today I started a list: things I'll do when I'll have a lot of money.
I understood how used I am to being so close to poverty when I wrote stuff like a 20 bucks bluetooth speaker and a set of screwdrivers.
๐ณ๐ฑ
@arteteco the difference between a rich person and a poor person is that a rich person spends most of their time trying to think of ways they could spend/invest money they don't have yet, a poor person thinks up ways they will spend money they don't yet have :)
Though I think this applies a bit farther above the poverty line than you are dealing with too. Obviously you gotta cover the basic needs first. but someone told me that once and it stuck with me.. how you spend (in your head) the money you dont have yet says everything about your financial future.
@freemo I don't think I understood this, a rich person spends time thinking of ways to invest and the poor on ways to spend, you mean?
@arteteco Pretty much yes.. basically how you have mentally ear marked the money you dont have yet whether it be mentally earmarked as a means to create some new company or project, or on indulgences.. basically as you say investment vs personal spending.
@freemo Oh, I see now, makes sense. I don't have a rich future ahead of me, it seems =D
I think in the US you people are more attuned to that kind of entrepreneurship and personal economic growth, which is something I appreciate and I should learn from.
To be sure, as long as I have the basics and a bit more I'm alright, I'm not complaining, was just playing with my mind ๐
I dunno, I think america has become the HQ for ideological quests in many ways. I generally see americans as being extremists in everything. Most americans are radically ideological, while others dont care much at all about ideological quests, there is very little middle ground.
Contrast that with europe where most people tend to be centrist with a small minority at the ideological extremes.
that has not at all been my expeirnce as someone who lives in both america and europe. Though it is what you hear most often.
The leftists in america in my experience are far more extremist than anything I’ve ever seen in europe. In fact most europeans I know who have spent any real time in america tend to mock american leftists for their absurdity. Same is true for our right leaning people, also generally considered extreme.
@amerika I'm not sure, I don't think I know enough about the US to speak, either by statistics or by personal experience. From the biased internet view, US seems more "ideologist" than most countries I know, arguing a lot about principles. If the matter was what works and what not, I'd see very different political debates, more based on science and facts
The reproducibility crisis is a real concern but its mostly limited to psychology, it isn't a general issue in science. This makes sense considering the difficulties in create double blind objective experiments in psychology.
Hard to say, all the talk about it is around psychology and I havent seen it being an issue in any other science fields. But its possible I havent looked into sociology specifically, but its possible.
As freemo, I've also seen it mainly in psychology, never heard of it outside that field. It makes sense, it's complex and young and in my opinion still lacks a strong paradigm to guide it.
There is no relation to ethnicity, race, gender or whatever involved, afaik, just some experiments giving different results now than before
Another important matter is that society changes, and people change, so while with biology or geology you will rarely have this kind of troubles, many psychological mechanisms are very much related on the culture and quickly change with it, making the experiments hard to verify.
To be sure, is not a fraud, it's mostly an epistemological problem, ie a problem of the methods
In my view, it's likely hitting all fields
The need to "publish or perish" has a high cost, and much research being pushed through is cherry-picked and/or filtered.
This isnt something you just have a personal view on on a whim. The replication crisis is well studied and born out with actual evidence by trying to replicate experiments at a later date and seeing how often they can be replicated...
I mean your welcome to have an opinion or speculate however you wish, but unless you have some actual evidence that shows it exists throughout science as a whole, and not just limited to psychology, then its really just noise.
Can you reference an actual professional well controlled studied that has shown there is a replication problem that is pervasive to science?
No one is claiming anyone who has ever said they were doing science was above board. You wont have any trouble finding the occasional bit of fraud or even incompetence. However largely when it does crop up the rest of the scientific community tends to catch it.
Yea and typically thats what happens exactly. The issue with psychology is mostly as arteco pointed out the nature of the field and not any dogma or other issues. We are talking about a new field where conditions change with the environment and thus experiments done later at time may not always reproduce earlier experiments whent he culture has changed in the time in between.
Still, peer review and others reproducing hard-science should continually preen the knowledge base, if it works right.
there is an expectation that you know certain theories and schools of though before you go onto more obscure or complex ones for sure. but that isnt dogma. Studying a thing doesnt inherently create dogma for the thing.
I study religion in some depth and while there is plenty floating around in the way of dogma when it comes to religion I have never adopted that dogma because I only study the topic, I dont adopt the faith.
I also never experienced teachers pushing too much dogma. Generally they care if you prove your point using logic and data, they dont force your conclusions. Most teachers not just accept dissenting thought they encourage it and want you to try to disprove theories, they even tend to promote projects where you attempt to do so.
the only reason scientific thought tends to align is because we have all went through the science and tried to disprove it and ultimately found we were wrong and could not.
Not sure that is a great example.. Your not talking so much about dogma or wasted careers as you are talking about observing scientific progress where competing ideas and theories are over time refined and confirmed.
One scientist was wrong, happens all the time and it's not a bug: it's a feature of the scientific method.
The replication crises regards a series of studies, you can read more about it on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
@amerika @freemo
Then you clearly have an unscientific bias going in. While wikipedia is NOT authoritative or a scientific source, nor does it claim to be, it does cite ample sources for any assertion it makes. The expectation in science is that you do not blindly follow ANY publication. The value comes from following the sources, reviewing those, and then making a case or forming your own opinion on the validity of a statement based on the quality of its sources.
To discount any source that thoroughly cites its sources out of hand shows up front either an inability or an unwillingness to actually evaluate the topic in an impartial and thorough manner.
Nonsense. I've watched Wikipedia censor and manipulate over the years.
So? That doesnt make anything I just said nonsense. You still have the ability to follow the sources and verify if due diligence has been done yourself. Thats the beauty of citations, it gives you everything you need to argue against a topic even if its content happened to be bias or censored.
It's useful for non-political scientific and medical info.
The group of wikipedia editors are as imperfect as any other group. Peer review doesnt stop at the publication. they provide citations so you, personally, can do your own peer review. So bias or not that is no reason not to read the page, follow the links, and use it as part of a larger range of sources to form your opinion.
You'd be just as negligent if you relied entirely on a single scientific paper or even a single scientific journal as a source of defacto truth. that is not how science works. But the first step is learning how to evaluate sources and arguments in science.
@TradeMinister
I am very familiar with it. Individuals have wrong theories all the time, and thats how science is suppose to work, thats how we learn we are wrong and ultimately what is correct.
And every generation, we find out that settled science from the previous was nonsense.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html
Sometimes funding can derail science and create some issues, no doubt.. A prime example of that is the whole autism vaccine nonsense where basically someone paid a bunch of money to a small minority of crooked scientists to produce a easily debunked paper. Even though the whole of the scientific community quickly rejected the paper its very existence was used as fodder by some for years to come. So yes a person with some money can certainly use psudo-science to cause some harm.
But these sorts of situations never get very far, they certainly dont pass any comprehensive peer review, and generally is not what we see from the majority of the scientific community.
Lots of areas are not explored because they are politically incorrect.
Let's look at IQ research.
There has been a great deal of research around IQ, even going so far as to investigate IQ differences among cultures we think of as different races, alot of that research is ongoing. Better IQ tests designed to be suited for tribal cultures with little contact with the outside world have been developed over the years for exactly that reason.
The issue is simply certain assertions have been made so often in the past and debunked so thuroughly, and almost always done under extreme bias, that most scientists arent going to rehash the same old nonsense unless someone actually comes up with a compelling high quality science, which is rarely the case in certain areas.
Every once in a while I come across some moron with a clearly racial bias trying to argue blacks are inherently lower IQ than whites, and every time when i give them the time and effort to review the evidence of their claim it is completely laughable the lack of evidence and the amount of bias they employed to collect it. Obviously when 99% of people arguing a particular point are always crackpots even if there is a valid point somewhere among them it isnt going to as easily get attention. Extraordinary claims take extraordinary evidence.
Hard to say. I mean we see studies that suggest black people have genetic deficiencies other races do not all the time. for example it is well known and established science that blacks have a much higher incidence of sickle cell anemia than non-blacks. Despite this effectively looking like they are genetically inferior in that regard, and thus would be something you might think couldn't get published, it tends to be free published and fairly well accepted science.
The reason such studies stand little chance of getting published isnt so much about the biases in the industry, its about the fact that we have tested the hypothesis for over a 100 years in great depth and never once have found anything to support that assertion. So naturally its not something you will see getting published unless there is some pretty solid and reproducible data, and there never is.
If I can chip my humble 50 satoshis on this, African people have way higher genetic diversity than the rest of humankind, not having experienced the bottleneck from getting out of Africa.
It's easier, therefore, to find higher diversity of problems too, and the sampling can wildly affect the results of any research. Talking about "black people" or Africans is really like putting together all the rest of humankind, papuasians, native americans, latins, australian aborigenal people etc, and say "see, they have this and that".
My main point is, we can't talk about "African people" as a group and pretend it makes sense.
This is something that until more recent genetic discovery was not well known, so a lot of studies even from a recent past have a huge bias in that sense
Well if anything is clear its the fact that every single "negro" alive is at least smarter than you.
Its also shows your lack of intellect since its entierly contrary to what was already mentioned in this thread. I pointed out at least one way that races arent identical and that blacks are at a deficit (more likely to have sickle cell anemia).
If your going to make a brain-dead argument like all blacks being dumber than every other race, you should at least make sure you clean up your own home first.
Why being boring? The physical versions of both are expensive as heck by the way.
Office politics -- careerism -- ruin everything.
Just another form of crowdism
Well thats a whole heap of ignorance there... no what you find is every generation **some** (and overall a small portion) of science that a **few** people considered settled science comes into question. The idea that this somehow discredits science is very much the opposite of the reaction one should have to that. It means science doesnt hesitate to question even some of its more established theories and over time improves its stance on these issues. exactly what you would want to see.
I think part of the disconnect here is that you view left, right, and center as relative terms. I wouldnt agree with that assessment.
While there is certainly a lot of variation and flavor in how right, center, and left might manifest I think that often becomes confused with implying relativity. If everyone is on the left then the left doesn't become the new center, everyone just agrees their on the left.
I see this in places where there is a clear left or right lean to their society. Even in societies where 95% of the population might be right leaning they would still identify themselves as right, and the majority of the population would. You dont really see a shift towards considering the right center in those cases.
I think we have pretty clear ideas of where the left most and right most points of this spectrum are and they are pretty absolute in their nature. The msot extreme left would be some flavor of communism, for example, and once your full on communism you cant go any farther left.
While that may make sense in some situations, here I wouldnt say that applies.. Just based on actual examples int he real world.
If you were correct then in every society about 50% would consider themselves left and 50% would consider themselves right. Yet in societies that are relatively more right you actually see a larger portion of the population self identifying as right.. you never see the center "move" as you suggest.
If your assertion were true, and left and right were relative and the idea of center" shifts" relative to the societies perception then yes, that is exactly what one would expect, you would expect to see the center shift to represent the middle of the society and thus split the groups down the middle.
You are right there is no reason to think in reality there would be a 50/50 split, because left and right isnt relative but rather absolute and the center does not move with society at all.
Relativity, what is it?
When the center is Left, extremes will appear either redundant or dangerous, as you note.
American Leftists are generally single people, crazy people, or minorities.