Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Phryxis wrote:why it's mostly all conservatives, with a few "moderates" and a few "fallen Democrats." The fact is, the rate at which we're spending is concerning, and a lot of people responded to that.

It's a recession, spending is what you do in a recession. The public sector has to pick up the slack for what the private sector isn't doing. And while we're talking about "facts" the fact is that we have a Nobel Prize winning economist saying the stimulus wasn't big enough. His word means far, far more than yours.

Monster Rain wrote:

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:And Glod claims to be taking back the civil rights movement from the left, which kind of implies it belonged to the conservative movement?

Lincoln was a Republican. Just saying.

True, but I didn't use the word republican, I used the word conservative.

Well... yeah... But Republicans are generally viewed as being "conservative", N'EST-CE PAS?

Relevancy to anything? Up until the past few decades, the Democrats were the racist party. What's your point?

Bookwrack wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:And Glod claims to be taking back the civil rights movement from the left, which kind of implies it belonged to the conservative movement?

Lincoln was a Republican. Just saying.

True, but I didn't use the word republican, I used the word conservative.

Well... yeah... But Republicans are generally viewed as being "conservative", N'EST-CE PAS?

Relevancy to anything? Up until the past few decades, the Democrats were the racist party. What's your point?

I don't think any explanation of my point could be clearer than the text you already quoted.

Phryxis wrote:
P.S. Who else is COMPLETELY stoked that Gailbraithe is back from his suspension?

I know I am.

Vene wrote:

Phryxis wrote:why it's mostly all conservatives, with a few "moderates" and a few "fallen Democrats." The fact is, the rate at which we're spending is concerning, and a lot of people responded to that.

It's a recession, spending is what you do in a recession. The public sector has to pick up the slack for what the private sector isn't doing. And while we're talking about "facts" the fact is that we have a Nobel Prize winning economist saying the stimulus wasn't big enough. His word means far, far more than yours.

Word. I love it.
The stimulus was the right thing to do.
You tea partiers just cant admit your system didnt work and papa bear govt had to come save your
AF

The spending was a concern before the recession officially started though, IIRC.

And while we're talking about "facts" the fact is that we have a Nobel Prize winning economist saying the stimulus wasn't big enough. His word means far, far more than yours.

Wow, getting a bit testy... I guess I'm just CRAZY for suggesting that the size of our national debt, and the $300 billion plus we spend a year servicing it, is a problem.

And, when, exactly, did I say anything about the stimulus?

Phryxis wrote:

And while we're talking about "facts" the fact is that we have a Nobel Prize winning economist saying the stimulus wasn't big enough. His word means far, far more than yours.

Wow, getting a bit testy... I guess I'm just CRAZY for suggesting that the size of our national debt, and the $300 billion plus we spend a year servicing it, is a problem.

And, when, exactly, did I say anything about the stimulus?

You said spending, that was a huge amount of spending done under Obama. If you're not talking about the stimulus, then you're talking about something trivial.

It is possible to believe both that the stimulus was necessary and that the government, in general, spends too much.

And while we're talking about "facts" the fact is that we have a Nobel Prize winning economist saying the stimulus wasn't big enough. His word means far, far more than yours.

You speak as if the Nobel Prize somehow still has credibility

dogma wrote:It is possible to believe both that the stimulus was necessary and that the government, in general, spends too much.

I actually think it's the consensus view.

LordofHats wrote:

And while we're talking about "facts" the fact is that we have a Nobel Prize winning economist saying the stimulus wasn't big enough. His word means far, far more than yours.

You speak as if the Nobel Prize somehow still has credibility

Are you implying that they just hand it out willy nilly to anyone they happen to like at the moment? Like Mr. Obama? Balderdash!

I do like that he sent more troops to Afghanistan after that though. In your face, Sweden!

Monster Rain wrote:

dogma wrote:It is possible to believe both that the stimulus was necessary and that the government, in general, spends too much.

I actually think it's the consensus view.

Its certainly my view.

Monster Rain wrote:
Are you implying that they just hand it out willy nilly to anyone they happen to like at the moment? Like Mr. Obama? Balderdash!

I do like that he sent more troops to Afghanistan after that though. In your face, Sweden!

To be fair, the Peace Prize has very little in common with the prizes awarded in various sciences and social sciences. The Peace Prize is basically meaningless, the others are actually quite prestigious, even if only for their incredibly high selectivity.

To be fair, the Peace Prize has very little in common with the prizes awarded in various sciences and social sciences. The Peace Prize is basically meaningless, the others are actually quite prestigious, even if only for their incredibly high selectivity.

Tell that to the nobel prize in literature

I have been taught to say....




I l i k e p you d d i n g . . .




mmmmm pudding


ps this system of government is broken we need a 2th edition

I think the Nobel Prize in literature has significance. There's controversy, sure, but that's the nature of all awards.

Plus, Solzhenitsyn won it, and that pleases me.

LordofHats wrote:

To be fair, the Peace Prize has very little in common with the prizes awarded in various sciences and social sciences. The Peace Prize is basically meaningless, the others are actually quite prestigious, even if only for their incredibly high selectivity.

Tell that to the nobel prize in literature

Since when has literature been a science or a social science?

dogma wrote:I think the Nobel Prize in literature has significance.

Yeah. Its nice when the judges win the prize

I just don't consider any of the Nobel Prizes to have any real meaning. The people who win them always seem to win them because judges agree with what they say, not because of any achievement worthy of praise. If it only happened once or twice I wouldn't really care, but it happens almost all the time. The prize in literature is probably even more tainted by bias than the Peace prize. It's not just an appeal to authority it's an appeal to an obviously biased authority to claim that we should listen to someone because they got a nobel prize.

It is literature, so maybe a little slack?

One person can find a person's work to be mindless drivel while someone else can see the same work and see it as a masterpiece.

Though having a judge win is just silly.

LordofHats wrote:
I just don't consider any of the Nobel Prizes to have any real meaning. The people who win them always seem to win them because judges agree with what they say, not because of any achievement worthy of praise.

Name an award (athletic championships, and highest score titles don't count) that isn't like that.

LordofHats wrote:
If it only happened once or twice I wouldn't really care, but it happens almost all the time. The prize in literature is probably even more tainted by bias than the Peace prize. It's not just an appeal to authority it's an appeal to an obviously biased authority to claim that we should listen to someone because they got a nobel prize.

All awards are appeals to authority, and all authorities are biased when they are forced to make judgments because judgment is inherently biased.

I think the point of that guy winning a nobel prize in economics... isnt that he's infallible.... but that he probably knows alot more about economics than anyone posting here does. It's a fair point.

I can't stand it when guys who get all their facts from fox news and glenn beck feel like they're entitled to debate economics with a PhD. Its like barging into an MDs office and telling him hes practicing medicine in a bad way, and when he asks you what your own credentials are, all you can say is "uhhh.... I watched this show on the learning channel."
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I think the point of that guy winning a nobel prize in economics... isnt that he's infallible.... but that he probably knows alot more about economics than anyone posting here does. It's a fair point.

I can't stand it when guys who get all their facts from fox news and glenn beck feel like they're entitled to debate economics with a PhD. Its like barging into an MDs office and telling him hes practicing medicine in a bad way, and when he asks you what your own credentials are, all you can say is "uhhh.... I watched this show on the learning channel."
AF

I mean, I'm an academic, and while I find it annoying when laypeople try to argue with me regarding those things that I study, I also think that its important to remember that no one is infallible. A PhD is nice, sure, but it doesn't meant that all of the holder's opinions are interesting, or even rational.

agree. It just means that the guy who doesnt have the training isnt entitled to speak to the PhD holder on equal terms when it comes to the PhD holders area of study. the PhD guy could still be wrong. Its more about respect than anything else. If someone has the training and you dont you ought to defer to them in that area.

Whats your field btw?

I tend to listen to people who are educated over those who are not within my fields of interest. I'm not an academic, I like working with my hands.

Beyond attempting to pay attention to information from more informed sources, I also tend to listen to people that actually make sense. I don't care if you can't explain yourself. The 'experts' of any given field tend to have a great deal of political skills, at least those concerning personal relationships. If something sounds strange, I will usually regard it as strange until I have looked further into it myself (if that is even possible concerning the subject), or heard several reasoned and understandable arguments backing it up with the same points. Doesn't mean whatever talks the most wins, more that I will probably listen a whole lot more if it is illustrated very clearly and intelligently, no matter who is saying it.

Currently I'm working towards my PhD in political science, but I also do a lot of work in philosophy (primarily logic), and neuroscience.

Sort of a weird combination, but I'm investigating the implications of ternary logic and neural workspace theory for social science as a whole, and international relations specifically, so there is at least a bit of an explanation.

You study consciousness? I am not sure what I am reading here is what you are referring to.

http://pissaro.soc.huji.ac.il/~leon/mivnim/pdfs/lamme.pdf

There is other stuff talking about global workspace theory, is it the same thing? Kind of interesting, think you could explain a little bit?

If you don't respond, I will assume your field looks something like this. I can live with that.

Wrexasaur wrote:You study consciousness? I am not sure what I am reading here is what you are referring to.

http://pissaro.soc.huji.ac.il/~leon/mivnim/pdfs/lamme.pdf

Yeah, that's the right field. Right now philosophy of mind and neuroscience are closely linked, which is why there is a sort of philosophical argument going on in that article. Its an interesting field not only because it deals with just about everything that is human, but because a link between the physical sciences and philosophy is bound to move the discipline towards the social sciences.

Wrexasaur wrote:
There is other stuff talking about global workspace theory, is it the same thing? Kind of interesting, think you could explain a little bit?

Yeah, its the same thing. The specific name varies by author, but the core concepts are essentially the same.

It will take me a long time to fully explain, but the basic idea is that stimuli are brought together in the titular 'workspace' in order to assemble a mental artifact. In essence, the physical stimuli absorbed by the physical processes of the brain are processed in a single part of the cortex; giving rise to what we nominally refer to as the mind. That's not a very explanatory statement to anyone, but it does appear that it is generally correct given our present view (used literally to regard brain scans) of the brain.

Vene wrote:

Phryxis wrote:why it's mostly all conservatives, with a few "moderates" and a few "fallen Democrats." The fact is, the rate at which we're spending is concerning, and a lot of people responded to that.

It's a recession, spending is what you do in a recession. The public sector has to pick up the slack for what the private sector isn't doing. And while we're talking about "facts" the fact is that we have a Nobel Prize winning economist saying the stimulus wasn't big enough. His word means far, far more than yours.

1. A Nobel Prize is awarded for a particular piece of work. Krugman's was awarded for his work in international trade, not in stimulus policy. His opinion of Obama's stimulus was never considered by the Nobel judges, and the prize therefore doesn't act as any guarantee of Krugman's work on the subject.

2. Krugman's a Keynesian. He supports Keynesian stimulus spending. Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, Nobel Prize winners themselves, were both staunch critics of Keynes. Friedman would no doubt have been highly critical of Krugman's stimulus plan, and Hayek opposed stimulus as a matter of principle.

dogma wrote:Yeah, its the same thing. The specific name varies by author, but the core concepts are essentially the same.

It will take me a long time to fully explain, but the basic idea is that stimuli are brought together in the titular 'workspace' in order to assemble a mental artifact. In essence, the physical stimuli absorbed by the physical processes of the brain are processed in a single part of the cortex; giving rise to what we nominally refer to as the mind. That's not a very explanatory statement to anyone, but it does appear that it is generally correct given our present view (used literally to regard brain scans) of the brain.

That is pretty cool.

I bet my processing unit looks a lot like this. Like a badass.



My head is in a jar inside my head or something.

Do you get to study brain scans and things along those lines? Maybe trying to connect brain activity to calculable responses in a social environment? I will forever think of you as a platypus in a lab-coat, which is really what you should change your avatar to. Alternatively a bionic platypus, much like this.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Do you get to study brain scans and things along those lines? Maybe trying to connect brain activity to calculable responses in a social environment? I will forever think of you as a platypus in a lab-coat, which is really what you should change your avatar to. Alternatively a bionic platypus, much like this.

I do indeed, or I did before I moved away from a solid neuroscience department. But yeah, you basically have the right idea regading what my sort of neuroscience does.

Also, my platypus is bionic, however the one you have supplied is superior to it.

Dude... I had no idea what that image was actually illustrating until I found an original right now.

It appears to be a transparent background.

Looks kinda weird on gray, still makes sense though.



Cool.

http://www.thetech.org/exhibits/online/robotzoo/about/platypus.html

In fact that whole collection is pretty awesome.

http://www.thetech.org/exhibits/online/robotzoo/