Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Poetry · 05-10-2011, 04:23 PM

Oh, god, too many quotes. I'm not using them to reply-- sorry, I'm a dick and am getting out of the office in ten minutes.

Means of reproduction did not hinge on rape, meaning that we could have children without rape.

However, rape was a necessary function to our current society and population distribution as we know it.

They're two separate ideas.

As for your reference to "today's society", you're being incredibly ethnocentric. What is "today's society"? Does "today's society" only include Western individualistic culture, or are we also including collectistic cultures (which have a radically different set of social values)? Does "today's society" include third world countries? If so, does being particularly good at performing infibulation count as a talent?

Universal laws are so much under debate that I could not genuinely give you one. I suggest Googling something like (sociology "universal laws") or ("universal laws" "human behavior"). Or if you have access to JSTOR, their library is amazing.

You don't care about behaviors?? This entire thread was started on evaluating behaviors. Check the OP.

You're trying to assign stats to talents like we're playing D&D. It doesn't work that way. We've established that some talents are good and others... not so much. How do you assign those values in a study? I'm specific because I've had to do this, because people think it's so easy to design some half-assed study because they want to know the answers or prove a point. So they do and then churn out some incredibly inaccurate information that they go screaming from the rooftops is the honest truth of the world and then people like Fox News and Yahoo! go putting it on the front page and warp the next generation.

Also, IQ tests are inherently flawed and were one of those piss-poor designs I mentioned in the above paragraph.

All the talents you listed (run-time, approach, fights) are all physical stats that can be improved with practice, not something that is necessarily going to be innate. Which leads them back to behaviors and personality traits along the lines of "desirous of personal growth" which others can read as "never self-satisfied" or "overachieving tendencies" (which are negative traits).

And I'm not arguing that we're all the same.

I'm just arguing that your blase approach to designing such a study and how easy it would be to determine talents and assign them values in such a way as to provide an accurate sense of a person's value with a total picture of each person shows a desperate need of education in the field of social science.

05-10-2011, 04:23 PM	#101 (permalink)
Poetry Crazy Location: Los Angeles, CA	Oh, god, too many quotes. I'm not using them to reply-- sorry, I'm a dick and am getting out of the office in ten minutes. Means of reproduction did not hinge on rape, meaning that we could have children without rape. However, rape was a necessary function to our current society and population distribution as we know it. They're two separate ideas. As for your reference to "today's society", you're being incredibly ethnocentric. What is "today's society"? Does "today's society" only include Western individualistic culture, or are we also including collectistic cultures (which have a radically different set of social values)? Does "today's society" include third world countries? If so, does being particularly good at performing infibulation count as a talent? Universal laws are so much under debate that I could not genuinely give you one. I suggest Googling something like (sociology "universal laws") or ("universal laws" "human behavior"). Or if you have access to JSTOR, their library is amazing. You don't care about behaviors?? This entire thread was started on evaluating behaviors. Check the OP. You're trying to assign stats to talents like we're playing D&D. It doesn't work that way. We've established that some talents are good and others... not so much. How do you assign those values in a study? I'm specific because I've had to do this, because people think it's so easy to design some half-assed study because they want to know the answers or prove a point. So they do and then churn out some incredibly inaccurate information that they go screaming from the rooftops is the honest truth of the world and then people like Fox News and Yahoo! go putting it on the front page and warp the next generation. Also, IQ tests are inherently flawed and were one of those piss-poor designs I mentioned in the above paragraph. All the talents you listed (run-time, approach, fights) are all physical stats that can be improved with practice, not something that is necessarily going to be innate. Which leads them back to behaviors and personality traits along the lines of "desirous of personal growth" which others can read as "never self-satisfied" or "overachieving tendencies" (which are negative traits). And I'm not arguing that we're all the same. I'm just arguing that your blase approach to designing such a study and how easy it would be to determine talents and assign them values in such a way as to provide an accurate sense of a person's value with a total picture of each person shows a desperate need of education in the field of social science. __________________ "You know what? Fuck the moon! He controls our water and our women. I've had enough!"