follow CCP

Recent blog entries
popular papers

Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing

What Is the "Science of Science Communication"?

Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem

Ideology, Motivated Cognition, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study

'Ideology' or 'Situation Sense'? An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgment

A Risky Science Communication Environment for Vaccines

Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government

Making Climate Science Communication Evidence-based—All the Way Down 

Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law 

Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus
 

The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Science Literacy and Climate Change

"They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction 

Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: a Cross-Cultural Experiment

Fixing the Communications Failure

Why We Are Poles Apart on Climate Change

The Cognitively Illiberal State 

Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study

Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology

Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? An Empirical Examination of Scott v. Harris

Cultural Cognition and Public Policy

Culture, Cognition, and Consent: Who Perceives What, and Why, in "Acquaintance Rape" Cases

Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect

Fear of Democracy: A Cultural Evaluation of Sunstein on Risk

Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk

« Comment function restored! | Main | Couple more items for CC dictionary/glossary »
Wednesday
Jan172018

"Meet the Millennials!," part 3: climate change, evolution, and generational polarization

This is part 3 of CCP’s hit  series, “Meet the Millennials!”

In episode 1, we saw that the Millennials like to go to the zoo more often than do members of the Baby Boom, Generation X, and Silent Generation cohorts.

In episode 2, we observed that Millennials did better than other generational cohorts on a standardized test of science comprehension (the Ordinary Science Intelligence assessment), but were nevertheless no more science-curious than members of those other age brackets.we observed that Millennials did better than other generational cohorts on a standardized test of science comprehension (the Ordinary Science Intelligence assessment), but were nevertheless no more science-curious the members of those other age brackets.

Now, in what will be either the final or not the final episode of the series, we take a look at how Millennials fare in their beliefs in human-caused climate change and human evolution.

What do we see?  This on climate change,

 

and this on evolution.

Basically in relation to political outlooks Millennials are the group least polarized on climate change. Similarly, in relation to religiosity the Millennials are the least polarized on acceptance of human evolution. 

The difference in the degree of polarization, moreover, increase as the age differentials grow.  There’s not much difference between Millennials (born 1982-1999) and members of Generation X (1965-1981). But there is a decided difference between Millennials and Baby Boomers (1946-1964) and an even greater difference between Millennials and members of the Silent Generation (born before 1946).

I can think of two explanations.  The first is cohort shift: based on their experience and common exposure to social influences, the Millennials, while far from uniform in their assessments of controversial science-issues, are less worked up over them.  On this theory, we can expect a gradual, generational abatement of controversy over matters like climate change and evolution.

The second theory, however, is opinion shift: as they age, members of every generational cohort become more partisan and thus more divided on controversy-provoking forms of science.  There’s actually some literature to support this view, which I’ve commented on before.

Normally, at this point I’d say, “What do you think?” But thanks to Squarespace (which has admitted that it views older sites like this one as “low priority”), the CCP blog’s comment function is broken.

So tell you what: If you’d like to comment on this post, send me an email, and I’ll manually insert them into the comment field.  Use “Meet the Millennials!” in the re line so I can be sure to spot the messages and take the work-around steps necessary to let you be heard.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (36)

Given the role that you ascribe to cognitive profile in polarizing views on climate change, what do you think might be the interaction between cognitive profile and age (assuming the second theory, or perhaps even the first theory?) in influencing polarization on climate change?

January 17, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Dan - instead of asking people coded questions, which instantly divides them into pro- and anti-PC, hope one day you'll try something more basic, and therefore more reliable. E.g. see who laughs at this cartoon (full disclosure, I thought it hilarious, but wonder whether anyone out there could actually find it offensive):

https://theweek.com/cartoons/748969/political-cartoon-hawaii-false-alarm-trump-impeachment

January 18, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

3 brave researchers finally figure out what has been obvious to mathematical modelers (who know to backtest models on past, known, data) since day one of the IPCC extravaganza - we could double atmospheric CO2 and the chance of the planet tipping into a 4.5C temperature increase (current catastrophe scenario being peddled) would still remain under 1%.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450

January 18, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

Ecoute,

"3 brave researchers..." - so does that mean you believe their 2.2-3.4 C by 2100 at 66% confidence result?

BTW - I couldn't find a non-paywall version, but did see a popsci writeup here:
https://phys.org/news/2018-01-worst-case-global-scenarios-credible.html

Note also:

One wild card not taken into consideration by the new model is the possibility of rapid shifts in climate brought on by the planet itself.
"There is indeed evidence that the climate system can undergo abrupt changes or 'tipping points'," Cox told AFP.
The collapse of the gulf stream, the thawing of carbon-rich permafrost, or the melting of ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica—any of these could quickly change the equation, and not in the Earth's favour.

January 18, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

Jonathan - I have the non-paywalled version but there is some copyright law preventing publication of the entire text on an open website (plus I can't reproduce graphs here). As to the specifics you ask about: of course if the Gulf Stream collapses most of Europe will become uninhabitable due to cold, not heat, but this has been known at least as far back as Benjamin Franklin, and shown in some detail by Hansen et al a couple of years ago:

https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/

Either way, the main point is that the IPCC catastrophic warming models due to increased anthropogenic CO2 are just not credible. Hansen et al conclude the same: "....These predictions, especially the cooling in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic with markedly reduced warming or even cooling in Europe, differ fundamentally from existing climate change assessments."

As to the ice sheets, they have melted many times before we and our SUVs appeared on the scene. The seas have been a whole lot higher, too. There is nothing to be done about it except limit pollution, which nobody seems to worry about . CO2 is not a pollutant, period, which means the IPCC models - the latest crop assumes nonexistent technologies to absorb CO2 from the air - are a joke.

January 19, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

PS on the thawing permafrost: I see biologists worrying whether it might free up ancient bacteria to which we have no defenses. I simply have no knowledge base to assess the danger of that one.

But as to the allegedly emissions-free hydroelectric dams, doesn't all that vegetation trapped under the water keep rotting and producing methane? I don't see why those dams are any less dangerous than the permafrost, as far as methane goes.

January 19, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

PPS Finally, as to the max prob (66%) in the model of a couple of degrees increase in the planet's AVERAGE temperature within a century - some warming is likely in my view as well, but "average" for the whole planet hides an incredible amount of local variation. Obviously. But as I said I agree with the authors' conclusion on the temperature VARIANCE.

January 19, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

Always amusing to see "skeptics" get behind studies that argue for more certainty w/r/t (long term) future temps based on climate modeling.

January 19, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Also anyways amusing to see the "one study" bias unfolding.

http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/more-sensitivity-stuff.html?m=1

January 19, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Joshua - if it's amusement you're looking for, try the IPCC measuring ocean height without regard to geology:
http://www.scragged.com/articles/going-up-or-going-down

January 19, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

More popsci on that nature piece:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/earth-may-be-less-sensitive-to-co2-than-our-worst-fears

January 19, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

And popsci from Nature itself:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-00480-0

and others:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180117131132.htm

https://www.carbonbrief.org/new-study-reduces-uncertainty-climate-sensitivity

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/01/improved-analysis-of-global-warming-means-no-catastrophe-this-century-but-serious-to-bad-is-possible.html

January 19, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

"so does that mean you believe their 2.2-3.4 C by 2100 at 66% confidence result?"

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't.

The paper takes the approach of finding some metric not in the training set used to design the climate models, observes that most of them predict results that disagree with observation, and the higher the climate sensitivity the more they disagree, and then effectively drops them.

It's a blindingly obvious approach that I've suggested before - the problem being that if you do so with a slightly wider range of metrics, you end up eliminating *all* of the climate models. They *all* make predictions contradicted by reality! And I'm sure you remember what Feynman said about that.

Cox et al. apparently use the climate models to determine a metric-sensitivity relationship, and then uses the relationship on the observed metric to estimate the real sensitivity. But this assumes that the climate models correctly model the metric-sensitivity relationship, even if they don't correctly model the metric itself, and I see no reason being presented to accept that assumption.

Figure 3 suggests that the main reason they exclude low ECS is that there are no climate models included with ECS that low. That doesn't seem like a good reason!

So I would agree that they might be considered "brave" for publishing a paper that would certainly have been seen as heretical/sceptical ten years ago, (although I'm told there are a lot more sceptical papers getting past the gatekeepers in the past year than used to be the case,) but no, I don't believe it.

It may be a sign of the political shift, and grant-seeking scientists following where they expect the funding to go under the new administration. It may be part of their exit strategy. It might be someone testing the waters. Or it might be a lone aberration. I have no idea.

January 20, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

NiV,

"... the problem being that if you do so with a slightly wider range of metrics, you end up eliminating *all* of the climate models. They *all* make predictions contradicted by reality!"

So does the standard model in quantum physics - most famously the cosmological constant problem (the other CCP) - off by a mere 60 orders of magnitude. Point being, if you want to discredit a model's usefulness due to not matching empirical data on certain metrics, you need more reasons than just the existence of mismatches. Such as: how important are the mismatches to the questions you are using the model to predict?

"...grant-seeking scientists following where they expect the funding to go under the new administration" -- They're Brits, and this "work was supported by the European Research Council".

January 20, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

Never let facts get in the way of some of fashioned apophenia.

January 20, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Chris Mooney chimes in via WaPo:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/01/17/climate-scientists-say-they-may-be-able-to-rule-out-the-worst-case-scenarios-and-the-best-ones/

January 20, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

Wired, too:
https://www.wired.com/story/the-dizzying-science-of-climate-change-gets-a-bit-clearer/

January 20, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

"Point being, if you want to discredit a model's usefulness due to not matching empirical data on certain metrics, you need more reasons than just the existence of mismatches. Such as: how important are the mismatches to the questions you are using the model to predict?"

Point being, this is exactly the method Cox et al. are using to improve the estimates! They've just discredited the upper estimates due to them not matching empirical data on their new metric! Somebody obviously thinks that's a good idea. I'm just pointing out that if you follow the argument to its logical conclusion, you wind up with nothing left.

I don't discredit a model's usefulness this way, I discredit a model's correctness. A model's usefulness, by contrast, depends on it being validated, meaning that it has been empirically demonstrated that it is sufficiently accurate for the purpose you intend to use it, in the domain of input parameters you intend to use it for. The accuracy of quantum mechanics *has* been so demonstrated in many domains, and there are problems where we don't use it because we know it gives the wrong answers. If necessary, we simple say "We don't know".

No climate model, so far as I know, has been validated for the task of predicting global temperature, which is what they're being used for. Most of them can't even predict the current temperature - the models come up with different steady-state answers over a range of several C. So instead of using the actual temperature output, they instead construct predictions from the change in temperature. No climate model correctly predicts the degree of long-term natural background variability of the temperature, which is *the* critical property needed to distinguish natural from anthropogenic changes. How else can you tell if the observed rise is just natural variation, like that seen in HadCET 1690-1732, or something new and unnatural? No climate model can predict climate changes at a local level where the effects are felt - predictions are only made for averages collated at a continental spatial scale and over periods of decades. And even for these, there is no empirical evidence that they're accurate. Since they're trained on the recent past, the only period we have accurate temperature data for, that data can't be used for validation. And so far, they're not doing too well on future prediction even on the global scale. The observations are well below the prediction, and are pushing the 95% uncertainty bounds around it. They have various post-hoc hypothetical explanations for that, of course, but that doesn't help with validation.

The climate scientists are well aware of the problem. As Tommy Wills once put it:

What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They'll kill us probably...

January 20, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

NiV,

"Point being, this is exactly the method Cox et al. are using to improve the estimates! They've just discredited the upper estimates due to them not matching empirical data on their new metric! Somebody obviously thinks that's a good idea. I'm just pointing out that if you follow the argument to its logical conclusion, you wind up with nothing left."

There is a difference between what they are apparently doing - using a particular metric to test models - vs. what you appeared to imply: that other metrics that fail to match with model predictions can then be used to discredit all models just because they don't match, not because of their importance to the predictions that matter. I cannot argue if the metric they chose has this importance or not for various reasons, most importantly that I'm not knowledgeable about climate science. Nor can I argue about the metrics you discuss. But your initial argument doesn't seem to need any knowledge of climate science to refute - it being a meta-scientific argument about models vs. predictions. One I don't suspect you hold about other sciences - hence why I brought up the standard model in quantum physics. It might not have been the argument you meant to produce, though. If not, I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

January 20, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

Jonathan -

You might find this interesting, in particular the follow-on comments from Dessler

January 20, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Oops.

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/01/20/narrowing-the-climate-sensitivity-range/

January 20, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

@Joshua
you ask

Given the role that you ascribe to cognitive profile in polarizing views on climate change, what do you think might be the interaction between cognitive profile and age (assuming the second theory, or perhaps even the first theory?) in influencing polarization on climate change?"

I've done the analyses. But before I post them, you tell me what you think they should be expected to show & why. Or better still, what plausible but opposing hypotheses they could support based on what they show & why.

January 21, 2018 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

"There is a difference between what they are apparently doing - using a particular metric to test models - vs. what you appeared to imply: that other metrics that fail to match with model predictions can then be used to discredit all models just because they don't match, not because of their importance to the predictions that matter."

The only difference is that they're only using one metric.

And I'm not sure how you can say that their predictions of the current global mean temperature are not of importance to the predictions that matter.

"I cannot argue if the metric they chose has this importance or not for various reasons, most importantly that I'm not knowledgeable about climate science. Nor can I argue about the metrics you discuss."

Maybe you can't argue about mine, but you can't argue about the one used by Cox et al. either. So why do you accept Cox's argument and not mine? Or do you not accept Cox's argument, either?

As it happens, I *am* fairly knowledgeable about climate science. I'm happy to explain further if you're interested. But before we do that, pause for a moment to consider what you're doing in "motivated cognition" terms. Are you trying to identify the best available scientific evidence, or are you trying to prove me wrong to maintain your existing belief system? Or are they the same? That's not a criticism or insult - it's just an observation on how all humans work.

"But your initial argument doesn't seem to need any knowledge of climate science to refute - it being a meta-scientific argument about models vs. predictions."

What do you think my initial argument was? Where did I say anything about discrediting their usefulness?

The paper takes the approach of finding some metric not in the training set used to design the climate models, observes that most of them predict results that disagree with observation, and the higher the climate sensitivity the more they disagree, and then effectively drops them.

It's a blindingly obvious approach that I've suggested before - the problem being that if you do so with a slightly wider range of metrics, you end up eliminating *all* of the climate models. They *all* make predictions contradicted by reality! And I'm sure you remember what Feynman said about that.

What makes anybody think that the high-ECS climate models that disagree with reality most on Cox's metric are therefore worse at predicting ECS? Do any of the pop-sci articles we have access to say? So why is this credible?

And more to the point, why did you not notice the gaping hole when the pop-sci articles did it (or Feynman for that matter), but the fallacy immediately popped out at you when I repeated it? This is the value of sceptics. It's only by arguing about it with people who disagree that we can hope to find the truth.

The loss of so important an aid to the intelligent and living apprehension of a truth, as is afforded by the necessity of explaining it to, or defending it against, opponents, though not sufficient to outweigh, is no trifling drawback from, the benefit of its universal recognition. Where this advantage can no longer be had, I confess I should like to see the teachers of mankind endeavouring to provide a substitute for it; some contrivance for making the difficulties of the question as present to the learner's consciousness, as if they were pressed upon him by a dissentient champion, eager for his conversion.

January 21, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

Dan - I'm curious to see your analyses on millenials, mostly because the next generation, Z, the first ever brought up entirely on the internet, is (as far as the boys are concerned) solidly conservative. Girls are not - which I attribute to the fact they are not, generally, gamers, a proven gateway to the alt-right.

But I will tell you my theory on the gap between millenials and the previous generations your data illustrates: these people subscribe to odd (to me) theories, such as:
1. Being black is a disability.
https://news.law.fordham.edu/blog/2017/12/21/accessible-equality/
2. Being an illegal alien is a disability.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/books/2016/01/23/roberto-gonzales-lives-limbo/644C7EASrbCyliDj8cipMN/story.html
3. Non-politically correct language constitutes assault.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/language-as-a-weapon-in-trump-era-immigration-debate-grows-more-heated-over-what-words-to-use/2018/01/21/d5d9211a-fd6a-11e7-a46b-a3614530bd87_story.html?utm_term=.75439df1db6a

If one really believes such things, then believing that anthropogenic CO2 can change the climate becomes easy. I really don't see how to get rid of this accretion of myths other than to discard them wholesale. And I think NiV is being too optimistic in thinking Mill's approach of dialogue can work in the absence of a common language.

January 22, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

Beyond satire:

>>>> Women’s March expected to be largest gathering of people with disabilities in US history <<<<

https://www.vox.com/2017/1/19/14327496/womens-march-largest-gathering-disability-community

January 22, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

.....and on to Europe:

"Women who identify as men are not being routinely offered potentially life saving NHS screening for breast and cervical cancer, amid fears it might offend them .....However men living as women are being invited for cervical smear tests even though they do not have a cervix, an official guidebook states."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/14/women-identify-men-not-offered-routine-nhs-breast-cancer-screening/

January 22, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

Dan - I'm curious to see your analyses on millenials, mostly because the next generation, Z, the first ever brought up entirely on the internet, is (as far as the boys are concerned) solidly conservative. Girls are not - which I attribute to the fact they are not, generally, gamers, a proven gateway to the alt-right.

What do you mean by "conservative" here? It seems to me that newer, younger people internally resolve a lot of ideological disputes in some ways that would feel hair-splitting to people from older generations and framings. The people I know of that age are pro-gun-owning, but not hawkish; anti-union, but pro-labor; willing to give over private data on condition that it be well used; strongly libertarian, but think the social safety net is the basis of liberty, not its cancer.

Also, what kinds of gamers and what kinds of games are associated with the alt-right?

January 23, 2018 | Unregistered Commenterdypoon

"Women who identify as men are not being routinely offered potentially life saving NHS screening for breast and cervical cancer, amid fears it might offend them"

That's nonsense. It's because they've only got a male/female check box, and the automated mailing lists are generated by over-simplistic software that only uses age and sex as criteria to decide who to send the invitations to. Some people have complicated medical histories, and don't fit into the simple boxes used for the majority.

January 23, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

Dan -

I've done the analyses. But before I post them, you tell me what you think they should be expected to show & why. Or better still, what plausible but opposing hypotheses they could support based on what they show & why.

Ok - I wrote a response but before posting it thought I might try cheating first, by asking you a question: Is there any evidence on any association between age and performance on the assessments you use to assess cognitive profile (assessments of the sort you use as tools to determine a causal role for cognitive profile in increasing polarization)?

January 23, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Dypoon - your list is what I meant by conservative:
pro-gun / anti-union / cautious with private data / strongly libertarian,
As to safety net, nobody advocates letting anyone go without food, clothing, shelter, medical care.

Gamers refers to video games - and boys definitely play those more than girls, whence the sex differential in my estimates. For link of gamers to alt-right, fastest explanation could find is this 3-minute video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN1P6UA7pvM

About 15% of that subgroup (mostly boys, mostly white, "white" defined to include Orientals - viz videogame link) follows, mostly via 4chan, memes associated with extreme right (mostly satirical) websites:
https://dailystormer.red/
If above link inoperative due to renewed internet censorship, follow Tor mirror link at:
https://dstormer6em3i4km.onion.link/

The entire demographic is united against political correctness internet censorship. Likely to support
https://www.unz.com/article/what-vice-com-wouldnt-post-about-my-proposed-shallnotcensor-legislation/

January 23, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

NiV - of course it is nonsense. But that is not identical to simplistic software. To see this consider that in 2003-2004 people in nursing homes in Denmark started getting letters telling them to report to kindergarten - that's an obvious error due to fact systems only include last 2 digits for year of birth.

Basing medical services on "you are what you declare" lie well beyond the domain of obvious error in that they actually endanger patients for the sake of PC.

January 23, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

Dypoon - I did write a long reply to you before I wrote to NiV. It is obviously residing in Squarespace hold until censorship bots can clear it.

As this can take days, here is a non-controversial link included in the reply:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN1P6UA7pvM

January 23, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

"But that is not identical to simplistic software. To see this consider that in 2003-2004 people in nursing homes in Denmark started getting letters telling them to report to kindergarten - that's an obvious error due to fact systems only include last 2 digits for year of birth."

Sounds exactly the same to me.

"Basing medical services on "you are what you declare" lie well beyond the domain of obvious error in that they actually endanger patients for the sake of PC."

The problem is that reality has slightly fuzzy boundaries. There are about a dozen different definitions and purposes for knowing sex/sexuality, and they don't all coincide. So for what purpose are you asking? Do you want to know how to address a letter so it gets to the right person? How to address someone politely? As an aid to visual recognition? To assess whether they might be sexually attracted to you? Or available? Do you want to know what products they're most likely to be interested in buying in your shop? Are you trying to allocate gender-segregated facilities? Are you trying to predict what medical conditions they're most likely to have? What shape their genitals are? What chromosomes they have? What hormones are in their bloodstream? How is their brain wired? Do they have a beard? Do they have breasts? Are they Guevedoce? Or hermaphrodite/intersex? Have they been accidentally castrated in a car accident?

Real life is complicated! So if asked a simple "what sex" question with only one, binary answer allowed, people will try to guess what the purpose is to answer. But no transgender person would be under *any* illusions that a doctor needs to know exactly what they are and their medical history to be able to treat them - one of their primary complaints is doctors *not* being aware of the specialist treatment they need.

A Guevedoce adolescent would have exactly the same problem with your check box definition of sex; irrespective of political correctness. They've got more complicated requirements, and a medical database damn well ought to know that, and cope with it. They need a more comprehensive taxonomy of sex, and software that interprets it correctly.

--
By the way, it's not a case of a "'you are what you declare' lie". Transgenderism is caused by developmental errors in the womb (caused, for example, by faulty androgen receptor genes) causing parts of the brain to develop to the pattern of the other sex compared to the rest of the body. The anatomical differences show up on brain scans. While simply asking them is certainly the *easiest* way to find out, it's as biologically objective (and natural) as whether you're an introvert or extrovert. It's just the way you're wired.

January 23, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

NiV - I'm more than happy to take your word on the transgenders and biology in general. So I accept both programs are simplistic - fine, they have to be, as all scientific nuances cannot possibly fit into questionnaires the general public will actually fill out.

The problem of censorship bots, however, is very different. Btw, I certainly don't suspect Dan of having knowledge of whatever algorithms are slowing down my messages - as of now, my post to Dypoon remains hidden, for instance. Censorship is repulsive in any form. That is one topic on which the left, center, and alt-right agree - with the exception of the PC contingent, which oddly spans all 3 categories. Which also makes Dan's horizontal axis questionable, btw.

Here is a sampling of each of these categories:

The idea that the drive for large audiences makes the mass media "democratic" thus suffers from the initial weakness that its political analogue is a voting system weighted by income!
https://chomsky.info/consent01/

In a corporatist system of government ... corporate censorship is government censorship, of an even more pernicious strain than if Jeff Sessions were touring the country burning books.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-21/assange-keeps-warning-ai-censorship-and-its-time-we-started-listening

VICE: Do you see your proposed legislation as a federal law or an amendment to the US Constitution?
[NEHLEN] A federal law. We already have the First Amendment, though private companies are not required to follow it. They are, however, bound by federal statutes.
https://www.unz.com/article/what-vice-com-wouldnt-post-about-my-proposed-shallnotcensor-legislation/

And your John Stuart Mill would agree!

January 23, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

Dypoon - looked in quickly to see if my post to you from yesterday has appeared, but it hasn't. If it does, it will be in the current sequence for Jan. 23, one or two posts before my previous one addressed to you.

I studied the censorship algorithms and think I can bypass them - maybe, only testing will tell.

First, please read a tweet by a leftist journalist named Yglesias, who agrees with me:
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/946433893145763842?lang=en

Then click on the link titled "Generation Z...." on this website to see what Yglesias is talking about:
https://www.voat.co/v/DailyStormer/2314021

Will wait to see if this post appears to post further.

January 24, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

OK, just as I thought :)

Finally, this is timely:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/style/generation-names.html

Already the site has been deluged with messages giving the answer provided by the alt-right publication linked above. I think the NYT has been incredibly naive in asking such a question without examining the demographic involved first. And no, you don't have to be a hacker to bypass the PC censorship police, most algorithms are easy to figure out. Somebody should explain this to Alan Dershowitz, who got booted out of a website for making a joke about the original Der Stürmer (though I think he was later reinstated by some human overriding the algorithm):
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/alan-dershowitz-do-the-jews-control-the-world/article/2646868

January 24, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>