Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
O.k., let's say I presented my premise to you and I am asking you for a grant to prove my premise, what is your response here suggesting?
|
But you're not presenting a premise for grant approval (I'd tell you to take a grant writing class or hire a grant writer). You're presenting a premise as if it is already supported, when I think it's pretty clear that it's not. It's not a worthless premise, but as far as I can tell it doesn't have any basis in scientifically supported policy decisions.
Quote:
|
I think you purposefully have taken my point out of context and I wonder why? I never said that statistics are not important, did I. What I said was that there is a trap that people can fall into regarding the review and analysis of statistics. What I suggested was a need to dig down into the statistics and understand individual decision making. For example statistics involving how or why people involve themselves in public aid will always be problematic because in some cases answers could be self incriminating. A statistician needs to understand that and well as those relying on the data.
|
I didn't take your point out of context, I put it in context, that is to say, I put it into a context more associated with reality. As much as we'd all love to "understand individual decision making" to the extent that we can account for every eventuality, it's simply not possible. So statistics are used, because they can provide a moderately reliable way of predicting effects in lieu of more detailed information.
Quote:
First, to simplify - use the assumption all other things being equal, then let's look at the impact of variables. We also, know there are exceptions to the rules:
A young man with daily contact with his family where he works, provides, and sacrifices will have more or less of a connection?
A young man with all of the above who also make a commitment in front of his extended family, her extended family, society (through a marriage license), to his heritage (including religion), will have more or less of a connection?
It seems to me that you want me to suspend belief in what is rational. Seems to me that you won't accept the above unless you have some scientific or statistical proof. And you say it is a non-sequitur?
|
Do you just trade out people to argue here? Are there two or three of you?
In your previous post you were shocked, SHOCKED that I'd interpreted your words in the way that I did. Then, after I went back and showed you why I interpreted your words the way I did, you realize that, yes, I interpreted them correctly. So then you just continue on like you were never lost and I didn't have to remind you of what the hell you were talking about.
Quote:
|
A young man with daily contact with his family where he works, provides, and sacrifices will have more or less of a connection?
|
I don't know, is he abusive? Does he spend all of his free time at home arguing on the internet?
Quote:
|
A young man with all of the above who also make a commitment in front of his extended family, her extended family, society (through a marriage license), to his heritage (including religion), will have more or less of a connection?
|
I don't know, is he abusive? Does he spend all of his free time at home arguing on the internet?
Even then, you're original premise was that the father was willing to do all this, but, goshdarnit, he'd lose out on some government money and so he didn't. It seems like the guy in your original premise would be a great dad.
Quote:
|
It seems to me that you want me to suspend belief in what is rational.
|
I don't think your definition of rational is rational. Your actions in this conversation have convinced me (or reminded me, I guess) of this.
Quote:
|
Seems to me that you won't accept the above unless you have some scientific or statistical proof. And you say it is a non-sequitur?
|
I want you to go back and read what I was talking about when I mentioned the words "non sequitur," because in all your rational bluster you've clearly misread it. And I won't accept the above because it's counter to my experiences. And also that, analytically speaking, it wouldn't pass muster in an intro college english class. You make so many assumptions that it would take a considerably effort to list them all.