SkinWalker Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I'm guessing you misinterpretted what I said, and I'm sorry for not wording it in a way that you wouldn't jump to that conclusion, but for the record I never called you a racist if you actually read what I said, You said, "by your reasoning black people aren't as intelligent as White based on studies done years ago." That, categorically, is not my reasoning and I made no comment at all about the ancestry of people. I cited data which are demonstrating a clear, negative correlation between intelligence and conservative beliefs. That has nothing to do whatever with ancestry. You have just over 12 hours remaining. I suggest you edit your post, but if you prefer, a public apology for mis-characterizing my comments for your own ends will go a long way to developing a bit of respect from me. This mis-characterization implies that I'm a racist, whether you chose to admit or not and whether thats what you intended or not. Just over 12 hours.... To sum it up my point is that you need to look at historical instances of where the scientific community tried to manipulate data to promote stereotypes. No I don't. The data I'm citing from the studies I'm citing have nothing whatever to do with historical pseudoscience. These studies have nothing to do with ancestry or ethnicity and are backed by empirical data. The fact that the research is highly subjective and that we have no information as to who they tested and the geographic locations where the samples were taken. The data are not subjective -they are empirical. The methodologies include the demographics of the samples. You need only look at the papers cited. I am glad you at least waited for me to clarrify what I was saying in case you were misinterpreting what I was saying. You're not done yet. You've mis-characterized my comment which cites data regarding beliefs by attempting to equivocate it to pseudoscientific studies in history that derided ancestry and ethnicity. This is a prime and clear example of a straw man argument, which is a form of ad hominem argument. You'll need to edit your post and/or post an acknowledgment that my position and comment is being mis-characterized. I'll settle for simply you editing the post. 12 hours. Tick-tock. Beyond that, I appreciate your participation here. Please don't get me wrong. Which is the reason I'm affording you this opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 What follows are brief excerpts from an article in-press and my own commentary, which describes the negative correlation between intelligence and conservative beliefs. I cited the article elsewhere in this thread, but I'll include the citation at the end of this post. I can't post the entire article here due to Fair Use restrictions, but you should be able to find the journal Intelligence at your local university library or online via your local public library's internet access. You should even be able to order it via your public/uni library through the Inter Library Loan (I'll try to include the DOI to make this easier) Abstract Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. The evidence is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students seeking entry to United States' universities. At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education (e.g., gross enrollment at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels) and performance on mathematics and reading assessments from the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) project. They also correlate with components of the Failed States Index and several other measures of economic and political development of nations. Conservatism scores have higher correlations with economic and political measures than estimated IQ scores. The abstract gives an overview of the hypotheses of the author, which is that there is a negative correlation between conservatism and cognitive ability. That is to say, the more cognitively capable a person is, the less likely they are to be conservative. In this abstract, you can also get a sense of the methodology used, which includes a sampling of 2854 people (n=2854), including 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students. What was evaluated for cognitive ability were SAT scores, etc. (see the abstract). More on methodology To rate conservatism, the author drew on successful survey questions from other research that was able to establish levels of conservatism through the use of scaling questions with answers (like strongly and completely disagree to strongly and completely disagree). Questions rated the degree to which an individual subscribes to conventional religious beliefs, the degree to which an individual subscribes to various justifications of self interest; the degree to which an individual subscribes to patriotism, consitutionalism, humanism, existentialism, neoliberalism, and functionalism; and the degree to which an individual subscribes to subjective experiences (paranormal experiences, personal mysticism, etc.). Example statements (to which the respondent chose the degree to which they agreed or disagreed) were: "religion should play hte most important role in civil affairs;" "worldly possessions are the greatest good in life;" "I love and am devoted to my country;" and "some objects have magical powers." The results showed a negative correlation between conservatism and cognitive ability: Overall, both IQ and Conservatism are important in assessingthe country's economic and political status, with Conservatism showing a somewhat better predictive validity. Again, I wish to refrain from making causal inferences. All that can be said from the data at hand is that two psychological variables — cognitive ability (or IQ) and Conservative syndrome — appear to form a nexus with demographic, economic, sociological, health and political/legal variables at the country level of analysis. The author describes "conservatism" thus: The Conservative syndrome describes a person who attaches particular importance to the respect of tradition, humility, devoutness and moderation as well as to obedience, self-discipline and politeness, social order, family, and national security and has a sense of belonging to and a pride in a group with which he or she identifies. A Conservative person also subscribes to conventional religious beliefs and accepts the mystical, including paranormal, experiences. The same person is likely to be less open to intellectual challenges and will be seen as a responsible “good citizen” at work and in the society while expressing rather harsh views toward those outside his or her group. Our data also show that countries differ along similar albeit somewhat broader dimensions of Conservatism. This paragraph's description of the Conservative syndrome is a narrative listing of psychological processes captured by the scales and items that define Conservatism factor in this and other studies of ours. In his final concluding remarks, the author notes that he makes no attempt to speak to the causes of the results. He raises several questions: does IQ (cognitive ability) influence individuals' decisions to be conservative, or does conservatism influence one's IQ? If anyone is interested, I'll also give a similar treatment to one of the other studies, the Nyborg study on intelligence and religiosity perhaps. I thought about adding it to this post, but I'm tired and have a full day tomorrow. By the way, Nyborg is a researcher at the University of Aarhus in Denmark. Stankov is at the National Institute of Education in Singapore. References: Stankov, L., (2009). Conservatism and cognitive ability, Intelligence , doi:10.1016/j.intell.2008.12.007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 You said, "by your reasoning black people aren't as intelligent as White based on studies done years ago." Yes I did, by your line of reasoning those studies would be perfectly valid, I'm not saying you believe those studies, but your line of reasoning can be used to say those studies were valid. Hmm, the only other thing I may have to apologize for is not including the word "line" but other than that. That, categorically, is not my reasoning and I made no comment at all about the ancestry of people. I cited data which are demonstrating a clear, negative correlation between intelligence and conservative beliefs. That has nothing to do whatever with ancestry. You're going off on a red herring, and btw, you did insult people's heritage and insulted people because of their religion, which is discrimination. You have just over 12 hours remaining. I suggest you edit your post, but if you prefer, a public apology for mis-characterizing my comments for your own ends will go a long way to developing a bit of respect from me. This mis-characterization implies that I'm a racist, whether you chose to admit or not and whether thats what you intended or not. Just over 12 hours.... Only thing I'll apologize for is the misinterpretation on your part. If I were going to call you a racist, I would just flat out call you it. No I don't. The data I'm citing from the studies I'm citing have nothing whatever to do with historical pseudoscience. These studies have nothing to do with ancestry or ethnicity and are backed by empirical data. Actually it's just like the pseudoscience, your line of reasoning can be used to validate those studies. And as far as empirical data, I somehow doubt that. You've used every chance you had to bash people based on whether or not they believe in God, which is religious discrimination. I'm not going to back off that statement because that's the truth. The data are not subjective -they are empirical. The methodologies include the demographics of the samples. You need only look at the papers cited. Then if you really believe that I got some land to sell you on Jupiter. You're not done yet. You've mis-characterized my comment which cites data regarding beliefs by attempting to equivocate it to pseudoscientific studies in history that derided ancestry and ethnicity. This is a prime and clear example of a straw man argument, which is a form of ad hominem argument. You'll need to edit your post and/or post an acknowledgment that my position and comment is being mis-characterized. I'll settle for simply you editing the post. 12 hours. Tick-tock. That exact kind of study was done before by the Nazis in the 1930s. That is a fact, and you can argue it all day long, but the facts are the facts. You're just dismissing it because it completely invalidates your sources. Addendum: Btw, I edited the post to clarify what I was saying, I completely disagree with your interpretation though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Yes I did, by your line of reasoning those studies would be perfectly valid, I'm not saying you believe those studies, but your line of reasoning can be used to say those studies were valid. Hmm, the only other thing I may have to apologize for is not including the word "line" but other than that. Thank you for the adjustment. Sometimes a single word or syllable can make significant differences in what gets implied or inferred. Let me also offer a clarification by actually outlining my line of reasoning. The research I cited used empirical methods. Their methods produced results. The results are a product of empirical study. Empirical studies have quantifiable data. Quantifiable data from empirical sources are not subjective and have objective outcomes. When the methods are understood and the data are acknowledge, the resulting correlations are undeniable until such time as specific flaws in the methodology are exposed. What you've chosen to do, is equate two of the references I cited to the pseudoscientific and poorly researched speculations of a primarily Victorian age, but also the early 20th century. You didn't specify which "race studies" you were using as an analogy, but I'm familiar with several. Each had very serious methodological flaws -entire books have been written on this topic. The research I cited earlier in this thread (and again a couple posts up) does not appear to suffer any methodological flaws. Therefore, the line of reasoning I'm using is that empirical data, which survives modern peer review, can offer conclusions which cannot easily be denied with out detailed analysis of the researcher's methods. You're going off on a red herring, and btw, you did insult people's heritage and insulted people because of their religion, which is discrimination. I don't believe I ever stated that I didn't insult anyone's 'heritage.' That's a term which carries a lot of meaning, so it really isn't useful. I do, however, maintain that I've never insulted anyone's ancestry or ethnicity -which is very different from "heritage." There is no demonstrated "red herring" fallacy at work in my statement since I'm asserting that the data I cited is drawing a negative correlation between cognitive ability and conservatism and cognitive and religiosity. This is all an attempt to keep the focus on the topic, not cause it to go astray as a red herring would. Indeed, I'm answering a red herring, not creating one. Actually it's just like the pseudoscience, your line of reasoning can be used to validate those studies. Wrong. See above. And as far as empirical data, I somehow doubt that. You've used every chance you had to bash people based on whether or not they believe in God, which is religious discrimination. I'm not going to back off that statement because that's the truth. There is, without a doubt, an objective truth involved in our discussion. However, it cannot be approached without critical thought, logical reasoning, and rational discourse. The constant introduction of fallacious logic obfuscates the arrival of this discourse to the objective truth. I won't pretend to know this objective truth, but I'm confident that I'm closer to it than not. You can "doubt" the research are empirical data all you'd like (and doubt is a good thing), but you'll need to analyze the data and demonstrate the flaws in the methods before asserting its wrong, otherwise you're just saying, "No! I disagree! Why? Errrmmm... because, that's why!" That exact kind of study was done before by the Nazis in the 1930s. Wrong. See above. That is a fact, and you can argue it all day long, but the facts are the facts. You're just dismissing it because it completely invalidates your sources. No facts have been presented that invalidate the data presented by the research I cited. Believe me, if it did, I'd publish a paper in Intelligence in the very next issue and have something really cool to add to my CV! So if you really have some facts that invalidate it, I'm very open to reading them and ready to revise my assessment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 What I actually said (initially) was: I thought I was actually complimenting or at least defending the republican party by pointing out that it is actually diverse and maturing past its stereotyped role of the past and developing into a more eclectic and progressive party. The core values of the republican party are beginning to shift, though there does seem to be an effort by some to continue to appeal to their alleged "base," which are conservative but fundamental christians who are demonstrably the more ignorant and undereducated of our society. Whoops... actually I owe you an appology. You did say alleged "base" and I missed that part. Since the GOP has really become more and more diverse as of late, and our appeal has moved on more or less from strictly the evangelicals to the average joe. We are moving more centrist in most areas, and headed more toward an inclusive party. My bad. Republicans are fast catching up in education.Woah hold up there. We actually exceed when you don't start to rework the statistics with "corrections for X." That's how statistics get manipulated to show whatever you want them to. Then again I don't pin a person's value based on their education level. And if you're ever stranded on the highway, I doubt you'll ask that tow truck driver if he has an Ivy league education before you'll let him help you out. The data I posted for tommy was intended to show that there are some general feelings among non-republicans (and even some moderate republicans) that the things he was claiming not to exist actually does appear to exist. That goes to the perception thing. Perception is not always the truth. In my perception the "Liberals" are pot smokin hippies. It don't make it true. I am not claiming that they don't exist. Just that the extent to which they exist is exaggerated so as to be easily attacked. Rather than take each point of data and refute it logically, he chose to simply cast all the data aside as if they are magically refuted by his mere disagreement or an accusation of "bias." This type of fallacious reasoning is also a generalization that can be cast toward the republican party and, it is hoped, will become extinct among them as educations improve. I certainly wouldn't trust data gathered and collected by Rush Limbaugh to be accurate about the Democrats. If you provided a source from a neutral source. IE one that doesn't have ties to an organization that specifically slams the Republicans(as is the case of "Facing South") yet never slams the Democrats. Or Dr. Massengill who's works have all been significantly against religion(at least the ones I have read). Just because she has a PHD doesn't absolve her from being biassed against religion. Ok though... I counter with Spirituality in Higher Education which shows a positive influence of spirituality. Oh and refuting with a simple cast of "bias" is not limited to Republicans and conservatives. If you want I'm sure garfield can point to some significant posts that have had that used against his arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Stankov and Nyborg appear to be about as neutral as they can get. I still don't see any issue with Massengill's data. I see you disagreement and objection to her "agenda" and "bias," but there's no quantification of this bias and "agenda" and why they might affect her data. If her methods have deficiencies, then you've cause to doubt her research. Otherwise, we simply must accept that all researchers have an agenda (they call these research questions) and biases (they filter these through rigorous methodology and peer review). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Stankov and Nyborg appear to be about as neutral as they can get. I still don't see any issue with Massengill's data. I see you disagreement and objection to her "agenda" and "bias," but there's no quantification of this bias and "agenda" and why they might affect her data. If her methods have deficiencies, then you've cause to doubt her research. Otherwise, we simply must accept that all researchers have an agenda (they call these research questions) and biases (they filter these through rigorous methodology and peer review). The intelligence thing I brought up was subject to peer review as well. Never take any study involving race or religion at face value. Btw, an Ivy league education doesn't mean one is intelligent, it just means they studied in a particular field. There are other colleges out there. I just found something else that makes you wonder what these Professors were taught: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020603332.html Supposedly because they didn't vote for Obama they are slavery loving racists? Excuse me, this is a College Professor shouldn't he have learned that there are other reasons one wouldn't have voted for Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 The intelligence thing I brought up was subject to peer review as well. Never take any study involving race or religion at face value.That isn't an argument. Like SkinWalker said, if you can demonstrate the bias of the researchers and back it up with evidence and/or show a flaw in their methods, that would be an argument, simply saying "they're biased because they're part of academia" without even giving evidence of such is not a valid argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 That isn't an argument. Like SkinWalker said, if you can demonstrate the bias of the researchers and back it up with evidence and/or show a flaw in their methods, that would be an argument, simply saying "they're biased because they're part of academia" without even giving evidence of such is not a valid argument. And I suppose this incident that Newsbusters picked up on isn't more than a little out of line too? http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/02/26/msnbcs-david-shuster-touts-jindal-beavis-butt-head-insult Seriously, a researcher comparing Bill O'Reilly to a Nazi in one of the articles I brought up about IU, and that doesn't indicate a conflict of interest? What do they need to do for you to acknowledge that they aren't objective? Them running around without any clothes on with "I hate Conservatives" spray painted on their backsides, seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 And I suppose this incident that Newsbusters picked up on isn't more than a little out of line too? http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/02/26/msnbcs-david-shuster-touts-jindal-beavis-butt-head-insult Seriously, a researcher comparing Bill O'Reilly to a Nazi in one of the articles I brought up about IU, and that doesn't indicate a conflict of interest? What do they need to do for you to acknowledge that they aren't objective? Them running around without any clothes on with "I hate Conservatives" spray painted on their backsides, seriously. You haven't shown that anyone SkinWalker cited was biased, I didn't even see their names mentioned in the articles you've linked, and from what you have linked, I'm beginning to think that your argument is simply "well they graduated from/work for a university, they have a liberal bias". If that's your argument, I'd like you to read up on Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly to see my counterpoints to that argument, Coulter in particular graduated from Cornell, an Ivy League school, and there is no way in hell you can say she has a liberal bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Coulter in particular graduated from Cornell, an Ivy League school, and there is no way in hell you can say she has a liberal bias. Of course she does, Jaymack. Everyone has a liberal bias. Everyone. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 You haven't shown that anyone SkinWalker cited was biased, I didn't even see their names mentioned in the articles you've linked, and from what you have linked, I'm beginning to think that your argument is simply "well they graduated from/work for a university, they have a liberal bias". If that's your argument, I'd like you to read up on Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly to see my counterpoints to that argument, Coulter in particular graduated from Cornell, an Ivy League school, and there is no way in hell you can say she has a liberal bias. I have read some of O'Reilly's works thank you kindly oh and I'm not just going after SkinWalker's sources I'm going after the bulk of academia. You have IU with one thing, the University I go to getting in trouble with the Feds for using campus computers and printers to print Barack Obama campaign fliers. I'd advise you guys to read some of the following: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/15/a-speech-free-bubble-around-bill-ayers/ links to: http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20090115/OPINION05/901150304/1006/OPINION --------------------------- http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/06/child-abuser-obama-supporting-teacher-bullies-soldiers-daughter/ Btw, there is the video from the Swedish Documentary attached to the blog, which is the only reason why I'm using the blog. Generally I don't like reading Michelle's blogs because sometimes she goes overboard but there were some things that were actually quite scary, assuming the jest of these articles are true. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-13-nov13,0,2881384.column This kind of stuff is what is being taught in schools, the student in this article demonstrates that fact perfectly. So as I asked before, how blatent does it have to be for you to admit there is a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 I have read some of O'Reilly's works thank you kindly oh and I'm not just going after SkinWalker's sources I'm going after the bulk of academia.Then your argument, in addition to being fallacious, has no place in this thread, unless you'd care to narrow it down a bit and give reasons as to why SkinWalker's sources can't be trusted besides this poisoning the well fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-13-nov13,0,2881384.column This kind of stuff is what is being taught in schools, the student in this article demonstrates that fact perfectly. So as I asked before, how blatent does it have to be for you to admit there is a problem? Follow up article to the one above. But it’s also true that if Catherine lived in a beet-red community and wore an Obama shirt, she’d get a similar negative, intolerant and ugly reaction. And certainly some Republican children would outrage their grammar/lit teachers by wanting her crucifixed as well. All such outrage is predictable. Whether red or blue or right or left, many adults don’t get it. But Catherine Vogt sure gets it: Children learn their politics from their parents. It's not the teachers, it's the parents. Get it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Then your argument, in addition to being fallacious, has no place in this thread, unless you'd care to narrow it down a bit and give reasons as to why SkinWalker's sources can't be trusted besides this poisoning the well fallacy. No, it has a place in the thread, just cause it shows there is a systematic problem in academia which shows those sources can't be trusted, and common sense indicates those studies are propaganda pieces, doesn't mean it doesn't belong in the thread, quite the opposite it does belong in this thread. Seriously, teachers bashing a student for wearing a McCain T-Shirt, and we have worse examples on the college level, and that isn't a cause of concern. It's not the teachers, it's the parents. Get it right. That part is the reporter's analysis, that doesn't mean that would actually happen. And this situation isn't an isolated incident if you look at my other sources that I provided. There were some instances of outright indoctrination similar to the Hitler Youth Movement stuff or at least the videos looked similar enough, I'll try to dig up that stuff if you'd like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 No, it has a place in the thread, just cause it shows there is a systematic problem in academia which shows those sources can't be trusted, and common sense indicates those studies are propaganda pieces, doesn't mean it doesn't belong in the thread, quite the opposite it does belong in this thread. Seriously, teachers bashing a student for wearing a McCain T-Shirt, and we have worse examples on the college level, and that isn't a cause of concern. Dredging up crap about other professors doesn't serve to refute anything said in this thread. It doesn't even serve to prove your point, since you haven't been able to show evidence that this problem is widespread, chronic, or exclusive to liberal teachers or professors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 That part is the reporter's analysis, that doesn't mean that would actually happen. And this situation isn't an isolated incident if you look at my other sources that I provided. There were some instances of outright indoctrination similar to the Hitler Youth Movement stuff or at least the videos looked similar enough, I'll try to dig up that stuff if you'd like. You used the article to assert the fact that teachers teach their students intolerance. I have shown you that it they in fact do not teach their students intolerance; it comes from their parents. I think we're done here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Dredging up crap about other professors doesn't serve to refute anything said in this thread. It doesn't even serve to prove your point, since you haven't been able to show evidence that this problem is widespread, chronic, or exclusive to liberal teachers or professors. Who the heck taught the teachers? -- Professors Who works at Universities? -- Professors Who did the study? -- Professors Btw, http://www.au.dk/en/news/210906a And another coauthor of a particular work was also found to improperly gather data to skew results. It was also found that the “data point” that Lynn and Vanhanen used for the lowest IQ estimate, Equatorial Guinea, was actually the mean IQ of a group of Spanish children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain.-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn You used the article to assert the fact that teachers teach their students intolerance. I have shown you that it they in fact do not teach their students intolerance; it comes from their parents. And I stand by that statement, parents aren't the only ones that serve as role models to children, teachers do too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Who the heck taught the teachers? -- Professors Who works at Universities? -- Professors Who did the study? -- Professors [/url] better quit school then and go live up in the ****ing mountains where there's no internet jesus every post you make is ****ing word salad and 90% fallacies seriously i'm ****ing done trying to interpret your bull**** **** you i'm out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 And I stand by that statement, parents aren't the only ones that serve as role models to children, teachers do too. There is nothing in that article that corroborates your statement, thus you cannot use it to prove your point. Nice try, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 There is nothing in that article that corroborates your statement, thus you cannot use it to prove your point. Nice try, though. Look at the articles again, it is one maybe two of SkinWalker's sources getting suspended or other disciplinary action for fraudulent research. That throws some of his source's credibility into doubt right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Look at the articles again, it is one maybe two of SkinWalker's sources getting suspended or other disciplinary action for fraudulent research. That throws some of his source's credibility into doubt right there. I am talking about that specific article and your specific assertion that teachers teach their students political intolerance. I made no statements on any other thing that you have posted. Again, there is nothing in that Trib article that supports your statement that teachers teach their kids political intolerance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 I am talking about that specific article and your specific assertion that teachers teach their students political intolerance. I made no statements on any other thing that you have posted. Read the article, it states the students weren't the only ones acting intolerant putting it mildly... Then there is the video from the Swedish documentary. Again, there is nothing in that Trib article that supports your statement that teachers teach their kids political intolerance. Ever heard if teachers do it, permit that kind of behavior, etc. the students will do so too thinking that they won't get in trouble for it. Parents aren't the only people that teach children how to behave, teachers do so as well, because they are an authority figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 I noticed that you've cast a few red herrings and others have chased them. Let's bring this back on topic, shall we? The intelligence thing I brought up was subject to peer review as well. We wouldn't know. You haven't cited the "thing" you brought up. What specific research are you referring to? There have been many, some of which were peer reviewed -and utterly skewered by their peers. Never take any study involving race or religion at face value. Agreed. This is why I took the time to examine and evaluate the methodologies. Btw, an Ivy league education doesn't mean one is intelligent, it just means they studied in a particular field. There are other colleges out there. I do not dispute this. Nor have I asserted it. Indeed, on of the studies I cited used students from community colleges in its sample. I'm not sure where you're going with this. I just found something else that makes you wonder what these Professors were taught: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020603332.html Supposedly because they didn't vote for Obama they are slavery loving racists? Excuse me, this is a College Professor shouldn't he have learned that there are other reasons one wouldn't have voted for Obama. This has zero relevance to studies I cited. Zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Read the article, it states the students weren't the only ones acting intolerant putting it mildly... Please find me the part where it says that teachers were intolerant towards the girl performing the experiment. Ever heard if teachers do it, permit that kind of behavior, etc. the students will do so too thinking that they won't get in trouble for it. Nowhere in the article does it state that teachers permitted that kind of behavior in their classrooms. It is dishonest and fallacious to assume so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.