abstinence only christians in your face again

[DonAlejandroVega]

science by consensus..........that's going to be the new science. the New Speak is being taught in the indoctrination centers we call schools.

political science takes on a whole new meaning.

 

[UncleBuck]

Name one thing psychology has proven?

are you really this stupid?

should i start with pavlov? skinner?

 

[UncleBuck]

i believe that all individuals should be treated equally in the present time
i do not believe an individual should suffer from bias because of race

you are advocating that race or other forms of minority should be the deciding factor
i believe ability and merit should decide

ability and merit do decide though.

maybe you should start shouting about "quotas" as long as you're blathering nonsense.

 

[UncleBuck]

Then you need to get the universities to change their curricular descriptions, until then, I and everyone else will continue to distinguish the brands of science as such. The good news for you is that your PC ilk are drawn into those fields so all you have to do is let them know that soft science means not real science and they'll help you change it. Until then, you just sound like the lone butthurt screaming little girl who is so easily offended that a term that's been acceptable for decades no longer means what it used to and needs to be changed. This can be your new cause dude.

lol, you still have yet to provide a single example of the "subjective orientation" that you whine about, you dumbass.

maybe you should declare victory now?

 

[UncleBuck]

Based on the definition above Buck we can use soft and hard as a spectrum and ALWAYS apply the term in some way that is accurate.


Perhaps terming something absolutely as a soft science is incorrect. But it is a colloquialism after all.

i just call it "science", since that's what it is.

 

[ginwilly]

lol, you still have yet to provide a single example of the "subjective orientation" that you whine about, you dumbass.

maybe you should declare victory now?

You know I don't think you are very bright and it obviously pisses you off enough to keep trying to prove you are more than I think you are. By repeatedly missing the fact that I'm asking you about feelings regarding numerous things I was trying to get you to realize that dealing with feelings, emotions and humanity in general is subjective. You are relying on a person to express a mood. A mood that can change not only over long periods but several times during the day. I could ask you a question about feelings in the morning and your answer will be different in the evening. No matter how many times you declare that we can consistently and accurately predict human emotions, there is no evidence to support your claim and an understanding by the scientific world that we can't. That's why it's referred to as soft sciences. Can you imagine how much money someone like Buffet would be worth if he was right even ninety percent? He'd be a trillionaire by now.

You've proven yourself even less intelligent that the little bit I gave you credit for.

 

[UncleBuck]

dealing with feelings, emotions and humanity in general is subjective.

feelings and emotions can be quantified accurately and objectively. are you fucking retarded?

do you actually want to try pointing to actual examples of psychological studies that you think are flawed or "subjectively oriented", or do you want to just keep repeating the same old tired and retarded talking point without ever making reference to anything specific?

with every post you continue to prove my initial prediction in post 66 that you wouldn't ever cite a single goddamn thing.

pathetic, even for your low, low standards.

 

[skunkd0c]

ability and merit do decide though.

maybe you should start shouting about "quotas" as long as you're blathering nonsense.

in your world race precedes ability in your quest for this "equality" you speak of

 

[UncleBuck]

in your world race precedes ability in your quest for this "equality" you speak of

no it doesn't.

 

[ginwilly]

feelings and emotions can be quantified accurately and objectively. are you fucking retarded?

do you actually want to try pointing to actual examples of psychological studies that you think are flawed or "subjectively oriented", or do you want to just keep repeating the same old tired and retarded talking point without ever making reference to anything specific?

with every post you continue to prove my initial prediction in post 66 that you wouldn't ever cite a single goddamn thing.

pathetic, even for your low, low standards.

buck i think the disconnect is you don't understand the difference between subjective and objective. Objective means something is observable and measurable, to equate feelings or emotions into this, the observer will make subjective readings on his objective results.

If you can't get that through your head after all this, you never will. I gave an example with observable measures of pouring water, you called it a retarded example, I tried to help you by asking about feelings hoping you would understand the subjectiveness of the subject, you don't get this. So I'm going to move off this subject and consider you hopelessly willfully ignorant.

 

[UncleBuck]

you don't understand the difference between subjective and objective.

yet it is you who has failed to provide a single example going on nearly 150 posts now.

I gave an example with observable measures of pouring water, you called it a retarded example

because it was.

psychologists don't douse subjects in water and then stand in front of them with a clipboard asking how they feel. that would be, in a word, retarded.

it would be easy enough to accurately and objectively quantify the effects of pouring water on someone though. have them fill out a questionnaire pre-dousing that measures their subjective feelings and emotions on a continuum against their peers. douse them with water. administer the same questionnaire after and you will have an easy way to accurately and objectively quantify the effects of pouring a bucket of water on someone's head.

my guess is that responses to certain evaluative criteria would be different after getting doused than before, and would be pretty uniform across most populations, times of day, and the like.

it is not my fault that you are literally sitting on the doorstep of mental retardation and scientific illiteracy.

 

[skunkd0c]

no it doesn't.

come to think of it, we could do with more black librarians

far too many librarians are balding old white ladies

this could be a job for you bucky
push all the others to the back of the line .. equality !

 

[UncleBuck]

push all the others to the back of the line .. equality !

white folks sure are sensitive to perceived persecution (but only when it happens to them) and completely blind to actual persecution (because who cares, it's not happening to them).

 

[Dr Kynes]

You know I don't think you are very bright and it obviously pisses you off enough to keep trying to prove you are more than I think you are. By repeatedly missing the fact that I'm asking you about feelings regarding numerous things I was trying to get you to realize that dealing with feelings, emotions and humanity in general is subjective. You are relying on a person to express a mood. A mood that can change not only over long periods but several times during the day. I could ask you a question about feelings in the morning and your answer will be different in the evening. No matter how many times you declare that we can consistently and accurately predict human emotions, there is no evidence to support your claim and an understanding by the scientific world that we can't. That's why it's referred to as soft sciences. Can you imagine how much money someone like Buffet would be worth if he was right even ninety percent? He'd be a trillionaire by now.

You've proven yourself even less intelligent that the little bit I gave you credit for.

wait, you mean FEELS might not be as scientific as we have been led to believe??

what about Feels=MCsquared? are you saying Feelbert Feelstein is wrong?
what about the growing field of Quantum Feelsics?
even Feels Degrass Tyson bases all his work on the accepted "Settled Science" of the "Scientific Consensus" of the current understandings of Feelsics (both Quantum and Feelstonian)

dont try to turn over bucky's applecart of feels with your Feels Denialism! youre just trying to make him feel bad, and thus destabilize the Feelscological Balance that keeps Feelspogenic Global Feelings Change in check!

youre trying to bring about runaway Feelshouse Warming with your Feels Denialism

 

[skunkd0c]

white folks sure are sensitive to perceived persecution

this above is a racist statement ^^
making a sweeping statement like this about "white" people or any race
or in other words a generalization or stereotype about a whole race of people is the very essence of racism

what you should of said to get your point across but avoid being a racist

"in my observations i have noticed that MANY or SOME white people are sensitive to perceived persecution"

what you did was state that ALL white folks are sensitive to perceived persecution
this does not allow the individual of a given race to express different characteristics than those you have pre-defined with your stereotype
again this is the very definition of racism

unless you believe that "white people" can't suffer racism , if you do believe this
holding this belief would make you racist on a second count

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

everyone is a little racist. xenophobia is a survival mechanism. different-looking people, speaking a strange tongue, showing up in your hunting grounds wasn't a good thing for our ancestors. a half a million years of successful survivals skills aren't just going to dry up.
and the state plays this reality like an ace, hidden up its sleeve. take it away, and we would all remember that Neolithic realities are not the reality of today. racism is to the state, as blood is to Dracula.

 

[skunkd0c]

everyone is a little racist. xenophobia is a survival mechanism. different-looking people, speaking a strange tongue, showing up in your hunting grounds wasn't a good thing for our ancestors. a half a million years of successful survivals skills aren't just going to dry up.
and the state plays this reality like an ace, hidden up its sleeve. take it away, and we would all remember that Neolithic realities are not the reality of today. racism is to the state, as blood is to Dracula.

thats a good point, its perfectly natural to make associations/sterotypes based on many things race/appearance could be one of them
but this should be "instinct" in your example part of the flight or fight response which you should be able to overrule with your cognitive process
dismiss the stereotype created by your self defense system and judge all individuals on merit or as one race, the human race

and i agree how racism is used as a divisive tool to divide and conquer by the government/media

an individual who through no fault of their own may have white skin
because of this folk like bucky would assume this dude must feel persecuted "have a chip on his shoulder"
this is not part of a self defense response to protect bucky from white devils .. it's just ignorance

peace

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

I gave up race identifying about 10 years age. my "patriotism" was the next suitcase I left by the side of the road. no god, no race, no bloody rag to salute........a lost soul
shalom alechem

 

[Harrekin]

feelings and emotions can be quantified accurately and objectively. are you fucking retarded?

do you actually want to try pointing to actual examples of psychological studies that you think are flawed or "subjectively oriented", or do you want to just keep repeating the same old tired and retarded talking point without ever making reference to anything specific?

with every post you continue to prove my initial prediction in post 66 that you wouldn't ever cite a single goddamn thing.

pathetic, even for your low, low standards.

Actually they can't be quantified, you need to use a whole branch of statistics just to infer that the information can be applied to a population.

Psychologists can never prove anything, psychiatrists and neurosurgeons do that. Psychologists guess based on these discoveries.

If its a science, why do the ratings scales for various mental illnesses change almost yearlty?

Ask any "hard" scientist, psychology is NOT a science, its ENTIRELY subjective.

Bucky, you're not educated in this, you're WAY out of your element, so shut the fuck up, Donny.

 

[AlecTheGardener]

Ask any "hard" scientist, psychology is NOT a science, its ENTIRELY subjective.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2013/08/13/is-psychology-a-real-science-does-it-really-matter/

"Now chemical definitions are still admittedly more accurate and quantifiable than definitions of happiness or satisfaction. But the point is that not everything measurable needs to be quantifiable to the sixth decimal point to call itself scientific. What matters is whether we can come up with consistent and at least semi-quantifiable definitions that are useful enough to make testable predictions. Psychological research is useful not when it’s quantifiable but when it says something about human nature that is universal and revealing." -American Scientific Article

"Or consider Daniel Kahneman’s seminal work in behavioral economics which has led to real insights into decision making and biases; very few people would call what he did unscientific." -American Scientific Article