Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic failed, and it became a general discussion thread with almost no moderation related posts at all. And those that were posted were so buried in non-mod posts that it became a huge time drain on the mods to sort through them. Then, when off topic posts were deleted posters complained about that.
This led to the closing of the mod discussion thread, replaced by the post report/pm approach. This has filtered out lots of noise, but has resulted at times in the General Discussion Thread turning into a quasi-mod thread. This is not desirable, but going back to the old mod thread is also not a workable option.
Therefore, I have created this new moderation thread, but with a different purpose and ground rules than previous mod threads. The purpose of this thread is to provide a place for posters to pose questions to the mods about how policies are applied; to bring to the mods attention posts they think are inappropriate and reach the level of requiring mod action; and for mods to communicate to posters things like changes or clarifications to policies, bannings, etc.
Now let me tell you what this thread is NOT a place for. It is not for nonmoderation related posts, even if the discussion originates from a comment in in a mod related post. It is not for posters to post their opinions about other posters or whether a poster should be banned. It is not to rehash past grievances about mod decisions from months or years ago. The focus of this thread will be recent posts that require action now. Or questions about current policies and enforcement.
So basically, this is a thread to ask mods questions. Which means, pretty much that only mods should be answering those questions. If a poster asks why a particular post was deleted or allowed, only a mod can answer that. Everyone else who wants to jump in with their opinion or their mod war story needs to stay out of it. It just increases the noise to signal ratio and does nothing to answer the question.
Everyone needs to understand that this thread has very different rules than the old mod thread and any other thread. Any non-moderation post will be deleted on sight. Not moved to the appropriate thread, just deleted. So don't waste your time crafting a masterpiece post about wars or transgender issues or the presidential election and then post it in this thread. It will be gone. Also, this isnt a thread for general commentary about our mods performance. Posting "browser sucks as a mod" or any such posts that don't actually ask about a policy or request a mod action will be deleted. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the moderation of this forum. But this thread isnt for complaining about mods. You are free to go to the ATF forum and make your concerns about modding in this forum there.
So with that intro, this thread is open for those who need to bring questions about mod policies or bring inappropriate posts to the mods attention. Again, it is NOT a thread for group discussions about other posters or for other posters to answer questions directed to mods.
We'll see how this goes. If you have what you feel is an open issue raised in the General Discussion Thread, please copy that post or otherwise reintroduce the issue here.
Thanks.
There's a chain of cultural influence.
Some divergence but minimal compared to the possible divergence. Run it a for a few more millions years and we might have some more meaningful data
You can run it backward and decide, we lived already for a while and adult women were nursing or helping other women raising small children their whole life, men weren't as much and among other things were big game hunting away from women and small children.
Do you think that doesn't create different interests and doesn't select all organs (including the brain) for different activities , over 10k+ generations?
You can run it backward and decide, we lived already for a while and adult women were nursing or helping other women raising small children their whole life, men weren't as much and among other things were big game hunting away from women and small children.
Do you think that doesn't create different interests and doesn't select all organs (including the brain) for different activities , over 10k+ generations?
No-one afaik is disputing some evolutionary differences. It's the specific claims that are weak conjectures at best. Usually based on woefully insufficient correlated data
Luciom, the problem with that is that all you’ve done is made an educated guess. The credence most people give to educated guesses in science is not zero, but it’s very small. There are plenty of “apparent” realities that don’t actually line up to what reality is. Non-locality for instance would have been really hard to predict based off of everything we knew about physics, but it was predicted by quantum physics and is still very controversial.
We can’t just assume that because it makes sense that’s the way it is.
I do think to your point that hormones very much change people’s thinking, and that anyone who believes in blank slate has to contend with sexual differences in hormone distribution. It’s not fully understood how these affect interest though. Trans women that have equivalent hormones to cis women still seem to display different patterns of interest anecdotally, but that has to be studied as well.
Then again his obsession was with how post Christian societies would maintain law and order without that moral framework to underpin them, and set about writing his magnum opus which was to be a new moral framework for the West, determined to save the west from its inevitable speedy decline into nihilistic violence and chaos.
It didn’t seem to go very well because, beset by mental health issues triggered by romantic rejection all that
From what I understand, he championed the Roman Empire and thought that Christianity led to its decline. He was critic of Christianity but more so of atheists for being hypocrites that went along with Christian values while not actually believing them—or anything for that matter! He saw that Christians at least had a foundation for their morality, whereas most atheists were wandering aimlessly, doing this or that, with no justification or meaning for their beliefs or actions (see the G. K. Chesterton quote below), respectively, and he set out to create a new foundation. That seems to be best summed up in Thus Spoke Zarathustra with some of his other works going into greater detail, but it is a bit of speculation since I haven't read a lot of his stuff.
“But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. . . . As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. . . . The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”
I remember reading something a while back about Nietzsche regretting his work, realizing that not only would it possibly be, but that it would be, used for terrible things (re Hitler and the Ubermensch). I wish I could find the source for that because I'm not sure if it's true, but it seems likely. He basically predicted the wars of the 20th century and the rise of hedonism and nihilism that are ever present in today's world. He also believed that without God, people would make gods out of people or the state. Think celebrity fanaticism and political mobs. He didn't have a solution though. It was a house without doors.
He also used a lot of exclamation points and em dashes.
Someone should do a study on how the political positions of 2P2 users correspond to their views on whether or not Robbi cheated.
Seen with mysterious bulge in pants.
The one guy who works there and has live access steels 15k off her stack then writes some insane text message to Robbi saying he believes her. Lol if anyone doesn't think she cheated.
the real theft was that her husband did not win an oscar for his role as the desert fighter in this film
From what I understand, he championed the Roman Empire and thought that Christianity led to its decline. He was critic of Christianity but more so of atheists for being hypocrites that went along with Christian values while not actually believing them—or anything for that matter! He saw that Christians at least had a foundation for their morality, whereas most atheists were wandering aimlessly, doing this or that, with no justificatio
Chesterton was an anachronistic freak railing against modernity, denouncing the music of Sibelius because he could detect the sound of the machine and failing to consummated his marriage from shock at the existence of his wife’s public hair.
However, he did have a good fence.
Lol I was one of the more active “Robbi probably didn’t cheat” posters. However I’m still open to good evidence of her cheating, since she did give back the money which is strange.
Wait I thought the bulge in pants was a boner reference, if not then can you please elaborate
Lol I was one of the more active “Robbi probably didn’t cheat” posters. However I’m still open to good evidence of her cheating, since she did give back the money which is strange.
There are probably a few dozen details that when put together point towards cheating. I have no interest in going down that road again, but there is one moment from during the hand that I've only seen brought up once, and it's worth a mention. It's from 4:45-5:15 after she throws the time chip in. The body language is so strange. She leans in and puts her hand under her chin as she grabs the time chip and looks across the table when she moves it forward. Then she crosses her arms and leans onto the table, tilting her head and licking her lips. She begins to softly rock back and forth and signals by sticking her index finger out from behind her arm (5:01), and again, she looks across the table, this time focusing her attention there for a longer period of time. None of this is natural behavior. It's a person trying to act natural in an uncomfortable situation. A few seconds later she looks down and a smile creeps across her face. "I just wanna call to see it. I think you might have me though."
I am fascinated by this whole “boys love the Roman Empire” thing playing out in this thread. Not even sarcastic, I really thought it was just a meme.
So, the meme about men thinking about the Roman Empire...
My wife works at elementary schools and at one school there was a thing where they'd say something they liked was their Roman Empire. Specific example: "this ring pop is my Roman Empire".
Greg's account of Fred sounds about right to me.
Someone should do a study on how the political positions of 2P2 users correspond to their views on whether or not Robbi cheated.
I got really deep into it and am hard team Robbi. Like most, I wouldn't rule out cheating, but saw little evidence for it and a lot of evidence against it. It was disappointing, as I like a good cheating story.
I've wondered about the political correlations too. I think the obvious one is that conspiracy people will tend to be team Garrett and skeptical types, team Robbi.
One thing I noticed which is kind of hard to describe. A lot of people who were sure that they had a masterful understanding of human nature and behavior, but were actually very ignorant and naive about human behavior, were team Garrett.
One of their core beliefs was "NOBODY would give the money back if they weren't guilty! Totally irrational and therefore impossible." As I pointed out at the time, people knowingly confess to felonies they did not commit, including murder, because they fold under pressure. There is a video of Kevin Hart returning like $20k in a similar spot. It's not at all clear that a cheater would be compelled to return the money (returning the money is unusual if she is innocent, or guilty). Moreover, it's just not that hard to put yourself in her spot and see why she'd return the money. If I did something weird in a pro-am golf event and found myself in a room being yelled at by Tiger Woods, not really sure what was going on, and the tournament director (?) was talking about how millions of people online are going to hate me, I would probably just do whatever they wanted.
There were lots of these kinds of arguments where they just knew for sure exactly what everyone was thinking and what their motivations were at all times.
So, the meme about men thinking about the Roman Empire...
My wife works at elementary schools and at one school there was a thing where they'd say something they liked was their Roman Empire. Specific example: "this ring pop is my Roman Empire".
awesome, i'm borrowing that along with yar and nar which i learned from my niece
I think the issue is more with the circular reasoning: we observe differences in behaviours and conclude they are the result of differences in wiring. We then use differences in wiring as an explanation for differences in behaviours. That is not valid, logically.
In laymen discussion, this is probably a big issue.
In research, it probably does not matter all that much. A bigger issue in research is publication bias. Let's say you do some study on ADHD and performance in a games of skill, you include a control group and you have fMRI data to boot. Now you end up with a lot of data data that someone might want to peruse for additional publication.
Now, if there can correlation between gender differences in the brain and game outcomes, great... someone can easily get this published, because this is sexy research that you can get published and you can get some headlines from it here and there. If there is no gender differences or correlation, you won't get published because nobody cares. Then you end up with a publication bias. This also greatly skews meta-analyses and systematic reviews, which makes the problem even greater.
This is why the aforementioned Shah Labs at Stanford and their publication seemed like a good starting point. With a focus on brain chemistry and experiments, they build their basis from the ground up. But of course, it is difficult to model complex behaviors this way. That's the price you pay.
Of course, in ideology you have both people who are allergic to the notion of gender similarities, and you have people allergic to the notion of gender differences. For example, there is on average differences between female and male brains that will affect how we think and act. Plenty people would balk on that statement. However, it is also true that it would be very hard to study a brain and determine based on that alone whether it was a female or male brain. Plenty of people would balk on that statement too. And no, the statements are not contradictory.
In laymen discussion, this is probably a big issue.
In research, it probably does not matter all that much. A bigger issue in research is publication bias. Let's say you do some study on ADHD and performance in a games of skill, you include a control group and you have fMRI data to boot. Now you end up with a lot of data data that someone might want to peruse for additional publication.
Now, if there can correlation between gender difference
How sure are you this is true? My understanding is AI can do this with almost 100% accuracy. This article states their model has over 90% success. As AI develops, I actually wouldn't be surprised if the number got closer to 95%+ (if it isn't already)
