I think he's about right.

Here's a good one. Only a quarter of Americans can name all 3 govt branches: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f9274a90e476

Bam, there's 75 percent wiped out in one citation.

You don't need to do a bunch of extra writing here, just point out that it's not a real peer-reviewed study and move on.

Peer review isn't a panacea. There's much written about this. Many reviewers lack the methodological expertise to properly evaluate studies. Many simply rely on the reputation of the author(s). It doesn't really work that well. Not that there's anything better rn.

national emergency

I first heard the concept from a science fiction work--didn't actually read it but saw a quote from it cited somewhere. 25 or 30 years ago. Hate that I can't name it but then again I'm not even sure it was a good book. I only wish I'd heard it sooner and think looking at society *without* that perspective is a horrible affliction to suffer, so I'm sorry for not telling you already!

Not that 5% are geniuses--I'm saying 5% is the number *including* the very small (essentially rounded off) number of geniuses. I'm not familiar with the usual normalized curve or such and actually have no opinion on the validity of IQ--really I just use the 5% more as a handy rubric for coping when I get bothered by society doing something stupid (and alternatively not getting too excited when society does something smart by reminding myself they probably just did it for stupid reasons anyway). The number sounds reasonable to me but could be 6%, could be 3%; the point is just "vast minority". And unfortunately there's no membership list for the 5% so it's not like we get separate polling results. Because it would be great if instead of breaking results down by age we could see what smart people think broken down by age! I suppose political scientists wouldn't care.

I'm pretty much just talking about the people who are capable of using the logical part of their brains when things get the slightest bit upsetting. Like at a point the lizard brain takes over all of us and we wing it on emotion and a need to "win" and cannot be logical (it's called preseveration where the prefontal cortex gets its communication lines blocked), but where is that point? As far as I can tell the Stupids basically walk around like that most of the time. Dealing with them is a lot like dealing with someone with a brain injury, actually; lots of saying, "I'm sorry you feel that way." and moving on.

You are strawmanning here. I've never suggested in any way that it's a panacea for anything. It's the absolute minimum bar that needs to be cleared before we start dissecting and critiquing "science." Mixing in the set of 501c3 think tank papers funded by [undisclosed donors] just muddies the waters.

Just when you thought he couldn't get any worse, he may be a ****ing eggs and ketchup guy.

well we know he's a well-done steak + catsup guy, so...

My god that poster on the wall

Is it just me or is he looking fatter, lately? Puffy, even?

looks exactly like Jay Culter/Alex Ovechkin afaict

The way he's looking at his omelette being prepared reminds me of a completely compromised POTUS who is operating as a Russian agent.

Dude that decor is making me want to throw up.

thank you for the explanation.

Looks like a man cave from the 70s

Standard country club. No surprise they’re dying.

Pic has inspired me to make breakfast great again tho

I can help you with that.

I didn't say you suggested that. I'm just making digital conversation.

Still, I don't know why we wouldn't judge them on their merits like any other study. There is just as big of a researcher bias problem in academia.

Ok, fair.

Because we have limited time and informed priors. Check out the new politics forum where trolls pop in with tons of bull**** for everyone to refute and then disappear. Ain't nobody got time for that. And yeah, there are problems with scientific peer review and publication, but it's still vastly superior to nothing. Honest conversation about the problems with academic research has been co-opted by internet woke bros claiming all science is fake.

the best part is it was self-inflicted misguided business suicide. he believed the 'they're disrespecting the military' propaganda from the right and it doomed his business, when the kneeling was only about protesting police brutality against people of a certain color.

Yeah I hear ya. It's just that then we limit research to pretty much academia only. I kinda hate that.

Well I do like engaging and was sure RT wasn't doing anything like that (I'm still trying to stick to the spirit of this thread where we're talking politics with people we *like*). Plus it seemed the discussion of it had gone on long enough that a one sentence dismissal would be too glib. Looking into it, I was mostly surprised by just how much press it had received (but then I guess that's why we're talking about it) for what it was.

If I'm ever actually falling for some troll's astroturfing, I expect you guys to tell me. Please?

I agree with you here and don't think I've articulated my point very well, so my bad. What I'm really trying to say is be aware of how your posts read given this seemingly popular movement of using the premise (flawed studies) to discredit all scientific research in bad faith. It's not necessarily as salient as a troll posting fossil fuel-funded studies on climate change. Instead, it's Skaalansky claiming there are no experts in many fields and then realizing how many woke bros agree and are operating under that assumption. They're going to use legitimate critiques of research as free cover for this narrative.

As for the Tribes paper specifically, calling it hot garbage and then saying all studies are garbage is kind of what I'm talking about. Removing the hyperbole, an accurate statement I agree with is that the Tribes study is flawed and all studies are flawed. They run this out as a false equivalence to question science, knowledge, and experts. You might be surprised by how many people on this forum think they know more than the experts or that there are no experts at all.

Is John Mayer playing the blues racist? The Beastie Boys rapping?

That type cultural appropriation seems like an homage, enthusiasm for something.

It seems almost implicit in multiculturalism that dress and art and slang and who knows what else will blend into hybrid forms.

On a scale of 1-Jesus Christ, how stupid is Roger Stone posting a picture of the federal judge in his case with crosshairs on his Instagram? Kinda feel like that's a bold legal strategy but IANAL