|
On November 11 2008 10:26 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2008 10:09 fusionsdf wrote:On November 11 2008 09:42 Frits wrote:On November 11 2008 09:29 Chef wrote:On November 11 2008 09:01 Frits wrote:On November 11 2008 08:54 Chef wrote:Only 5-10% of all people act on universal principles, the rest is lying. I love made up numbers. I might not have done the research myself but I'm pretty sure that my professor who has published numerous credible articles has more credibility than a random smartass on the internet. What the hell makes you think I'm talking out of my ass. I don't know who was sampled, how many of these people were sampled, or how often they were sampled, or at what time of the year, and a host of other factors. The stat you gave is basically the same as me saying "Oh well, 99% of Canadians brush their teeth daily." I don't know that. I'd hope so, but even if I took a sample of 99 students at my university, the study is already botched because university students are not really representative of all Canadians. Basically, you gave so little information, that the stat sounded completely made up and bullshit. The fact that you haven't done the research yourself (by that I mean, looking into it to see how credible it is) means you basically don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Statistics are meaningless if you don't know where they came from. The law of natural distribution, the law of large numbers, and the law of regularity. If you can't confirm all three of these in a statistic, do not use it. Even academically obtained statistics need to be scrutinized. Studies often contradict each other. Until you have 99 quality, thoughtful studies saying one thing, and only 1 saying the opposite, you can't really draw any reliable conclusions, and so therefore you shouldn't try to. You can call me a smart ass if you want. That's not why I rant about it. I rant about it because it really fucking pisses me off when people use stats improperly, because they're so powerful in warping the minds of lazy people. I study psychology at a very good university (Leiden university should be comparable to ivy league unis), I work with statistics everyday, stop lecturing me for not properly citing something when posting on TL.net, jesus christ. Im not an idiot your point of criticism is just rediculously out of place here. You're ranting about me not properly citing a source while other people are entering a scientific discussion with "I think....", seriously set your priorities straight if you're gonna be anal about proper internet discussion guidelines. no one is ranting about you not citing everything but you cant just throw out random numbers and expect everyone to go :"haw haw frits is so smart and an ivy league university student Haw Haw Haw!"\ Don't be stuck up. Anyone who throws out random numbers like that is going to get called on it, and nobody gives a fuck what school said poster goes to. you're still going to get asked My point is: Since when did statistical correctness become such a big deal on the internet. He's just trolling, he didn't ask for a source, he simply stated some sarcastic remark so he could follow up with some lame ass lecture on statistics and what not. I do feel like a douche for mentioning my uni but Im trying to show that just because you have knowledge of a subject doesnt mean you have to present posts as if they were on an academic level, especially in a thread like this.
you're the one that seemed/seems to be taking stuff way too seriously, not him
|
On November 11 2008 10:47 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2008 10:26 Frits wrote:On November 11 2008 10:09 fusionsdf wrote:On November 11 2008 09:42 Frits wrote:On November 11 2008 09:29 Chef wrote:On November 11 2008 09:01 Frits wrote:On November 11 2008 08:54 Chef wrote:Only 5-10% of all people act on universal principles, the rest is lying. I love made up numbers. I might not have done the research myself but I'm pretty sure that my professor who has published numerous credible articles has more credibility than a random smartass on the internet. What the hell makes you think I'm talking out of my ass. I don't know who was sampled, how many of these people were sampled, or how often they were sampled, or at what time of the year, and a host of other factors. The stat you gave is basically the same as me saying "Oh well, 99% of Canadians brush their teeth daily." I don't know that. I'd hope so, but even if I took a sample of 99 students at my university, the study is already botched because university students are not really representative of all Canadians. Basically, you gave so little information, that the stat sounded completely made up and bullshit. The fact that you haven't done the research yourself (by that I mean, looking into it to see how credible it is) means you basically don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Statistics are meaningless if you don't know where they came from. The law of natural distribution, the law of large numbers, and the law of regularity. If you can't confirm all three of these in a statistic, do not use it. Even academically obtained statistics need to be scrutinized. Studies often contradict each other. Until you have 99 quality, thoughtful studies saying one thing, and only 1 saying the opposite, you can't really draw any reliable conclusions, and so therefore you shouldn't try to. You can call me a smart ass if you want. That's not why I rant about it. I rant about it because it really fucking pisses me off when people use stats improperly, because they're so powerful in warping the minds of lazy people. I study psychology at a very good university (Leiden university should be comparable to ivy league unis), I work with statistics everyday, stop lecturing me for not properly citing something when posting on TL.net, jesus christ. Im not an idiot your point of criticism is just rediculously out of place here. You're ranting about me not properly citing a source while other people are entering a scientific discussion with "I think....", seriously set your priorities straight if you're gonna be anal about proper internet discussion guidelines. no one is ranting about you not citing everything but you cant just throw out random numbers and expect everyone to go :"haw haw frits is so smart and an ivy league university student Haw Haw Haw!"\ Don't be stuck up. Anyone who throws out random numbers like that is going to get called on it, and nobody gives a fuck what school said poster goes to. you're still going to get asked My point is: Since when did statistical correctness become such a big deal on the internet. He's just trolling, he didn't ask for a source, he simply stated some sarcastic remark so he could follow up with some lame ass lecture on statistics and what not. I do feel like a douche for mentioning my uni but Im trying to show that just because you have knowledge of a subject doesnt mean you have to present posts as if they were on an academic level, especially in a thread like this. you're the one that seemed/seems to be taking stuff way too seriously, not him
define "too serious"
I don't think Im being overly defensive or emotional about this, if you think I don't make a valid point fine just say it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
hey, you are just a guy on the internets. his reaction was perfectly natural after seeing some random guy bring out numbers on difficult to test things that are not found on wikipedia.
|
On November 11 2008 11:00 oneofthem wrote:
hey, you are just a guy on the internets. his reaction was perfectly natural after seeing some random guy bring out numbers on difficult to test things that are not found on wikipedia.
He knows what I study, he just felt like provoking me on something trivial matter, he had no reason to assume what I said was made up.
saying I love made up numbers. =/= asking for a source, if he was genuinely interested in what I had to say or what my sources were he wouldn't have reacted like that.
Whatever I guess it can be interpreted as asking for a source in a way so I'll just drop the whole thing. In my eyes he was being a douche and I reacted in a similar manner which prompted some rant that seemed really out of line concerning TL.net forum posting etiquette. It's not that his point is bad it's just really stating the obvious.
|
On November 11 2008 09:08 Racenilatr wrote:
lol.....giving reach a blowjob is probably crossing the line...unless you get to do it for alot of money
You'd get to do it, but you would be the one that has to give up money. How sweet would it be if you got to do it AND got a lot of money?
|
On November 11 2008 11:15 Frits wrote:
He knows what I study, he just felt like provoking me on something trivial matter, he had no reason to assume what I said was made up.
You may nknow him better than me, but if not, I'm not so sure you're right there. At least it also bothers me when statistics are used like that, but I wouldn't have bothered answering though, not if you hadn't dwelled on the subject.
The thing is that once statistics are thrown, you are not just stating an opinion - you are claiming to be scientific about it. If you are going to do that, you are obliged to at least provide enough information for the claim to make sense. And by that I don't mean citing. But your post didn't provide any info on definitions or methods, and as such doesn't make sense to anyone who aren't already aquinted with the study. I can't think of any reasonable survey questions that could reveal if people followed their principles, so I am pretty sure that the study in question tells something different. For example whether people claim to follow principles. Anyway, the only thing I can say is that your post means nothing because of the lack of information.
Am I being too serious? Perhabs, but since you stayed on the topic, and it's something I'm often very aware of when seeing how statistics are misused, you got my two cents. I don't hope it came out too offensive.
Somewhat on topic - Granted the OP is very vague as well. I guess differences in definitions are one reason this thread seems so incoherent. For instance "Suggestion Box" seems to define principles in such a way noone could reasonably abide to them. I don't agree with such a take on principles, becuase it would devoid the word of function imo. I believe I'm a man of principes, but what I mean by that probably wouldn't be clear to anyone without some in depth discussion.
|
I think it really has a lot to do with how you define your principles. It must not be much of a principle if you're willing to sell for it.
|
On November 11 2008 09:35 Suggestion Box wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 11 2008 08:35 Hippopotamus wrote:
I mean, let us say, you have to do something as innocuous as filling out a questionnaire for work. For example, let's say it has something disagreeable that you personally disagree with. I think, based on the high thread, that many have liberal attitudes about drugs. Many questionnaires of course expect you to take a stance against drugs. I know how I'm voting after the many I've done. It seems most 'intelligent' people in real life claim they'd never give up on their principles, but maybe a different truth is found in teh intrawebz? I know drugs aren't the way companies/schools act like in the U.S. precisely, but I tell them what they need to hear on any test. This isn't selling out my principles, it's just lying. I don't have a principle that says everyone has to know my convoluted opinions. In fact, I challenge anyone to name a principle I have. The only ones I know of would maybe be to try to remember to eat, and that if I am sick then I try to get better and no one has a right to fuck with that or it's go time. I don't think those are principles either. In fact I would like to know who has principles here, so I can make fun of them. I don't believe in principles, only desires and knowledge. For instance, above he says he wouldn't kill someone for money. Maybe I wouldn't either, but that's not on principle. It's because of knowledge--I think the risk is too high, my life would get really fucked if I did it--not just risk to be jailed or killed, but even risk to my mental health. Maybe it would change me or bug me a lot if I killed someone. Who knows? It's not worth the risk, maybe. That's not a principle. Just because you think you would "never" do X, that doesn't make it a principle. If it was a principle then you wouldn't murder even if it gave you infinite orgasms for all eternity and god-like powers etc. basically you wouldn't do it for infinite. Principles are simplistic oversimplifications of decisions you've made, and when you call them principles you're setting up some issues to arise that aren't real and are the results of this misunderstanding, IMO.
Sorry I dont really have anything to add to this discussion. I would preform oral sex for crack cocaine on any given day.
That being said LOL@ GO TIME!
|
United States17042 Posts
It does seem like most of the argument above is all about defining your principles, and how dear a particular principle is to you.
|
some can be for sale, others won't
|
On November 11 2008 09:29 Chef wrote:
Basically, you gave so little information, that the stat sounded completely made up and bullshit. The fact that you haven't done the research yourself (by that I mean, looking into it to see how credible it is) means you basically don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Good:
"Source?"
Bad:
"Stop pulling numbers out of your ass."
Statistics are meaningless if you don't know where they came from. The law of natural distribution, the law of large numbers, and the law of regularity. If you can't confirm all three of these in a statistic, do not use it. Even academically obtained statistics need to be scrutinized. Studies often contradict each other.
I would expect peer review to catch the statistical procedures as idiotic as the ones you described in the thread.
Until you have 99 quality, thoughtful studies saying one thing, and only 1 saying the opposite, you can't really draw any reliable conclusions, and so therefore you shouldn't try to.
Under this assertion, a study that is sufficiently different than the ones that came before tell you nothing. The vast majority of things you know, you probably don't know by reading ninety-nine studies, unless you have an absurd amount of time, read extremely quickly, or are just obsessive. Demanding 99 studies before accepting something is an absolutely absurd standard of truth - an article up for publishing in a major journal contents itself with a few, so why should we need fifty times as many before we can assert it on the internet?
|
I was going to respond to that... but I don't even want to dignify it that much. This is just silly lol.
|
I have to lie for self-preservation.
|
I mostly don't lie about my principles, but it really depends on how much money I would get and which principles....
|
United States17042 Posts
On November 11 2008 15:49 meegrean wrote:
I have to lie for self-preservation.
is self preservation a principle?
|
rofl, i am a lawyer, i guess i dont have to answer anymore
|
zerofear says: rofl, i am a lawyer
Nah, you're a comedian.
And no, I would not sell my principles. No manly man would.
|
Who cares about the piece of paper. Lie and keep your job. It has zero consequences unless you are put through a bloodtest.
|
United States17042 Posts
On November 11 2008 17:37 zerofear wrote:
rofl, i am a lawyer, i guess i dont have to answer anymore
I assume that you're talking about how lawyers have no principles...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
