Republican Senator Tom Coburn has issued a report on waste in government — a two hundred page report of excessive spending in the millions and as small as $300. As a former intern for Sen. William Proxmire (D., Wis.) who used to issue his Golden Fleece Award, I always find such reports interesting. However, one small item caught my eye: $30,000 to the University of Washington and Cornell University for a study that proved that “Gaydar” actually exists. Of course, you might ask why the government has an interest in such a study but do not be surprised if the next DoD budget has $30 billion in research and development of a stealth gay project for the evasion of Gaydar.
The National Science Foundation contributed $30,000 to fund a study done by the University of Washington and Cornell University to measure “Gaydar.” They found it to be 60 percent accurate. That is only 10 percent over a random 50-50 bet, it would seem. However, the result were considered significant. According to the Science Daily, the study found “After seeing faces for less than a blink of an eye, college students have accuracy greater than mere chance in judging others’ sexual orientation.” The authors argue that this may assist in establishing the basis for discrimination claims.
The study involved 129 college students who were given 96 photos each of young adult men and women. Notably, the selection of gay women showed a higher percentage of accuracy: 65 percent. Even when the faces were flipped upside down, participants were 61 percent accurate in telling the gay and straight women apart. That means, that we can still peg the sexual preference of “Silly Sally” even after she “Went to Town Walking Backwards Upside Down.”
For men, the accuracy rate was only 57 percent. So there you have it. I am just not sure what it is except that I am pretty sure we could have used the money better in adding more science books in one of our struggling public schools. This is particularly the case when the limitations of the study are considered. Even assuming that this is a valuable exercise for federal funding, the subjects were shown simply still pictures of individuals. These pictures were further made more uniform by removing facial hair and other characteristics. I am not sure how such a display offers a real measure. Of course, the researchers could note that the percentage of accuracy is all the more remarkable given the lack of such distinguishing characteristics or the use of moving images.
Here is one serious concern that I have. The study actually shows slightly over random selection for males and a bit better for women. However, while I see the marginal value for a discrimination lawsuit (though I am skeptical of its admissibility in a given case), it also will likely reinforce the belief of many (including many homophobes) that they can tell someone is gay. Such suspicions are often wrong and based on stereotypes. From secondary school to employment environments, people are often subject to such rumors or harassment. I take from this study that there is actually a high level of inaccuracy in such assumptions.
I do not object to the universities pursuing such research. This is a major social and political segment of our population and the perception of the sexual orientation of individuals has, as the authors note, significance in a variety of different contexts. However, there is a legitimate question of whether public funds are justified.
Source: Townhall
Enoch:
quit with the psychotherapy. People do that enough around here.
I was hoping for more than that. It didnt take you too long either.
Gene is a trained lawyer and is very good at debate, nerve fraying actually. I was hoping you could take him mano a mano without too much invective.
I guess farm boys arent as tough anymore. And I did have such high hopes, sigh.
Bron,
You’re welcome.
Gene H:
thanks.
Enoch,
You said pragmatism isn’t a philosophy as a statement of fact. It was a statement proven flatly wrong, but if you want to take up the issue with Stanford’s Philosophy Department, I’m sure they’d be happy to laugh in your face and call you an imbecile (no extra charge). A semantic defense won’t be effective either. Your statement was clear: “Pragmatism is not a philosophy, Gene”. There was no ambiguity. Subject, verb, negative modifier, article, adjective. It’s a basic sentence. A fourth grader could diagram it out. It also happens to be factually wrong. You might have been right, but you weren’t even close. At least according to Stanford. So who am I going to believe about whether pragmatism is a philosophy? A bunch of philosophy professors or a self-proclaimed redneck farmer? Hmmmmm. That’s a really tough call. Or not.
Also, all caps is SHOUTING ON THE INTERNET. It’s a common and well known convention that is the very portrait of common knowledge among the computer literate. You must be new to this trolling on the Intertubes thingy. In addition, italics are perfectly available. That you’re not smart enough to use them is another issue altogether.
As to your “definitive” sources? If Murray on Contracts – a law treatise widely considered to be the authoritative treatise on the subject – and references to authors of primary sources on the subject of social compacts doesn’t meet your satisfaction then I suggest there is another legal concept you don’t have a clue about and that is “best evidence”. Yeah, yeah, you tried to address the argument, but I’m perfectly content to let the audience decide which are the best evidence between the dictionary or a well respected law treatise and Stanford’s Philosophy Department. Because unlike you, many reading here do understand the concept of best evidence. Legal blog! Duh! You haven’t bested anyone or anything except in your own mind as an evidentiary matter. You can’t come back with a cogent counterargument, instead relying on a steady stream of logical fallacies ranging from red herrings to loaded questions to incomplete comparisons to equivocation to semantic argument, etc. (Ed. Note: previous list was not comprehensively inclusive.)
At every turn, you’ve been proven wrong and then stood proudly upon your illogic and inferior evidence to proclaim your victory. See, that’s the intellectually dishonest and ethically bankrupt tactics favored propagandists and their trolls. A continuing series of articles are published here on that very subject: the nature, methodology and psychology of propaganda. A very large segment of this audience is inoculated against such tactics by being made aware of them. Someone who has read those materials could diagram out your tactics as easily as your declarative sentence about pragmatism could be diagrammed by the aforementioned rhetorical fourth grader. I’m sure you think you’re a genius and winning this argument, but you’re probably the only one. Most are probably laughing at you. Not with you but at you. Because you’re funny. Not in the “ha ha” way so much as in the “awwwww” way. Bless your heart.
Well, there is Bron. But he cheerleads anyone who argues against me because of personal reasons so that doesn’t really count. I could be arguing orange sherbet is orange flavored and he’d either disagree or side with the person disagreeing.
“You also did remark, ‘This is a legal blog. The law and jurisprudence is going to enter in to the conversation whether you like it or not.’ Again, you are not discrete. Because it is a legal blog, and law and jurisprudence must necessarily enter, it does not follow that philosophy of law, the philosophy of rights, etc., are not foundational. …or do you propose that the law is not the practical expression of the academic ideal, that our laws are divorced and independent of philosophical premises?”
It’s not my fault that your attempts to confine the scope failed miserably. Nice straw man you are trying to build there. I never said anything was divorced from anything, only indirectly that your attempt at narrowing the scope was going to fail. You, however, are divorced from logic and having a clue as to what you are talking about in general. And by nice straw man I mean really pathetic and weak.
Now the fun part!
Oooo. And now I’m crazy because I’ve proven you wrong. That’s got to be the only explanation of my simply not accepting what you say as golden truths and without challenge. That’s just adorable trollery we’ve all seen before. Just as I am not concerned about your opinion on my intelligence, I’m even less concerned about your opinion on my sanity because just like my intelligence, I have a realistic assessment of my sanity that is based on metrics far more valued and reliable than your manifestly uninformed and layman opinion. In fact, one of our regular posters is a well respected forensic psychologist. I’m sure he’d weigh in on my mental health being robust and free from major defect. Another regular poster was a long time psychiatric social worker. While not the same kind of psychological professional as a forensic psychologist, he is quite familiar with the standard diagnostic criteria and far better acquainted with me than you are. I’m sure they would concur. But your diagnosis of NPD? Hardly. Just to be clear and because you really don’t know who (or what) you are dealing with, I don’t think anyone is special including myself. I’m am a staunch egalitarian. And as for admiration? I care what a very limited number of people think about me and they are some of my family and most of my friends. But you specifically and in general? I don’t care if you even like me or not, much less admire me.
So even if I do posses a common number of neuroses (and everyone got at least one), I’m far from insane and NPD is right out as a diagnosis. The tactic as applied by you is not only ineffective, but amateurish in execution. It was a fine example of the actual fallacy of ad hominem though in that it was a really lame attempt to undermine a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. Well, in all fairness, you tried to address the argument proper, you just did a terrible job of it so I guess the NPD bit could just be because you’re a pseudo-intellectual dick lashing out because you can’t accept that no one is buying what you are selling and you’re getting a far pointier end of the stick here than you yourself are capable of delivering. It’s not as if you’d use a logical fallacy in your defense/rebuttal. (Pssst! That last bit was sarcasm.)
Thanks for the hearty laugh over lunch though.
Gene,
“Amphiboly – That kind of ambiguity in which the linguistic context allows an expression to be taken in more than one way. […]” (Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Oxford/NY Oxford University Press, 1995).
“prag·ma·tism noun \ˈprag-mə-ˌti-zəm\ Definition of PRAGMATISM 1:
a practical approach to problems and affairs .” (merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pragmatism)
“Pragmatism – 1. Officiousness; pedantry; 2. matter-of-fact treatment of things 1872. [….]” (Oxford Universal Dictionary, 1955 ed.)
(…and back to amphiboly…) ” – 3 Fallacies of Ambiguity: Table of Fallacies of Ambiguity; Amphiboly, An ambiguity caused by sentence structure .” (“With Good Reason,” S.M. Engle, St. Martin’s Press, NY, 1994).
“Care to be factually wrong about something else? You seem to be very good at doing that. As for the rest of your blather?”
I might be, if I had been.
“Ooo. Shouting.”
Does it mark you as a narcissist or psychotic that you believe YOUR construction determines reality, Gene? I use “caps” in place of italics: caps are available, italics are not – and if you’ve ever read a court’s opinion, you’d know that typographical emphases are something very different from “shouting”.
“compact legal definition – noun: An agreement between two or more parties, especially between states or a treaty between countries.” (law.yourdictionary.com/compact). The social contract is not among states or countries. At best, your use of that term is uninformed; at worst, simply wrong. Regardless, let me remind you of the definitions of privity – “A legally recognized relationship of interest of two parties” (law.yourdictionary.com/privity); “Any relation between two parties recognized by law” (Oxford Universal Dictionary, 1955 ed.).
“Care to be factually wrong about something else? You seem to be very good at doing that. As for the rest of your blather?” Gene, it should have been me asking that of you.
I asked, ““And, by the way, this is a discussion of philosophy […],” to which you replied, “No. You think it is a discussion of philosophy, but that would be your mistake.”
You also did remark, “This is a legal blog. The law and jurisprudence is going to enter in to the conversation whether you like it or not.” Again, you are not discrete. Because it is a legal blog, and law and jurisprudence must necessarily enter, it does not follow that philosophy of law, the philosophy of rights, etc., are not foundational. …or do you propose that the law is not the practical expression of the academic ideal, that our laws are divorced and independent of philosophical premises?
Regarding leading and loaded questions, I haven’t asked either until you demonstrate the contrary – and you haven’t. Quibbling about the form of my questions, rather than demonstrating the leading OR loaded nature of them, is a diversion from the matter at hand: if my questions were stacked or biased in any way. Must I also cite the definition of a red herring for you?
Gene, at every turn, I’ve been able to bring independent sources of good repute that demonstrate the errors of your posts. It wasn’t my definition of the ad hominem as logical fallacy that proved you wrong, it was Oxford’s, Engles’; it wasn’t my definition of privity that proved you wrong, it (again) Oxford’s, and 3 other on-line references that did; it wasn’t my definition of compact that proved you wrong (again!), it was another on-line, legal dictionary that did.
And, somehow, you seem to believe that you are right, and they – not I – am wrong.
I have one more definition for you in that case, Gene…
“Narcissistic personality disorder – Definition (By Mayo Clinic staff):
Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that they’re superior to others and have little regard for other people’s feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.” (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652)
Bron,
Often when you see an instance were a judge modifies a jury verdict, that is what is being done. Sometimes it is an equitable modification, sometimes it’s a judge overreaching (sometimes even acting improperly), but that’s why there is an appeals process. Most commonly equity becomes an issue at the sentencing hearing though and is sorted out there. This is at the heart of the idea of mandatory minimum sentencing and the arguments against it too. MM’s remove any discretion the courts may have in formulating an equitable solution.
Gene H:
“At common law, equity matters were once tried by separate systems and that important focus on equity in solutions is still applied today under the general maxim that in matters of common law if there is a conflict between the law and equity, equity prevails.”
How does that work?
“Pragmatism is not a philosophy, Gene” – enochwisner
Really.
“Pragmatism was a philosophical tradition that originated in the United States around 1870. The most important of the ‘classical pragmatists’ were Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914), William James (1842–1910) and John Dewey (1859-1952). The influence of pragmatism declined during the first two thirds of the twentieth century, but it has undergone a revival since the 1970s with philosophers being increasingly willing to use the writings and ideas of the classical pragmatists, and also a number of thinkers, such as Richard Rorty, Hilary Putnam and Robert Brandom developing philosophical views that represent later stages of the pragmatist tradition. The core of pragmatism was the pragmatist maxim, a rule for clarifying the contents of hypotheses by tracing their ‘practical consequences’. In the work of Peirce and James, the most influential application of the pragmatist maxim was to the concept of truth. But the pragmatists have also tended to share a distinctive epistemological outlook, a fallibilist anti-Cartesian approach to the norms that govern inquiry.” – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatism/
Care to be factually wrong about something else? You seem to be very good at doing that. As for the rest of your blather?
I don’t give a damn what you do, Enoch.
I’m going to do whatever I want regardless of your actions.
“In reference to a party to the social CONTRACT, Gene, “privity” is PRECiSELY the correct legal term to denote that relationship.”
Ooo. Shouting. Very nice. Everyone knows shouting make you right. Also, I use the word compact for a very specific reason. Although in the study of law both social compact and social contract are used, I specifically use compact to differentiate a social compact from contracts because they are distinct albeit related creatures. Compacts operate at a national and/or state level and do not always follow the same rules or analytical framework as commercial contracts. I guess they didn’t teach you that at Fred’s Mobile Law School down by the river. Again, this issue was addressed in the aforementioned column you are apparently too stupid or too intransigent to read.
Apparently you don’t know what a straw man is either. Speaking of straw men . . .
“You have complained that I have asked, “leading questions”.”
No. What I said was you posed loaded questions. If I had meant leading questions I would have said leading questions, but I didn’t, I said loaded ergo your contention about leading questions is a material misrepresentation of what I said made for the purpose of attacking it, i.e. a straw man. A leading question suggests a particular answer and/or contains the information the examiner is looking to have confirmed. They may or may not be proper. Contrast this with a loaded question which contain implicit assumptions. Such as the assumption of privity being a proper term of art in framing social compact analysis when it really isn’t and is a weak analogy at best. This is a matter of jurisprudential fact. That you keep insisting you are using correct terminology when you are not is not only repetitive, it’s really funny.
Also, if your are going to adopt an argument based in a property interest whether it is directly based in Rand or not it is still going to garner much of the same criticism as if it were.
“And, by the way, this is a discussion of philosophy, not political science, the relevant distinction being there are no national boundaries to flee for better terms in philosophy.”
No. You think it is a discussion of philosophy, but that would be your mistake. This is a legal blog. The law and jurisprudence is going to enter in to the conversation whether you like it or not. If you want to argue solely philosophy, this is the wrong forum for you. But that’s fairly apparent for many reasons.
Also, repeating the same error doesn’t make you right or prove your case.
It just makes you repetitive.
Try again.
Your staggering ignorance and pathetic argumentation skills are quite amusing. Be forewarned though. I have several things to do later today that is more important than giving a troll the smack down. Be sure to take that chance to declare your victory. It makes no difference.
It would seem the audience is not coming to the same conclusions you are vis a vis the burdens of proof and persuasion.
I really hope you are a better farmer than you are rhetorician and logician.
Some people are impatient with what Kant, discussing the same topics, might have called a “metaphysic of the groundwork of rights”. I am [not].
Gene,
The post, above, was one written before your 8:42 post. It does not address your comments re. utility because it was written before them.
Pragmatism is not a philosophy, Gene – this is one of the more damning indictments (in the vernacular meaning of the word) of Machiavelli’s. “The Prince:” his advice takes no account of ethics wherever the desired outcome is better pursued by merely “pragmatic” means.
Perhaps (and this may be a more benign account of the distance between us) you are not inclined to discuss a philosophical account of rights, the social contract and their entailments. Some people are impatient with what Kant, discussing the same topics, might have called a “metaphysic of the groundwork of rights”. I am.
With regard to whether or not I think I present a challenge to you, I don’t believe it was I who first addressed you in a personal vein. Very honestly, I find the philosophy of rights more than challenging enough to find it necessary – or even much fun – to compound it with challenges to the person with whom I correspond, too. Someone commented that “farm boys” aren’t known from shrinking from a fight; and, if that is a stereotype, it is at least apt in my case: I’m happy to “duke it out” with you, if that’s your pleasure. Well, it may be your pleasure, but I can’t find any basis for hoping that the pleasure will be particularly productive or enlightening, either for your or for me.
I’ll wait for your reply to this post before writing any more of my own, even in reply to any you may post in the mean time.
[lottakatz – Thanks. I had included 3 links. Let’s see how this works with them disabled.]
Gene,
[If the original of this post was suspended automatically, because 3 links were embedded, I owe you an apology. I have no qualms about hitting a man fairly, but I truly am sorry to make a causeless, false swing at someone. Believe me or not, accept my apology or not, I am sincerely sorry for wrongfully disparaging you.]
Straw men don’t work. Not to scare away crows from the corn, and not to distract attention from ignorance.
Well above here, I wrote: “Regarding the social contract, thank you. Now, would you be kind enough to give an account of ‘mutually derived benefits,’ and how they differ from persistent interests of those in privity.”
It’s peculiar that you would take exception to my use of the word, “privity,” in connection with the metaphor, “[social] contract”. I gave you the Oxford definition: “From the Oxford Universal Dictionary, 1955 ed.,: ‘privity – 5. law; Any relation between two parties recognized by law’.” The the metaphor, “privity,” is in no way misplaced in the context of the antecedent metaphor, “contract” – in fact, the two exactly agree: in legal usage, any two parties in contractual relationship are in privity.
But still you pummel a straw man. So, in addition to the Oxford Universal Dictionary, I give you http://law.yourdictionary.com/privity: “privity legal definition – noun; A legally recognized relationship of interest of two parties, be it in a transaction, a piece of property, or a proceeding; privity of contract – The relationship between the two parties to a contract that confers a right to take action on the contract;’ and, //….lectlaw.com/def2/p165.htm: “.PRIVITY OF CONTRACT. The relation which subsists between two contracting parties;” and, //thelawdictionary.org/privity/: “Privity of contract is that connection or relationship which exists between two or more contracting parties.”
In reference to a party to the social CONTRACT, Gene, “privity” is PRECiSELY the correct legal term to denote that relationship.
I – or, rather, Oxford and Engle – have demonstrated your ignorance regarding the logical fallacy of the ad hominem. Oxford, law.yourdictionary.com, lectlaw.com and thelawdictionary.org have all demonstrated your ignorance regarding privity in connection with contracts – Gene, on every substantive swing you’ve taken, the best authorities in print have shot you down. You’ve been dead wrong each time.
You were right about my misspelling of the proper noun, Rawls. The error is hardly substantive, Gene. If not for my computer’s internal dictionary, I probably would have misspelled every third word I’ve written to you. I know you’ll try to make some manner of “gothcha” with that admission, but that would be a pathetic alternative to actually addressing the original question.
You have wasted word after word after word, disparaging Ayn Rand and her notion of “objectivism” – except, I’m not an “objectivist,” and you admit, yourself, you have no basis in fact to argue otherwise. You wrote all those words only for yourself, Gene. If they comforted you somehow, I’m happy for you.
You have complained that I have asked, “leading questions”. I invited you to cut-and-paste some examples, but you haven’t. Perhaps you’re afraid to discover that your understanding of “leading question” is as flawed as your understanding of privity and ad hominem?
As for problems with the notion of, “the greatest good for the greatest number”, what happens when the mean average baseline of that good is below the baseline for subsistence (subsistence being one species of good)? Every theory of “distributive justice” begins with the presumption that the mean average baseline distribution of the good is above the subsistence baseline – but what if it isn’t? As a principle, “the greatest good for the greatest number” isn’t very utile if it only works (if at all) contingently. In the case of a mean average baseline of the good being below subsistence, it is possible to plot the case in which any redistribution of the good will bring the universe of all distributions below the baseline of subsistence – for example, when those who lie at the apex of distribution are at the razor’s edge of the subsistence baseline. In that case, any redistribution of the good, necessarily reducing those at the apex below the baseline of subsistence good, must die.
This brings us back, again, to degrees. Clearly, “distributive justice” fails when the apex baseline of the good is also the subsistence baseline of the good: at what point may the apex distribution of the good be diminished (a necessary operation in all theories of distributive justice) near the subsistence baseline of the good, understanding that, in that operation, those above the subsistence baseline, and below the apex must first be driven even closer to or below the subsistence baseline of the good?
And this is just one problem with the contemporary reconstruction of utilitarianism: it isn’t utile at all in some very obvious cases. In, “Distributive Justice – A Constructive Critique of the Utilitarian Theory of Justice” (Nicholas Rescher, Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1966) the author devotes two chapters (3. and 4.) to “legitimate claims” and “the canons of distributive justice and the foundation of claims,” in an effort to put away the nagging matter of deserts – the root of those regrets and
resentments you have previously admitted may be fatal to the essential mutuality of the social contract. (And, by the way, this is a discussion of philosophy, not political science, the relevant distinction being there are no national boundaries to flee for better terms in philosophy.) Unfortunately, Rescher’s efforts are not wholly convincing, even to himself: “The sought-for “vastly greater efficiency” has been achieved in the United States economy to an extent greatly beyond [John A.] Ryan’s most hopeful dreams […],” studiously avoiding any mention of why the US has been so successful while, elsewhere, noting that it is in the US that distributive justice is most strongly resisted. In the US, the claims of deserts have long trumped the claims of justice, and it is to that fact that the superfluity available for Rescher to covet exists. Abridge the expectation of just deserts, and the mean average baseline of distribution of the good creeps closer to that subsistence baseline.
So, again, Gene, you posts are as Seyton’s, “Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Any defense based on the distributed justice issue will fail, primarily because such an attack is in large a form of the Nirvana fallacy. One who accepts only perfect solutions is destined for a life of disappointment. However, that being said, the principles of rule (as opposed to act) utilitarianism – particularly soft rule utilitarianism – adopts the less extreme and more pragmatic idea of maximal good (as good as practically possible) over the unattainable goal of maximum good (as good as theoretically possible). Distributive justice also doesn’t live in a vacuum. Any errors it creates can be mitigated to a degree (but never totally eliminated – that’s simply the mathematics of complex systems) by review and appeals systems and by applying principles of equity to outcomes in addition to utility. As equity is an integral part of justice, one must consider whatever distribution of the benefits of (and burdens upon) society produces the maximal overall utility. Again the answer is found in questioning does the benefit outweigh the costs.
This topic, if I recall, was also dealt with in the aforementioned column.
Also, if you think you’re a challenge of some sort, Enoch? You really are overestimating yourself. Just because Bron thinks you are armed properly for a battle of wits doesn’t make you so.
For example, his most recent rambling is readily addressed by applying equity and basic logic. His statements beg the question that all men are equally created instead of created equal – a common error among his type (and he is a declared Objectivist). At common law, equity matters were once tried by separate systems and that important focus on equity in solutions is still applied today under the general maxim that in matters of common law if there is a conflict between the law and equity, equity prevails. That is not administered perfectly? Is simply a reflection of the imperfection of inherent in the complex activity that is the administration of justice. Judge Learned Hand once called law “the pale shadow of justice”. Perfect justice is simply unattainable. That’s a mathematical fact. But seeking perfect justice is a perpetual job and one worthy of a free and democratic society. Just because one cannot reach an aspirational goal in reality does not negate the value of trying. And in that attempt, soft rule utilitarianism is one of the best tools at our disposal when combined with the ideas of maximal utility as shepherded by the the principles of equity.
If you have some other criticism than the distributive justice problem, now would be the time to move on to it.
Enoch:
Distributive justice, social justice, etc. are rarely about justice.
Why is it that these philosophers think a successful individual has somehow violated an individual who has not achieved success?
Successful individuals are being asked to mitigate natures innate unfairness. How much responsibility do people have for acts of nature?
If I were to suggest we cripple Michael Jordon or scar Cindy Crawford’s face to achieve equality I would rightly be branded a lunatic. Why is monetary success looked at in such a different light? In fact natural talent (and some hard work) led to the financial success of MJ and CC.
Handicapping Michael Jordan and scarring Cindy Crawford is not justice, does not mitigate the unfairness of nature/life. It does nothing for the handicapped or the ugly.
Um, gaydar. I have pretty good gaydar and so did most of the women I knew over my career. I think the study is kind of interesting and needs follow-up. I think it’s interesting that women do 10% better than men with it. While men have the same effectiveness as chance women have a 10% advantage over that. While that is minimized by the Professor, depending on the follow-up it could be significant.
Do gays look different in some very subtle way that women pick up on because they read people differently? Do they consistently read specific visual cues and aspects differently than men? That could have some interesting possibilities in the field of diplomacy for instance and psychotherapy and other fields where reading certain personality types and cues is necessary. And 10% could be the difference between success and failure. I think someone should give these folks another 30k or so and ask them to construct a study that looks at those questions. The results might be interesting on any number of levels. Even if the answer is no.
enoch, There are four banned words- F**k, B***h, Bas***d and one other, can’t remember it. Also a quirk of WordPress is that if you post 3 or more link you go into moderation automatically. No one checks the moderation queue and the posting just dies a lonely death. So if you used banned words (Sh*t is the last one) or put more than two links in your posting try reworking it and re-posting it.
Also, Bron, my reply to Gene takes a deeper (not to say, deep) look into the notions of “distributive justice” Rawls and most other “liberal” philosophers treat in their works. If you have more detailed question, please ask.
Bron,
I hope you’ll see this reply: I’ve answered Gene again, and JT has put that reply on hold, “awaiting moderation”. I can only guess that Gene doesn’t like being challenged, and he’s run off to mommy for protection.
Darren:
Enoch isnt unarmed. We will see how this unfolds.
I do so love a good brawl, hopefully Enoch will show more spine than most who dare step into the lion’s den.
The farm boys I used to know were a tough bunch and didnt shy away from a fight.
Enoch
I offer a suggestion that might help you find closure here:
You have attempted to engage Gene and Mike in a battle of wits, but it is apparent you have come unarmed. It probably is time to retain a measure of pride and walk away now.
While I have admittedly enjoyed reading Gene hand you your arse, so to speak, with of course the delight of the schadenfreude of your pummeling as the cherry on top, it is becoming tiresome your continual return to clinging to the topic of “Ad hominem” attacks etc while not realizing you have been beaten very badly in this debate.
But, if you desire to attempt to contend with him again, please change the subject or topic. I would enjoy experiencing another aspect of Gene’s mind through his wit savaging your position. But that is just a Virtue of my Selfishness.