Americans married in their 20s, historically

Anyone wanting a huge age gap to ‘marry’ a minor is just a pedo in denial.

It’s the same reasoning that considers women or wives to ‘expire’. Only to a pedo. Marriage is lifelong, that’s why pedos hate it.

Age gaps 10y+ greatly increase divorce risk for a reason.

Another case of “pedos are wrong in every possible way”.

At no point are teenagers the norm!

https://www.thespruce.com/estimated-median-age-marriage-2303878

Here are the statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau of the median age at first marriage and a graph of the data going back to 1890.

Year Men Woman
2018 29.8 27.8
2017 29.5 27.4
2016 29.5 27.4
2015 29.2 27.1
2014 29.3 27.0
2013 29.0 26.6
2012 28.6 26.6
2011 28.7 26.5
2010 28.2 26.1
2009 28.1 25.9
2008 27.6 25.9
2007 17.5 25.6
2006 27.5 25.5
2005 27.1 25.3
2004 27.4 25.3
2003 27.1 25.3
2002 26.9 25.3
2001 26.9 25.1
2000 26.8 25.1
1999 26.9 25.1
1998 26.7 25.0
1997 26.8 25.0
1996 27.1 24.8
1995 26.9 24.5
1994 26.7 24.5
1993 26.5 24.5
1992 26.5 24.4
1991 26.3 24.1
1990 26.1 23.9
1989 26.2 23.8
1988 25.9 23.6
1987 25.8 23.6
1986 25.7 23.1
1985 25.5 23.3
1984 25.4 23.0
1983 25.4 22.8
1982 25.2 22.5
1981 24.8 22.3
1980 24.7 22.0
1979 24.4 22.1
1978 24.2 21.8
1977 24.0 21.6
1976 23.8 21.3
1975 23.5 21.1
1974 23.1 21.1
1973 23.2 21.0
1972 23.3 20.9
1971 23.1 20.9
1970 23.2 20.8
1969 23.2 20.8
1968 23.1 20.8
1967 23.1 20.6
1966 22.8 20.5
1965 22.8 20.6
1964 23.1 20.5
1963 22.8 20.5
1962 22.7 20.3
1961 22.8 20.3
1960 22.8 20.3
1959 22.5 20.2
1958 22.6 20.2
1957 22.6 20.3
1956 22.5 20.1
1955 22.6 20.2
1954 23.0 20.3
1953 22.8 20.2
1952 23.0 20.2
1951 22.9 20.4
1950 22.8 20.3
1949 22.7 20.3
1948 23.3 20.4
1947 23.7 20.4
1940 24.3 21.5
1930 24.3 21.3
1920 24.6 21.2
1910 25.1 21.6
1900 26.1 22.0
1890 26.1 22.0

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the figures reported for 1947 to 1999 are based on Current Population Survey data. The figures for years prior to 1947 are based on decennial censuses. A standard error of 0.1 years is appropriate to measure sampling variability for any of the above estimated median ages at first marriage based on Current Population Survey data.

The further you go back, THE OLDER THE BRIDE AND GROOM ARE.

Either you never looked it up (stupid) or you’re lying.

Why is scientism a problem? The ‘Appeal to Data’

I lurk on comment threads to get a feel for what is trending in the noosphere and I find some gems. Sometimes I get a bit stalkerish in my fervor for curating opinions.
I was reading a science article and I was way, way down, losing hope and I saw this.
I’ve been wanting to cover this topic for a while, I didn’t know what to call it but I felt I needed an example to mock first, since it’s easier to pull that apart than a possible strawman.

Thank you, Hobbesian________, I have a new name for this: “The Appeal to Data

He hasn’t read much of his namesake, why am I not surprised?

A man’s conscience and his judgment is the same thing; and as the judgment, so also the conscience, may be erroneous. ~ Hobbes

I was serious about the mocking part.

scientism appeal to data

You could say that about anything: What would be the point in interviewing Richard Dawkins, the Bible speaks for itself? What would be the point in interviewing climate skeptics, the UN papers speak for themselves? Why trust the Government on vaccines, the ingredients list speaks for itself?

Muh “speaks for itself” is the new “isn’t it obvious?” No, dipshit, or there wouldn’t be a discussion. That’s kinda the point when it comes to any scientific question, the debate never ends, nobody will pack up their bags and go home. We’ll just sort of come to a point of consensus naturally and lose momentum, like an emergent phenomena as the evidence comes in (from both sides). Until the paradigm shift, anon!
Humanities isn’t social science. Liberal arts isn’t a science. Social science is a science because it follows the Scientific Method. Merely, it applies the method to humans (social animal hence society). There are textbooks on this written for children. This is basic.

It’s a combination of appeal to popularity, and a subtle ad hominem that’s intended to outgroup you as inferior and thus, not worth listening to. It’s a rabbit trick. Look! A hat! 

The atheistkult and other redditfags seem to rely on this IFLS-esque appeal to ‘objective’ authority and clarity when describing nature; that the numbers can’t be faked, or wrong, or that various biases and errors (inc. the huge measurement error) do not exist.

Data isn’t objective because data is a tool used by people. You can flip a coin 100 times, get 100 heads and it doesn’t disprove the other findings. It’s added to them. We call those people using the data in their possession ‘scientists’ and they aren’t using the data, really. They are collecting the data (possession) and interpret the data (moving on to a claim), that is their training and their job, to make claims based on the data (the data is just there to show their workings for replication, like maths classes). We have a label for people who make claims not based on data, but opinion formed prior, a beautiful category is…..;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Biased_interpretation

Oh look, it’s another bias. SI: You can use totally legitimate data to lie. Anita Sarkeesian does it all the time. She takes a legit study and makes those unsupported claims. You say X, but data says X-1. This is what they mean when they appeal to data, that it’s supposed to be free of false interpretation. Except – all data is interpreted. It’s a human impulse.

You can’t do shit with data itself anyway. Those 100 heads results aren’t going to go anywhere. They’ll stay in a drawer, unpublished. For the researcher: They don’t change the data (unless crooked or naive with poor method design, a priori) and they aren’t meant to influence the data (so many ways under researcher bias), but they are human.

In social science

After the data are collected, bias may be introduced during data interpretation and analysis. For example, in deciding which variables to control in analysis, social scientists often face a trade-off between omitted-variable bias and post-treatment bias.[10]

This is why we need philosophy of science taught in schools.
We learn biology, chemistry and physics but we don’t learn what science is or why all those things are science, let alone how science is actually done. But sure, photosynthesis…..

Identities protected but putting the name of a philosopher in your screen name doesn’t make you smart. They keep doing that (redditfag signature) when it’s a clear appeal to authority, again.

Here is the first result on google for “scientist stock photo”

Sure, I’d trust that guy, who doesn’t even wear goggles. They buy into this, like the memes. Oh Christ, the memes…. 

It’s very Aspie to think all scientists are perfect, morally virtuous men in white lab coats, pristine as their soul, and they’ll never do anything like lie, or cheat for a promotion, or steal grant money, or… I dunno…. fake most of a subject….
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/science-nature/scientists-replicated-100-psychology-studies-and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/

Statistically, most of a subject. Literally. (Me being topical)

They have some wonderful cognitive dissonance here because they believe experts are liars (I blame Gen X), but the data the experts gather is pure as the Virgin Mary.
The data is sacred! bc Humans are flawed!
Who do you think made the data? ET?
What we see are the actions of a narcissist (they wouldn’t dare lie to me!) who cannot conceive of systemic deception that would persevere against their imagined intellect. Con artists find these people easiest to fool because they have no guard. There is no guard to let down.

As much as I dislike this website, for example the name (isn’t debunking something also a denial? and why is denial/dissent wrong, given Burden of Proof?), there are many statistical fallacies in the public arena, from people who are meant to be defending science like it’s a lady’s virtue:

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/11/17/the-top-five-most-annoying-statistical-fallacies/

TLDR: This thing is like that thing because I said so.

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2014/11/10/why-p-values-and-statistical-significance-are-worthless-in-science/

TLDR: p-value fraud is rife.

You could find many things which are statistically significant, for example — and false. This is where correlation/causation truly comes in, the claim is beyond the data e.g. if I find murders spike with ice cream sales, ice cream doesn’t cause murder. The third hidden variable is the heat and the frustration it produces. A good method design will eliminate extraneous variables, and in most social science, they don’t do this. That’s why it can’t be replicated – shitty design. Copying the shitty design just doubles the number of shitty experiments in the world. 

Method design is mostly intuition. Redditfags deny this. They should pick up a book on it, seriously – the first thing you’re told is Make Stuff Up and the rest is just refinement.

The appeal to data is treating a chart of values like the Bible. Yes, I went there.

Torture numbers, and they’ll confess to anything.” – Gregg Easterbrook

Working example: http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/2012/06/12/torturing-the-data-long-enough-will-make-them-confess-anything/

Conclusion: Let’s go with the Appeal to Data. If I ask 100 people whether you are worse than Hitler, and 51 say yes, the data is there. The data is sacrosanct.
It’s an appeal to popularity dressed up in a Halloween lab coat.

btw I appreciate the turtles reference at the end

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

it made me laugh

oh you dean winchester

The doom of social science

http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/09/18/whats-to-be-done-about-the-reproducibility-crisis-in-the-social-sciences/

That social scientists have applied the mindset and methodology of physics in areas of study to which they are completely unsuited; that once social science became convinced that it was a “hard science” it became arrogant; that this has caused a disconnect from reality and a prioritization of abstract theory over practical results. Yet, abandoning social science altogether seems unwise. For one thing, good social science is needed in order to combat bad social science, which despite the reproducibility crisis retains tremendous influence. For another, with the power of faith and tradition broken or nearly so throughout the West, something is needed in order to guide us forward (even if its goal is to eventually lead us back to faith and tradition). Lastly, a full documenting of what went wrong with the West and how it happened is necessary so that we can (hopefully) avoid making quite exactly the same mistakes again in the future.  …

2 things.

  1. The Narrative for PC is based on social sciences. It’s the entire pseudoscience justification. Hence the shrieking.
  2. Cutting out the political would constitute most of those papers incurred, politics isn’t a science. They use “publish or perish” as an excuse to overwhelm and dilute anti-PC papers.

In short, while the left’s social science takes physics as its model, the right’s social science should take engineering as its model.

They’re abusing the word phobia, so for starters……
Terms
Definitions

IEEE: Leaked British Spy Catalog Reveals Tools to Manipulate Online Information

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/security/leaked-british-spy-catalog-reveals-tools-to-manipulate-online-information

I love this picture too much not to enclose.

The spy catalog information developed by the British spy agency GCHQ comes from documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, according to The Intercept. Such documents don’t contain much in the way of technical information about how the online spy tools work, but they do reveal a colorful array of code names for methods aimed at both collecting information and manipulating online information seen on websites such as Facebook and YouTube. The GCHQ’s Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) that developed the catalog described most of the tools as being “fully operational” or else “very close to being ready.”

It reads like a 4chan troll list. On purpose.
I had a good laugh over this a few days ago when it was properly published, it’s a very British sense of humour to be underestimated thusly.
Example: “Scrapheap Challenge” is actually a much-beloved TV programme I recommend. Any Brit who knows the term would move along without a backward glance, because they’d just come across as fandom losers dicking around on the web.

I wonder where they got that idea.