Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Test

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I am conducting a test here, and I hope our readers will help me.

Suppose the following terms used to describe a person were all you knew about that person:

“outspoken about politics”
“gifted debater”
“very strong beliefs about gun laws”
“dedicated”
“bright”
“from religious family that attends Bible study meetings”

In the combox below, please indicate whether from these descriptors you would:

A Assume the person is likely a conservative Republican

B. Assume the person is likely a progressive Democrat

C. Decide there is not enough information to make any sort of conclusion about the person’s political views.

Thank you for your assistance in this test. I will post the meaning of the test after I get several answers.

Comments
The media’s most subtle and perhaps destructive move in the promotion of their liberal narratives is omission. In the case of a shooter, the media quickly assesses whether or not the attacker’s background—cultural, ideological, philosophical, etc.—fits their anti-conservative/pro-liberal meta-narrative, then either emphasizes, excuses, or blacks it out altogether. This manipulative and dishonest pattern has real-world, insidious consequences.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/medias-insidious-shooting-biasWilliam J Murray
December 17, 2013
December
12
Dec
17
17
2013
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
Bible study is a clue but it could include a Jew and so be a left winger. Tricky about whether bible means both testaments or evcen just studing the bible to attack it. Then the gun thing. Probably not a conservative as why otherwise make the thread!!Robert Byers
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT
That's what my mommy tells me.AVS
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
Aren't you just precious?Barb
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
Find that stick yet Barb?AVS
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
Don't feed the troll, people.Barb
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
And to those with no knowledge in the biological sciences, which seems to include you and most of the people on here.AVS
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
3. Compare biological theory/experimentation to physics theory/experimentation and be surprised when they don’t work at the same pace or by the same methods.
It should be surprising to those who believe that life is reducible to matter.Box
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
Humiliated by your lack of science knowledge or your attempts to have an argument about science despite your lack of scientific knowledge?AVS
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
Yes, AVS... but there's that hint of bitterness, you know? As if you feel you should have won, but you knew you'd been humiliated.Axel
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
KF, . . . were being given by a typical media source in the US in the context of someone doing a notorious wrong, I would have drawn the conclusions that: (i) the intent was to feed hostility to those who have a Bible-based Christian upbringing and are inclined to be Conservative/ Republican/ Tea Party or the like, and (ii) they lacked sufficient data to make more blatant assertions or the perpetrator was not quite as hoped. And yes, hoped. Something like the above is a classic unwarranted inferences test. Such used to be used to teach us to be conservative and restrained in inferences. As in undermining the classic non sequitur in its various forms, and also hitting post hoc reasoning in the gut. Conclusion-jumping is an old, old problem, as is projecting prejudices and/or begged questions. I agreevelikovskys
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
No, "have a nice day" meant "I do not wish to talk with someone who has already admitted their complete lack of the scientific knowledge necessary to continue this conversation."AVS
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
Try not to repeat yourself, there's a good chap. E=MC2 would have massive technical implications, the simplest of which would be beyond me; but that mass is convertible into energy, I manage to grasp. That's the tragedy for atheists. The greatest truths are so goldurned simple in their broad outline and net meaning. 'Have a nice day' said in this context is sad to read, as it means I was too rancorous without warrant. You weren't that nasty, I now note. My apologies.Axel
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
You attempt to make an argument and then admit that you are a total layman...basically what this means is that everything you just said is a regurgitation from sites like this one. Well done. In fact, your claim that there is no science to rebut behind evolution and then your admission of being a "total layman" completely rebuts anything you have to say in a scientific context. Have a nice day.AVS
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
'1. The fossil record doesn’t tell us anything, because I said so.' No. He is claiming though that to anyone with an IQ in double figures (as he politely puts it, 'intelligent') would understands that the fossil record is laughably exiguous for the purposes of the most elementary scientific inference. It doesn't amount to a hill of petits pois. 2. 'Biology is too complicated, therefore god designed it.' I don't recall agnostic Berlinsky invoking God. But you evidently need straw men, so we mustn't be too hard on you on that score. Just get bored to death pointing them out. But what flagrant dishonesty! 3. Compare biological theory/experimentation to physics theory/experimentation and be surprised when they don’t work at the same pace or by the same methods.' Well, physics theory/experimentation meets the normal metrics of science doesn't it, the other being simply/simplistically the flight of fancy of a medical-school drop-out, Batchelor of Divinity, whose ramblings were recognised as 'gold dust' to the loony-toons, atheist activists in his day. Unfortunately, he didn't have the integrity to tell them to get lost, instead being seduced into believing he was a great scientist. 4. 'We can’t computer simulate evolution, therefore it’s wrong.' You know, if that's 'bargain basement' contention, Berlinsky is merely desperate to find some ground on which a case might be made for accrediting Evolutions as science, however nugatory that might be. He failed. But at least be grateful that he tried to mitigate your humiliation. 5. I’m only aware of small variations in biology because that’s all I’m willing to pay attention to and accept. No. Not quite. As a total layman, I'd bet good money (if I had it) that that's another of your casually vapid misrepresentations of the truth that he, not you, asserts. 'You can’t “destroy evolution” in 5 and a half minutes,especially when you don’t provide any science to back up your claims.' 'Let me know when you guys have some science to back up your claims.' He just did it. There was no science to rebut, dumbo! It's your problem, not his! You've just written a travesty of a rebuttal of Berlinsky's points, but it looks like your m.o.Axel
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
Instead of characterizing my arguments, why not actually make an argument, Erik? The fossil record provides us with huge amounts of information about the evolution of life, evolution cannot be simulated accurately because we still understand only a fraction of it.AVS
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
Maybe that’s because I was commenting on a video post devoid of any scientific arguments.
So Tu Quoque (we can add that to your list of logical fallacies) is your defense as to why you cannot use your "science powers" to argue against Berlinski's points? If Berlinski only made assertions that lacked scientific validity, then it should have been easy to post a refuting comment of scientific value.TSErik
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Maybe that's because I was commenting on a video post devoid of any scientific arguments.AVS
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
Let me know when you guys have some science to back up your claims.
He says in a post of sophomoric strawmen devoid of any "scientific" arguments.TSErik
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
Ah yes thank you Axel. Berlinkski: 1. The fossil record doesn't tell us anything, because I said so. 2. Biology is too complicated, therefore god designed it. 3. Compare biological theory/experimentation to physics theory/experimentation and be surprised when they don't work at the same pace or by the same methods. 4. We can't computer simulate evolution, therefore it's wrong. 5. I'm only aware of small variations in biology because that's all I'm willing to pay attention to and accept. You can't "destroy evolution" in 5 and a half minutes,especially when you don't provide any science to back up your claims. Let me know when you guys have some science to back up your claims.AVS
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
C was my answer as a lot of the statements needed more information. However, I think A would have been the answer if C had not been given as a choice. Then B would have been the easy answer had the condition of “from religious family that attends Bible study meetings” had not been included. I think your overall assumption is still accurate in that it is easy to manipulate people's initial responses by your word choice.gregastin
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
A little something by David Berlinsky to cheer you up, AVS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8Axel
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
Fair do's, lads. AVS is obviously a lot brighter than the leading lights on here. Eat your heart out, vjt, C Hunter, WJM, Scordova, Kairosfocus, the AWOL Mad Joe et al.Axel
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
F/N: Found one, complete with test yourself.The test seems to come from Australia and is not politically loaded -- an all too common problem. KFkairosfocus
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT
PS: If the original post had said that the characterisations:
“outspoken about politics” “gifted debater” “very strong beliefs about gun laws” “dedicated” “bright” “from religious family that attends Bible study meetings”
. . . were being given by a typical media source in the US in the context of someone doing a notorious wrong, I would have drawn the conclusions that: (i) the intent was to feed hostility to those who have a Bible-based Christian upbringing and are inclined to be Conservative/ Republican/ Tea Party or the like, and (ii) they lacked sufficient data to make more blatant assertions or the perpetrator was not quite as hoped. And yes, hoped. KFkairosfocus
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT
Folks: Something like the above is a classic unwarranted inferences test. Such used to be used to teach us to be conservative and restrained in inferences. As in undermining the classic non sequitur in its various forms, and also hitting post hoc reasoning in the gut. Conclusion-jumping is an old, old problem, as is projecting prejudices and/or begged questions. BA made sure not to give away too much, but in a Google age, phrasing and sequence will get you every time -- as SC showed. SC's move was quite legitimate. I think we need to ponder the problem of media spin (aka Plato's Cave shadow shows taken for reality . . . ), and how easily -- as well as how often -- we are taken in by that which fits our prejudices. As for AVS' sophomoric prejudices against people who study the Bible, that speaks to a rising wild-fire of anti-Christian bigotry that is being stoked by ever so many with varied agendas. And, it is a case where one should be very careful to ponder whether getting what you wish for might be a curse, not a blessing of liberty. (And yes, the allusions to James 3 and the preamble of the US Constitution are deliberate.) KFkairosfocus
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT
Barry @ 31
The purpose of the test (until Sal let the cat out of the bag. Thanks Sal), was to test my theory that the reporter was skewing the narrative, and I was right. Most people said “C” but of those who guessed, all but one said “A.” I am frankly surprised I got as many Cs as I did. I would have thought that if you had to guess A would be obvious. So I guess the reporter did not skew it as much as I supposed.
Unless it was obvious that it would be 'A', and those with 'B' political views wanted to protect what the media. :P ... among other possibilities.JGuy
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT
No worries Sal.Barry Arrington
December 14, 2013
December
12
Dec
14
14
2013
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
The purpose of the test (until Sal let the cat out of the bag. Thanks Sal),
Actually, at some point I thought to myself, "Barry is testing if we can use our pattern matching skills which we learned in the study of CSI to get at the bottom of who this guy was." I actually didn't know of the report. I started looking at demographic data to make my estimate of whether the guy was a republican or democrat. At the time, I figured this was purely a hypothetical question based on demographic data you had somehow assembled. I decided to google "republicans gifted debater" to see if demographically republicans had an unusual proportion of gifted debaters. Then I got the hit to the news report, and I thought, "Barry will be so proud of the UD crew for following the evidence where it leads and figuring out the guy was a democrat even though at first glance he looked like a republican. That our detection of the patterns in your description would help us identify the design pattern in your mind, namely the person of Karl Pierson." I was actually more worried you'd chide us for not figuring out where the evidence was pointing.scordova
December 14, 2013
December
12
Dec
14
14
2013
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT
Is this media bias? http://www.mediaite.com/online/denver-post-stealth-edits-out-socialist-from-profile-of-arapahoe-school-shooter/ It was a tough last few days for the left as they were desperately hoping to find a Tea Party guy with a gun but all they got was a socialist and an Al Qaeda wannabe in Colorado and Wichita. Aside, I have seen several religious who consider themselves progressives and are big on anti-gun legislation and very vocal politically. A lot of them showed up at the Occupy Wall Street protests.jerry
December 14, 2013
December
12
Dec
14
14
2013
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply