Intelligent Design

Test

Spread the love

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.

64 Replies to “Test

  1. 1
    vividbleau says:

    C.

    Yes I am bored today.

  2. 2
    turell says:

    C. Bible study is the hook, but it can go either way.

  3. 3
    CLAVDIVS says:

    C.

    If forced to choose A or B, I’d give a very slight edge to B.

    Cheers

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    C. If s/he had been described as “bright” by major US-based media that would tend to tip another way, but insufficient data. Also, from a family does not imply personal or current behaviour. Thirdly, gun laws suggests a US context, but there is not enough to decide what the views are on what laws. I am not US-based so I don’t know if this response counts — save as an unwarranted inferences test. KF

  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
    George E. says:

    A. There are no progressives today that are even willing to debate, let alone are any good at it.

  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
    scordova says:

    A!

  11. 11
  12. 12
    Piltdown2 says:

    B. Only progressives would be described as bright and gifted. This covers for the fact their policies never work out.

  13. 13
    TSErik says:

    Honestly, my initial assumption would be A. Yes, the religiosity was the clincher for me.

  14. 14
    cantor says:

    C, for the same reasons given by KF in post4

  15. 15
    scordova says:

    The issue was likely, not absolute information. So I made my decision based on what was known. What was not mentioned also says something about the person.

    Most liberals who are outspoken about politics are passionate about:

    1. Obamacare
    2. welfare
    3. gay rights

    low on the totem pole are gun laws.

    Also give that democrats outnumber republicans 2 to 1 in foodstamp usage, dedicated would have to lean toward republican.

    “bright and gifted debater” could go either way.

    Even though coming from a religious family does not mean the individual is religious, if I were an odds maker, I would be inclined to say he is more likely to retain some of his family’s values than reject them, hence I score him more likely a republican. That was my wager.

    But unfortunately, I lost this bet:

    http://www.denverpost.com/news.....classmates

    The teenage gunman who entered Arapahoe High School on Friday afternoon and shot two fellow students with a shotgun was outspoken about politics, was a gifted debater and might have been bullied for his beliefs, according to students who knew him.

    He apparently was democrat. I lose my bet.

  16. 16
    Chance Ratcliff says:

    C. While the bible study thing might be seen to give an advantage to the conservative side, I think in today’s political climate, a politically outspoken person would tend to be more liberal.

    As to the others:

    “gifted debater” – politically ambiguous.

    “very strong beliefs about gun laws” – probably more or less ambiguous. It’s a big issue for conservatives but there’s a lot of loud, leftist opposition to the status quo, especially in the aftermath of a shooting.

    “dedicated” – dedicated how, to what? Not enough information.

    “bright” – subject to interpretation. In some circles, intelligence is attributed based more on beliefs than intellect.

  17. 17
  18. 18
    AVS says:

    D. This person does not exist
    How do I know?
    “bright” and “from religious family that attends Bible study meetings”

  19. 19
    Chance Ratcliff says:

    I think his name is Karl.

  20. 20
    TSErik says:

    D. This person does not exist
    How do I know?
    “bright” and “from religious family that attends Bible study meetings”

    Pathetic attempt at trolling. Are you sure you don’t want to head back to Yahoo! Questions where things are, intellectually, more your speed? Right?

    It isn’t that I don’t enjoy you embarrassing yourself by betraying your shockingly dim wit, I do. However, this post shows you have absolutely NO interest in engaging in any serious way (limited as your mental faculties may be) as this post was not related to the ID v. NDE jousting, so far, at all. This was the same behavior as the last time you showed around, when you had embarrassed yourself.

    So, I ask, what’s your game? If you’ve no interest to discuss topics legitimately, then you are here to either proselytize or to attempt to insult. Well, if you are here to proselytize you are terrible, and your debating skills are sophomoric at best.

    If you are here to mock, I ask, to what end? Isn’t the time in your life more valuable than attempting to be an internet tough guy? If yes, then you wouldn’t be wasting time here. If no, then you’ve a Sisyphean task ahead of you, because it would betray some serious insecurities.

    Which flavor of pathetic are you?

  21. 21
    AVS says:

    Thanks for the psycheval Erik.I’ve made numerous attempts in the past to talk biology here and even asked scordova a question which he ignored earlier today. You guys trashtalk evolution and yet you have little understanding of it or even basic biology. I am here out of boredom, although if you’d like to try to talk biology then be my guest.

  22. 22
    TSErik says:

    I’ve made numerous attempts in the past to talk biology here and even asked scordova a question which he ignored earlier today. You guys trashtalk evolution and yet you have little understanding of it or even basic biology. I am here out of boredom, although if you’d like to try to talk biology then be my guest.

    No problem, AVS. The first one is free.

    I couldn’t have predicted your answer any better. You’ve tried before? All I’ve seen in churlish quips and regurgitated memes and little knowledge in the way of biology, or any of the physical sciences.

    Honestly, I’ve read many of your posts AVS, and it is obvious your claims that the people here lack understanding in biological sciences is projection, most likely from insecurity.

    As for your question to Sal, I suggest you go back and read the whole thread again, and maybe do a little research, and rethink it.

    Now let us take the assumption that you, at one point, were interested in the exchange of ideas. You claim to have hit a wall. So, why then do you waste your time any further? Is your life so hollow that the waste of time means nothing?

    You claim you are here out of boredom. So lacking anything productive to do in your life, you hop on here to attempt to “bully” the people here. Your idea of “fun” (which I assume assuaging boredom is) is to attempt to validate yourself by “bullying” others?

    A life lacking anything productive or meaningful, such that one attempts harassment and insulting behavior in efforts to achieve some sort of validation — is that not sad?

  23. 23
    AVS says:

    Don’t worry Erik, I’m not insecure in the slightest. And I don’t think there is any such research on “12 codes of DNA,” in fact I think it’s a pretty ridiculous claim. Shouldn’t be too hard to give me an example of some of the codes if there are supposedly so many of them. You should stop worrying about me, I have some time to kill and find toying with you idiots quite fun. Once again, if you’d like to talk about biology be my guest.

  24. 24
    TSErik says:

    You should stop worrying about me, I have some time to kill and find toying with you idiots quite fun.

    Then you’ve only validated my comments for any onlookers.

  25. 25
    AVS says:

    Did you want to talk about biology or are you just going to continue trying to validate yourself in front of all your friends here?

  26. 26
    TSErik says:

    Did you want to talk about biology or are you just going to continue trying to validate yourself in front of all your friends here?

    Hah! How original. It sounds as if you are simply repackaging my comments above and then using them (quite poorly) as your own salvo against me. I guess we can strip “creativity” and “self-awareness” from your resume.

    Go ahead and “talk about biology”. There are numerous threads discussing that very topic. This thread already has a settled topic. As such, if we’ve nothing left to contribute to it, perhaps it’s time to mosey on down to one where something can be contributed.

  27. 27
    AVS says:

    So you have absolutely nothing to say about biology, evolution, or ID? Is that because you know nothing about them, or because you are incapable of forming your own arguments?
    All you seem to want to talk about is me. Did you miss me that much? I mean I know I’m a great guy and all, but you don’t need to make it this obvious.

  28. 28
    Querius says:

    Geeze, AVS. Give it a rest!

    1. Outspoken about politics
    Puzzling. Can’t be good. Otherwise, it would have read, politically active, socially, responsible, or involved with the community.

    2. Gifted debater
    Again, sounds like the “wrong” side of the reporter’s bias.

    3. Very strong beliefs about gun laws
    Gun laws or gun rights? Reporter bias.

    4. Dedicated
    Dedicated to what?

    5. Bright
    Attended class. Turned in homework.

    6. From religious family that attends Bible study meetings
    Uh oh. Here it is. The person stopped attending Bible studies or church, but now Christianity must still be somehow slimed.

    I’d guess that this is an eco-terrorist minor from Colorado or Idaho.

    -Q

  29. 29
    scordova says:

    From the description above:

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

    The teenage gunman who entered Arapahoe High School on Friday afternoon and shot two fellow students with a shotgun was outspoken about politics, was a gifted debater and might have been bullied for his beliefs, according to students who knew him.

    Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson identified the gunman as Karl Pierson, an 18-year-old student.

    “He had very strong beliefs about gun laws and stuff,”


    Even before authorities named the gunman, friends and neighbors were in shock as word spread that Pierson was a dedicated, bright student from a religious family that attends Bible study meetings.

    In fact, if you note the sequence of the list above, it follows exactly the sequence of those words in the above article! 🙂 Coincidence?

    I have no formal method of calculating the odds of this coincidence, but there is something more than the question posed, but who posed it.

    Now if we assume we have the right Guy, Karl Pierson, we use the tidbits of the clues Barry gave us to glean more information:

    In one Facebook post, Pierson attacks the philosophies of economist Adam Smith, who through his invisible-hand theory pushed the notion that the free market was self-regulating. In another post, he describes himself as “Keynesian.”

    “I was wondering to all the neoclassicals and neoliberals, why isn’t the market correcting itself?” he wrote. “If the invisible hand is so strong, shouldn’t it be able to overpower regulations?”

    Pierson also appears to mock Republicans on another Facebook post, writing “you republicans are so cute” and posting an image that reads: “The Republican Party: Health Care: Let ’em Die, Climate Change: Let ’em Die, Gun Violence: Let ’em Die, Women’s Rights: Let ’em Die, More War: Let ’em Die. Is this really the side you want to be on?”

    So it seems he was a democrat.

  30. 30
    KRock says:

    C…

  31. 31
    Barry Arrington says:

    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.

  32. 32
    AVS says:

    Of course you got all C’s. Because everyone is unbiased in a public forum….haha yeah right.

  33. 33
    TimT says:

    A.

    Yes, I know I’m late, but I didn’t have time to reply earlier as I was heading off to church. Anyway, A was my answer before I read all the comments and still is now. The Bible study gives it away, as surveys show that Dems are more prone to ignore religious stuff. Just going with the odds.

  34. 34
    Neil Rickert says:

    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.

    It’s more likely that the reporter had limited time, so didn’t research this very well.

    “outspoken about politics” : that happens across the spectrum, though the right is noisier.

    “gifted debater”: it’s not clear what that means. Different folk have different ideas as to who is a gifted debater.

    “very strong beliefs about gun laws”: it did not say which side. I do think the pro-gun folk probably have stronger beliefs. But I see that more as an urban vs. rural, rather than as left vs. right.

    “dedicated” and “bright”: it’s hard to know what those mean.

    “from religious family that attends Bible study meetings”: the curious thing there, is that it does not say whether the person is religious. It only says that the person is from a religious family.

  35. 35
    jerry says:

    Is this media bias?

    http://www.mediaite.com/online.....l-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.

  36. 36
    scordova says:

    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.

  37. 37
    Barry Arrington says:

    No worries Sal.

  38. 38
    JGuy says:

    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. 😛 … among other possibilities.

  39. 39
    kairosfocus says:

    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.)

    KF

  40. 40
    kairosfocus says:

    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.

    KF

  41. 41
    kairosfocus says:

    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. KF

  42. 42
    Axel says:

    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.

  43. 43
    Axel says:

    A little something by David Berlinsky to cheer you up, AVS:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8

  44. 44
    gregastin says:

    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.

  45. 45
    AVS says:

    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.

  46. 46
    TSErik says:

    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.

  47. 47
    AVS says:

    Maybe that’s because I was commenting on a video post devoid of any scientific arguments.

  48. 48
    TSErik says:

    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.

  49. 49
    AVS says:

    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.

  50. 50
    Axel says:

    ‘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.

  51. 51
    AVS says:

    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.

  52. 52
    Axel says:

    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.

  53. 53
    AVS says:

    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.”

  54. 54
    velikovskys says:

    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 agree

  55. 55
    Axel says:

    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.

  56. 56
    AVS says:

    Humiliated by your lack of science knowledge or your attempts to have an argument about science despite your lack of scientific knowledge?

  57. 57
    Box says:

    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.

  58. 58
    AVS says:

    And to those with no knowledge in the biological sciences, which seems to include you and most of the people on here.

  59. 59
    Barb says:

    Don’t feed the troll, people.

  60. 60
    AVS says:

    Find that stick yet Barb?

  61. 61
    Barb says:

    Aren’t you just precious?

  62. 62
    AVS says:

    That’s what my mommy tells me.

  63. 63
    Robert Byers says:

    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!!

  64. 64

    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/new.....oting-bias

Leave a Reply