Vegetarian Discussion: Interesting Study; Ball Might Be Interested

Interesting Study; Ball Might Be Interested
Posts: 55

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6   Next  (First | Last)

Rupert
2008-11-27 04:18:38 EST
http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf

Rudy Canoza
2008-11-27 12:52:06 EST
Rupert wrote:
> http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf

Yeah, all the fuckwits who play The Queer Game cite that page. It's
bullshit. It's *one* study conducted in one of the least rigorous of
all the social sciences. Its conclusion is not widely accepted as well
supported.

Figures you'd fall for that.

Rupert
2008-11-27 16:17:12 EST
On Nov 27, 5:52 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> >http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
>
> Yeah, all the fuckwits who play The Queer Game cite that page. It's
> bullshit. It's *one* study conducted in one of the least rigorous of
> all the social sciences. Its conclusion is not widely accepted as well
> supported.
>
> Figures you'd fall for that.

Well, Ball, you couldn't be being a little bit defensive here, could
you? :)

I simply directed your attention to a scientific study; let's not have
any rubbish about me falling for anything.

If you contend that economics is more rigorous than psychology I'd be
fascinated to hear an outline of how you'd support your case.

"Its conclusion is not widely accepted as well supported" is not a
serious critique, Ball. If you want to actually engage with something
in the paper, critique the statistical methodology or whatever, go for
it. I am not totally convinced that you, who found it noteworthy that
a word in a mathematical paper could not be found in a dictionary, are
really all that knowledgeable about how well that paper was received
by psychologists.

As you say, it's one study. If you're able to give or direct me to any
kind of serious critique of it, I'm sure that would be most
interesting; if not, don't worry about it.

Rudy Canoza
2008-11-27 21:08:13 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Nov 27, 5:52 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
>> Yeah, all the fuckwits who play The Queer Game cite that page. It's
>> bullshit. It's *one* study conducted in one of the least rigorous of
>> all the social sciences. Its conclusion is not widely accepted as well
>> supported.
>>
>> Figures you'd fall for that.
>
> Well, Ball, you couldn't be being a little bit defensive here, could
> you? :)
>
> I simply directed your attention to a scientific study;

A crap, pseudo-scientific "psychology" study. Crap.


> let's not have
> any rubbish about me falling for anything.

You fell for it.

Rupert
2008-11-28 00:24:45 EST
On Nov 28, 2:08 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Nov 27, 5:52 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>>http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
> >> Yeah, all the fuckwits who play The Queer Game cite that page. It's
> >> bullshit. It's *one* study conducted in one of the least rigorous of
> >> all the social sciences. Its conclusion is not widely accepted as well
> >> supported.
>
> >> Figures you'd fall for that.
>
> > Well, Ball, you couldn't be being a little bit defensive here, could
> > you? :)
>
> > I simply directed your attention to a scientific study;
>
> A crap, pseudo-scientific "psychology" study. Crap.
>
> > let's not have
> > any rubbish about me falling for anything.
>
> You fell for it.

It is truly unbelievable what a joke you are.

Rudy Canoza
2008-11-28 12:46:04 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2:08 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Nov 27, 5:52 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
>>>> Yeah, all the fuckwits who play The Queer Game cite that page. It's
>>>> bullshit. It's *one* study conducted in one of the least rigorous of
>>>> all the social sciences. Its conclusion is not widely accepted as well
>>>> supported.
>>>> Figures you'd fall for that.
>>> Well, Ball, you couldn't be being a little bit defensive here, could
>>> you? :)
>>> I simply directed your attention to a scientific study;
>> A crap, pseudo-scientific "psychology" study. Crap.
>>
>>> let's not have
>>> any rubbish about me falling for anything.
>> You fell for it.
>
> It is truly unbelievable what a joke you are.

You fell for bullshit. Just admit it. You are so obsessed with trying
to bash me that you'll fall for complete and utter bullshit that you
really ought to recognize as bullshit. I can smell your desperation
from here.

Rupert
2008-11-29 02:17:58 EST
On Nov 29, 1:46 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 2:08 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Nov 27, 5:52 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
> >>>> Yeah, all the fuckwits who play The Queer Game cite that page.  It's
> >>>> bullshit.  It's *one* study conducted in one of the least rigorous of
> >>>> all the social sciences.  Its conclusion is not widely accepted as well
> >>>> supported.
> >>>> Figures you'd fall for that.
> >>> Well, Ball, you couldn't be being a little bit defensive here, could
> >>> you? :)
> >>> I simply directed your attention to a scientific study;
> >> A crap, pseudo-scientific "psychology" study.  Crap.
>
> >>> let's not have
> >>> any rubbish about me falling for anything.
> >> You fell for it.
>
> > It is truly unbelievable what a joke you are.
>
> You fell for bullshit.  Just admit it.  You are so obsessed with trying
> to bash me that you'll fall for complete and utter bullshit that you
> really ought to recognize as bullshit.  I can smell your desperation
> from here.

Thank you very much, Ball, for the very good laugh I had when I read
that post. :)

I have to work on my thesis, which has to be handed in on Monday
morning. When I've handed it in I might get around to trying to do
justice to how utterly ridiculous you're being. But you've brightened
up my mood, so thanks for that.

Oh, my Lord, my Lord, my Lord, Ball.

Come now, you're not serious, are you? :)

Rupert
2008-11-29 02:35:55 EST
On Nov 29, 1:46 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 2:08 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Nov 27, 5:52 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
> >>>> Yeah, all the fuckwits who play The Queer Game cite that page.  It's
> >>>> bullshit.  It's *one* study conducted in one of the least rigorous of
> >>>> all the social sciences.  Its conclusion is not widely accepted as well
> >>>> supported.
> >>>> Figures you'd fall for that.
> >>> Well, Ball, you couldn't be being a little bit defensive here, could
> >>> you? :)
> >>> I simply directed your attention to a scientific study;
> >> A crap, pseudo-scientific "psychology" study.  Crap.
>
> >>> let's not have
> >>> any rubbish about me falling for anything.
> >> You fell for it.
>
> > It is truly unbelievable what a joke you are.
>
> You fell for bullshit.  Just admit it.  You are so obsessed with trying
> to bash me that you'll fall for complete and utter bullshit that you
> really ought to recognize as bullshit.  I can smell your desperation
> from here.

Oh, okay, Ball, what the hell, I'll do it now.

I found a scientific paper which was published in the Journal of
Abnormal Psychology. I read through it. It was of some interest to me
and I thought maybe it might be of some interest to you. I don't claim
to have exhaustively studied the psychological literature about
homophobia; if you do, let's hear more about it. There's no foundation
for saying that I fell for anything.

You're a man who found it in some way noteworthy that a mathematical
paper contains a word that cannot be found in a dictionary.

You're a man who claims a postgraduate qualification in economics.
Now, when we talk about which of the sciences are rigorous, I myself
have a bit of a bias in favour of the idea that rigor comes from
mathematical modelling. I would think like that, wouldn't I. I've did
first-year psychology as part of my undergraduate degree and we were
required to take a course in hypothesis testing and statistical
methods. I read Bryan Caplan's first-year microeconomics notes and
when I came to the bit about how the market clears at the intersection
of the supply and demand curve, I was not totally overwhelmed by the
mathematical rigor of the argument. I was having a chat about it with
my friend Andy in the pub the other night. My ex-girlfriend has told
me about a book which she says is the "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
of economics" which attempts to axiomatise economics using point-set
topology, but I gather that using mathematics at that level is pretty
rare. Just out of interest, Ball, do you have the foggiest idea what
point-set topology is?

You call psychology "one of the least rigorous of the social
sciences". Psychology is not a social science, Ball, and I am not
convinced, to put it mildly, by your contention that psychology is
somehow less rigorous than economics.

You must know damn well that you have done absolutely zero by way of
seriously critiquing that paper, Ball, and yet you blithely refer to
it as "pseudo-scientific crap" and say "I can smell your desperation
from here". You're just generously trying to provide me with
entertainment, aren't you?

Please feel free to provide me with more while I work on my thesis.

Rudy Canoza
2008-11-29 13:00:26 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Nov 29, 1:46 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Nov 28, 2:08 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 27, 5:52 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
>>>>>> Yeah, all the fuckwits who play The Queer Game cite that page. It's
>>>>>> bullshit. It's *one* study conducted in one of the least rigorous of
>>>>>> all the social sciences. Its conclusion is not widely accepted as well
>>>>>> supported.
>>>>>> Figures you'd fall for that.
>>>>> Well, Ball, you couldn't be being a little bit defensive here, could
>>>>> you? :)
>>>>> I simply directed your attention to a scientific study;
>>>> A crap, pseudo-scientific "psychology" study. Crap.
>>>>> let's not have
>>>>> any rubbish about me falling for anything.
>>>> You fell for it.
>>> It is truly unbelievable what a joke you are.
>> You fell for bullshit. Just admit it. You are so obsessed with trying
>> to bash me that you'll fall for complete and utter bullshit that you
>> really ought to recognize as bullshit. I can smell your desperation
>> from here.
>
> Thank you very much,

You fell for it. You're easily duped.

Rudy Canoza
2008-11-29 13:12:49 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Nov 29, 1:46 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Nov 28, 2:08 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 27, 5:52 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
>>>>>> Yeah, all the fuckwits who play The Queer Game cite that page. It's
>>>>>> bullshit. It's *one* study conducted in one of the least rigorous of
>>>>>> all the social sciences. Its conclusion is not widely accepted as well
>>>>>> supported.
>>>>>> Figures you'd fall for that.
>>>>> Well, Ball, you couldn't be being a little bit defensive here, could
>>>>> you? :)
>>>>> I simply directed your attention to a scientific study;
>>>> A crap, pseudo-scientific "psychology" study. Crap.
>>>>> let's not have
>>>>> any rubbish about me falling for anything.
>>>> You fell for it.
>>> It is truly unbelievable what a joke you are.
>> You fell for bullshit. Just admit it. You are so obsessed with trying
>> to bash me that you'll fall for complete and utter bullshit that you
>> really ought to recognize as bullshit. I can smell your desperation
>> from here.
>
> Oh, okay, Rudy, what the hell, I'll do it now.

Try to wash away the stench of desperation? You can't.


> You call psychology "one of the least rigorous of the social
> sciences".

It is.

> Psychology is not a social science,

*ABSOLUTELY* psychology is classified as a social science.

"The social sciences comprise academic disciplines concerned with the
study of the social life of human groups and individuals including
anthropology, communication studies, criminology, economics, geography,
history, political science, psychology, social studies, and sociology."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciences


Top: Science: Social Sciences: Psychology
http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Psychology/


You fuckwit - psychology can *only* be a social science. It's not a
physical science, it's not a natural science, and it's focused on people
in society. It's a social science.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron