drumbo

This is great news for the Republicans. I am sorry that a human being died, but everyone dies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPIdRJlzERo

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Not even that. Let grandma play in the road. Even then she’d be safe in most cases. You can drive around her. The premise that driving a car one time mandates his specific grandmas death underlies his entire point and is absurd.

The specific is a pivot to the general unless you are selfish. It surely mandates someone's grandma's death, and you should not care less if she isn't your grandma. Answer the question, would you be OK with it if your grandma died? I ignored the rest of your post since it's riddled with excessive paranoia.

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

The one thing all life has in common is that it eventually ends. 

I’ll repeat my previous point. This is just stupid trolling. 

You do not have the right to determine when someone else's life should end. Your freedoms end where other people's safety begins. Grandma may not want to die yet, and you do not have the right to put her in danger for your own personal convinience.

2 minutes ago, OldChemE said:

Being alive is dangerous.  What value is there in living if one cannot enjoy life in the manner they prefer, within the bounds of behavior permitted by society??  Total Deaths in 2018 were over 2 million.  Motor vehicles are a minor component of the risk of living.

Even one death is too many. Would you still be OK with it if your grandma died because a motor vehicle was being operated by an everyday schmuck? Only trained professionals should be allowed to operate these dangerous machines.

Keep in mind that drivers licenses can be gotten by people who have questionable skill. I failed my driving test 4 times in a row before I got it, and I also lied by saying I had the required 10 hours of experience driving on the highway when I did not.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Until something happens to change the actual cause, which renders the correlation moot.

I agree with this, but from a game theoretic perspective it is in our best interest then to assume that the correlation has merit. If the correlation has no predictive value then I have discriminated unjustly, but there is little harm to myself, however it does then I have potentially avoided harm.

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

As a sidenote, the highest fatalities (and again, I do not think that this is really that important) are found a) among men in each age group (difference range from 57-75% of all fatalities per age group) and while the group of over 65 year old males are overrepresented, it is even worse for age groups 16-25. Using that logic we basically should only let women between 31 and 60 drive cars.

This is a popular misconception. Crashes involving two female drivers were overrepresented in five of six crash scenarios, including two by at least 50 percent more and two others by more than 25 percent greater than what was expected. The highest fatalities are found among men because men drive about 60 percent of annual miles and women drive 40 percent, and therefore men would be expected to be involved in a higher percentage of crashes for each scenario, road conditions and driving skills being equal.

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

I live five miles from the nearest town. Only the last half mile is on a bus route. Half of the distance is on a single track, extremely risky for cyclists. My health precludes me from walking the four miles, then returning carrying groceries. My finances preclude routine use of a taxi. Do you feel my use of a motor vehicle is immoral?

This is a miscalculation. You can buy groceries in bulk so that you are set for at least 2-4 weeks. Taking a taxi or an Uber once every 2-4 weeks is much less expensive than owning a car.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Finding out if those correlations are causal

Unnecessary. It is sufficient to establish that a statistically significant correlation exists in order to make valid predictions. For example, I can notice that crime rates are higher in neighborhood A than neighborhood B, and even if no causal relationship between crime rates and the neighborhoods can be established, I can still lower my risk level by simply avoiding that neighborhood.

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is just stupid trolling 

The use of the phrase common peasants was tongue in cheek, but I assure you I am serious. Most people do not need to own a car. It is wasteful and frankly dangerous.

Sometimes on the subway we see people behaving in a rude manner, e.g. blaring music from their phone without headphones. When this happens I take a look at the offender and take note of all of their qualities, including their haircut, facial features, and clothing. My brain then associates all of those qualities with bad people so that I can avoid them. Is this a reliable way of avoiding bad people, or are the correlations drawn invalid?

If you believe that everyday people should be allowed to operate motor vehicles then you are enabling immoral behavior. There were 36,560 motor vehicle deaths in the United States in 2018. There are far safer methods of transportation; including subways, buses, trains, planes, and bicycles. Those methods do not involve allowing common peasants to operate a machine weighing thousands of pounds that can reach speeds of over 100 mph.

Older drivers, particularly those aged 75+, have higher crash death rates than middle-aged drivers (aged 35-54). If you are in favor of allowing common folk to operate motor vehicles then I have to ask, are you OK with letting your grandma die in a motor vehicle accident?

Imagine a stone age level of human development.

Assume that there were two genotypes of male:

1. Men of genotype A whom are more feminine - They tend to focus on clerical tasks and avoid risk - They have low mortality rates
2. Men of genotype B whom are more masculine - They tend to focus on tasks requiring strength, aggression, and risk taking - They have high mortality rates

Note that the prevalence of a genotype in a population can only increase if its reproductive rate exceeds its mortality rate. Therefore if the prevalence of genotype B is to increase in the population then men of genotype B must have higher reproductive success than men of genotype A in order to compensate for the higher mortality rate of men of genotype B.

Now assume that there were four tribes in close proximity to one another:

1. In tribe 1 90% of the men were of genotype A, and 10% were of genotype B - In this tribe women were genetically predispositioned to highly prefer men of genotype A
2. In tribe 2 75% of the men were of genotype A, and 25% were of genotype B - In this tribe women were genetically predispositioned to have no net preference (the higher mortality rate of men of genotype B would cause their prevalence to drop over time)
3. In tribe 3 10% of the men were of genotype A, and 90% were of genotype B - In this tribe women were genetically predispositioned to highly prefer men of genotype B
4. In tribe 4 50% of the men were of genotype A, and 50% were of genotype B - In this tribe women were genetically predispositioned to slightly (to compensate for the higher mortality rate of men of genotype B) prefer men of genotype B

Now in tribes 1 and 2 things are nice and peaceful, the feminized men get along and build a harmonious and well functioning society. However in tribe 3 things are not so peaceful, there is constant infighting and aggression. Tribe 3 starts lashing out and attacking tribes 1, 2, and 4. Unfortunately the men in tribes 1 and 2 are too soft and feminine, and they are unable to defend themselves. However since tribe 4 has a decent amount of men of genotype B they successfully defend themselves and survive.

The conclusion is that tribes of women who were genetically predispositioned to highly prefer men of genotype A or have no net preference at all would tend to overproduce those men and the tribe would subsequently be wiped out, women who were genetically predispositioned to highly prefer men of genotype B would overproduce those men and the infighting would cause the tribe to fail and splinter, and finally tribes of women who were genetically predispositioned to slightly prefer men of genotype B in order to compensate for the higher mortality rate of those men would have the best chances of survival.

Therefore most women must be primarily descended from tribes of type 4, and women must have a slight overall preference for men of genotype B.

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

“it is well known’ is poor science. This will not fly. Do better.

 

From the Jones, Hahn, Fisher et.al article No Compelling Evidence that Preferences for Facial Masculinity Track Changes in Women’s Hormonal Status (2018)

Quote

Although widely cited as strong evidence that sexual selection has shaped human facial-attractiveness judgments, findings suggesting that women’s preferences for masculine characteristics in men’s faces are related to women’s hormonal status are equivocal and controversial. Consequently, we conducted the largest-ever longitudinal study of the hormonal correlates of women’s preferences for facial masculinity (N = 584). Analyses showed no compelling evidence that preferences for facial masculinity were related to changes in women’s salivary steroid hormone levels. Furthermore, both within-subjects and between-subjects comparisons showed no evidence that oral contraceptive use decreased masculinity preferences. However, women generally preferred masculinized over feminized versions of men’s faces, particularly when assessing men’s attractiveness for short-term, rather than long-term, relationships. Our results do not support the hypothesized link between women’s preferences for facial masculinity and their hormonal status.

And even more curiously from 2019 by Marcinkowska et.al. women’s preferences for men’s facial masculinity are strongest under favorable ecological conditions:

Quote

The strength of sexual selection on secondary sexual traits varies depending on prevailing economic and ecological conditions. In humans, cross-cultural evidence suggests women’s preferences for men’s testosterone dependent masculine facial traits are stronger under conditions where health is compromised, male mortality rates are higher and economic development is higher. Here we use a sample of 4483 exclusively heterosexual women from 34 countries and employ mixed effects modelling to test how social, ecological and economic variables predict women’s facial masculinity preferences. We report women’s preferences for more masculine looking men are stronger in countries with higher sociosexuality and where national health indices and human development indices are higher, while no associations were found between preferences and indices of intra-sexual competition. Our results show that women’s preferences for masculine faces are stronger under conditions where offspring survival is higher and economic conditions are more favorable.

According to the Pew Research Center 61% of U.S. women say ‘feminist’ describes them well.

From that can we assume that 61% of women should prefer feminine men, but that is obviously not the case. Therefore the incongruity does exist and must be explained.

It is well known that most women prefer men that prominently express masculine secondary sex characteristics, and it is also patently true that men are a class of humans who do not bear children. Therefore if women's sexual preferences are a reflection of which traits are optimal in men we must assume they are also a reflection of which traits are optimal in a class of humans who do not bear children. Therefore if feminists believe that feminine traits are not suboptimal for tasks not related to bearing children then they should prefer feminine men, but women generally do not. How can feminists reconcile the incongruity between women's sexual preferences and their position that femininity is not suboptimal?

Working memory has been found to be strongly predictive of intelligence. From Schneider and Niklas "Intelligence and Verbal Short-Term Memory/Working Memory: Their Interrelationships from Childhood to Young Adulthood and Their Impact on Academic Achievement" (2017):

Quote

Although recent developmental studies exploring the predictive power of intelligence and working memory (WM) for educational achievement in children have provided evidence for the importance of both variables, findings concerning the relative impact of IQ and WM on achievement have been inconsistent. Whereas IQ has been identified as the major predictor variable in a few studies, results from several other developmental investigations suggest thatWMmay be the stronger predictor of academic achievement. In the present study, data from the Munich Longitudinal Study on the Genesis of Individual Competencies (LOGIC) were used to explore this issue further. The secondary data analysis included data from about 200 participants whose IQ and WM was first assessed at the age of six and repeatedly measured until the ages of 18 and 23. Measures of reading, spelling, and math were also repeatedly assessed for this age range. Both regression analyses based on observed variables and latent variable structural equation modeling (SEM) were carried out to explore whether the predictive power of IQ and WM would differ as a function of time point of measurement (i.e., early vs. late assessment). As a main result of various regression analyses, IQ and WM turned out to be reliable predictors of academic achievement, both in early and later developmental stages when previous domain knowledge was not included as additional predictor. The latter variable accounted for most of the variance in more comprehensive regression models, reducing the impact of both IQ and WM considerably. Findings from SEM analyses basically confirmed this outcome, indicating IQ impacts on educational achievement in the early phase, and illustrating the strong additional impact of previous domain knowledge on achievement at later stages of development.

The chimp test is known to measure working memory. I tried the chimp test on humanbenchmark and got a score of 13 which corresponded to the 88.7th percentile:

I figure people who have played chess for a long time can also use their ELO scores as a measurement of how smart they are. I have been playing chess for 13 years and my ELO on LiChess corresponds to the 77th percentile:

Averaging these two percentiles gives 82.85%, which corresponds to an IQ of 114-115 assuming a normal distribution with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. This seems quite accurate to me based on my personal experiences. What do you think about the validity of measuring your IQ in this way?

Edit: A bit more information to help diagnose the cause of my poor visual memory; I tried the full scale IQ test on the openpsychometrics website and did well on the spatial portion:

How can we explain the inconsistency between my poor performance on the visual memory test and my strong performance on the spatial test, wouldn't those be related?

I tried the tests on humanbenchmark and I am satisfied that my scores are representative of how well I can do without excessive training which would invalidate their validity. I have quite a low score in the visual memory section, and I don't think it's possible for me to do any better. I am frankly amazed that people are able to do better on the visual memory test than I am. I was not aware that you people are so good at remembering where where a bunch of squares are. What does it mean that I cannot do well on this test? On a side note my hearing score is poor because I listened to extremely loud music at a bar one night a couple of years ago and it gave me mild tinnitus which I still have, take care of your ears people.

What's especially interesting is that the distribution of the scores seems to be bimodal. What's up with that?

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Distance is relative. It depends on the frame in which it is measured.

Ok. It appears I understand even less about relativity than I thought. I'll take a few days to read an introductory book.

11 hours ago, md65536 said:

Earth would also measure the distance traveled as much greater too (10 LY * gamma = 22.94 LY), and the speed would still be .9 c

I don't quite follow this. How can the distance traveled not be the same in all reference frames? If we measure from Earth that the destination is 10 LY away then John will have overshot his destination if he travels 22.94 LY.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

You insist that NLR > 0, and then ask if it is. If you don’t know, don’t assert.

The assertion was contingent on the equation:

being incorrect which is the question, if the equation is incorrect the assertion must be true.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

What useful information do you expect?

Measuring the NLR may allow us to map out the convexity of space-time and discover its shape.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

Define “best”

The ideal fuel should be:

• widely available
• safe to use by a layman
• cheap
• portable
• low in the production of toxic waste as a byproduct
• high in potential energy that can be released per unit mass

Fossil fuels satisfy all of these requirement like no other fuel does. Fossil are a dream, they are perfect. God must have put it here for us to use, how else can you explain its perfection?

2 hours ago, joigus said:

Solar wind is mainly made up of protons, electrons and Helium nuclei from reactions in the Sun.

How could that spray of particles essentially modify the orbit of an asteroid/meteorite/comet?

Protons and helium nuclei have mass which means they can impart momentum just like air molecules can impart momentum despite their small size:

2 hours ago, joigus said:

And if it did, why would it favour a miss instead of a collision or any other range of impact parameters?

The solar wind radiates a current past the Earth and towards the asteroid and Kuiper belts which slows down objects originating from those belts and ultimately blows them away:

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Sure we can, survive...

If that were true we'd have it already...

The problem is, the wealthy can't imagine why it's a good idea to keep people alive with money to spend. 🙄

I think the wealthy want the poor to breed in great numbers since that would provide a large supply of surplus labor which cannot do much beyond menial labor which drives down their wages. The wealthy wisely have fewer children which ensures the jobs which the wealthy tend to do will have a lower supply of candidates in the next generation, increasing their own earnings. If you are innately smarter and more dominant it may actually be wise to avoid having too many bastard children lest you dilute your advantage by sharing your precious DNA.

The best way to generate energy is to burn fossil fuels.

It has been well observed that every country which has pursued the empowerment of women has seen their fertility rates drop. This is to be expected, as women spend more time in school and the workplace they enhance their ability to provide for themselves and become less dependent on men. Less dependence on men leads to a slower rate of relationship formation and subsequent childbirths, and I have even observed that the quality of men that women are choosing has increased recently. There are many inadequate men today who are unable to find a woman as a partner since women's standards have increased in lockstep with their status in society. Socialism also allows women to become less dependent on men. In order to reduce the fertility rate globally we should spread feminism and socialism to the furthest extent possible.

On 8/21/2020 at 10:29 AM, paulsutton said:

Would a universal basic income be far better for society,  ?

We can't even identify what the goals of society are so we are moving forward blindly. But yes I think basic income makes sense to just about everyone. People who have great empathy and concern for others regardless of where it leads will always support basic income, and clinical robot eugenicists will probably also support it since giving the poor more money slows their breeding.