https://mobile.twitter.com/Ibrahimpols/status/1309879487832752135
Fuck this man, I hope he [************] Bastard
8 Likes
Wrong thread. Lol
Well Gorusch has a significant structural advantage in the sense that he has a penis.
Has anyone else elected besides Ted Cruz alluded to the supreme court deciding the election?
And Trump?
Lindsey Graham did as well i believe.
2 Likes
eeeew, a girl! Cooties!
4 Likes
Not a single one of these guys gets their jacket/shirt sleeve lengths properly tailored?
these guys are all buying off the rack at joey banks, they might get the pants hemmed and thatâs about it.
Itâs amazing that both justices Trump is appointing worked on the Bush legal team in 2000
Right, yeah I wondered about this when you posted it. Iâm pretty sure simpler priming stuff is still on firm ground. The Wikipedia example is this:
For example, the word NURSE is recognized more quickly following the word DOCTOR than following the word BREAD.
This seems obviously true. This is just a special case of the more general idea of salience. But it gets on less firm ground the more vague the âprimingâ gets and the more vague the response is. God knows where the dividing line is given frauds in the field.
I googled up an article on Diederik Stapel, the main fraudster, and:
Several times in our conversation, Stapel alluded to having a fuzzy, postmodernist relationship with the truth, which he agreed served as a convenient fog for his wrongdoings. âItâs hard to know the truth,â he said. âWhen somebody says, âI love you,â how do I know what it really means?â
I fucking hate people like this. This is why postmodernism needs to be drummed out of any discipline which pretends to be involved in the pursuit of reason. These sort of people arenât fucking interested in it.
1 Like
In his 2011 best-seller Thinking, Fast and Slow, Nobel-prizewinning psychologist Daniel Kahneman mentioned several of the best-known priming studies. âDisbelief is not an option,â he wrote of them. âThe results are not made up, nor are they statistical flukes. You have no choice but to accept that the major conclusions of these studies are true.â
Well now I feel a lot better about only making it through a few chapters of that book.
Also that year, three other researchers published a deliberately absurd finding: that those who listened to the Beatles song âWhen Iâm Sixty-Fourâ literally became younger than a control group that listened to a different song. They achieved this result by analysing their data in many different ways, getting a statistically significant result in one of them by simple fluke, and then not reporting the other attempts7. Such practices, they said, were common in psychology and allowed researchers to find whatever they wanted, given some noisy data and small sample sizes.
When I worked for a statistical consultant for major lawsuits, this is basically what we did - run 100 studies then show the one that makes the impact of smoking, or a bad ignition switch, look the least impactful.
We purposefully never told the big boss (who testified) about all the other studies. The two sides had some kind of gentlemenâs agreement that they wouldnât subpoena either sideâs minions who actually produced the studies - the persuasive statistics industry protecting its own.
2 Likes
There was only one major political figure around who actually didnât know all this stupid suit shit and you fuckers blew it.
Should probably excise this but Iâll try to be brief. In the end, I donât think it comes down to âsocialâ vs. ânon-socialâ priming. Instead, itâs underlying factors (e.g., research design) that tend to mostly exist in âsocialâ priming research, but those factors can just as easily lead to unreliable results in all priming research. This paper gets into the weeds:
https://psyarxiv.com/r7pd3/download?format=pdf
In other words, the studies described as âsocial primingâ by Schimmack et al. (2017) used between-subjects designs, whereas the studies considered to reflect non-social priming (i.e., semantic priming) used within-subjects designs. We propose that the key determinant of replicability is not whether the phenomenon is social or non-social, but is instead whether reported experiments had sufficient power to detect priming effectsâa factor that is inexorably linked to experimental design.
What I really donât understand is how law works as an academic domain. Is it really just deciphering some waspish reactionaryâs racist screed from one case and trying to fit it to contradictory self-serving logic from the same asshole in a different case? Because thatâs just astrology with robes.
1 Like
My impression is that constitutional law is like this because the Constitution is such a vague document. Probably not quite so bad with more precisely written statutes and case law.
Crazy question. Trump announced her, but did he formally send the nomination to the Senate?
Because if notâŚ
A lot of scenarios just opened up.
-
ACB likely exposed.
-
McConnell possibly exposed.
-
Several GOP senators likely exposed.
-
Did Trump formally nominate her and send it over to McConnell for confirmation? If not, holy shit.
I think 2 and 3 could create crazy scenarios where Democrats might get an insane opportunity to temporarily oust Mitch as speaker and block the confirmation. But Iâm not sure of the exact mechanics of that.