Steersman wrote:
What does that say about AVfM if they’re banning people because of “weak arguments� Seems far more plausible to me to suggest that I raised some points that they’d rather not address. Maybe they figured I was pissing in their cornflakes? That I was not adhering to the stringent rules of decorum that characterize the
site?
Oh I will conceed that probably a large part of it may have been seen by you as a reluctance to adress some of your points. However, I believe that a sufficient number of them felt that they had adequately adressed your points and they were tired of dealing with you.
Similar to the impression for example when you were bannned over at Islamic Awakening. Remember that the stated reason given was your "mocking" of Allah (swt). I saw that as an excuse of convience, the real one is that they were tired of answering someone who was clearly wrong, but stubbornly failed to see the light.
Probably not a very flattering comparison for AVfM, but I call it as I see it. It might be fustrating for you, but what can you do? Have your tried emailing Elam and asking for the ban to be lifted? I understand they have a forum now where someone may feel like engaging you.
http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?tid=2353
Steersman wrote:
Kind of ignores the differences in content between a “comfortable life†then and now, not least of which is a more extensive “social safety net†and educational system that has to be paid for somehow.
If things stayed the "same" in that one breadwinner was all that was required for a family today, I would imagine that taxes would be proportionaly the same also. I think I am missing the point. Or you are. Or we are talking past each other. Or the point could be circling my haid and blowing a horn. Whatever. Clarification needed on my end.
AndrewV69 wrote:I also do not think that the following comparison helped either:
Steersman wrote:
For instance a UN report argued that Muslim countries are so backward relative to Western democracies largely because insist on placing their women in largely unproductive roles.
There are a few problems with the kind of argument that tries to compare the relative economic status between these kinds of different population groups, because they appear to be based on a couple of assumed givens that are false:
- that all men and women are essentially equal.
- that all population groups are essentially equal.
Arguably the main issues with those population groups are related to the relatively low levels of IQ and societal trust, with the corresponding level of intellectual activity, and attributed to their culture which is reflected in their breeding practises and religion.
Steersman wrote:
You have some factual data to support your contention that those “assumed givens†are false? As I argued in an earlier
response to you, it seems to be rather difficult to compare populations using statistical distributions. As your own graph suggests, while there might be slight variations at any given
percentile, I expect there is going to be a significant degree of overlap of those distributions – that they “are essentially equalâ€. And that while there might be slight genetic differences, the measured differences are probably due largely to the amplification caused by environmental and cultural factors – for examples, that Jews comprise some 20% of the
Nobel laureates while comprising only 0.2% of the world’s population; that “[atheist activism], it’s more of a guy thingâ€; that Muslim countries are backward because of the restrictions on female participation.
Yes and No. First what was there to disagree about? I had no quarrel when you said this:
viewtopic.php?p=66525#p66525
Seems to me that many tend to view such statistics as tantamount to saying, for example, “men are smarter than women†which seems rather wrong-headed, and sterotypical if not outright sexist thinking. Sure – some are, but then again some women are smarter than most men. Really rather problematic that so many people seem unable to wrap their heads around the implications of statistical analyses – maybe not surprisingly: “lies, damned lies, and statistics†….
It is a given that small differences can have a magnified impact on outcomes. Are you telling me at this point you do not get that? I assumed you did because you seemed to get everything else. Or are we going to have to go back and explain to each other how
small differences do not matter much individually and in fact are largely meaningless in that context?
And yes it is difficult "to compare populations using statistical distributions" especially when you draw conclusions from it because you are apparently unaware of underlying conditions that can affect your results.
Or perhaps you are and you put it down to "culture" especially as you have looked at the PISA scores and know very well what is going on.
For example over at Dr. Hall she wrote about it: Gender Differences and Why They Don’t Matter So Much. And she is right, it does not matter so much, but it does affect outcomes. Anyway the link below is just for a reference.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... r-so-much/
What I want you to do is look at this article which Dr. Hall references when she said that "A recent study looked at 86 countries and found that math scores are determined by culture, not biology".
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 153123.htm
"We found that boys -- as well as girls -- tend to do better in math when raised in countries where females have better equality, and that's new and important," says Kane. "It makes sense that when women are well-educated and earn a good income, the math scores of their children of both genders benefit."
So far so good? We agree with the above? They are not necessarily telling "porkie pies" through their teeth deliberately, it is just that the results matched their expectations. Or did it? Bear with me. Patience.
I want you to look at this paper, the source for the article and the glad tidings from Dr. Hall.
http://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201 ... 00010p.pdf
Go to page 16, table 3. Look at the scores for Muslim countries. Before we go any further though, I dunno what the deal is with Iran, Malta and Syria. So I have flagged those for further investigation.
Finished?
Well my conclusion is you are looking at the results of inbreeding.
Seeing as I am of the opinion that in things like IQ women are more conservative than men, and that that the Muslim countries with the worst scores are also the ones that practise the worst form of inbreeding, Father's Brother's Daughter instead of the much better option of Mother's Sister's Daughter I am not surprised.
They are inbreeding themselves into stupid.
So the conclusion from the article I quoted above is not strictly correct at all. In fact is it misleading.
It does not matter how much equality you give the females in those countries. Unless they change their breeding practises, the men on the whole are going to keep on getting dumber and dumber.
YMMV
