Gaming Journalists Make No Damn Sense

[Buyetyen]

In descending order of difficulty of reading:

The Science Behind Social Science Gets Shaken Up—Again

An attempt to replicate some of the decade's best research shows some of it … doesn’t.

www.wired.com

Replication crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.190806

Couple of quotes I feel you missed.

They often don't, particularly pernicious in the social sciences—psychology, economics, sociology—but even the so-called hard sciences, like biology and medicine, have had reproducibility problems.

This one really illustrates the hypocrisy of the anti-social-sciences stance. You give the social sciences shit for the replication crisis, but the so-called hard sciences are treated like scripture.

That’s nothing to shrug at. Nature and Science are major journals; articles in both not only further scientific careers, but also, through emails to journalists in advance of publication, help dictate science coverage in the popular media. (Yes, I get those emails, and yes, this Nosek paper was in one.) Research promulgates. Flashy, interesting research gets embedded in popular culture—sometimes despite its reproducibility, or lack thereof.

This illustrates that the problem is not simply, "Psychology = bad." It's the way we communicate science as well. The journals have been dealing with the problem that a lot of research gets published that is at best superfluous, at worst erroneous.

Continued below....

 

[Buyetyen]

Now, look, just because the paper didn’t replicate doesn’t actually mean its conclusions were false. Experiments fail to replicate for lots of reasons. In comments to Nosek’s group, David Rand, one of the original study’s authors, suggested that the problem might be a methodological one. Both recruited subjects via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk system, but today, eight years later, Turk-ers have been the subjects of so many behavioral economics studies that they know the drill and aren’t as easily primed or studied. (Rand also pointed out that he was an author on three studies in the Nosek paper, and two of them replicated.)

Here's a big one you seemed to skim over completely.

That goes to the heart of large-scale replication studies like this one. They aren’t about science-shaming, or calling the field to action. Thousands of researchers now preregister their methodology and hypothesis before publication, to head off concerns that they’ll massage data after the fact. Journals commonly require researchers to submit their entire datasets and analytical code. Even Nature and Science have changed their rules since the Nosek paper's 2010-15 time frame. “The underlying motivation is a genuine one. They are in it to get it right, not to be right, even though the culture incentivizes sexy findings,” UVA's Nosek says. “The competing values of transparency, of rigor, of showing all your work, those are still deeply held in the community. So the change is coming with people who are willing to confront the cultural incentives and practice in new ways.”

And a really important paragraph here. Emphasis mine. I'm guessing you didn't read the whole thing the first time around?

 

[Iron]

Couple of quotes I feel you missed.



This one really illustrates the hypocrisy of the anti-social-sciences stance. You give the social sciences shit for the replication crisis, but the so-called hard sciences are treated like scripture.



This illustrates that the problem is not simply, "Psychology = bad." It's the way we communicate science as well. The journals have been dealing with the problem that a lot of research gets published that is at best superfluous, at worst erroneous.

Continued below....

Here's a big one you seemed to skim over completely.



And a really important paragraph here. Emphasis mine. I'm guessing you didn't read the whole thing the first time around?

I didn't miss those. Go down the list, this is good that you're reading through this. Remind yourself that I didn't treat "hard science" as scripture either. The replication crisis is very interesting and I was first introduced to it thanks to this madlad:

You are advised to continue reading down the list. I did read through these, you shouldn't really try to "debunk" my stance with the articles themselves. They are there to introduce you to this topic and make your own mind of it. Those quotes are mature attempts at softening the weight of this topic and I have no issue with them.
Here is an interesting experiment in thought - You've accused me of thinking that "hard sciences are treated like scripture". Does that mean you think that all science should be treated with some skepticism? If so, then good. Continue with this line of thought. Imagine now, that I would post on this forum an opinion which would be considered "climate denying". I would be bombarded with meta-data analyzing studies, and be met with arguments like "99% of all scientists agree...". Who is treating science as scripture in this scenario? Who is treated as the heretic?

 

[Buyetyen]

You are advised to continue reading down the list. I did read through these, you shouldn't really try to "debunk" my stance with the articles themselves.

Your assertions however are reductionist and declaring causation where you cannot demonstrate any.

Here is an interesting experiment in thought - You're accused me of thinking that "hard sciences are treated like scripture". Does that mean you think that all science should be treated with some skepticism? If so, then good. Continue with this line of thought. Imagine now, that I would post on this forum an opinion which would be considered "climate denying". I would be bombarded with meta-data analyzing studies, and be met with arguments like "99% of all scientists agree...". Who is treating science as scripture in this scenario? Who is treated as the heretic?

Are you fucking serious with this shit? Denialism is not skepticism. And I think you know that, but are pretending not to. This is less a thought experiment and more thoughtless experiment.

Again, this is why I say you're not a skeptic. You're not demanding to be proven wrong. You're demanding to be agreed with.

 

[Iron]

Your assertions however are reductionist and declaring causation where you cannot demonstrate any.



Are you fucking serious with this shit? Denialism is not skepticism. And I think you know that, but are pretending not to. This is less a thought experiment and more thoughtless experiment.

Again, this is why I say you're not a skeptic. You're not demanding to be proven wrong. You're demanding to be agreed with.

You're more than welcome to read for yourself the rest instead of trying to debunk my assertions. Otherwise you won't learn much of this conversation.

 

[Buyetyen]

Otherwise you won't learn much of this conversation.

I read your citations. You're still assigning causality where none exists and engaging in denialism instead of skepticism. What's to debunk? You're misrepresenting your own sources to push a shallow political agenda.

 

[Iron]

I read your citations. You're still assigning causality where none exists and engaging in denialism instead of skepticism. What's to debunk? You're misrepresenting your own sources to push a shallow political agenda.

What am I denying?

 

[Buyetyen]

What am I denying?

Social science as a whole.

 

[Iron]

Social science as a whole.

I don't deny it. Here are my posts:

again the projection. The entire concept of "toxic masculinity" injected into social ""science" is merely misandry.

Social sciences are unfortunately not universally uniform in their adherence to the scientific method. Much less experiments are reproduced in social sciences than in other sciences. It isn't a matter of misunderstanding it on my part, but a deep doubt of its general competence. I don't think this is either a sign of immaturity.
I think that this is entirely driven by misandry in the profession and had poisoned scientific progress.

Not denial of social sciences. Merely a comment about how some of its research is now driven by misandry, which poisoned scientific progress in the field. I again said that much less experiments are reproduced in social sciences than in other sciences. No claim of other sciences being scripture.

I think you misinterpret me and attribute me with opinions you think I have and conceal from you.

 

[Buyetyen]

Merely a comment about how some of its research is now driven by misandry,

Which you have at no point demonstrated.

 

[Iron]

Which you have at no point demonstrated.

I was trying to open you up to this possibility by probing you with the previous conversation. I can continue this later.

 

[Buyetyen]

I was trying to open you up to this possibility by probing you with the previous conversation. I can continue this later.

You know how you would open me up to the idea? Posting evidence instead of these rhetorical wild goose chases. If you had real evidence, you would have lead with it.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Me: Points out Doctor Who's history of strong capable women

And, just to be clear, just because someone is against 'woke' doesn't mean they are pro-your side. Everyone is sick your identity politics too. Be as misogynistic as you want. There aren't that many people who agree with that part.

What are my identity politics again here? Cause it seems you're claiming it's misogynistic to suggest a female character isn't a well written one.

Which you know has been part of my point about why people won't engage with "Woke" properties because if they do and don't enjoy things or are critical of things they just get insulted, because that's what such terms are being used as, insults. Emotionally weighted terms used to shame people because said terms are more effective than just a normal insults and help try to stop people agreeing with them for fear they will be labelled bad people too. Media and liking or disliking it used to judge a person.

The funniest thing being in this very threat I brought up another Sci-Fi with a female lead and It's one I enjoyed and has a diverse cast but the woke lot for whatever reason didn't care seemingly because it was diverse without taking overt shots against others or strawmanning or really pushing it. I also pointed out a female lead superhero show that is diverse without ending up like Batwoman where they put proving themselves as woke above being a good show. But hey clearly I must hate women because I pointed out Jodie Fosters Doctor was written as less competent then previous incarnations of The Doctor but was more preachy and self righteous with it and Yaz has been sidelined and not really given much to do at all nor really any character development.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Hey how about this one? Another set of different statics

Doctor Who Ratings Drop; Loses Over A Million Fans

Seems like a trend.

cosmicbook.news

Also goes into some complaints about the current seasons. Some of which I agree with. Also note... not much talk of vaginas here. Maybe the decrease has got more to do with poor writing than vaginas?

Yet the show is being defended as being woke essentially or not having problems. People critical of it called misogynists who just hate Jodie Foster's Doctor. The show has serious issue and yes being woke is part of it because they've tried to have moments of almost lecturing the audience in the latest series plus suddenly they've re-written most of the shows history and made The Doctor the most important and unique character in the entire universe who was responsible for the Timelords basically becoming the Timelords to begin with.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

No, then the fight would've continued until Rafe and Nadine's men showed up, which was pretty much her plan anyway.

Considering she barely takes a hit while manhandling the two, she's have won it wouldn't even been a case of holding out, she's have outright won.

So what? You're acting like he's got a clown fetish and Nadine and Abby are walking around with rainbow wigs. He's got a thing for buff chicks and Nadine and Abby are buff chicks in a setting where pretty much everyone fights and kills. I don't exactly see anything not fitting there.

He's got a thing for buff chicks beating up and destroying male characters without them really being able to fight back or stand a chance.

Homeless were paid $50 to be beaten by women for fetish video, says lawsuit

Lawsuit contends beatings violate Fla. hate crimes law that specifically protects the homeless

www.cbsnews.com

Yes, one scene showing him wave his lightsaber around. And with Rey we see one scene of her beating on some dudes with a staff.

Staff fighting is a bit different to sword fighting, I mean if they'd given her a twin blade staff lighsaber you'd have more of an arguement. Also Luke was shown trainning to use the lighsaber from the first film, loses his first real fight in the 2nd film and only wins in the 3rd film vs an opponent unwilling to go all in fighting him.

Yes, like a regular stormtrooper.

And they don't get any other training in hand to hand weapons?

That's because Rey is a stronger fighter than Finn who is just a stormtrooper. And both of whom, along with Kylo, pale in comparison to Obi Wan, Qui Gon, and Anakin in the prequels.

Because in the prequels they were trained Jedi Knights who despite all their flips and everything still took hits etc.

Qui Gon dies, Obi Wan getting hit off platfoms and Anakin losing an arm

Which invalidates the presence of a lot of LGBTQ representation within the game how exactly?

I already pointed out generally there's a difference between representation and wokeness.

Apparently. Your point? That sometimes sequels don't sell as well?

Because the sequel seemingly chose to make more overt political points

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So you don't believe that the assertion of some people that to be masculine you have to be aggressive, for example, has any negative effects on the person and the people around them. And just because you don't understand a science does not make it not a science. Don't be immature.

Well plenty of male Feminists on twitter are passive aggressive as hell and they reject the standard conventions of masculinity so I don't think the issue is merely traditional masculine ideas lol. I mean it's not generally seen as the most masculine thing to do to sucker punch a person and then run off either.

 

[Trunkage]

Me: Points out Doctor Who's history of strong capable women

What are my identity politics again here? Cause it seems you're claiming it's misogynistic to suggest a female character isn't a well written one.

Which you know has been part of my point about why people won't engage with "Woke" properties because if they do and don't enjoy things or are critical of things they just get insulted, because that's what such terms are being used as, insults. Emotionally weighted terms used to shame people because said terms are more effective than just a normal insults and help try to stop people agreeing with them for fear they will be labelled bad people too. Media and liking or disliking it used to judge a person.

The funniest thing being in this very threat I brought up another Sci-Fi with a female lead and It's one I enjoyed and has a diverse cast but the woke lot for whatever reason didn't care seemingly because it was diverse without taking overt shots against others or strawmanning or really pushing it. I also pointed out a female lead superhero show that is diverse without ending up like Batwoman where they put proving themselves as woke above being a good show. But hey clearly I must hate women because I pointed out Jodie Fosters Doctor was written as less competent then previous incarnations of The Doctor but was more preachy and self righteous with it and Yaz has been sidelined and not really given much to do at all nor really any character development.

So my least favourite companion is Rose. I think she is an obnoxious teen who is more trouble than she is worth. Most things just happen to her without her being involved. She isnt well written and they spend far too much time with her family, unlike later when just go for a few visit. It's the kinda of teen that you'd see on Gossip Girl (without all the money). I really didn't like how she was shipped with the Doc at all. Mickey ended up being the better and well rounded character in the end. I certainly prefer a Bill, or even a Clara over Rose.

You know what I dont blame it on? Wokeness. Just bad writing. Kinda goes with fart aliens and mannequin bad guys. And the last season of cybermen floaty heads were not as cool as someone thought in their head

Just one little thing. Preachy being a problem? That makes me feel like you haven't Doctor Who before. Maybe she's doing a 9/10 on the preach scale. All of them preach all the time, with the lowest being Eccelstein at an 8. Capaldi 8.8, Smith 8.4, Tennant 8.6. The Doctor is a judgy, preachy character. (Like, I probably would put Capaldi on top but I know you have a hate boner for Whittaker so I put him down a little. Didnt want to offend you too much, but then I decided against it. Be offended as you want). As to Yaz, Id agree, I dont think they knew what to do with her. I dont think this new writer is good at overall season arcs at all. But the last two got up their own arses with season arcs... so IDK. I'm not happy either way

Anyway, if media judging you, maybe you have bad morals? Like, I get that people don't want to be talk to about plastics in the ocean. It encourages you to do something. But getting offended at it? That's got more to do with your not willingness to help than the show having a bad message. I was told by media when I was little that gays are bad, women can only do certain things, men need to be violent. I just stopped watching the show. I didnt spend pages on threads demand the show cater for my needs. If you dont like something, it is very okay to just stop. Or go watch repeats of what you like.

 

[Trunkage]

Yet the show is being defended as being woke essentially or not having problems. People critical of it called misogynists who just hate Jodie Foster's Doctor. The show has serious issue and yes being woke is part of it because they've tried to have moments of almost lecturing the audience in the latest series plus suddenly they've re-written most of the shows history and made The Doctor the most important and unique character in the entire universe who was responsible for the Timelords basically becoming the Timelords to begin with.

Bad writings is the problem. Not woke.

 

[Houseman]

Anyway, if media judging you, maybe you have bad morals? Like, I get that people don't want to be talk to about plastics in the ocean. It encourages you to do something. But getting offended at it? That's got more to do with your not willingness to help than the show having a bad message. I was told by media when I was little that gays are bad, women can only do certain things, men need to be violent. I just stopped watching the show. I didnt spend pages on threads demand the show cater for my needs. If you dont like something, it is very okay to just stop. Or go watch repeats of what you like.

It's the "you have bad morals" thing that inspires pages of posts. If it weren't for the whole "you're a bigot if you dislike this!" we wouldn't be having any of these conversations, because then people wouldn't feel the need to defend themselves.

Take your example about plastics in the ocean. Who contributes more to plastics in the ocean, big companies, or you and me? Big companies, of course. So when media comes out and blames you and me for the plastic in the ocean, instead of the big companies dumping more of it into the ocean in one year than both of us contribute in an entire lifetime, you can understand why people would object to that right? They would object to being called a horrible person, and object to the media for painting it that way, and object to being called a Captain Planet supervillain by people who misunderstand why they're objecting to it.

 

[Buyetyen]

Bad writings is the problem. Not woke.

And bad writing is easy. That's why there's so much of it.