They don’t carry more disease but apparently we need to spend more on healthcare for them.
Good luck figuring that one out.
They don’t carry more disease but apparently we need to spend more on healthcare for them.
Good luck figuring that one out.
It sure looks that way. Many of the failures come from that specific area.
They denied away ANY replicable failure for years.
This isn’t something I’m making up but it hasn’t hit mainstream because suppression. It’s commonly known within academic circles.
Here’s an entire paper on it. I don’t think they covered their arses quite enough?
Over the last few years, psychology researchers have become increasingly preoccupied with the question of whether findings from psychological studies are generally replicable.
forced to pretend you care
The debates have originated from some unfortunate events of scientific misconduct
mistakes were made
in the field, and they have reached a climax with the recent discovery of a relatively weak rate of replicability of published literature,
lots of lies without liars
leading to the so-called replicability crisis in psychology.
so-called problem in a science funded by the taxpayer
The present paper is concerned with examining the issue of replicability in the field of social psychology.
where most failure is, as if by magic!
We begin by drawing a state of the art of the crisis in this field.
lotta people need to get fired
We then highlight some possible causes for the crisis, discussing topics of statistical power, questionable research practices, publication standards, and hidden auxiliary assumptions of context-dependency of social psychological theories.
Nurture =/= making shit up.
Sociologist’s fallacy also comes into play.
Finally, we argue that given the absence of absolute falsification in science, social psychology could greatly benefit from adopting McGuire’s perspectivist approach to knowledge construction.
Let us have some creative license, like theoretical physics!
Without postmodernism, we’d have to get a real job!
Another paper because someone, somewhere will claim I’m imagining things.
A dude who feels threatened intellectually.
The (latest) crisis in confidence in social psychology has generated much heated discussion about the importance of replication, including how it should be carried out as well as interpreted by scholars in the field. For example, what does it mean if a replication attempt “fails”—
what is a red hand, really?
You were caught red-handed. “Oh, it isn’t crimson, it’s scarlet!”
does it mean that the original results, or the theory that predicted them, have been falsified?
What is a lie? That’s where you are going with this?
And how should “failed” replications
bitchy quote marks, I know thee well
our belief in the validity of the original research?
trans. We said it so fuck you. It’s true.
In this paper, we consider the replication debate from a historical and philosophical perspective, and provide a conceptual analysis of both replication and falsification as they pertain to this important discussion.
If we talk long enough, we can talk our way out of this!
Lying in a professional role is up for debate!
Along the way, we highlight the importance of auxiliary assumptions (for both testing theories and attempting replications), and introduce a Bayesian framework for assessing “failed” replications in terms of how they should affect our confidence in original findings.
trans. You should trust us anyway, fuck your data. Something something Bayesian.
Hint: that isn’t how Bayesian models work?
Bayesian models are predictive.
The whole point is you predict nothing real. Re-train for climate science.
Why did this take so long to come out? Well, they were hiding it.
Modern psychology is apparently in crisis and the prevailing view is that this partly reflects an inability to replicate past findings.
No, it’s about people who clearly fudged their data then published it. The replication proved this after the fact.
If a crisis does exists, then it is some kind of ‘chronic’ crisis, as psychologists have been censuring themselves over replicability for decades.
no need to take our monies away, taxpayers!
While the debate in psychology is not new,
public admission is
the lack of progress across the decades is disappointing.
Deliberate and to be expected.
Recently though, we have seen a veritable surfeit of debate alongside multiple orchestrated and well-publicised replication initiatives.
Blame the skeptics!
Doubt is a sin!
The spotlight is being shone on certain areas and although not everyone agrees on how we should interpret the outcomes, the debate is happening and impassioned. The issue of reproducibility occupies a central place in our whig history of psychology.
We fucked up, majorly. We’re hoping to pretend this is ongoing, normal and nothing to react to.
I made this.
I’m tired of the lies.
Fight me with your shitty string theories and un-predictive climate models.
Best is the 9/10 MIT tries to pass off ancient science as ‘radical innovation’.
You, American taxpayer, are paying for their ego trips. Here’s some wi-fi pin art.
It’s getting like modern art.
If you disapprove of the misuse of funds, you just don’t understand it because you’re stupid, right?
Creative people know most of what they make e.g. author first drafts, sucks. It completely sucks. You have to embrace the suck. Unless you’re being state subsidized to suck.
….The Romans did have a system of collective defense. By the 4th century, there was an extensive network of walls, forts, and watchtowers along the border, as well as defense in depth—legions stationed farther behind to contain any incursions. But this system failed to allow for a situation where large numbers of barbarians would be invited to cross the militarized border zone with no opposition whatsoever. At that point, they entered the so-called ‘civil zone,’ where defenses were much weaker.
Ancient Border Control sucked too.
The resulting crisis tended to feed on itself. When large numbers of barbarians were invited in, even more decided to invite themselves. The border ceased to exist. There was no longer any barrier between the barbaric outer world and the pacified Roman world, which was home to millions of people who didn’t know how to defend themselves and who had not done so for generations.
soft-handed ninnies, we call them
And so the inevitable happened. The barbarians didn’t wish to destroy Roman society—they just wanted to help themselves to its wealth—-but their very presence made the survival of Roman society impossible. No, they didn’t completely destroy the heritage of Rome.
No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible ~ Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
They came to plunder, not to destroy; moreover, they were already semi-Roman and semi-Christian, and in time the kingdoms they founded would preserve some of that heritage. But the Empire did collapse, as a French historian has wryly pointed out:
Low IQ must be excluded from high IQ societies like aggressive drunks from a club.
Certainly they might have a good time there but that’s not the point.
For the decisive point is that Rome had shown its weakness by admitting peoples onto its territory whom it had been unable to subordinate and whose presence it had regularized without having vanquished them in the field. Contrary to what is commonly said today, the invasions really did happen. The Barbarians were in no way “invited” to settle in the empire. They entered in large numbers by immigration and also, at least in equal numbers, by violent invasion, by piercing the defense lines, plundering the cities, and massacring people as much in Italy and Greece as in Gaul, Spain, and Africa. (Voisin, 2014)….
I was reading about laconic wit earlier;
When asked whether it would be prudent to build a defensive wall enclosing the city, Lycurgus answered, “A city is well-fortified which has a wall of men instead of brick.”
Behold, the face of true evil;
A highly-paid housing chief has called for a ‘dead baby on the beach’ moment to persuade the public to accept social housing tenants as neighbours.
Kate Davies, the £200,000-a-year head of a London housing association, said the deaths of ‘some beautiful young children’ are needed to overcome Nimbyism and prejudice against state-subsidised tenants.
Her cynical remarks left MPs appalled and put a question mark against the judgment of the former Trotskyist, who leads a housing group that has received £1.3billion from the taxpayer
Any collapse must destroy these people if there is a God.
I bet the Guardian are looking for a photo of this one to pass around in a morbid circlejerk as we speak;
I never thought child porn could get worse, but dead child porn? wtf is wrong with these people
Way to make the cannon fodder go quietly into that good night?
Make them angry first.
The recent refugee crisis is being used for precisely this same purpose. In fact, while a false debate is being managed by the Western media and Western political figures to either unconditionally accept the refugees or unconditionally reject them, the only singular narrative both sides are being made to agree on is that instability across MENA is to blame and more bombing is the answer.
My money is on Syria.
Obama lubed up the American public.
Social Engineering vs. the Inevitable Rot of Empire
A refugee crisis was inevitable, regardless of the timing and magnitude of any given deluge that may have been created or manipulated by the West. Destroying the planet in pursuit of empire, pillaging nations and hauling away the wealth of the world, inevitably leads to endless streams of victims following their stolen wealth back to the thieves’ den. As an empire expands and the list of its victims expands with it, the number of those an empire is able to fully assimilate versus those who will inevitable overwhelm it eventually tips the balance against the empire’s favor.
Such was the fate of the Roman Empire, which over the course of its decline, had its institutions overwhelmed by peoples it had conquered faster than it could assimilate them.
The truly peaceful solution is to kick out the terrorists and never let anymore in. Mass deportations.
Not to go antagonising the guys. Let Putin sort out ISIS like he wants to, Greece gave him permission to edge nearer through their airspace. Let him do it. Russia has more money (gold) than us.
I would like to remind you that Kuwait recently blocked remittance (immigrant money leaving the native-earned economy) because it funded terrorism. We should follow suit. The economic argument in favour of immigration is tricksy, yes, they make a lot of money here (plus benefits which count here) but it doesn’t remain here. It leaves, to other economies, via remittance, and it seldom comes back.
Please, share this link above if you think there’s anything to it.
This one is also interesting
When you’re going in the wrong direction, progress is the last thing you need. Maybe the “progress” that defines our age is closer to the progression of a disease than its cure. Sorry to be such a buzz-kill, but things aren’t looking good and show no signs of improving any time soon. In fact, from where I’m standing, it looks like western civilization is picking up speed the way things do when they’re circling the drain.
has 429,201 signatures. I won’t link it’s been all over MSM and that’s all they have?
We the undersigned pledge to offer our homes to refugees and to support their living in the UK until they can return. The British are more willing and able to help than our Government chooses to admit.
Now that’s a red pill to swallow.
Elsewhere, another petition has accrued the necessary 100k signatures to be discussed in Parliament and get a Government response: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106477
Yes, it’s the one I linked you to the other day, and now it’s gained 70k since, having had no help or signal boosting from the MSM….
In full [of gold];
Mass immigration into Britain could [DS: has] lead to failing hospitals, overcrowded classrooms, water shortages and the need for hundreds of new cities, a new report warns.
The report by think-tank Civitas found that heavy immigration will have an overall negative impact in living standards as any economic benefits will be outweighed by extreme pressures on amenities. [because there are different types of immigrant]
Written by Robert Rowthorn, Emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of Cambridge, the report says that particular strain will be placed on schools, housing and hospitals. [already happened]
The report also found that while overall Gross Domestic Product (GDP) could rise, the effects on GDP Per Capita would be minimal.
Mr Rowthorn said: “Unrestrained population growth would eventually have a negative impact on the standard of living through its environmental effects such as overcrowding, congestion and loss of amenity,” he writes.
“Such losses would ultimately outweigh the small gain in average wages apparently resulting from mass immigration.” [taste the sarcasm]
Figures from the Office for National Statistics suggest that the UK population will grow by 20 million over the next 50 years, and 29 million over the next 75 – and that is from immigration alone. [it has become a question not of IF we deport, but WHEN]
Rowthorn says that any potential benefits from immigration stem mainly from its ability to help rejuvenate the ageing UK population, [except immigrants retire too, compounding the problem] but he warns: “If many of the immigrants fail to get jobs, or if they end up in low skill jobs or displace native workers, large-scale immigration will have a negative impact on GDP per capita and on government finances. Thus, the impact could be positive or negative but either way it is unlikely to be very large.
“The only thing that is certain is that immigration on the present scale, if it continues, will lead to much faster population growth and a much larger total GDP than would otherwise be the case, with consequent pressure on infrastructure and the environment.”
The report adds that such an explosion in population could also cause water shortages in some parts of the country, saying that some “water-stressed regions of England and Wales” – particularly the south east of England – were comparable to dry countries such as Spain and Italy. [good, that means food shortages too, right?]
“Population growth is identified in this report as a major source of strain on water resources,” the report says.
Other resources will also be it. It says: “Population growth may lead to housing shortage and pressure on public facilities such as schools, hospitals and the transport infrastructure. [all of those already happening]
“Such problems can in principle be handled by building more homes, enlarging existing schools and hospitals or building new ones, widening existing roads or building new ones, and increasing the capacity of the rail network. [biting sarcasm, we cannot do those things]
“This would not be a once-and-for-all investment programme. Sustained population growth would require an ever increasing number of homes, hospitals schools and transport facilities.” [why do we owe these people?]
A Home Office Spokesman told the Daily Telegraph: “This report shows how vital it was for this Government to reverse the unfettered immigration policy of the past and why we must carry on our reforms to build an immigration system which works in the national interest.
“It is clear that uncontrolled, mass immigration makes it difficult to maintain social cohesion, puts pressure on our public services and forces down wages for people on low incomes. [this would have been unthinkable prior to the UKIP EU election win]
That is why we are building an immigration system that is fair to British citizens and legitimate migrants, that is tough on those who abuse the rules or flout the law, and that ensures people come to the UK for the right reasons — to work hard and contribute to our economy and society.” [I will believe it, when I see it.]
Your money is worth less, because of debt. Government, corporate and personal.
Prices are going up (RRP) but the intrinsic value (production) is the same or lesser (growth stagnation).
This is causing a major headache for grocery giants, who have spent the last 20 years engaged in a “space race” to open the most supermarkets.
Tesco won that battle and is almost twice as big as market number two Asda. But changing shopping patterns mean that those miles of shopping aisles are now weighing on profitability. Big-box out-of-town stores face a very uncertain future. The Institute of Grocery Distribution, the industry thinktank, predicts that £3bn less will be rung up in big stores (over 25,000 sq ft) in five years’ time. Meanwhile, the market share commanded by the high street discounters – Aldi, Lidl and Poundland – will almost double in size to account for £1 out of every £9 spent on British groceries.
“The reality is that the model of retailing for the last 60 years is no longer fit for the changing needs of consumers,” says one senior industry source. “The question is: what are you doing to adapt your space to the new economics?”
This is why you don’t apply a Japanese model of mercantile business to anywhere with space.