[Basil Ransom]

^Poser http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/navy-seal-copypasta

[Emancipator]

(05-01-2013 12:32 AM)basilransom Wrote:  

^Poser http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/navy-seal-copypasta

are you kidding me you little piece of shit i’ll have you know i graduated top of my politics class and i’ve been involved in privilege checking with over 150 confirmed political demonstrations i’m trained in conflict resolution and i was the most oppressed person in my entire upper middle class high school you are nothing to me but another cultural appropriator i will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which have never been seen on this side of the 49th parallel mark my words you think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the internet think again fucker, as we speak i’m checking with my anarcho-communist analyst brigade for your location so you better be prepared to deal with some molotov cocktails and angry feminists flying through your window yOU’RE FUCKING DEAD CHERRY
i can be anywhere at any time and i can kill you in over seven hundred ways and that’s just with me boring you to death while i talk about privilege not only am i extensively trained in hotline management but i have access to an entire arsenal of sociological articles to prove my point and i will use them to wipe your fucking face off the earth you little shit if only you had known what oppressed retribution your cultural appropriation would unleash then maybe you would have held your fucking tongue but you couldn’t you’re fucking dead kiddo

[SPinker]

You claim what Kabal says is bullshit and deride "popular educational orthodoxy" all the while citing popular news sites. The irony is suffocating. Maybe you should have stayed in law school

(04-29-2013 01:46 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 08:40 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

I thought about posting something to this notion on the Male Hamster thread: Members here way overestimate their ability to dictate the life outcomes of their children (particularly daughters), perhaps out of some misguided extrapolation of their own self-perceived Horatio Alger loser-to-poon-king life evolution.

From twin adoption studies we know that among pretty much all cognitive/behavioral traits, genetics is the most important factor, then shared environment second, with unique environment (a subset of which is parenting) last. Even for a wide variety of political belief-related traits, which are much more malleable, genetics + shared environment still explain more than 50% of variance.

You don't want your future hypothetical daughter banging badboys and being a slut in general?

Make sure her mother isn't a slut.

Have her grow up in a good school district with no hoodrats and no thugs.

Then sit back, relax, and hope for the best.

Wow, over 20 likes. Shocking at how people want the easy way out with child-rearing.

I'd just like to point out that the above is completely and utterly false. If you follow it you will doom your children to caprice and chance instead of well-raised parenting. There are competing theories that hold just as much scientific weight, although far less understood, than the current bullshit surrounding double-blind twin studies.

Although popular educational orthodoxy says genetics is huge, parenting doesn't matter, blah blah blah - it's 100% bullshit. First, let me show you why genetics is basically a non-issue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Enfant..._reception

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/466616.stm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...linic.html

Feral children shut down all genetic arguments. If genetics account for how children turn out, why do children who grow up in the wild act like beasts and not men?

Without the effects of socialization, it is impossible to become a human being. Likewise, since a parent has the ability to dictate what information comes to a child, it follows that parenting is the most important factor in raising a child.

From the study linked by Kabal:

"Monozygotic co-twins correlated more highly than dizygotic co-twins on measures of ideology constructed from a scale of attitudes,
including the death penalty, ethnocentrism, morality, unions, unemployment, and abortion, among others."

All of those double-blind twin studies raise children within similar communities and cultures, then ask the political issues of the day, and because they give similar answers it means genetics are king?

So bad, just so bad. I hate how the public is duped over these studies because what they do not realize is that the political and social questions we ask the children are themselves products of our time and age, that is, totally irrelevant to measuring the effects of culture and parenting on human behavior.

Had the double-blind twin studies (also known as the classical twin design, or CTD) been conducted in Ancient Rome, the questions would have been

- Should slaves be allowed to buy their own freedom?
- Can Emperors discount the senate?
- Do plebs deserve pay raises every one or two years?
- Is it better to compromise or war with barbarians?

Get it? The questions they used as a measure are totally meaningless jibber jabber, socially conditional products of our time, and do nothing to measure how much influence parents really have. They need more accurate measures that could work independently across time; an experiment that could be conducted in 2010 AD or 2010 BC. Not this bullshit asking about abortion, LOL.

Although I do not have the "science" to prove this (although no one has any science on this matter), I'd say that parenting determines almost 80% of a child's outcome in life, because the parent controls what the child sees and hears, and that's all that matters.

If you don't want your daughter to be a slut, then you must not raise her to be one. Look at how sluts grow up, and then raise your daughter oppositely from that.

[Kabal]

(05-01-2013 12:04 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Just as I suspected.

Quote:

and some inchoate, half-baked thoughts on wholes and parts.

You don't understand the sum/part distinction, do you?

A wheel, by itself, just sits around and can be rolled if it is pushed. A wheel, when put into the rest of a car, will go 100 MPH. The wheel by itself is a completely different entity than the car.

Likewise, a study that looks at 1,000 or 10,000 children without controlling for parenting methodology other than to state "shared environment" based on "lassiez-faire parenting" (loaded statement as I've pointed out earlier in the thread) cannot be used to draw inferences on how 1 parent should raise his child. Logically impossible to draw any inferences.

A parent can easily live in a community, and shut his child away from any and all outside influences he does not want his child to see, and the "shared environment" point becomes moot, instantly. Letting your child be part of a "shared environment" means that your parenting becomes neutralized by other outside forces such as genetics (in the case of lassiez-faire parenting) or your neighbors.

That is why the sum of the "shared environment" is greater than the individual "parent." But this is not true if the parent can effortlessly take his child out of the whole and just be an individual part, and develop a unique environment for his own child.

Thus 1 child is a completely different entity from a community of 1,000 children, since there is no reason why a child must be part of whatever mythical "shared environment" the researches keep talking about. There's no such thing as a involuntary shared environment, there are only communities that people let themselves be a part of.

Keep slinging diarrhea against the wall, Samseau, while retaining your smug demeanor and projecting your incompetence upon others.

I'm not playing turd whack-a-mole on your post.

I do find particularly amusing, though, your continual insistence on the impossibility of applying population level inferences to individuals, like if we flipped 10,000 coins to get about 5,000 heads, but then are stumped as to the approximate probability of heads on the 10,001st coin.

[Kabal]

(05-01-2013 12:16 AM)basilransom Wrote:  

It sounds like Samseau is accusing twin studies of being guilty of the problem known as 'restriction of range.' For those who don't know, imagine you quantified how good everyone was at basketball, and compared it with their height. You'd find a strong relationship, with almost all the best players being among the tallest 2% or so. But if you looked at just super tall people, the relationship would be much weaker. Same for say, linebackers and weight. http://en.m.wikiversity.org/wiki/Correla...estriction

It sounds like Samseau is saying the differences between the parents childrearing styles within the sample is small enough that these studies don't establish that more active parenting is without effect, for the simple reason that no one in the sample had adopted that extreme method, whatever it was. That these parents could conceivably adopt some parenting regimen that *would* have more of an effect. Homeschooling for instance, has attracted some attention for turning out hard working students. Eg, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...ge-12.html . Are stories like these just flukes (assuming the innate level of intelligence when comparing groups is similar)? Or do certain interventions, statistically rare they may be, be sufficient to influence your life? I don't have a strong position, just that if something has never been definitively studied, definitive statements about that thing are impossible to make.

Thanks basil, for the CPR efforts.

I touched upon range restriction earlier in this thread, although not by name. Range restriction in your sample data can be an issue when considering the universe of possible values for your independent variables, but not when the conceivable range of your independent variables can be defined, even ill-defined. For example, if you are modeling credit card default rates and one of your predictors is the unemployment rate, you don't really need to be so concerned what happens if the unemployment rate is 90%.

Just like if you are modeling future child outcomes in Western nations with a few independent variables, one of which is parental behavior, you don't really need to make sure your sample data includes parents suffocating their infants with pillows, if the range of parental behaviors your're interested in doesn't include that.

We are interested in the range of parenting behavior roughly illustrated by, but by no means demarcated by, Caplanian laissez-faire parenting on the left to Chua-style "Tiger-Momming" on the right, along many dimensions of course.

This is the kind of variation we're concerned with when we ask ourselves "how much should I, or can I do to prevent my daughter from becoming a slut?", and this kind of variation is easily captured by twin adoption studies. And as inferred from a ceiling established by political beliefs (which are presumably very malleable, hence their usage in proxying a ceiling), and in keeping in mind that other traits such as IQ would suggest an even lower amount, the answer seems to be: Not much.

[Samseau]

(05-01-2013 12:46 AM)Kabal Wrote:  

I do find particularly amusing, though, your continual insistence on the impossibility of applying population level inferences to individuals, like if we flipped 10,000 coins to get about 5,000 heads, but then are stumped as to the approximate probability of heads on the 10,001st coin.

Bad analogy. A coin is not a child.

edit: Pretty much sums up how bad the method being used is

[brk9912]

Quote:

As you stand in my front hallway, waiting for my daughter to appear, and more than an hour goes by, do not sigh and fidget. If you want to be on time for the movie, you should not be dating. My daughter is putting on her makeup, a process that can take longer than painting the Golden Gate Bridge. Instead of just standing there, why don't you do something useful, like changing the oil in my car?

Gold .

[Samseau]

(05-01-2013 12:45 AM)SPinker Wrote:  

You claim what Kabal says is bullshit and deride "popular educational orthodoxy" all the while citing popular news sites. The irony is suffocating. Maybe you should have stayed in law school

Not only is there no irony, but you're also the first person to drop a personal attack in this thread.

[Giovonny]

My daughter is a special princess = Male hamster

[Anaguma]

(05-01-2013 09:15 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 12:46 AM)Kabal Wrote:  

I do find particularly amusing, though, your continual insistence on the impossibility of applying population level inferences to individuals, like if we flipped 10,000 coins to get about 5,000 heads, but then are stumped as to the approximate probability of heads on the 10,001st coin.

Bad analogy. A coin is not a child.

edit: Pretty much sums up how bad the method being used is

Actuaries everywhere:


I guess actuarial science can go fuck itself

[Basil Ransom]

I'm skeptical that any interventions can systematically enhance IQ, assuming a baseline quality of parenting, as is common among say, middle class married couples. As far as I know, all of these interventions end up yielding little to no IQ boost by the time the child has reached adulthood. As for other, more qualitative measures, I couldn't say.

[Kabal]

(05-01-2013 09:15 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 12:46 AM)Kabal Wrote:  

I do find particularly amusing, though, your continual insistence on the impossibility of applying population level inferences to individuals, like if we flipped 10,000 coins to get about 5,000 heads, but then are stumped as to the approximate probability of heads on the 10,001st coin.

Bad analogy...

edit: Pretty much sums up how bad the method being used is

I suppose if you assert something over and over again with sufficient hubris, you can at least convince yourself of it.

(05-01-2013 01:24 PM)Anaguma Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 09:15 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 12:46 AM)Kabal Wrote:  

I do find particularly amusing, though, your continual insistence on the impossibility of applying population level inferences to individuals, like if we flipped 10,000 coins to get about 5,000 heads, but then are stumped as to the approximate probability of heads on the 10,001st coin.

Bad analogy. A coin is not a child.

edit: Pretty much sums up how bad the method being used is

Actuaries everywhere:


I guess actuarial science can go fuck itself

Indeed. Someone should proffer to actuarial scientists the scintillating insight that people aren't coins, and that we apparently cannot draw inferences on individuals from population-level data. All of their methods are wrong... somehow. "Stats have nothing to do with shit," don't they know?

(05-01-2013 02:04 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

I'm skeptical that any interventions can systematically enhance IQ, assuming a baseline quality of parenting, as is common among say, middle class married couples. As far as I know, all of these interventions end up yielding little to no IQ boost by the time the child has reached adulthood. As for other, more qualitative measures, I couldn't say.

Your skepticism is well-warranted. And that baseline likely occurs well to the left of middle class married couples.

Anyway, for those who are at least cursorily familiar with applied maths and do not cling to the religious belief that humans are excepted from quantitative description, you may find this recent paper interesting. Plomin, et al. isolated DNA markers associated with cognitive ability, to the tune of accounting for 2/3 of the heritability gleaned from twin adoption studies:

Quote:

For nearly a century, twin and adoption studies have yielded substantial estimates of heritability for cognitive abilities, although it has proved difficult for genomewide-association studies to identify the genetic variants that account for this heritability (i.e., the missing-heritability problem).

...

We found that DNA markers tagged by the array accounted for .66 of the estimated heritability, reaffirming that cognitive abilities are heritable. Larger sample sizes alone will be sufficient to identify many of the genetic variants that influence cognitive abilities.

Always interesting to see how different methods from different disciplines concord against each other, in this case, social statistics and bioinformatics.

Quantitative biology has ample room to grow, as computer hardware and machine-learning methods continue to improve. Exciting field, too bad it currently sits as an ugly step-child to finance and start-up tech--but that also means there's more low-hanging fruit to pick off.

[Samseau]

Quote:

Indeed. Someone should proffer to actuarial scientists the scintillating insight that people aren't coins, and that we apparently cannot draw inferences on individuals from population-level data. All of their methods are wrong... somehow. "Stats have nothing to do with shit," don't they know?

Your methods are as bad as saying, "Rock stars bang tons of women, so just act like a rock star and you'll bang tons of women too."

Acting like a part of the rock star without taking into account the entire rock star's life, such as production of the music, playing on stage, etc, is folly. Likewise, thinking that raising a child by yourself is going to be the same as the way thousands of children were raised in a community is equally folly.

This thread is a great example of why math is useless without logic.

[Kabal]

(05-01-2013 10:34 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

Indeed. Someone should proffer to actuarial scientists the scintillating insight that people aren't coins, and that we apparently cannot draw inferences on individuals from population-level data. All of their methods are wrong... somehow. "Stats have nothing to do with shit," don't they know?

Your methods are as bad as saying, "Rock stars bang tons of women, so just act like a rock star and you'll bang tons of women too."

Acting like a part of the rock star without taking into account the entire rock star's life, such as production of the music, playing on stage, etc, is folly. Likewise, thinking that raising a child by yourself is going to be the same as the way thousands of children were raised in a community is equally folly.

This thread is a great example of why math is useless without logic.

A butchered metaphor followed by another comically overconfident assertion.

Your penchant for self-parody is impressive.

You had an infinite array of metaphors to select from your imagination, and you still managed to proffer a broken one.

Hint: We are in agreement that acting like a rockstar and being a rockstar will have different effect sizes on your success with women. Think more carefully about the variation in the continuum of not acting like a rockstar to acting like a rockstar, and the variation in the continuum of not being a rockstar to actually being a rockstar, and the relationship each of the two would have with the variation in success with women--and how this might be crafted into a analogy for twin adoptions studies.

[Samseau]

(05-01-2013 11:44 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

Hint: We are in agreement that acting like a rockstar and being a rockstar will have different effect sizes on your success with women. Think more carefully about the variation in the continuum of not acting like a rockstar to acting like a rockstar, and the variation in the continuum of not being a rockstar to actually being a rockstar, and the relationship each of the two would have with the variation in success with women--and how this might be crafted into a analogy for twin adoptions studies.

Seriously man, this is getting old. Your snark means nothing, and you are too emotionally invested in backing up a flawed point. Just because there are degrees of variation means nothing when a parent can choose to what degree his child is invested into a "shared environment" (keyword for "if everything else is equal, then it comes down to genetics!").

You've done nothing to refute a single point I've offered and until you do I'm done here.

[InternationPlayboy]

   

[InfiniteFlowers]

Its easy to talk tough on the internet; very few men are crazy enough to actually go through with the above threats just because you're a smooth enough player to actually get into the daughter's pants. 95% internet tough talk.

The remaining 5% you're better off looking elsewhere- not worth dealing with a psychopath........ but its pretty much guaranteed that within that 5% is the smoking hot catholic school girl who is just can't wait to rip off your pants and suck your dick so hard that all that'll be left when she's done is the shriveled up sausage casing... you know the one, her father is constantly cleaning his gun collection.... yea that one.

Totally worth it. Maybe.

[Kabal]

(05-02-2013 01:15 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Seriously man, this is getting old. Your snark means nothing...

Just because there are degrees of variation means nothing when a parent can choose to what degree his child is invested into a "shared environment" (keyword for "if everything else is equal, then it comes down to genetics!").

You've done nothing to refute a single point I've offered and until you do I'm done here.

It would take a monk not to mock your incessant chest-beating and your Oscar-worthy performance as an allegory for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

We've been through this. I pointed out and you agreed that you are denying a genus of methods, the results of which have been confirmed by other approaches, where you don't understand the basics--hence my earlier remark about creationists.

From there you layer on a dung heap of mangled metaphors, tangents, and non-sequiturs, much of which I picked through, so to say I haven't addressed your "points" is plain disingenuous.

For example, if you look back, I even pre-emptively addressed with my initial post here your "point" about parents affecting shared environment before you began posting on this thread, and later discussed covariance between parenting, shared environment, and genetics.

This kind of recurring disingenuousness, in conjunction with the hubris mentioned previously, makes it difficult for you to be taken seriously.

Quote:

..you are too emotionally invested in backing up a flawed point...

The irony of that accusation "is suffocating," as one individual phrased it in this thread.