias?

You assume it's Creationism because it's a priest/religion proposing a theory.

If someone asked you for your theory on creation, you'd (most likely.. I don't know your personal belief) tell them the Big Bang Theory without blinking an eye.

That bias is propagated primarily by religious appropriation of any form of the word "creation" though. Google the term "creation theory" and you'll see nothing but results dealing with creationism.

hepcat wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 3:16 pm Google the term "creation theory" and you'll see nothing but results dealing with creationism.

I googled "big bang theory" and I saw nothing but results dealing with a TV show.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 3:20 pm I googled "big bang theory" and I saw nothing but results dealing with a TV show.

hepcat wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 3:16 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 2:46 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 2:28 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 1:54 pm That's your bias showing.

How is it bias?

You assume it's Creationism because it's a priest/religion proposing a theory.

If someone asked you for your theory on creation, you'd (most likely.. I don't know your personal belief) tell them the Big Bang Theory without blinking an eye.

That bias is propagated primarily by religious appropriation of any form of the word "creation" though. Google the term "creation theory" and you'll see nothing but results dealing with creationism.

Of course it is. That's how bias works. It doesn't come out of nowhere.

Sure, and some stereotypes are accurate and appropriate and some are inaccurate and filled with hate.

A poll showing hate filled stereotyping is not automatically equivalent with a poll showing appropriate stereotyping.

In this case one question shows inaccurate bias while the other shows well founded bias, even if it turns out this particular question is an exception to that bias.

Honestly bias is just ill-informed expectation. Well informed expectation has no negative connotation, so we don't call it bias. Having your well informed expectation turn out to be wrong in a single exception isn't and shouldn't be called bias.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 3:51 pm Sure, and some stereotypes are accurate and appropriate and some are inaccurate and filled with hate.

A poll showing hate filled stereotyping is not automatically equivalent with a poll showing appropriate stereotyping.

In this case one question shows inaccurate bias while the other shows well founded bias, even if it turns out this particular question is an exception to that bias.

Honestly bias is just ill-informed expectation. Well informed expectation has no negative connotation, so we don't call it bias. Having your well informed expectation turn out to be wrong in a single exception isn't and shouldn't be called bias.

...

Over 20 years ago, John Paul II said, "Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

Great.

Let me know when American religious leaders catch up.

If you'd like, we can also travel back in time when religious organizations also housed some of the leading scientific minds of humanity and ask the question then too.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 3:26 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 3:16 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 2:46 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 2:28 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 1:54 pm That's your bias showing.

How is it bias?

You assume it's Creationism because it's a priest/religion proposing a theory.

If someone asked you for your theory on creation, you'd (most likely.. I don't know your personal belief) tell them the Big Bang Theory without blinking an eye.

That bias is propagated primarily by religious appropriation of any form of the word "creation" though. Google the term "creation theory" and you'll see nothing but results dealing with creationism.

Of course it is. That's how bias works. It doesn't come out of nowhere.

Telling someone they're bias as you did in your reply without tempering it with an explanation that you don't mean it in a negative manner may, in fact, be taken that way. As I think Alefroth did.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 3:20 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 3:16 pm Google the term "creation theory" and you'll see nothing but results dealing with creationism.

I googled "big bang theory" and I saw nothing but results dealing with a TV show.

Ah, I forgot to translate "creation theory" from English into Mortisese.

That's how he meant it, hep.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 2:46 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 2:28 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 1:54 pm That's your bias showing.

How is it bias?

You assume it's Creationism because it's a priest/religion proposing a theory.

If someone asked you for your theory on creation, you'd (most likely.. I don't know your personal belief) tell them the Big Bang Theory without blinking an eye.

I assumed it was Creationism because it was called creation theory. If it had just mentioned the person by name I would have still thought it was Creationism. My belief in the beginning of the universe doesn't use the language of creation.

I was surprised to find the Big Bang theory was founded by a Catholic priest. I admit there is bias in that.

hepcat wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 4:32 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 3:26 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 3:16 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 2:46 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 2:28 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 1:54 pm That's your bias showing.

How is it bias?

You assume it's Creationism because it's a priest/religion proposing a theory.

If someone asked you for your theory on creation, you'd (most likely.. I don't know your personal belief) tell them the Big Bang Theory without blinking an eye.

That bias is propagated primarily by religious appropriation of any form of the word "creation" though. Google the term "creation theory" and you'll see nothing but results dealing with creationism.

Of course it is. That's how bias works. It doesn't come out of nowhere.

Telling someone they're bias as you did in your reply without tempering it with an explanation that you don't mean it in a negative manner may, in fact, be taken that way. As I think Alefroth did.

That's why I explained it without being snarky.

hepcat wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 4:32 pm Telling someone they're bias as you did in your reply without tempering it with an explanation that you don't mean it in a negative manner may, in fact, be taken that way. As I think Alefroth did.

I almost replied that there is nothing wrong with that, but then I looked up bias just to make sure I was clear, and it's mostly defined as prejudice. That does seem wrong so I changed my reply.

My internet snark meter is about as precise as my ghost detection one.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 4:39 pm
That's why I explained it without being snarky.

Snark is one of your best qualities.

Ok, you're never really very snarky, but you should be. Give it a try!

hepcat wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 4:45 pm My internet snark meter is about as precise as my ghost detection one.

I am not sure a ghost detection snark meter is of much practical use.

Have you met the ghost of Mr. Fed?