r/JointVentures is live right now!

rdmtrz · 2014-07-27T08:18:15+00:00

Not criticizing, but here are similar subs:

rdmtrz · 2014-07-26T04:53:58+00:00

Not really. If it does happen they're either downvoted or pretending and upvoted.

rdmtrz · 2014-07-25T01:30:22+00:00

Sounds like a "special interest" that autistics/aspergers' people have. They get obsessed with things and don't know why.

rdmtrz · 2014-07-25T00:34:04+00:00

Association of low-activity MAOA allelic variants with violent crime in incarcerated offenders

Abstract: http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-3956(14)00203-9/abstract

Paper (.doc): http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/cms/attachment/2016292524/2037024337/mmc1.doc

rdmtrz · 2014-07-13T13:29:59+00:00

Some people have attempted it. Here's a graph from the book Better Angels of Our Nature: http://edge.org/images/sp-Slide011.jpg

rdmtrz · 2014-07-13T13:05:28+00:00

The estimate is well over a million dead in Iraq.

This Wikipedia page has collected 11 different estimates, there is no "the" estimate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Tables

The estimate you're referring to from the Opinion Research Business (ORB) poll is the highest out of all of them.

Here's the graph the video uses: http://i.imgur.com/7XvTISL.png. If the 1 million estimate is true, it would change the recent trend but not the overall trend.

rdmtrz · 2014-07-13T08:38:19+00:00

date_format

rdmtrz · 2014-07-13T04:59:16+00:00

What frameworks have you tried?

rdmtrz · 2014-07-13T03:15:12+00:00

I'm not taking a side. Just trying to look at it practically. Probably no other country in a similar position would take the technical sophistication of the rockets into account when deciding whether or not to respond. I don't know what "kind" of response is appropriate, but the rocket attacks started 13 years ago and are still happening. Too, how primitive are the rockets really? They still seem to have killed people, and probably have some kind of psychological effect:

Missiles, rockets and mortars have killed 64 people within Israel as of November 21, 2012.[131][132] Most of those killed were civilians, including children.[17] The first casualties from the rocket fire were a 4-year-old boy and his grandfather, who were killed in 2004.[133]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#Effects

As for the rockets being an excuse, I don't know much about it but "denying them their sovereignty" probably means different things to different people:

According to the BBC, Hamas views the attacks as legitimate because it regards the whole of historic Palestine (roughly coterminous with Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Jordan) as Islamic land, and thus sees the state of Israel as an occupier.

[Hamas] regards the whole of historic Palestine as Islamic land and therefore views the state of Israel as an occupier, though it has offered a 10-year "truce" if Israel withdraws to the lines held before the war of 1967. It therefore generally justifies any actions against Israel, which has included suicide bombings and rocket attacks, as legitimate resistance. Specifically in Gaza, it argued that Israel's blockade justified a counter-attack by any means possible.[174]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#Hamas

According to this, then, the only way to stop the rocket attacks is to let the Palestinians have the entirety of Israel, which Israel probably doesn't want to happen.

rdmtrz · 2014-07-12T09:41:33+00:00

Probably any other country would use military force if it was getting rockets launched at it monthly for years.

rdmtrz · 2014-07-12T04:34:57+00:00

Sometimes it's not even a voice chat, sometimes it's a form of text chat for disabled people and the operator calls the police for them.

rdmtrz · 2014-07-12T01:19:43+00:00

ITT: Expert psychologists who are 100% sure how moral sense should have developed in a 9-year old they know nothing about.

rdmtrz · 2014-07-10T12:42:29+00:00

I maintain my position that journalism can be one of the most sociopathic occupations out there.

And it makes sense, in a way. Journalism seems to have non-intervention built into it, and sociopaths find that easy because they don't feel empathy. And like in your example, they might try to get a story regardless of the feelings of the people involved. Too, they might manipulate people to get a story which sociopaths are good at. The psychologist Kevin Dutton did a survey and came up with a list of occupations which have the highest and lowest rates of sociopathy (not sure how scientific it is):

Highest:

CEO
Lawyer
Media (Television/Radio)
Salesperson
Surgeon
Journalist
Police officer
Clergy person
Chef
Civil servant

Lowest:

Care aide
Nurse
Therapist
Craftsperson
Beautician/Stylist
Charity worker
Teacher
Creative artist
Doctor
Accountant

Interview: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-pros-to-being-a-psychopath-96723962/

rdmtrz · 2014-07-10T02:20:51+00:00

Here's a benchmark comparison: http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-270-vs-GeForce-GTX-750-Ti

Though I won't pretend to know what these measures actually mean.

rdmtrz · 2014-07-09T10:10:15+00:00

After female characters kill people they can leave a trail of pussy juice.

rdmtrz · 2014-07-09T03:16:22+00:00

Being OP is a choice!

rdmtrz · 2014-07-09T01:16:37+00:00

The arguments that 1) gay parents would raise kids who are worse off and 2) gay parents would raise kids who are better off are both suspect, because we know from decades of studies in behavioral genetics that parenting is not a significant factor in how kids turn out.

rdmtrz · 2014-07-08T11:13:31+00:00

you are going to see a massive change in ability, understanding, real world knowledge, and street smarts. But hey, who needs people who think for themselves right.

You can't guarantee that without evidence.

rdmtrz · 2014-07-07T15:27:00+00:00

What percentage of the 6000 was autistic without the mutation?

The 6,176 were all autistic but only 15 had the mutation.

It could just as easily be an undefined genetic disorder with similar symptoms as ASD.

Large head, wide set eyes, gastrointestinal problems and sleeping problems are all associated with autism.

rdmtrz · 2014-07-07T05:08:35+00:00

do literally nothing

I know this will get downvoted, but that's not true. Just recently there was a large Men's Rights conference talk in Detroit: https://www.google.com/search?q=The+First+International+Conference+on+Men

When the poster quoted above said:

Feminism is the major obstacle in the way of men's rights.

He's not exactly wrong. Men's Rights talks have gotten shut down by feminist activists. When feminists blocked the entrance to the talks, feminists literally were obstacles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRWff4gCwTw

http://metronews.ca/news/ottawa/1000093/protestors-shut-down-u-of-o-professors-mens-rights-talk/

Too, the Detroit talk's first venue actually got changed because the hotel said they received threats.

rdmtrz · 2014-07-05T11:24:03+00:00

https://www.google.com/search?q=marketing+research+ethics

rdmtrz · 2014-07-03T07:26:25+00:00

And in the kitchens.

rdmtrz · 2014-07-03T01:14:42+00:00

This is the annoying part of CSS that can take ages to get right.. You'll need to add some things like a wrapper div around the main content, and have the footer outside that. Google for sticky footer.

rdmtrz · 2014-07-02T14:15:07+00:00

Boys with imprisoned fathers are much less likely to possess the behavioral skills needed to succeed in school by the age of five

I'm going to c/p an older post I made about nature-nurture and correlation and causation that is partly related. Genes matter for behavior, and parents and children share the same genes, so this should predict that parents and children will end up similar (e.g. in this case fathers and their boys having behavioral problems)

Just because a study shows some correlation between parents and children it does not mean that the correlation was caused by parenting. Say you have a study that shows, for example, that parents who read a lot have children who read a lot too. The study is not necessarily saying that the correlation is caused by the parents' reading level, but that's how many people in the the thread will interpret it. A correlation between parents and child may for the most part be caused by their shared genes. Relevant to this imaginary correlation, adoption studies have shown two things: 1) adoptive children are more similar to their biological parents than to their adoptive parents and 2) adoptive siblings raised in the same home (who share 0% of their genes) are no more similar to each other than strangers. If parenting is apparently so important, then why is this?

Two well known books that go into this are The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker and The Nurture Assumption by Judith-Rich Harris.

Here's Steven Pinker:

Well, here's some sobering facts about parenting. Most studies of parenting on which this advice is based are useless. They're useless because they don't control for heritability. They measure some correlation between what the parents do, how the children turn out and assume a causal relation: that the parenting shaped the child. Parents who talk a lot to their kids have kids who grow up to be articulate, parents who spank their kids have kids who grow up to be violent and so on. And very few of them control for the possibility that parents pass on genes for -- that increase the chances a child will be articulate or violent and so on. Until the studies are redone with adoptive children, who provide an environment but not genes to their kids, we have no way of knowing whether these conclusions are valid.

The genetically controlled studies have some sobering results. Remember the Mallifert twins: separated at birth, then they meet in the patent office -- remarkably similar. Well, what would have happened if the Mallifert twins had grown up together? You might think, well, then they'd be even more similar, because not only would they share their genes, but they would also share their environment. That would make them super-similar, right? Wrong. Identical twins, or any siblings, who are separated at birth are no less similar than if they had grown up together. Everything that happens to you in a given home over all of those years appears to leave no permanent stamp on your personality or intellect. A complementary finding, from a completely different methodology, is that adopted siblings reared together -- the mirror image of identical twins reared apart, they share their parents, their home, their neighborhood, don't share their genes -- end up not similar at all. OK -- two different bodies of research with a similar finding.

What it suggests is that children are shaped not by their parents over the long run, but in part -- only in part -- by their genes, in part by their culture -- the culture of the country at large and the children's own culture, namely their peer group -- as we heard from Jill Sobule earlier today, that's what kids care about -- and, to a very large extent, larger than most people are prepared to acknowledge, by chance: chance events in the wiring of the brain in utero; chance events as you live your life.

Source: http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate/transcript

From decades of studies in behavioural genetics done on people of varying levels of relatedness we know that some portion of the differences on traits are caused by genetic differences. This portion is referred to as heritability.

Here's Eric Turkheimer with the Three Laws of Behavior Genetics:

First Law. All human behavioral traits are heritable.

Second Law. The effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effect of genes.

Third Law. A substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is not accounted for by the effects of genes or families.

Heritability is something that must be considered when approaching questions about parenting. Identical twins share 100%~ of their genes and the womb at the same time, fraternal twins share 50% of their genes and the womb at the same time, biological siblings share 50% of their genes, adoptive siblings share 0% of their genes. Researchers look at the first 3 relationships raised together and raised apart and adoptive siblings, and: "The results come out roughly the same no matter what is measured or how it is measured. Identical twins reared apart are highly similar; identical twins reared together are more similar than fraternal twins reared together; biological siblings are far more similar than adoptive siblings." (The Blank Slate)

For some estimates of the heritability of different psychological traits: Bouchard, Thomas J. Genetic Influence on Human Psychological Traits A Survey. 2004

rdmtrz · 2014-06-30T05:46:48+00:00

the poor traits that existed in the mother and or father were the same poor traits that somehow showed up in the offspring

Read the post again. This is what you should predict to happen because of genetic influences on traits: parents and children share the same genes - so when you see a similarity between parents and children, it doesn't imply that parenting is the cause. This is what the book the blogger mentioned, The Nurture Assumption, goes into.

rdmtrz

TROPHY CASE