Noyau (2)

…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation

Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.

[to work around page bug]

2,941 thoughts on “Noyau (2)”

  1. phoodoo:
    walto,

    I am not so sure about this.I think even if Trumps lasts (which I doubt) , a slightly more establishment Republican could challenge him in the primaries and beat him.Of course the crazies love him, but I think everyone else is pretty much exhausted already, and he still hasn’t even done one single thing yet.

    30% isn’t going to win anything, he was lucky to pick up another 15% from the soccer moms who just figured why not try it.Will be harder next time.

    I hope you’re right. I like seeing posts like this, btw.

  2. 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.

  3. Alan Fox: Introduce fair voting that makes all votes count equally, a system of proportional representation.

    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.

    I vaguely recall reading a description of a democratic system based on local committees with a hierarchy of community, district, regional, national delegates at each level delegating representatives to the next level. Not sure whether it was an ideal or has been tried somewhere.

    USSR duma?

  4. Kantian Naturalist:
    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.

    Yes, it’s a very scary time in the world, no?

  5. phoodoo:
    walto,

    This sort of sums up the totality of Trumps depth of thought:

    “The driver that ran over innocent people today, he was sick and deranged.”

    Whew, what leadership.Solved that problem!

    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.

  6. Another great post by Mike Gene:

    Another Crackpot Sociologist

    So if you are a white guy and marry a white woman and you have a child, you are …..RACIST(!). Oh, and if you want the best for your children, you are …..RACIST(!).

    Professor Jessie Daniels adds to the growing, and increasingly justified impression, that sociology is becoming nothing more than a cargo cult science.

    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.

  8. stcordova: Another great post by Mike Gene:

    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.

  9. walto: I like the idea of proportional representation myself, but I think pretty much every system makes all votes count equally.

    But then, with three million more votes cast for her, why isn’t Hillary Clinton US president?

    PR has to do more than that.

    It would have prevented the US having Donald Trump for president. That’s not nothing!

  10. Alan Fox: 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.

  11. walto: …Fair Vote…

    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.

  13. Alan Fox: “single transferable vote” that they call “ranked choice”.

    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.

  14. Here it is:

    Introduce fair voting that makes all votes count equally, a system of proportional representation.

    “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.]

  15. walto: “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.

  16. walto, to Alan:

    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.

    Exactly. And he’ll do that even when the mistake is obvious to everyone, including himself.

    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.

    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.

  17. walto: 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.

    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.

  18. walto: “Fair voting” *IS* a system of proportional representation.

    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.

    Making all votes count equally, say by eliminating the electoral college, is not a system of proportional representation.

    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?

  19. walto: [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.]

    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.

  20. walto: …it’s getting kind of easy to see why keiths gets so annoyed with you on a regular basis…

    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.

  21. Alan,

    I do tend to comment in broad-brush terms.

    “Broad-brush” is not the problem. Walto identified the problem:

    You say sometimes say stuff without having much of an idea what you’re talking about.

    Alan:

    I’m grateful for correction by more knowledgeable participants.

    No, you resent it and will go to great lengths to deny your mistakes. Your self-image is obviously threatened by them.

  23. walto: But maybe you weren’t referring to that organization.

    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.

  24. 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.

  25. keiths: A reminder of how serious your mistake denial problem is.

    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.

  26. 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.

  27. keiths: Stop making excuses. It wasn’t a “semantic difference”. You got the science wrong, and you denied your mistake for weeks.

    I disagree. You made an argument out of a miscommunication.

  28. keiths: You even bizarrely denied knowing what mistake I was referring to despite having been told more than 20 times.

    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.

  29. I asked you to clarify what it was you were claiming as a mistake. You could have simply done so.

    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.

  30. You made an argument out of a miscommunication.

    It wasn’t a miscommunication. We disagreed on the science.

    Stop making excuses.

  31. keiths: We disagreed on the science.

    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

  32. You didn’t link to “the crux of that exchange.” You linked to something that came two years later.

    Hence my comment:

    Just to be clear, are you finally admitting your mistake after two years of denying it?

  34. Alan Fox: 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.

    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.

  35. Alan:

    Well, link to it then.

    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?

  36. walto: No question.keiths is extremely (and unnecessarily, IMO) difficult to deal with.

    Sure

    But he’s very valuable too, because he’s so smart.

    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 believe the same thing about Glen.

    I don’t have an issue with Glen. I don’t think there’s any comparison.

    I’ve learned a lot from both of them, and hope to learn more.

    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.

    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.

    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?

  37. keiths:
    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?

    Not true. I wanted you to clarify what your disagreement was precisely. Can you do it now?

  38. 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.

  40. Alan:

    My beef is that his comments are (often) counterproductive to the aims of the site.

    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.

  41. Alan:

    But what about the facts?

    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.

  42. keiths: I told you more than twenty times, and you ignored me.

    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.

    That isn’t normal, Alan, and it isn’t healthy.You have a severe emotional problem with admitting mistakes.

    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?

  43. walto: 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.

    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!

  45. Alan:

    I say you didn’t clarify what precisely this “mistake” was.

    I explained it to you over twenty times. I linked to this already. Please read it this time:

    Alan responded:

    3. I guess you are alluding to the time you accused me of making a mistake regarding inheritance and the germ-line in eusocial hymenopterans. I did indeed keep requesting you for your explanation of what this mistake actually was, in your opinion. I’m still waiting. Please feel free to revisit the issue.

    [Emphasis added]

    Alan’s mistake was to disagree with this statement:

    The [soldier] ants aren’t reasoning about their sacrifice, so their behavior requires a genetic explanation.

    I pointed this out more than 20(!) times at Alan’s repeated insistence. Still he kept asking.

    Here are a few of my comments:

    keiths:

    You disagreed that the soldier ants’ behavior has a genetic explanation, and you gave a bad reason for that disagreement.

    It was a mistake. Why are you making such a big deal out of it?

    keiths:

    You misunderstood the biology, Alan. That’s all. It was just a mistake, not a catastrophe.

    keiths:

    Unless “Well, no” means “Well, yes”, and unless “There’s no feed-back” means “There is feedback“, then you misunderstood the biology.

    The ants’ behavior does require a genetic explanation, and there is feedback from the behavior of the sterile castes to the reproductive success of the queen.

    keiths, in exasperation:

    Alan,

    It’s time to take responsibility for your mistakes.

    Joe, Allan, Zachriel, Gralgrathor and I are all telling you that the behavior of the sterile castes has a genetic explanation. Are you going to continue to deny that?

    Even you recognized your error at one point, which is why you withdrew your statement!

    This is not a failure to communicate. It is a failure to take responsibility for what you wrote.

    Those comments are just from one thread. Alan brought this up again and again, and now he is saying:

    I did indeed keep requesting you for your explanation of what this mistake actually was, in your opinion. I’m still waiting.

    This is the man-child equivalent of putting his hands over his ears and shouting “I can’t hear you!”

    It’s ridiculous and infantile.

    Alan, you made a mistake. It’s obvious. Admit it and move on with your life.

  46. 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?

  47. Alan,

    It had nothing to do with the biology.

    It had everything to do with the biology. My statement was about the biology:

    The [soldier] ants aren’t reasoning about their sacrifice, so their behavior requires a genetic explanation.

    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.

  48. 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.

  49. 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.

Leave a Reply