…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
[to work around page bug]
…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
[to work around page bug]
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I hope you’re right. I like seeing posts like this, btw.
phoodoo,
I hope you’re right about this. At present my main concern is that pro-Trump congresspeople, governors, and state legislators do well in the 2017 and 2018 elections. While Trump is historically unpopular, that only speaks to national sentiment. It doesn’t affect the strategy in heavily gerrymandered districts or deeply Red states. Steve Bannon claims to organizing a new wave of Trumpists to drive out the “establishment” Republicans. I don’t think the Trumpization of the GOP is going away any time soon.
I like the idea of proportional representation myself, but I think pretty much every system makes all votes count equally. PR has to do more than that.
USSR duma?
Yes, it’s a very scary time in the world, no?
I’d think Trump would love that guy, who mostly killed foreigners. And a couple New Yorkers too! He and Trump are two peas in a pod.
Another great post by Mike Gene:
Gregory fancies himself as a sociologist and a social “scientist”. Given the direction that sociology is going, such credentials are probably nothing to brag about. Jordan Peterson points out some sociologists are very upset their work published in peer-reviewed journals that help contribute to their retention in university — some of them are upset when the public actually reads their drivel.
Jordan Peterson describe “New Real Peer Review” at about 4:30 in the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aimmkSK_u4
It highlights the fact many SJW/sociology crap gets ZERO citations and they get livid when their crap actually gets noticed in the public sphere.
In my experience, Mike is not an unbiased reporter. And, yes, I do follow his blog.
I saw the post that you reference earlier today. I’m not about to take Mike’s word for it. His only reference is to a twitter stream, which I am unable to access. If he is criticizing an academic, he should reference their professional publications, not their semi-private chatter.
But then, with three million more votes cast for her, why isn’t Hillary Clinton US president?
It would have prevented the US having Donald Trump for president. That’s not nothing!
Oh, I see what you mean: eliminating the electoral college. That wouldn’t exactly be PR–and is not what Fair Vote is pushing for (ranked voting)–but I agree with you that it would be a good first step in advancing basic democratic principles.
Hadn’t heard of this organisation prior to your mentioning it. They are advocating a particular form of proportional representation I know as “single transferable vote” that they call “ranked choice”. Their web site suggests it is actually used in some situations in the US.
It’s not just Republicans that have been Trumpized.
Not quite the same thing. Their process doesn’t require ballot transfer, I don’t think. I mentioned Fair Vote because I believe you used that phrase in one of your posts above. But maybe you weren’t referring to that organization.
Here it is:
“Fair voting” *IS* a system of proportional representation. Making all votes count equally, say by eliminating the electoral college, is not a system of proportional representation.
[Incidentally, it’s getting kind of easy to see why keiths gets so annoyed with you on a regular basis. You say sometimes say stuff without having much of an idea what you’re talking about. But you don’t like to admit that, so you’ll start wriggling. A lot of your bruhahas with keiths could be cut short if you’d just be willing to say–at least sometimes–“Yeah you’re right. I guess I was full of shit when I wrote that.” Look, nobody knows about everything.]
But Alan can’t do that because he has committed himself to the position that to be “full of shit” means that someone is lying.
walto, to Alan:
Exactly. And he’ll do that even when the mistake is obvious to everyone, including himself.
I’d be happy if he’d just say “Yeah, you’re right” or “Yes, I see my mistake” in those cases. This “At All Costs, Must Not Admit Mistakes!” attitude is counterproductive and annoying.
DNA_Jock is pulling the same stunt right now on the Common Design vs Common Descent thread.
The sad thing is that no one bats an eye when they make mistakes. That’s expected. What’s annoying, and detrimental to TSZ, is the weaseling and the dishonesty they employ in trying to deny those mistakes.
No I wasn’t. As I said I hadn’t heard of the organisation before you mentioned it. I merely meant by “fair voting” a system that produces results in line wishes the votes cast. I’m familiar with the UK voting system that produces governments based on “first-past-the-post” elections in geographical constituencies, a system vulnerable to gerrymandering.
FairVote, to be precise but yes, apparently so. I was unaware of the organisation when I was used the words “fair voting” which I regard as synonymous as voting that functions in proportion to the votes cast.
No, not in itself — but eliminating it would require replacement by something else, something that ensured the result was in line with the votes cast, perhaps?
I agree that nobody can know everything about everything. I do tend to comment in broad-brush terms. I’m grateful for correction by more knowledgeable participants.
It’s not just a problem between me and Keiths, though I admit I find him to be an insufferable prick, to use Tom’s description. There is quite a long list of people who have failed to communicate meaningfully with him. So I don’t accept the fault is entirely mine.
Alan,
“Broad-brush” is not the problem. Walto identified the problem:
Alan:
No, you resent it and will go to great lengths to deny your mistakes. Your self-image is obviously threatened by them.
^^^^
Case in point, I regard that as an opportunity for me to clarify. You assume (reasonably, as perhaps FairVote is well known in the US) is an organisation I’d heard of and my use of “fair voting” was referring to them. There is miscommunication here and I think it is unreasonable to suggest I’m wriggling.
Alan,
A reminder of how serious your mistake denial problem is.
It’s severe. You need to acknowledge and address it. Stop trying to pretend it doesn’t exist.
ETA: And then there was the time you quote mined yourself in order to avoid admitting a mistake.
You have a problem, Alan.
I haven’t forgotten the bizarre episode when you argued to the death over a simple semantic difference. I’m still unconvinced you don’t understand the line of descent, the phenotypic effects and selection pressures in haplodiploid hymenoptera. You claim victory over that episode and then extrapolate that into denial of mistakes. I incidentally tried extending an olive branch towards the end of some set of interchanges. You rebuffed it. I don’t know what your problem is. It must be pathological. It’s certainly not normal.
Alan,
Stop making excuses. It wasn’t a “semantic difference”. You got the science wrong, and you denied your mistake for weeks.
You even bizarrely denied knowing what mistake I was referring to despite having been told more than 20 times.
You have a severe problem. Take responsibility for it. Stop trying to blame it on others.
Deal with it instead of making excuses.
I disagree. You made an argument out of a miscommunication.
I asked you to clarify what it was you were claiming as a mistake. You could have simply done so. It would have been helpful. But that’s not your style.
I told you more than twenty times. Twenty. And still you kept asking, as if I hadn’t said a word. That’s how desperate you were to avoid admitting your mistake.
You have a severe problem, Alan.
It wasn’t a miscommunication. We disagreed on the science.
Stop making excuses.
We disagreed. I’m still uncertain where you stand on the science regarding the selection processes in eusocial hymenopterans. I’m satisfied I did my best to understand your argument. As far as I could see, it was semantic. You seem to have the mind of an automaton. Why not link to the crux of that exchange?
ETA Never mind
You didn’t link to “the crux of that exchange.” You linked to something that came two years later.
Hence my comment:
keiths,
Well, link to it then.
No question. keiths is extremely (and unnecessarily, IMO) difficult to deal with. But he’s very valuable too, because he’s so smart. I believe the same thing about Glen. I’ve learned a lot from both of them, and hope to learn more.
I’d prefer it if they weren’t as prickly as they are, but my preferences don’t mean much on the scale of things (why should anybody–other than my kids–care what sort of behavior *I’d* like to see from them?). Anyhow, I’d much rather have them both keep posting–whether in a prickly manner or not–than stop posting here altogether. I wouldn’t want to “ignore” either of them, even when they’re yelling at me.
I recently got a paper accepted in a top level philosophy journal (which hasn’t happened many times in my life) , which to a significant extent grew out of an argument keiths and I had here. And I’ve been working on something else for over a year that stemmed partly from another series of (sometimes unpleasant) arguments. So, you know, what the hell.
Alan:
I will, when I locate it.
In the meantime, how about explaining why you denied hearing something that had been repeated to you more than twenty times?
Sure
No question he’s a bright guy. My beef is that his comments are (often) counterproductive to the aims of the site. I’d be much happier if he reined himself in rather than treating everyone who disagrees with him as dishonest or stupid.
I don’t have an issue with Glen. I don’t think there’s any comparison.
Me too. That’s a plus for anyone and the whole point of the site, I believe. And I’ve said so. If I thought otherwise, I would have walked away long ago.
Well, there’s no reason for you to worry. Personally, I have a problem with Keiths but I can put up with him. I am an admin so I can’t really put him on ignore. I try and steer a course between letting all his rule-breaking comments slide and being over-zealous. But I reserve the right to respond to unfair accusations. Is this unreasonable?
Not true. I wanted you to clarify what your disagreement was precisely. Can you do it now?
I told you more than twenty times, and you ignored me.
That isn’t normal, Alan, and it isn’t healthy. You have a severe emotional problem with admitting mistakes.
keiths,
But what about the facts?
Alan:
If we were to compare your behavior at TSZ to mine, do you understand how badly you would come off? If you actually cared about TSZ, you would be working on yourself, not complaining about me. Your behavior here has been appalling.
It’s a classic motes and beams situation.
Alan:
The facts are that I told you more than twenty times what I thought your mistake was, and you pulled the hands over the ears “La la la I can’t hear you” maneuver.
It’s infantile.
I haven’t checked yet. You said you were going to. My recollection is that I asked for clarification of what precisely my “mistake” was. You keep repeating “admit your mistake” and building a case that I refuse to admit them. I say you didn’t clarify what precisely this “mistake” was. Is it so difficult to clarify? It’s hard to confess a mistake when you’re not really sure what the mistake is that you are being accused of.
Well, if I have some emotional or psychological problem, perhaps I should get myself checked out. Thank you for your diagnosis, though I guess you haven’t heard of the Goldwater rule. Are you a psychiatrist?
I didn’t see this before.
You didn’t add it in edit did you? 🙂
Well, that’s great. Well done, you. And well done Keiths!
walto,
When will it be published? I look forward to reading it.
Alan:
I explained it to you over twenty times. I linked to this already. Please read it this time:
keiths,
So it boiled down to the use of “genetic” in a sentence? How is that not a disagreement over semantics? It had nothing to do with the biology. I maintain that the genome copies in sterile workers (caveat regarding queen removal) don’t get passed on so the germ-line passes only through mated queens. The sterile workers form part of the extended phenotype so genetic variation in queens will result in selectable variation in worker phenotypes resulting in the differential survival of colonies with fitter workers. Have I got the biology wrong?
Alan,
It had everything to do with the biology. My statement was about the biology:
You disagreed, and the reason you gave for your disagreement was incorrect.
Stop making excuses. As you know, you’re not the clearest of thinkers. It isn’t surprising that you got confused about the biology, and that because of that confusion you disagreed with my (correct) statement.
And now you are still denying your mistake! It’s beyond ridiculous, Alan.
We’re rehashing this yet again, all because of your childish inability to admit mistakes. It’s ridiculous, and it’s a waste of time.
keiths,
You see the comment I made just above yours. Is there something you disagree with about what I’ve written there? It would help clarify what it is that you think was a mistake. If you don’t disagree with what I’ve written, then I’m still at a loss. If you do, at least that would be progress.
keiths,
You brought it up! Again!!!