If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

treestump wrote:
The very model of a modern armchair general:
June 5, 2013 at 11:50 am

"I’m going to be cautiously optimistic, maybe naively so, and say that I think Nugent will take your side. I spoke to him about his “structured dialogue” project the other day, and he said that he agrees with the FtB side on all the substantive points. Maybe he has some disagreements about strategy and tone, but I wouldn’t expect him to disinvite you just for that."

cunt wrote:I'd also like to add that besides being self righteous and arrogant. I am right.

welch wrote:
Except for bias in data collection, data entry, data formatting, coding, output formatting and presentation, IT'S COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE.

Mark Thomas wrote:

welch wrote:
Except for bias in data collection, data entry, data formatting, coding, output formatting and presentation, IT'S COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE.

Ok - you've made this assertion: his research is biased. Please back that up with evidence.

His political views are conservative - which doesn't necessarily mean his research is biased. And if his research is biased (I've read his book and he writes about the efforts he undertook to avoid bias) then surely there is another scientific paper somewhere challenging his claims. If there is, I'll read it with a critical eye.

Remick wrote:

cunt wrote:I'd also like to add that besides being self righteous and arrogant. I am right.

Anyone link you a documented story of the lefties lying yet? Did you check here? www.mypersonalopinions.net

welch wrote:

Angry_Drunk wrote:

Ophelia 'Outrage-Addict' Benson wrote: So Nugent will respond, and no doubt he will “make a stand” and agree with Sub Man that my blog post about “Skep tickle” is like the Nuremberg Race Law of 1935. Either he will disinvite me from the conference, or I will be forced to withdraw, because the slime pit will do whatever it takes to hound me out.

Emphasis mine.

She's already setting up her flounce strategy. Even if Nugent doesn't tell her to bugger off she'll skip the conference and claim that we "forced" her to do so.

Bingo. Smells like TAM 2012. Waiting for the breathless email warning her to be safe that pushes her over the edge.

Lsuoma wrote:

welch wrote:

Angry_Drunk wrote:

Ophelia 'Outrage-Addict' Benson wrote: So Nugent will respond, and no doubt he will “make a stand” and agree with Sub Man that my blog post about “Skep tickle” is like the Nuremberg Race Law of 1935. Either he will disinvite me from the conference, or I will be forced to withdraw, because the slime pit will do whatever it takes to hound me out.

Emphasis mine.

She's already setting up her flounce strategy. Even if Nugent doesn't tell her to bugger off she'll skip the conference and claim that we "forced" her to do so.

Bingo. Smells like TAM 2012. Waiting for the breathless email warning her to be safe that pushes her over the edge.

And the non-threat threat from one of her supporters.

I hope the stupid arsehole does go to Dublin - the less she hangs around Seattle, the less chance I have of entering her stupidity field at random...

CommanderTuvok wrote:Given Black Svan's defence of Ophelia's "doxxing", it would be unfortunate it Svan's real name was revealed.

Wouldn't it?

Remick wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote:

welch wrote:
Except for bias in data collection, data entry, data formatting, coding, output formatting and presentation, IT'S COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE.

Ok - you've made this assertion: his research is biased. Please back that up with evidence.

His political views are conservative - which doesn't necessarily mean his research is biased. And if his research is biased (I've read his book and he writes about the efforts he undertook to avoid bias) then surely there is another scientific paper somewhere challenging his claims. If there is, I'll read it with a critical eye.

His paper is not scientific, why would there need to be a scientific paper to refute it?

In this book Tim Groseclose, a political scientist at UCLA, tackles the issue of supposed "liberal bias" in the news media. He reaches conclusions that are very provocative, and which will be warmly greeted by conservatives; however, his analysis is flawed, even crippled, by numerous, serious failings. His conclusions should be rejected.

Let me start by briefly summarizing the core research Groseclose did, which was originally published in a journal article co-written with economist Jeffrey Milyo. Groseclose and Milyo first assembled two large databases: one of citations of 200 political organizations (Groseclose constantly uses the term think tanks, but many of them are activist groups like the NAACP or the NRA) in speeches made in Congressional debate, the other of citations of the same organizations by 20 news media outlets. Their next step is to estimate "political quotients" for the think tanks, using the Americans for Democratic Action voting ratings for Senators and Representatives to impute an ADA rating for the organizations they cite. Finally, they construct an algorithm to compare the citation patterns of news organizations to those of Senators and Representatives, and from that they estimate the "slant quotients"--again, these are imputed ADA ratings--of the 20 media outlets.

The basic conclusions they reach are repeated in the book. Groseclose and Milyo find that almost every media outlet they studied has a "slant quotient" of well over 50, which they claim is a leftward slant (more on this issue below). In the book Groseclose goes further, and concludes that the "bias" of the media significantly impacts American elections, by swinging 8-10% of the vote to the Democrats; he claims that without media "bias," John McCain would have won in a landslide in 2008 with 56% of the vote.

So what's wrong here? Plenty. A full discussion of the shortcomings of this book would far exceed the word limit for reviews. There have been some significant online critiques of Groseclose's work, and I encourage readers who want to learn more to track down those written by Andrew Gelman, Brendan Nyhan and Paul Waldman, in particular. I'm going to focus on three basic criticisms:

1) One big problem with Groseclose's basic method concerns his use of the ADA voting ratings as a measure of ideology. Not only is he assuming that we can numerically measure political ideology at all by doing this, he is making the assumption that you can capture all major differences in ideology with a one-dimensional statistical measure.

To see why he's wrong let's do a little hypothetical exercise. Suppose we have two members of Congress, Ms. A and Mr. B. Ms. A is a consistent, principled libertarian; Mr. B is an equally principled communitarian. On economic issues, Ms. A almost never votes in favor of government intervention in the economy, while Mr. B is much more likely to vote in favor. Likewise, on social issues, Ms. A will vote to maximize individual freedom, while Mr. B is likely to vote in favor of many government limits on individual freedom. To a liberal group, like the ADA, or a conservative group, like the American Conservative Union, both Ms. A and Mr. B are going to be perceived as voting the "right" way about 50% of the time; they would tend to have voting scores that were about equal.

If you assume, as Groseclose does, that one-dimensional voting scores measure ideology with precise accuracy, you'd conclude from voting scores like ADA's that Ms. A and Mr. B are "about the same" ideologically. But, you'd be reaching this conclusion about two people who were on opposite sides of virtually all issues (at least in domestic policy). In other words, the conclusion that Ms. A and Mr. B are "the same" in their ideologies would be dead wrong. Trying to measure ideology on a one-dimensional scale loses a lot of information.

Many serious students of ideology recognize this problem, and use measures of ideology that have two or more dimensions. Readers may be familiar with the Political Compass or the Nolan Chart, which are fairly basic examples of this approach. Groseclose, however, doesn't seem to be aware of this serious shortcoming in his method.

2) Even if you believe that it's valid to measure ideology with a one-dimensional scale, there's a problem with Groseclose's method of estimating "political quotients" and "slant quotients." Recall how he determines the imputed ADA scores , or "PQ's," of think tanks and other political organizations--I described it above. When he does this, he makes a crucial assumption--that when a politician cites one of these organizations in a speech, they do so primarily because they are in broad agreement with the organization ideologically. Is that the case? A look at the imputed ADA ratings for political organizations suggests otherwise (to get these numbers you have to look up Groseclose's paper with Milyo online, they are omitted from the book).

One striking anomaly concerns the "PQ" of the American Civil Liberties Union. We all know that the ACLU is a pretty liberal outfit, right? So, you'd expect them to have a "political quotient" that's pretty high up on the scale--probably at least in the 70s, maybe the 80s. But when you look at Groseclose's numbers, he gives them a score of 48.9. That's right, his method says that the ACLU is a smidgen to the right of center politically.

How did this happen? Well, in his paper with Milyo, Groseclose lets slip the fact that a lot of the citations of the ACLU in his data set were made by Republicans. In fact, one-eighth of all citations of the ACLU were made by one man, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. We can definitely state that Mitch McConnell was not citing the ACLU because he is a committed civil libertarian; the ACLU does their own ratings of voting records, and Sen. McConnell gets consistently low scores from them (a 14% in 2008, for instance).

Another anomaly can be seen in the "PQ's" of organizations involved in the gun control debate. Let me propose another hypothetical. Suppose we had a news outlet that, in covering gun control, gave equal weight to the views of 1) Handgun Control (liberal, pro-gun control) and 2) the National Rifle Association (conservative, anti-gun control). We'd all agree that, other things being equal, that news outlet was giving balanced coverage to that issue.

However, Groseclose's method of analysis would interpret that balanced coverage as "slanted" to the left. The reason is that, while Handgun Control has a "PQ" of 77.3 (pretty liberal, and about what I'd expect), the NRA has a "PQ" of 45.9 (you'd expect them to have a score in the 20s). So the balanced coverage of our hypothetical news outlet would have a "slant quotient" in the low 60s on the gun control issue, which Groseclose would interpret as "liberal bias."

Why do these weird results come up? Because Groseclose's core assumption--that citations of organizations are driven by ideology--is not valid. For instance, the ACLU's score is driven by their being cited by many Republicans in the debate over a single law, the McCain-Feingold bill. Because the ACLU, a liberal organization, was opposed to a bill supported by most liberals, right-wing Republicans tried to score debating points by citing them. I strongly suspect that the NRA's score is similarly due to liberals citing them in gun control debates. The examples of the ACLU and the NRA, and some others I don't have time to go into, make it clear that many politicians cite think tanks and other organizations not because of ideological agreement, but for tactical reasons.

3) Even if you reject my criticisms of Groseclose's basic method--his model, in economists' language--there is still a very big problem with his statistical analysis. He has a very severe example of what is known as a sensitivity problem.

So what's that? Statistical research has a sensitivity problem if making a change in one element of the data you use or the parameters of your analysis (think of these as the "inputs") results in a significant change in your conclusions (the "output"). For example, if I did a statistical analysis that used data from all 50 states and reached conclusion X, but dropping one or two states out would reverse that conclusion or seriously modify it, my analysis would have a sensitivity problem. Good social scientists do not base sweeping conclusions on analysis with such a problem.

Groseclose's work has a number of sensitivity problems. Some of them have been found by a political scientist at Carnegie Mellon University named John Gasper, who has a paper critiquing Groseclose's work coming out--it's accessible online. Gasper finds that there are several of these sensitivity problems. His most striking finding is that if you remove the citations of a single organization from the analysis (the National Taxpayer's Union), the average "slant quotient" of media outlets drops by 9 points.

What would that mean for Groseclose's conclusions. First, instead of most media outlets having a slant to the left, most outlets--14 out of 20--would have a "slant quotient" of somewhere between 45 and 57, which puts them right around the center of the political spectrum (Groseclose has determined that the center is at a "PQ" of just over 50). Moreover, if you apply that 9 point drop to Groseclose's overall measure of media "slant," which he calls the "media mu," you get a "mu" of just under 50, which would mean that the media were barely slanted at all, and that the slant that did exist was slightly to the right. If that were the case, Groseclose's conclusion about the media's effect on the 2008 election goes out the window entirely.

Let me reiterate what Gasper's paper is saying: if you redo Groseclose's work, using all the same data and doing all the number-crunching just the same, but you drop out the media citations of the National Taxpayer's Union while making no other changes at all, all of Groseclose's big conclusions are invalidated.

Another source of a sensitivity problem is the way Groseclose defines the "center" of the electorate. He makes the assumption that the center of the electorate, ideologically, will be exactly the same as the center of Congress (a debatable assumption itself). To find the center of Congress, he then calculates the mean ADA score for all members of Congress, which he finds is 50.4. The problem--anyone who's taken a stats course has learned this--is that you don't use the mean to find the statistical center, you use the median.

So what's the median ADA score for Congress. Lacking the time and resources to do a massive study like Groseclose`s, I did a quick, back-of-an-envelope estimate using data in the latest Almanac of American Politics. I found that the median ADA score for Congress, taking the members of each House who were the closest to the center, was about a 70.

If the center of the electorate is a ADA score/"political quotient" of 70 instead of 50, once again, all of Groseclose's conclusions are overturned. Even if the median ADA score turns out to be a 65 or a 60, that is still the case.

The point here is not to say "My numbers or Gasper's are right, and Groseclose's are wrong." Rather, the point is that Groseclose's numbers, and his conclusions, depend very strongly on some specific decisions he made about what data to include in his analysis and what values to give to certain key variables. Making very small and very reasonable changes to those decisions radically changes the conclusions that can be drawn. Therefore, Groseclose's conclusions don't really have the rigorous statistical foundation that he claims for them.

I apologize for the length of this review. I wanted to do more than just express my opinion that Groseclose is wrong in his conclusions; I wanted to explain why I have concluded that he's wrong. This required me to go into quite a bit more depth than is normal for an Amazon review.

I've rated this book at one star. I thought about this issue quite a bit. If I were evaluating this book as a conservative polemic (like the Ben Shapiro book I reviewed a few weeks back), I'd have given it a higher rating. I do give him credit for trying to study his subject in a systematic way, something that conservative polemicists almost never attempt. However, it's clear from reading the book, and from the plugs given to the book by high-powered economists like Steve Levitt, that Groseclose wants this book to be taken as a serious work of empirical social science research. That being the case, my standards rise quite a bit, and my rating of the book drops accordingly.

Mark Thomas wrote:

welch wrote:
Except for bias in data collection, data entry, data formatting, coding, output formatting and presentation, IT'S COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE.

Ok - you've made this assertion: his research is biased. Please back that up with evidence.

His political views are conservative - which doesn't necessarily mean his research is biased. And if his research is biased (I've read his book and he writes about the efforts he undertook to avoid bias) then surely there is another scientific paper somewhere challenging his claims. If there is, I'll read it with a critical eye.

Remick wrote:
1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.

2. Evidence, please, for this statement: "a large minority of them base decisions on it." I'll also note that it's slightly different from what you said in your earlier comment where you stated that they "base most of their choices on the result of prayer."

1) Certainly true. However, if one side does it 3/10 and the other side does it 10/10, it is hardly equal. Both are guilty of it, I won't pretend that isn't the case, however it is vastly different in scale and frequency and therefore not equal.

2) I didn't intend to move any goalposts, merely paraphrasing myself. I don't need to provide evidence, consult public statements made by republican congressmen/women who first entered national congress in the last 4-6 years. There is a sizeable number of them.

Remick wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote:

welch wrote:
Except for bias in data collection, data entry, data formatting, coding, output formatting and presentation, IT'S COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE.

Ok - you've made this assertion: his research is biased. Please back that up with evidence.

His political views are conservative - which doesn't necessarily mean his research is biased. And if his research is biased (I've read his book and he writes about the efforts he undertook to avoid bias) then surely there is another scientific paper somewhere challenging his claims. If there is, I'll read it with a critical eye.

His paper is not scientific, why would there need to be a scientific paper to refute it?

welch wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote:

welch wrote:
Except for bias in data collection, data entry, data formatting, coding, output formatting and presentation, IT'S COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE.

Ok - you've made this assertion: his research is biased. Please back that up with evidence.

His political views are conservative - which doesn't necessarily mean his research is biased. And if his research is biased (I've read his book and he writes about the efforts he undertook to avoid bias) then surely there is another scientific paper somewhere challenging his claims. If there is, I'll read it with a critical eye.

Actually, I made and backed up the assertion that HE is biased, and made at least one statement that is completely misleading, namely that computer programs are incapable of bias. The fundamental principle of GIGO contradicts that rather well. I pointed out, correctly, that a computer program can create entirely biased results based on a variety of factors prone to bias such as:

collection of data
entry of data
data formatting
the actual coding of the application or applications used to perform the analysis.
output formatting
presentation

Since Groseclose doesn't have all the source code for said app(s) available, we have no way to establish the quality or methodology of said application(s)' functionality. He also doesn't appear, on his site, to have made available the raw data he used as the source for his book, nor does he appear to detail his data processing methodology.

In addition to that, Groseclose is conflating two things: how the code is actually executed within the hardware and the code that is being executed. Code execution, in and of itself, happens without consideration for human bias. However, that is only applicable to the internal CPU functional units. The person or persons who generated the code can, and do, make many choices about how the input data is processed, stored, and outputted. Groseclose does not differentiate between the two, so his claim is pretty much bollocks.

In addition, you create a requirement that he doesn't live up to himself: you demand a *scientific* refutation of his claims, yet neither his book, nor his website live up to the same standard. One might ask why you don't hold him to the same level of proof you demand from his detractors. Well, I wouldn't, the answer is fairly obvious, namely confirmation bias. But someone else might, and so I have some small interest in your answer.

Lsuoma wrote:

welch wrote:

Angry_Drunk wrote:

Ophelia 'Outrage-Addict' Benson wrote: So Nugent will respond, and no doubt he will “make a stand” and agree with Sub Man that my blog post about “Skep tickle” is like the Nuremberg Race Law of 1935. Either he will disinvite me from the conference, or I will be forced to withdraw, because the slime pit will do whatever it takes to hound me out.

Emphasis mine.

She's already setting up her flounce strategy. Even if Nugent doesn't tell her to bugger off she'll skip the conference and claim that we "forced" her to do so.

Bingo. Smells like TAM 2012. Waiting for the breathless email warning her to be safe that pushes her over the edge.

And the non-threat threat from one of her supporters.

I hope the stupid arsehole does go to Dublin - the less she hangs around Seattle, the less chance I have of entering her stupidity field at random...

welch wrote:

Remick wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote:

welch wrote:
Except for bias in data collection, data entry, data formatting, coding, output formatting and presentation, IT'S COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE.

Ok - you've made this assertion: his research is biased. Please back that up with evidence.

His political views are conservative - which doesn't necessarily mean his research is biased. And if his research is biased (I've read his book and he writes about the efforts he undertook to avoid bias) then surely there is another scientific paper somewhere challenging his claims. If there is, I'll read it with a critical eye.

His paper is not scientific, why would there need to be a scientific paper to refute it?

you caught that inconsistency as well.

Michael K Gray wrote:

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

Mykeru wrote:

Michael K Gray wrote: You are, of course, quite correct. Proximally correct. But distally off-the-mark, as it were.
But, as any Cybernaut (steersman) will inform you, navigating between a rock and hard place, Charybdis & Scylla, a sailor-eating monster and an all-engulfing whirlpool is a balancing art. Much as is Yin/Yang a balancing art.
Steer the middle course and one avoids either catastrophic extreme.
Much as you seem to post here.
Cricket.

Yeah, I remember my first paper bag and can of spray paint.

Why didn't you use a sock, like any other person would?

I suspect that Mykeru is wholly unfamiliar with the classics, such as the Odyssey, Iliad, & cetera, and thusly may have interpreted the above as novel gibberish.

Angry_Drunk wrote:Screw you, you fascist tit. I'm going to be in Dublin in September and I don't want her stink hanging around.

Mark Thomas wrote:

welch wrote:

Remick wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote:

welch wrote:
Except for bias in data collection, data entry, data formatting, coding, output formatting and presentation, IT'S COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE.

Ok - you've made this assertion: his research is biased. Please back that up with evidence.

His political views are conservative - which doesn't necessarily mean his research is biased. And if his research is biased (I've read his book and he writes about the efforts he undertook to avoid bias) then surely there is another scientific paper somewhere challenging his claims. If there is, I'll read it with a critical eye.

His paper is not scientific, why would there need to be a scientific paper to refute it?

you caught that inconsistency as well.

Well what passes for science in the social sciences...

justinvacula wrote:Thanks everyone for the gracious donations which allowed me to reach my fundraising goal for Empowering Women Through Secularism!

Mark Thomas wrote:

welch wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote:

welch wrote:
Except for bias in data collection, data entry, data formatting, coding, output formatting and presentation, IT'S COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE.

Ok - you've made this assertion: his research is biased. Please back that up with evidence.

His political views are conservative - which doesn't necessarily mean his research is biased. And if his research is biased (I've read his book and he writes about the efforts he undertook to avoid bias) then surely there is another scientific paper somewhere challenging his claims. If there is, I'll read it with a critical eye.

Actually, I made and backed up the assertion that HE is biased, and made at least one statement that is completely misleading, namely that computer programs are incapable of bias. The fundamental principle of GIGO contradicts that rather well. I pointed out, correctly, that a computer program can create entirely biased results based on a variety of factors prone to bias such as:

collection of data
entry of data
data formatting
the actual coding of the application or applications used to perform the analysis.
output formatting
presentation

Since Groseclose doesn't have all the source code for said app(s) available, we have no way to establish the quality or methodology of said application(s)' functionality. He also doesn't appear, on his site, to have made available the raw data he used as the source for his book, nor does he appear to detail his data processing methodology.

In addition to that, Groseclose is conflating two things: how the code is actually executed within the hardware and the code that is being executed. Code execution, in and of itself, happens without consideration for human bias. However, that is only applicable to the internal CPU functional units. The person or persons who generated the code can, and do, make many choices about how the input data is processed, stored, and outputted. Groseclose does not differentiate between the two, so his claim is pretty much bollocks.

In addition, you create a requirement that he doesn't live up to himself: you demand a *scientific* refutation of his claims, yet neither his book, nor his website live up to the same standard. One might ask why you don't hold him to the same level of proof you demand from his detractors. Well, I wouldn't, the answer is fairly obvious, namely confirmation bias. But someone else might, and so I have some small interest in your answer.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/facu ... index.html

Data, code, previous versions of the paper the book was based on.

Linked from the "Additional Research" tab of his website.

Is this book biased? On one level, it matters not a whit where I was born or what my political views are. The methods that I use to measure media bias are completely objective—indeed, a computer executes them.

Tigzy wrote:@Apples

Well, Zvan elaborates on it here, in her latest post: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... pseudonym/

Can't say I'm at all interested in whether or not any of the baboons are pseudonymous or not. The only one that intrigues me a bit is Nerd of Redhead, but that's only to see if he's as much a gibbering imbecile in meatspace as he is on the net. Morbid curiosity, in other words.

By October of that year, my employer information had been posted at Abbie Smith’s blog in the original slime pit. Pitters were actively researching those of us who argued with them on the topic.

sacha wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

Kareem wrote:
Ironically, I think this has to do with Skep being a woman. She's not hated by all of us, who just must be misogynists, so she must be an uncle tom a chill girl because otherwise Ms. Benson's problems just might be about Ms. Benson.

Look at who they have targeted:

Steff McGraw,
Abbie Smith,
Mallorie Nasrallah,
Harriet Hall,
Sarah Mayhew,
Wooly Bumblebee,
Zenbuffy,

as well as several of the regulars here at the slymepit.

And now Skep tickle.
If anything the treatment meeted out to women they oppose is far more vindictive and nasty than that faced by men.

when I say I'm a lifelong gender traitor, I mean it. women and girls have always been malicious and repugnant towards other women

just in the last week, three different women, from three different companies, treated my benign inquires with contempt. Absolutely atrocious behaviour.

I've had this experience so often, with so many women throughout my life, and I go out of my way to be extra polite and friendly to women, I complement them, I smile, I tell them, it's okay, do whatever you need to do, I can wait...
right up until the time they are rude and obnoxious, and they expect me to be intimidated.

When I am extra polite and friendly to men (even on the telephone where they can't see me) I am almost always not only treated with respect, but kindness.

welch wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote:

welch wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote:

welch wrote:
Except for bias in data collection, data entry, data formatting, coding, output formatting and presentation, IT'S COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE.

Ok - you've made this assertion: his research is biased. Please back that up with evidence.

His political views are conservative - which doesn't necessarily mean his research is biased. And if his research is biased (I've read his book and he writes about the efforts he undertook to avoid bias) then surely there is another scientific paper somewhere challenging his claims. If there is, I'll read it with a critical eye.

Actually, I made and backed up the assertion that HE is biased, and made at least one statement that is completely misleading, namely that computer programs are incapable of bias. The fundamental principle of GIGO contradicts that rather well. I pointed out, correctly, that a computer program can create entirely biased results based on a variety of factors prone to bias such as:

collection of data
entry of data
data formatting
the actual coding of the application or applications used to perform the analysis.
output formatting
presentation

Since Groseclose doesn't have all the source code for said app(s) available, we have no way to establish the quality or methodology of said application(s)' functionality. He also doesn't appear, on his site, to have made available the raw data he used as the source for his book, nor does he appear to detail his data processing methodology.

In addition to that, Groseclose is conflating two things: how the code is actually executed within the hardware and the code that is being executed. Code execution, in and of itself, happens without consideration for human bias. However, that is only applicable to the internal CPU functional units. The person or persons who generated the code can, and do, make many choices about how the input data is processed, stored, and outputted. Groseclose does not differentiate between the two, so his claim is pretty much bollocks.

In addition, you create a requirement that he doesn't live up to himself: you demand a *scientific* refutation of his claims, yet neither his book, nor his website live up to the same standard. One might ask why you don't hold him to the same level of proof you demand from his detractors. Well, I wouldn't, the answer is fairly obvious, namely confirmation bias. But someone else might, and so I have some small interest in your answer.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/facu ... index.html

Data, code, previous versions of the paper the book was based on.

Linked from the "Additional Research" tab of his website.

Good on him then. Now, exactly how does that make computers immune to bias, which, I remind you, is what he specifically states:

Is this book biased? On one level, it matters not a whit where I was born or what my political views are. The methods that I use to measure media bias are completely objective—indeed, a computer executes them.

The computer executes what it is told to execute, nothing more. From where does it get the data and execution instructions? In this case, Tim. So again, Tim's statement that his methods are 'completely objective' because 'a computer executes them' is stupid to anyone who knows anything about computers.

welch wrote: ...The computer executes what it is told to execute, nothing more. From where does it get the data and execution instructions? In this case, Tim. So again, Tim's statement that his methods are 'completely objective' because 'a computer executes them' is stupid to anyone who knows anything about computers.

As you know, I don't make it my business to insert myself into the business of others. At least I try to maintain good boundaries as much as possible. Recently, though, your public conflicts with others have time and time again found their way into my daily routine and into the public image of AVFM. So, I need to address this with you.

I find your provocation of the MGTOW community, as well as people of differing political views than yours, to be divisive and diminishing of AVFM's relationship with its followers.

Gefan wrote:

welch wrote: ...The computer executes what it is told to execute, nothing more. From where does it get the data and execution instructions? In this case, Tim. So again, Tim's statement that his methods are 'completely objective' because 'a computer executes them' is stupid to anyone who knows anything about computers.

Actually, it's worse than that. I know basically jack shit about computers and it's stupid to me too.

Once the computer selects its own data input he can get back to me.

This has gone from amusing to depressing.

cunt wrote:Anyway, there was a great documentary on rape last night. People (and AndrewV69), should probably watch it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... rime_Rape/

If you're not from the UK. You can use tunnelbear and give that a try.

http://www.tunnelbear.com/

Apples wrote:

CommanderTuvok wrote:Given Black Svan's defence of Ophelia's "doxxing", it would be unfortunate it Svan's real name was revealed.

Wouldn't it?

What's the evidence for the notion that 'Stephanie Zvan' is a pseudonym?

Mark Thomas wrote:

Remick wrote: Just saying 'research' doesn't absolve you from providing it. Link? I have a feeling that I've already explained why this 'research' is faulty without reading it, but I will still read it and see if I am mistaken.

http://www.timgroseclose.com/

" I consider Goldwater one of my political heroes. Four others are Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, Bob Dole, and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Four other heroes, in addition to being successful politicians, are true scholars: Newt Gingrich, Phil Gramm, Dick Armey, and Dick Cheney."

Mark Thomas wrote:

Remick wrote:
1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.

2. Evidence, please, for this statement: "a large minority of them base decisions on it." I'll also note that it's slightly different from what you said in your earlier comment where you stated that they "base most of their choices on the result of prayer."

1) Certainly true. However, if one side does it 3/10 and the other side does it 10/10, it is hardly equal. Both are guilty of it, I won't pretend that isn't the case, however it is vastly different in scale and frequency and therefore not equal.

2) I didn't intend to move any goalposts, merely paraphrasing myself. I don't need to provide evidence, consult public statements made by republican congressmen/women who first entered national congress in the last 4-6 years. There is a sizeable number of them.

1) You make a value judgement - both sides do it but one is worse. I was not making a value judgement, so we are in agreement.

2) The charge that conservative politicians "base most of their choices on the result of prayer" certainly should require some evidence in my mind, but ok. I'm not disputing that conservative politicians, moreso than liberal politicians, are religiously focused (a value I do not share). But you're making a huge leap suggesting that conservative politicians pray, then vote the way god tells them to. I'm sure some of the more religious ones have even said something like that at the odd fundraiser, but from my experience in DC (I worked there for two years) religion simply does not factor into many public policy decisions, save issues like DOMA, funding for Planned Parenthood, etc.

For the record - this is Obama's answer to a similar question:

O: Do you involve God in your decisions in your presidency and if so, in what way?

BO: I'm in a constant conversation with God and that voice that is true about doing the right thing. And sometimes just giving strength when you're feeling low. There are going to be ups and downs in this job, like any other job. The interesting thing is, the questions I deal with are big and have worldwide impact.

http://www.oprah.com/world/Oprah-Interv ... z2VNLhaLvS

Git wrote:

cunt wrote:

Git wrote:

cunt wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote: 1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

Left-wing equivalents of climate change: Nuclear Power, GMO, Immigration, Islam.

There you go.

As someone upthread said, facts are facts. They neither lean left, right, up, down, strange or charm.

I didn't ask for names, dickhead. I asked for examples of a left-wing news organisation that distorted and ignored the facts on the issue to suit their ideology. So, go on, there's been a lot of false shit in the left wing media about Nuclear, GMO, Immigration and Islam.

BBC, C4, MSNBC. There's three for starters. Just as bad as Fox is.

AndrewV69 wrote:

cunt wrote:Anyway, there was a great documentary on rape last night. People (and AndrewV69), should probably watch it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... rime_Rape/

If you're not from the UK. You can use tunnelbear and give that a try.

http://www.tunnelbear.com/

I will check it out eventually. Thanks.

AndrewV69 wrote:Well I guess I called it. Wooly appears to be out.
Video transcript:


From the comments:

As you know, I don't make it my business to insert myself into the business of others. At least I try to maintain good boundaries as much as possible. Recently, though, your public conflicts with others have time and time again found their way into my daily routine and into the public image of AVFM. So, I need to address this with you.

I find your provocation of the MGTOW community, as well as people of differing political views than yours, to be divisive and diminishing of AVFM's relationship with its followers.

cunt wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote: 1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

Cunning Punt wrote:

Git wrote:

cunt wrote:

Git wrote:

cunt wrote:

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

Left-wing equivalents of climate change: Nuclear Power, GMO, Immigration, Islam.

There you go.

As someone upthread said, facts are facts. They neither lean left, right, up, down, strange or charm.

I didn't ask for names, dickhead. I asked for examples of a left-wing news organisation that distorted and ignored the facts on the issue to suit their ideology. So, go on, there's been a lot of false shit in the left wing media about Nuclear, GMO, Immigration and Islam.

BBC, C4, MSNBC. There's three for starters. Just as bad as Fox is.

You really are a fucking moron, aren't you?

AndrewV69 wrote: YMMV

Cunning Punt wrote:
Dick Cheney? Fuck off.

cunt wrote:Fuck you Git.

Lsuoma wrote: Whoo-effing-whoo!!! First time ol' Lsuoma gets a Nanny Feefle call-out, IIRC.

Bow down and worship me, bitches, for I have ARRIVED!!!

Remick wrote:

Cunning Punt wrote:

Git wrote:

cunt wrote:

Git wrote:
Left-wing equivalents of climate change: Nuclear Power, GMO, Immigration, Islam.

There you go.

As someone upthread said, facts are facts. They neither lean left, right, up, down, strange or charm.

I didn't ask for names, dickhead. I asked for examples of a left-wing news organisation that distorted and ignored the facts on the issue to suit their ideology. So, go on, there's been a lot of false shit in the left wing media about Nuclear, GMO, Immigration and Islam.

BBC, C4, MSNBC. There's three for starters. Just as bad as Fox is.

You really are a fucking moron, aren't you?

But don't ignore him, or you are Peezus. Ignoring him is tone trolling.... Holy shit, it Git a mod at A+?

Gefan wrote:

Lsuoma wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:Opelia:

It gets crazier every day. You would think it couldn’t, but it does.

You know, Ophelia, in your case we would think it could.

http://www.freezepage.com/1370428535KOUZBJDCCY

Apparently Ophelia has started to write to the President of Seattle Atheists to complain about Skep Tickle - or more specifically to try a bit of guilt-by-association using some crude insults about Ophelia made on the slymepit. :snooty:

Whoo-effing-whoo!!! First time ol' Lsuoma gets a Nanny Feefle call-out, IIRC.

Bow down and worship me, bitches, for I have ARRIVED!!!

:angry-banghead:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

curriejean wrote:"Ophelia F Benson" signed the statement from an Australian IP. Removed.

(Oh and about email verification -- it only verifies that the signature is associated with an email address, any email address. The form allows one verification-optional signature, then requires email verification for any additional signatures from the same IP.)

http://www.skepticwomen.com/welcome-statement

55 signs so far with only a few questionable names.

MRA doormat?
Elisabeth Fritzl?
Eva Braun?

Remick wrote:

Eskarina wrote:

Altair wrote:The tweeters are a-tweeting!




First blow, you Skeptic Women are not real women, of course :snooty:

Dimwit. Of course none, since we are all franc's socks or something.

Altair wrote:I don't really get the analogy here but they needed to include the word rape somewhere

She's just telling us to check our privilege.

Apparently only women who have been raped(nevermind men) can have correct and true feelings in regard to feeling safe and loved.

Git wrote: BBC, C4, MSNBC. There's three for starters. Just as bad as Fox is.

AndrewV69 wrote:

Git wrote: BBC, C4, MSNBC. There's three for starters. Just as bad as Fox is.

I do not watch those either for pretty much the same reason I do not watch Fox News.

Look folks. If you use the idiot box for news, sooner or later you are going to regret it.

Tkmlac wrote:

Remick wrote:

Eskarina wrote:

Altair wrote:The tweeters are a-tweeting!




First blow, you Skeptic Women are not real women, of course :snooty:

Dimwit. Of course none, since we are all franc's socks or something.

Altair wrote:I don't really get the analogy here but they needed to include the word rape somewhere

She's just telling us to check our privilege.

Apparently only women who have been raped(nevermind men) can have correct and true feelings in regard to feeling safe and loved.

I was raped by my ex-boyfriend. It's more likely to happen that way than at a conference full of strangers. So here's someone who HAS been raped saying yes, I feel safe and loved.

welch wrote:

Gefan wrote:

welch wrote: ...The computer executes what it is told to execute, nothing more. From where does it get the data and execution instructions? In this case, Tim. So again, Tim's statement that his methods are 'completely objective' because 'a computer executes them' is stupid to anyone who knows anything about computers.

Actually, it's worse than that. I know basically jack shit about computers and it's stupid to me too.

Once the computer selects its own data input he can get back to me.

This has gone from amusing to depressing.

It's a fairly standard way to bullshit the normal people. Invoke the POWER OF COMP-U-TAR!

works until you run into someone who knows what actually goes on.

Mark Thomas wrote:

welch wrote:

Gefan wrote:

welch wrote: ...The computer executes what it is told to execute, nothing more. From where does it get the data and execution instructions? In this case, Tim. So again, Tim's statement that his methods are 'completely objective' because 'a computer executes them' is stupid to anyone who knows anything about computers.

Actually, it's worse than that. I know basically jack shit about computers and it's stupid to me too.

Once the computer selects its own data input he can get back to me.

This has gone from amusing to depressing.

It's a fairly standard way to bullshit the normal people. Invoke the POWER OF COMP-U-TAR!

works until you run into someone who knows what actually goes on.

Here is the whole quote from Groseclose:

"There. I have now done something that almost no journalist will ever do. I’ve given you a detailed account of my political views, including some information about my political heroes and the birthplace that influenced those views.

Is this book biased? On one level, it matters not a whit where I was born or what my political views are. The methods that I use to measure media bias are completely objective—indeed, a computer executes them.

But on another level my views and background do matter. As I will explain, the topics that journalists choose depend partly upon their political views and the views of the people who surround them. So let me admit, I don’t think I would have written a book about media bias if I weren’t conservative..."

He is actually making exactly the opposite argument than the one you ascribe to him - bias is important. But it is equally important in his mind to recognize your own biases. He argues elsewhere that journalists should disclose their own political biases - which is one of the reasons he details his political influences.

One again, if you have a principled of his media bias arguments - and they exist - I'm all ears.

cunt wrote:How about this, you cut the crap and name (what you consider to be) a left wing media outlet that has consistently ignored and distorted the scientific consensus on an issue. Give examples, ones that totally ignore science in order to carry on with an obviously false, bullshit left wing agenda.