Latest snowflake outrage

Blimey they make Kevin and Perry seem like normal teenagers
Forgive my use of terms that are loaded with alleged male toxicity, but in my day only drama queens sought publicity for a pity party, the rest of us were usually uncomfortable in the public eye but saw stoicism, self-reliance, and a can-do outlook, to be admirable character traits in males and females.
 
To amplify a little on some of this, testing questions in things like the IAT test can also be impacted by the 'precision' of the meaning of a word. In particular if you the tester decide that a certain word does imply a form of bias then it does, but maybe that’s actually your bias rather than all your test subjects. You can also look on this as a form of Rating effect. Given that language is very fluid subject, your slang homosexual is my slang cigarette, we both sit on an ass, but my bottom sits on and ass with four legs while your ass sits on a donkey, to give just two fairly unsubtle examples, verbal testing is riddled with potential for misinterpretation.
Your mission, which began with your subconscious desire to be seen as a liberal intellectual (your choice of screen name) is not going well, is it?
Even if this post of yours were to contain correct punctuation, capitalisation, spelling and grammar, it is still six lines of babble.
 
Your mission, which began with your subconscious desire to be seen as a liberal intellectual (your choice of screen name) is not going well, is it?
Even if this post of yours were to contain correct punctuation, capitalisation, spelling and grammar, it is still six lines of babble.
Alternately you're just too thick to understand it and lacking the intelligence to argue coherently you resort to personal abuse in the hope of disguising the fact. I usually can’t be bothered to point this out, but for you I’ll make an exception, just this once.
 
Forgive my use of terms that are loaded with alleged male toxicity, but in my day only drama queens sought publicity for a pity party, the rest of us were usually uncomfortable in the public eye but saw stoicism, self-reliance, and a can-do outlook, to be admirable character traits in males and females.
Try telling that to @redshift, he then might stop his innane poor me dribbling.
 
Sound science, change only one variable and you can reasonably conclude that the changed result is caused by the change.
Assuming you actually know that you've isolated everything except the independent variable... again referring to Feynman :

Cargo Cult Science

see the section that starts with Young in 1937. Also refer to Ioannides et al who determined that experimentor biases were present even in "gold standard" blinded, ethically controlled trials and I would argue that it's still highly likely that the results are an artefact of the experiment rather than real.

"By comparison in the second work they have simply looked at a set of results and said are they a roughly 50/50 split, "

and the first study was instigated by Olympic results of 442 bouts that split 55/45 i.e 10 fights go the other way and the conclusion evaporates. The second work examined a sample over twice the size and the effect is gone.
 
And yet :

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21615667.2016.1210266?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=uijw20

Now all these studies have been performed by social scientists, and as Dr Feynman once opined "I don't know how they know anything... they haven't done the work" (my ellipses) and to be frank the real takeaway is probably that when it comes to investigating the brain and behaviour we need to work harder at finding and eliminating bias in our experiments before we get serious about the results.
To be fair, especially wrestling the red bias is meaningless as proven by Hulk Hogan, so there!
 

Attachments

Assuming you actually know that you've isolated everything except the independent variable...
If we're going to wax philosophical then of course we can never know this [since we can't exlude the unknown unknown impact] so all experiments are pointless. From a pragmatic perspective I think showing the same fight to referees with the proponents blue/red and then again red/blue is about as idealised an experiment as you can get.
and the first study was instigated by Olympic results of 442 bouts that split 55/45 i.e 10 fights go the other way and the conclusion evaporates. The second work examined a sample over twice the size and the effect is gone.
The first test was instigated by... but then it moved on to do more detailed and significant testing, which the second test didn't replicate [why not]. Simply measuring the results of all the bouts is subject to so many other possible influences that you've mentioned that it is frankly pointless.
 
If we're going to wax philosophical then of course we can never know this [since we can't exlude the unknown unknown impact] so all experiments are pointless. From a pragmatic perspective I think showing the same fight to referees with the proponents blue/red and then again red/blue is about as idealised an experiment as you can get.

The first test was instigated by... but then it moved on to do more detailed and significant testing, which the second test didn't replicate [why not]. Simply measuring the results of all the bouts is subject to so many other possible influences that you've mentioned that it is frankly pointless.
Coming back to proving unconscious bias as a thing, does this mean that it is essentially still only a not very well proven concept and not an actual thing?
 
Coming back to proving unconscious bias as a thing, does this mean that it is essentially still only a not very well proven concept and not an actual thing?
As far as I'm concerned the evidence I quoted shows quite clearly that unconscious bias exists in relation to colour in certain circumstances. I'd be surprised if you could find a psychologist who would argue that all our actions are entirely governed by our conscious mind. There are two references below that cover the subject if you want to read more.
Augusto, L.M. (2010). "Unconscious knowledge: A survey". Advances in Cognitive Psychology. 6: 116–141. doi:10.2478/v10053-008-0081-5. PMC 3101524. PMID 21814538.
Hasher L, Zacks RT (December 1984). "Automatic processing of fundamental information: the case of frequency of occurrence". Am Psychol. 39 (12): 1372–88. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.39.12.1372. PMID 6395744.
What constitutes an 'actual thing' to you I don't know. Philosophically I don’t believe in facts as matters proven beyond dispute. Because you can never account for the unknown unknowns you can never be more than X% certain of any information you have and you can never accurately know X. Practically I have to assess the most information I can get and draw what seems to be the most logical conclusion from it and act on that conclusion, but if presented with more information I have to be prepared to reassess this situation and potentially modify my conclusion. This is the bit that people find hard, once they’ve reached a decision they want to be able to put it away as ‘a fact’ so they can use it without much more thought [unconsciously?]. Endless reassessing things uses time and effort, which they don’t want to expend. If you think about how/why the brain evolved it’s not difficult to see why this would be the case.
 

Dredd

LE
I'd be surprised if you could find a psychologist who would argue that all our actions are entirely governed by our conscious mind.
Probably because the evidence has pointed to the complete opposite - we generally make decisions and then attempt to explain them believing that we used logic and evidence. For this reason alone, it is virtually impossible to remove bias from any decision-making process.

For example, if it were that easy, we would not bother with employment interviews and just feed the data into a computer and let the algorithm chose the "best" candidate, thereby removing the human element. And that (as far as I know) would not be allowed to happen. The same could be applied to on-line dating. Why bother with the "dating" bit when the computer has already chosen your perfect mate for you?

Bias is a fact of life, regardless of how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise. Some bias can be detrimental, or could be beneficial. They could be benign, or damaging. It is a fundamental part of our survival instinct as a conscious mammal and the fact that we are the most successful predator on the planet seems to indicate that our unconscious biases have been more benefit than detriment. Trying to actively eliminate the concept of bias (note, not effect) is contrary to psychological development and may be the beginning of the process in making the species extinct.
 
If we're going to wax philosophical then of course we can never know this [since we can't exlude the unknown unknown impact] so all experiments are pointless
I wouldn't go that far although many experiments probably are.... It's just a lot harder to build a genuinely controlled environment than most people realise...

which the second test didn't replicate [why not].
Because they analysed the difference in wins and found it wasn't significant... i.e it could be explained by normal variation so why bother.

I think showing the same fight to referees with the proponents blue/red and then again red/blue is about as idealised an experiment as you can get.
I can't find Hagemann's original paper, the only clearly known number is that 42 referees were used, I can't see how many clips were used, how they controlled the sequence and how insulated the subjects were from testers expectations... So not necessarily.

"Simply measuring the results of all the bouts is subject to so many other possible influences that you've mentioned that it is frankly pointless. "

If the colour of kit issued is truly random and not significant you'd expect it to tend towards a 50/50 split as you considered larger and larger populations.. seems to be what happens... Real data always trumps hypothesis no matter how attractive the hypothesis is.

For a long time there was thought to be a bias towards blue over white, this was eventually determined to a bias towards who was first called, usually the higher rank of a pair or the one with the highest accumulated points in the tournament depending on the circumstances..., i.e the wins tend to follow the better player...
 
Last edited:

GreyArea

War Hero
More outrage, this one is directed at a spoof twitter account that mocks snowflakes, left thought and the woke generation. Titania McGrath is not real but pokes gentle fun at a certain segment of society.

She/He has written a book and its now time for outrage from the left, which rather proves the point of Titania McGrath that the woke generation are humourless killjoys.

Titania McGrath’s tired and unfunny “joke” is just the old sneering at the young

The idea of Titania is a simple one – to lampoon the young and left-leaning who believe in things like gender equality, not being a racist or sexist, and so on. For instance one tweet calls out Apple for being transphobic for autocorrecting “womxn”, a term some use to include trans women as well as cis, to “women”. The whole “joke” is a classic example of older generations dumping on those younger than them for wanting life to be different than it was for those that came before.

Read the link, f*ck me, she's got a major sad on.

Cheer up Love, why don't you buy yourself some new shoes and treat yourself to a new shade of lippy, it'll do you the world of good.
 

GreyArea

War Hero
@MOzanne @beardyProf @Dredd @SnagySnags (etc, etc)

Just an observation lads

Riveting as your discourse is on whatever it is you're all wittering on about (I lost the will to live after reading the third or fourth post (or was it the seventh I can't remember thankfully)) would it not be a much better course of action to start your own thread about it in the Int Cell? (as you all sound far too brainy for this thread).

Once that's done you can then ask the mods to repost all your replies in the new thread thereby giving yourselves the benefit of being able to refer to each others arguements without all the intervening inconvenience of other contributors who would like to take the p*ss out of snowflakes and their whinging.
 
Alternately you're just too thick to understand it and lacking the intelligence to argue coherently you resort to personal abuse in the hope of disguising the fact. I usually can’t be bothered to point this out, but for you I’ll make an exception, just this once.
Pointing out shortcomings is known as 'constructive criticism', not 'personal abuse, which, for example, is stating that someone is "just too thick." (Do not worry, I am not a liberal so a safe space for a cry is not required.)

[Alternatively (comma) you're just too thick to understand it (comma) and lacking the intelligence to argue coherently (comma) you resort to personal abuse in the hope of disguising the fact.]

Well done you for at least remembering to include preposition, and the full stop, comrade.

Syntax is NOT a toll levied against immoral behaviour. This is something you would have understood if you had been smarter, and less lazy, by paying attention in English Language classes at school instead of spending two years at community college getting your degree in a subject that has, unarguably, even less practical worth to society than Art History.

Those who can, do. Those who cannot, become teachers. Those who cannot, and therefore do not want anyone else to, become Sociologists.
 
Last edited:
What happened to the snowflake thread?
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top