–“Several studies of the IQ of Gypsies have found average IQs ranging from 70 to 83. The average IQs of Gypsies in different countries have been stated to be 85 in Slovenia, 83 in Slovakia, 70 in Serbia, and 60 in Romania.”–
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-06 13:13:00 UTC
By Danika Fears, NYP
—“Turns out liberals are the real authoritarians. A political-science journal that published an oft-cited study claiming conservatives were more likely to show traits associated with “psychoticism” now says it got it wrong. Very wrong. The American Journal of Political Science published a correction this year saying that the 2012 paper has “an error” — and that liberal political beliefs, not conservative ones, are actually linked to psychoticism. “The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed,” the journal said in the startling correction. “The descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck’s psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.” In the paper, psychoticism is associated with traits such as tough-mindedness, risk-taking, sensation-seeking, impulsivity and authoritarianism. The social-desirability scale measures people’s tendency to answer questions in ways they believe would please researchers, even if it means overestimating their positive characteristics and underestimating negative ones. The erroneous report has been cited 45 times, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science. Brad Verhulst, a Virginia Commonwealth University researcher and a co-author of the paper, said he was not sure who was to blame. “I don’t know where it happened. All I know is it happened,” he told Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks corrections in academic papers. “It’s our fault for not figuring it out before.” The journal said the error doesn’t change the main conclusions of the paper, which found that “personality traits do not cause people to develop political attitudes.” But professor Steven Ludeke of the University of Southern Denmark, who pointed out the errors, told Retraction Watch that they “matter quite a lot.” “The erroneous results represented some of the larger correlations between personality and politics ever reported; they were reported and interpreted, repeatedly, in the wrong direction,” he said.”—
By Danika Fears, NYP
—“Turns out liberals are the real authoritarians. A political-science journal that published an oft-cited study claiming conservatives were more likely to show traits associated with “psychoticism” now says it got it wrong. Very wrong. The American Journal of Political Science published a correction this year saying that the 2012 paper has “an error” — and that liberal political beliefs, not conservative ones, are actually linked to psychoticism. “The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed,” the journal said in the startling correction. “The descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck’s psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.” In the paper, psychoticism is associated with traits such as tough-mindedness, risk-taking, sensation-seeking, impulsivity and authoritarianism. The social-desirability scale measures people’s tendency to answer questions in ways they believe would please researchers, even if it means overestimating their positive characteristics and underestimating negative ones. The erroneous report has been cited 45 times, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science. Brad Verhulst, a Virginia Commonwealth University researcher and a co-author of the paper, said he was not sure who was to blame. “I don’t know where it happened. All I know is it happened,” he told Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks corrections in academic papers. “It’s our fault for not figuring it out before.” The journal said the error doesn’t change the main conclusions of the paper, which found that “personality traits do not cause people to develop political attitudes.” But professor Steven Ludeke of the University of Southern Denmark, who pointed out the errors, told Retraction Watch that they “matter quite a lot.” “The erroneous results represented some of the larger correlations between personality and politics ever reported; they were reported and interpreted, repeatedly, in the wrong direction,” he said.”—
I did quite a bit of research on this in the mid 00’s when a number of left leaning surveys were published that I was pretty sure were wrong. They were. (Especially about mental illness, which appears to be a near monopoly on the left because of the dominance of women on the left. Why? Because males demonstrate anti social behavior by criminality and females demonstrate antisocial behavior by psychosis. Hence why a third of american women are on anti-depressants.) Here is the summary: a) Republicans are smarter than democrats.b) Liberals are smarter than conservatives.c) And libertarians are smartest of all. Moreover: d) People vote by moral intuition because they have no other choice under representative first-past-the-post, two party, government. (See “Myth of the Rational Voter”.) e) Men bias to organize by packs (precision at the cost of consensus), and women bias to organize as herd (consensus at the cost of precision). This means men are less likely to pursue consensus, and instead specialize. Hence the relative heterogeneity of the right compared to the relative homogeneity of the left. Ergo democracies always move left until failure while anglo civilization using hoses for the classes merely had civil wars to reorganize the law to include newly productive classes. f) People vote heavily by race and religion, with single white women the only group ‘defecting’. In some sense, single women determine most presidential outcomes for this reason. Without women voters we would never have had a leftist president. (See Pew.) Why? There are very (painfully) obvious reasons: 1 – Advocates use college degrees as a proxy for intelligence without mediating for the IQ distribution of degrees. In other words, a Phd in Education is rated more highly than bachelors degree in engineering or computer science, yet graduates with those degrees possess the inverse IQ relationship. 2 – Women at the lower end of the distribution disproportionately obtain (nonsense) degrees while men simply enter the work force without them. 3 – There are very few liberals, and very many conservatives. There are very few libertarians and very many democrats. In other words, when you compare democrats and republicans that’s categorically the same as comparing libertarians and leftists. The difference is that liberals will have soft degrees and libertarians will have hard (STEM) degrees. But if you mix categories (liberals and conservatives) then you are comparing vastly different distributions by very different criteria.
<- Liberal -- Democrat - independent - Republican -- Libertarian -> <- Female Reproductive Strategy <---> Male Reproductive Strategy ->
That’s why.
I did quite a bit of research on this in the mid 00’s when a number of left leaning surveys were published that I was pretty sure were wrong. They were. (Especially about mental illness, which appears to be a near monopoly on the left because of the dominance of women on the left. Why? Because males demonstrate anti social behavior by criminality and females demonstrate antisocial behavior by psychosis. Hence why a third of american women are on anti-depressants.) Here is the summary: a) Republicans are smarter than democrats.b) Liberals are smarter than conservatives.c) And libertarians are smartest of all. Moreover: d) People vote by moral intuition because they have no other choice under representative first-past-the-post, two party, government. (See “Myth of the Rational Voter”.) e) Men bias to organize by packs (precision at the cost of consensus), and women bias to organize as herd (consensus at the cost of precision). This means men are less likely to pursue consensus, and instead specialize. Hence the relative heterogeneity of the right compared to the relative homogeneity of the left. Ergo democracies always move left until failure while anglo civilization using hoses for the classes merely had civil wars to reorganize the law to include newly productive classes. f) People vote heavily by race and religion, with single white women the only group ‘defecting’. In some sense, single women determine most presidential outcomes for this reason. Without women voters we would never have had a leftist president. (See Pew.) Why? There are very (painfully) obvious reasons: 1 – Advocates use college degrees as a proxy for intelligence without mediating for the IQ distribution of degrees. In other words, a Phd in Education is rated more highly than bachelors degree in engineering or computer science, yet graduates with those degrees possess the inverse IQ relationship. 2 – Women at the lower end of the distribution disproportionately obtain (nonsense) degrees while men simply enter the work force without them. 3 – There are very few liberals, and very many conservatives. There are very few libertarians and very many democrats. In other words, when you compare democrats and republicans that’s categorically the same as comparing libertarians and leftists. The difference is that liberals will have soft degrees and libertarians will have hard (STEM) degrees. But if you mix categories (liberals and conservatives) then you are comparing vastly different distributions by very different criteria.
<- Liberal -- Democrat - independent - Republican -- Libertarian -> <- Female Reproductive Strategy <---> Male Reproductive Strategy ->
That’s why.
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/29694894_10156265825022264_1539249835742330880_o_10156265825012264.jpg 40 NEW PAPERS IN 2018 SAY GLOBAL WARMING DOESN’T EXIST.
FROM
NOTRICKS ZONE- CLIMATE NEWS FROM GERMANY IN ENGLISH.
http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/#sthash.J5s6KM7i.2ywZNTZ9.dpbsRob McMullanI accept that i’m not qualified at all to comment on global warming, but I’m confident in how full of shit people, especially leftists, can be.. so i’m not at all surprised.
What is your opinion so far on global warming and the science?Apr 04, 2018 10:29pmEric Thomasyikes be careful they are citing Brietbart in this article – also a closer look at the two graphs and you realize that one of them is just a graph for europe while the other one is just surface temps. I’d take this with a grain of salt.Apr 04, 2018 10:47pmCurt Doolittlei know the people in that movement and they’re not good peopleApr 04, 2018 11:09pmCurt Doolittledetails added to op.Apr 04, 2018 11:13pmEric ThomasI’m always on the look out for new science (especially science that shows us evidence that global warming is exaggerated) https://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htmApr 04, 2018 11:21pmTrè GreystokeYournewswire is fake news lmaoApr 04, 2018 11:32pmEric Thomasyikes 43 articles on Snopes debunked….cmon @[741197263:2048:Curt Doolittle]Apr 04, 2018 11:38pmEric Thomashttps://www.snopes.com/tag/yournewswire-com/Apr 04, 2018 11:38pmMichael AndradeMost modern academics are bad hombres.Apr 04, 2018 11:51pmMike RoseYikes citing snopes as researchApr 04, 2018 11:57pmMike RoseSnopes is garbage. Try harder.Apr 04, 2018 11:57pmEric ThomasMike Rose Snopes has always been reputable. Try hardest.Apr 04, 2018 11:58pmCurt Doolittleum. go to the papers not the gossip columnApr 05, 2018 12:02amCurt Doolittlego to the papersApr 05, 2018 12:03amEly HarmanLol.Apr 05, 2018 12:06amEly HarmanInteresting. Not surprised. What about the precautionary principle? What about Elon Musk’s view that running an experiment like “how much carbon can we pump into the atmosphere before it becomes a problem” is inherently reckless and irresponsible?Apr 05, 2018 12:07amPhilip ChristopherElon Musk is, like the vast majority of innovators, inherently reckless. Irresponsible is arguable. No one celebrates the guy who stayed home.Apr 05, 2018 12:25amEly HarmanA strong precautionary principle is basically an admonition against doing anything. So obviously, I don’t accept it in that form. But Taleb advocates a form of it as well based on assymetrical risk/reward which I think is tenable.Apr 05, 2018 12:42amGreg Hamilton@[100001322449172:2048:Eric Thomas] hahaha.Apr 05, 2018 12:49amChris JonesPascals wagerApr 05, 2018 12:57amChristian WarwickYournewswire isn’t fake news per se. They do post stuff that’s controversial and does sometimes hold info that does not eventually turn out to be true. But alot of their content is good.Apr 05, 2018 1:49amMichael PettenuzzoSnopes 😂Apr 05, 2018 3:16amThomas BeesleySnopes stopped being reputable when they threw their hat into the political arena and revealed their bias.Apr 05, 2018 3:29amCurt DoolittleWATCH THIS….. (Changed op)Apr 05, 2018 8:19amCurt DoolittleSO, NOW I DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE ANALYSIS.
How does that affect the argument?
And … um… you thought you were smart by criticizing the distributor rather than the manufacturer???????
Same reason pseudoscience exists…. presumptions.Apr 05, 2018 8:23amTrè Greystokehttp://yournewswire.com/adolf-hitler-black/Apr 05, 2018 8:24amTrent Fowler”Pascals wager”
That’s both nonsensical and way *too* precautionary.
“Not surprised. What about the precautionary principle? What about Elon Musk’s view that running an experiment like “how much carbon can we pump into the atmosphere before it becomes a problem” is inherently reckless and irresponsible?”
I say that if you can afford the capital investments to build SpaceX and Tesla then go for it. Plenty of precautionary strategies are cause-agnostic — it’s good to be an interplanetary species whether you believe in AGW or not, because even if carbon emissions aren’t driving heat increases we could still perish in a bad singularity or in a nuclear exchange.
This is the same logic I give for taking ‘prepping’ seriously. A lot of preppers believe patently silly things (e.g. “Obama is the antichrist”), but regardless of what you think will bring civilization down you’re going to need water, so stock up on that.Apr 05, 2018 9:42amChristian WarwickHitler was a brother. It’s clear as day. Or dark as night.Apr 05, 2018 10:14amChristian SeriousEven if that’s true the destruction of common property by government subsidized multinational corporations that eventually damage the private properties of people who never make as much money in a lifetime as some of these thugs make a year is wrong
The overall goal to cut back on pollution is still a fight worth having. While I still disagree with the idea of market interference from government it is time to cut back on pollutionApr 05, 2018 11:27pmMatthew Gillwhat about the precautionary principle regarding all the pollutants and radiation humans emit? co2 is one of the few that is non-toxic and beneficial to living things (plants). i’m more concerned about tesla’s batteries than co2, and more about the other pollutants released by drilling for and burning oil and coal. humanity as it currently operates is reckless and irresponsible, but co2 is a red herring imo, and a “easy fix” pseudo-solution that doesn’t deal with real problems like deforestation, monocultures, and sickening populations due to deliberately distributed toxins.Apr 05, 2018 11:59pmMicah Pezdirtz3 publications convinced me global warming is a false alarm.
The first one informed me that the margin of error in the study’s temperature measurements was basically the same as the purported increase in temperature they claimed had taken place over some decades (0.5°C) So they basically revealed no change and painted it as significant change. Lies.
The second publication demonstrated the historical levels of CO2 in the atmosphere fluctuate periodically and relatively predictably, with a maximum 8 times higher than at current at several points in the past several hundred thousand years. (With no corresponding mass extinctions to my knowledge)
The third publication investigated the sources of CO2 generation and sequestration and indicated a significant (30%) source of non human generated CO2, as well as general lack of understanding where it goes. Speculated on the acceleration of plant growth as a feedback loop.
Bonus publication: posited the falsehood of greenhouse gas as a theory bringing attention to the flaws of the original experiment. The atmosphere is not a box of gas with a fixed volume (which rises in temperature and pressure) but is allowed to expand and cool, normalizing pressure, constrained only by gravity.Apr 07, 2018 3:17pm40 NEW PAPERS IN 2018 SAY GLOBAL WARMING DOESN’T EXIST.
FROM
NOTRICKS ZONE- CLIMATE NEWS FROM GERMANY IN ENGLISH.
http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/#sthash.J5s6KM7i.2ywZNTZ9.dpbs
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-04 22:12:00 UTC
The reason we have cognitive science is because psychology was pure nonsense and so a group branched off to create a science where previously there was none.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-04 21:17:00 UTC
If I could reduce the question of our age to a simple comparison, the academy is still trying to produce wisdom lit of low offense, while i produce natural law, and the hard sciences produce physical law, regardless of offense. The reason the academy could replace the church was that they produced wisdom lit in every possible fictionalism, and did not produce natural law – and did so because there was a market for falsehood (wisdom lit) an no law prohibiting its sale.
If I could reduce the question of our age to a simple comparison, the academy is still trying to produce wisdom lit of low offense, while i produce natural law, and the hard sciences produce physical law, regardless of offense. The reason the academy could replace the church was that they produced wisdom lit in every possible fictionalism, and did not produce natural law – and did so because there was a market for falsehood (wisdom lit) an no law prohibiting its sale.
The dirty secret of western civilization is that while we invented Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Natural Law,and Market Politics that gave us reason and science, we started out as cattle raiders, pirates, and conquerors, and all the ‘goods’ that we gave the world were an accidental byproduct of the only means of governing voluntary organizations of warriors, raiders, pirates, and conquerors: entrepreneurs.