In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Every once in a while I read through a few pages in the hopes of reading something interesting, and this time I did . Regarding the discussion of IQ, it's probably worth noting that IQ is less relevant to g, and that iq has been heavily linked to genetics through a variety of ways (twins seperated at birth is probably the most relevant).
I think the biggest failing with IQ tests is that various versions of them correlate more or less strongly to g and as such a score of say 130 on WAIS is less impressive then being two standard deviations above norm on ravens matrices.
The other failing of iq tests is the battery of testing needed to be done in order to get a good measurement of g, is so large and comprehensive that I'm not entirely sure it's possible to do so. Small things like pitch recognition have a positive correlation with it, at what point does an IQ test pull out a sine wave generator and ask the test user to verify the note?
On the other hand IQ is still an exceptionally good measurement of intellectual capacity and to brush it off because it's not perfect is somewhat silly, it correlates with an awful amount of things overall, including sucess in various academic fields, how likely you are to commit crime, divorce rate, how high your children score on an iq test (though there is regression to the mean).
Shame it's typically used by people as a way of brushing off people who aren't white, asian or jewish though.
On September 07 2017 10:17 GreenHorizons wrote: Is it not weird that so many of the islands being hit are under European control/influence in the 21st century? Or is the imperialist nature of those relationships still supposed to be normal?
It's not imperialist. The relationship exists because both parties wish it to.
Puerto Rico is being hit and havnt they voted several times that they do not wish to be a territory and want to be a state and the US has just ignored them?
This year it was slightly over 97% with 23% of the voting populace turned out, which is absurdly low.
The last vote was in 2012 where 46% wanted to stay a territory, 33% wanted to be a state, 18% wanted to be a Free Association, and 3% wanted independence. The voter turnout was 78%.
So I am thinking that Trump's pivot to Democrats is actually real. I never thought I would see the day. The Murdochverse of entertainment conservatives is rallying behind Trump and against Republican leadership. It is actually happening.
On September 07 2017 10:17 GreenHorizons wrote: Is it not weird that so many of the islands being hit are under European control/influence in the 21st century? Or is the imperialist nature of those relationships still supposed to be normal?
It's not imperialist. The relationship exists because both parties wish it to.
Puerto Rico is being hit and havnt they voted several times that they do not wish to be a territory and want to be a state and the US has just ignored them?
This year it was slightly over 97% with 23% of the voting populace turned out, which is absurdly low.
The last vote was in 2012 where 46% wanted to stay a territory, 33% wanted to be a state, 18% wanted to be a Free Association, and 3% wanted independence. The voter turnout was 78%.
If I am reading the information from that you are mixing up 2 votes and combining the numbers to make them say something else.
The 2012 initiative was 2 different votes. The first question was whether the people of Puerto Rico wished to maintain there status as a territory with 54% voting no and 46% voting to remain a territory.
The second question was that if they decided to not be a territory anymore what option would they prefer. This one is harder to tally because 1/5 of voters left that section blank as a protest organized by the gov elect. This is why its easiest to break it down by number of votes
Statehood:834k Free Association (no idea what this means): 454k Independence: 75k Invalid or Blank votes:515k
Now while all the blank votes might not be for territory status since some were likely invalid because of other reasons (for instance the first question had 80k invalid or blank votes) if we assume that about 400-425k are thats still a majority for statehood.
On September 07 2017 10:17 GreenHorizons wrote: Is it not weird that so many of the islands being hit are under European control/influence in the 21st century? Or is the imperialist nature of those relationships still supposed to be normal?
It's not imperialist. The relationship exists because both parties wish it to.
Puerto Rico is being hit and havnt they voted several times that they do not wish to be a territory and want to be a state and the US has just ignored them?
This year it was slightly over 97% with 23% of the voting populace turned out, which is absurdly low.
The last vote was in 2012 where 46% wanted to stay a territory, 33% wanted to be a state, 18% wanted to be a Free Association, and 3% wanted independence. The voter turnout was 78%.
If I am reading the information from that you are mixing up 2 votes and combining the numbers to make them say something else.
The 2012 initiative was 2 different votes. The first question was whether the people of Puerto Rico wished to maintain there status as a territory with 54% voting no and 46% voting to remain a territory.
The second question was that if they decided to not be a territory anymore what option would they prefer. This one is harder to tally because 1/5 of voters left that section blank as a protest organized by the gov elect. This is why its easiest to break it down by number of votes
Statehood:834k Free Association (no idea what this means): 454k Independence: 75k Invalid or Blank votes:515k
Now while all the blank votes might not be for territory status since some were likely invalid because of other reasons (for instance the first question had 80k invalid or blank votes) if we assume that about 400-425k are thats still a majority for statehood.
I missed the section about the blank votes. Would seem pretty silly to want to vote for statehood but make it blank or invalid en masse when you already get to the booth.
Honest answer is, Mark Zuckerberg literally has 0 idea about this specific payment.
You can pretty easily buy ads on Facebook, target them at specific demographics, run during specific times etc, all automated with little to no oversight.
If it violates content policies, and enough people flag it, or the crawlers flag it for human review, it might stand out, but in general, this is all automated.
On September 07 2017 10:17 GreenHorizons wrote: Is it not weird that so many of the islands being hit are under European control/influence in the 21st century? Or is the imperialist nature of those relationships still supposed to be normal?
It's not imperialist. The relationship exists because both parties wish it to.
I'm not sure it's the type of "choice" you may be implying. When someone exploits the hell out of you and you are essentially dependent on them, perpetuating the relationship because "both parties wish to" is a bit myopic imo. But I also think you would have been a loyalist if you were here in the 1700's so we both have our biases on this.
I think I got the answer I was looking for, in that it's still considered a (relatively) normal healthy relationship in the 21st century.
I'm sure these countries look at Haiti and tend to say no, thanks. It's like HK. I'm sure HK would much rather have the fairly lasseiz-faire nature of England than the iron-hand rule of China. A lot of terrible shit happened by EU countries during the 1600s to early 1900s, but most of that is gone. Plus, without tourism a lot of these countries would be much more poor and their close ties to the US and Europe ensure a healthy tourist trade, though to be fair, if they could adopt and maintain strong liberal institutions they could have the same strengths, but I tend to think if they want to remove themselves from EU/US influence that also includes the liberal tradition (as we saw/see in Haiti). Same thing happened in South America.
It's not necessarily the case that these nations would be better off independently (though I tend to think in the abstract I prefer more independence to less), and empirically it tends to hold that countries with closer ties to the EU/US have better living standards and more robust institutions and liberal laws than those who don't. I suppose if they do get independence and they turn into Haiti 2.0's, they have no one to point fingers and blame anymore. I think that's worth it in the end. Would be interesting.
On September 07 2017 10:17 GreenHorizons wrote: Is it not weird that so many of the islands being hit are under European control/influence in the 21st century? Or is the imperialist nature of those relationships still supposed to be normal?
It's not imperialist. The relationship exists because both parties wish it to.
I'm not sure it's the type of "choice" you may be implying. When someone exploits the hell out of you and you are essentially dependent on them, perpetuating the relationship because "both parties wish to" is a bit myopic imo. But I also think you would have been a loyalist if you were here in the 1700's so we both have our biases on this.
I think I got the answer I was looking for, in that it's still considered a (relatively) normal healthy relationship in the 21st century.
I'm sure these countries look at Haiti and tend to say no, thanks. It's like HK. I'm sure HK would much rather have the fairly lasseiz-faire nature of England than the iron-hand rule of China. A lot of terrible shit happened by EU countries during the 1600s to early 1900s, but most of that is gone. Plus, without tourism a lot of these countries would be much more poor and their close ties to the US and Europe ensure a healthy tourist trade, though to be fair, if they could adopt and maintain strong liberal institutions they could have the same strengths, but I tend to think if they want to remove themselves from EU/US influence that also includes the liberal tradition (as we saw/see in Haiti). Same thing happened in South America.
It's not necessarily the case that these nations would be better off independently (though I tend to think in the abstract I prefer more independence to less), and empirically it tends to hold that countries with closer ties to the EU/US have better living standards and more robust institutions and liberal laws than those who don't. I suppose if they do get independence and they turn into Haiti 2.0's, they have no one to point fingers and blame anymore. I think that's worth it in the end. Would be interesting.
Haiti is an interesting example. Particularly when it shares a landmass with the Dominican Republic. I'm not arguing that there aren't benefits to being vassal states I just don't think the relationship is quite what some people imagine and doesn't really fit a 21st century understanding of the world and human rights.
I am pretty certain that the european countries don't really give a fuck in any way. If any of those islands were to actually push for independence, i doubt there would be a lot of resistance from europe.
On September 07 2017 15:46 Simberto wrote: I am pretty certain that the european countries don't really give a fuck in any way. If any of those islands were to actually push for independence, i doubt there would be a lot of resistance from europe.
As was the case with the Dutch Antilles. There were two main points that I recall from the news about independence for Aruba, St Martin and Curaçao in the 90s and 00s.
1) Dutch Antilles cost the Dutch government money. So there was actually a lot of support within NL of the kind: "good riddance to bad rubbish". Despicable, but it was pretty much the governing sentiment of the Dutch people to Antilles independence: general apathy, mixed with a bit of "hey, at least we save some money".
2) Worries about security. Particularly drug trade and money laundering.
There was some talk about whether the islands were large enough to stand on their own (and even since full legislative independence, they are all three almost entirely dependent on the Dutch government for finances) and whether it was ethical to let them try, given the debacles with Suriname's independence and Bouterse. But by far the overwhelming sentiment was indifference.
Brett Weinstein (the guy who refused to walk off-campus for POC day) and Jordan Peterson (the guy half the internet thinks is a savant role model, and the other half considers an alt-righter) on Joe Rogan's podcast.
Since this is not only highly insightful but also easy to consume, I think practically everyone should take a look. These two gentlemen (as well as Joe recently) have repeatedly been characterized as alt-right. Is there a sane-minded person in here who can justify such a characterization?
On September 07 2017 17:03 Kickboxer wrote: ... Is there a sane-minded person in here who can justify such a characterization?
If you lead by poisoning the well like this, you're not really encouraging other people to treat your opinions with respect, or encouraging productive conversation in general.
I've seen people on this site call Peterson alt-right. More than once. It was instantly clear to me they've not taken more than 10 minutes to actually see what he's about. Also, Weinstein seems like the kindest person on planet Earth. Then, there's Joe who is simply a bona fide boss.
So I'm really looking for a level-headed analysis on how any of these three could become remotely associated with a fascist-leaning organization. It's like - either something is wrong with my perspective and a smarter person needs to point it out to me like to a child, or the world is legit going insane.
EPT
. Regarding the discussion of IQ, it's probably worth noting that IQ is less relevant to g, and that iq has been heavily linked to genetics through a variety of ways (twins seperated at birth is probably the most relevant).
