President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
I will never, ever care whether you guys think me being upset at fascists taking over my country is somehow bad. You're damn right I'm pissed and I stopped putting up with it a long time ago. Spoiler: I'm going to be pretty pissy until this administration is out and forgotten. If you don't like it, you got exactly one option. And if you think you're somehow scoring internet poi
Thank you for once again providing evidence for footys assertion. Just please don't have a stroke while pounding your keyboard. I like our interactions.
For the record, I never said I didn't like it. In fact, in some ways I find it quite amusing. That said, I'd prefer you not die of a coronary because you're mad at some anonymous poster in an antiquated politics forum in an antiquated poker website. It's not worth it imo.
Yet we manage do this all the time with the modern technological marvel that is a survey.
And the survey results often vary greatly.
And surveys typically reveal what people say their beliefs are, not what they actually believe.
Surveys can certainly be useful with respect to something concrete like "who do you plan to vote for in the next election?" In such a question there is nothing problematic or nebulous or ill-defined with any of the terms in the question.
You don't have to keep thanking me. I don't give half a squirt about his assertion, nor anyone's opinion about my behavior here. If it floats your boat just fire up your little scoreboard and watch the numbers fly. I won't be shamed, so you can stop trying.
And the survey results often vary greatly.
And surveys typically reveal what people say their beliefs are, not what they actually believe.
Surveys can certainly be useful with respect to something concrete like "who do you plan to vote for in the next election?" In such a question there is nothing problematic or nebulous or ill-defined with any of the terms in the question.
I'm not an expert on constructing surveys, but I don't see why someone who is couldn't construct one to establish some sort of relative "happiness index". I mean, sure, we might not be able to definitively say whether Israel should be 7th or 8th or 9th or whatever, but we can probably safely say it's not 100th.
A bit like if I wanted to survey a bunch of people to establish whether they prefer corn flakes, frosties, or dogshit, I might not be able to tell you exactly whether corn flakes or frosties should be first, but I could pretty safely tell you from the results what should be third.
Anyhoo, since you're the one who brought the Happiness Index into the conversation, could you please explain to us why we should believe anything it says? Thanks!
Do you think they fabricated the results or do you just think the way they collected and calculated the results is flawed? I see no reason to believe the former and the latter seems fine to me. You are free to disbelieve what you want. I'm not asking you to believe anything.
It's not a guess. He can see IP addresses, although he pretends not to be able to because it makes him seem less creepy.
Regular mods can't see IP addresses. There are some people involved in the administation of this site who can run IP checks, but I was never one of them.
I'm not an expert on constructing surveys, but I don't see why someone who is couldn't construct one to establish some sort of relative "happiness index". I mean, sure, we might not be able to definitively say whether Israel should be 7th or 8th or 9th or whatever, but we can probably safely say it's not 100th.A bit like if I wanted to survey a bunch of people to establish whet
I think you're making my point to some extent.
"Do you prefer Cornflakes to CocoPuffs?" is straightforward with no problematic terms unlike measuring something multi-layered and complicated like 'happiness.'
And it gets even more nebulous and/or elusive when comparing notions of happiness with different cultures.
You don't have to keep thanking me. I don't give half a squirt about his assertion, nor anyone's opinion about my behavior here. If it floats your boat just fire up your little scoreboard and watch the numbers fly. I won't be shamed, so you can stop trying.
I certainly wasn't trying to shame you. I've never seen you post anything shameful.
Well, you certainly seem adamant in pointing out that I'm proving some point the new df made. I simply don't care if my behavior proves or disproves someone's theory. My ire is justified and will continue.
Do you think they fabricated the results or do you just think the way they collected and calculated the results is flawed? I see no reason to believe the former and the latter seems fine to me. You are free to disbelieve what you want. I'm not asking you to believe anything.
I have no reason to think that it wasn't an honest survey. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, who knows?
I thought I made it clear that it was never an issue honesty or integrity of the researchers; it's a matter of trying to nail jello to a tree.
Never heard of this guy so I looked him up, he was quite the peach. Too bad he never had a Twitter account, he would be a darling of the manosphere for sure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evo...
Evola held that women "played" with men, threatened their masculinity, and lured them into a "constrictive" grasp with their sexuality.[5] He wrote that "It should not be expected of women that they return to what they really are ... when men themselves retain only the semblance of true virility",[92] and lamented that "men instead of being in control of sex are controlled by it and wander about like drunkards".[63][page needed] He believed that in Tantra and sex magic, in which he saw a strategy for aggression, he found the means to counter the "emasculated" West.[63][page needed] Evola also said that the "ritual violation of virgins",[95] and "whipping women" were a means of "consciousness raising",[24] so long as these practices were done to the intensity required to produce the proper "liminal psychic climate".
I have no reason to think that it wasn't an honest survey. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, who knows?
I thought I made it clear that it was never an issue honesty or integrity of the researchers; it's a matter of trying to nail jello to a tree.
Why is it that you believe happiness can't be quantified? Do you think it would be possible to tell how many people in a room of 100 people are happy? Do you think there are objective measures of happiness? Do you think, with all other things being equal, a society with an average life expectancy of 80 years would be any happier than a society with a life expectancy of 67 (again, with all other things being equal)? If yes, do you think this should be included in a calculation of a happiness index? Do you think, generally speaking, that a society with more freedom of choice in their lives would be happier than a society with less freedom of choice in their lives? Do you think a well constructed survey asking people how happy they are with various parts of their lives might be a useful tool in determining how happy that person was, and would it be possible to aggregate these determinations in some way? Did you know that many companies use tools like this happiness index to guide their policies, and companies that improve their index rating see measurable improvement in turnover rate?
I'm just confused about why you think this would be so difficult to measure.
Because happiness isn't essentially a quantity, it's a quality.
The 18th century philosopher Jeremy Benthem thought he could quantify happiness, and developed what he called a "hedonic calculus."
The chief objection to this idea is that in many aspects of happiness are not subject to quantification.
Here's a example:
I just love eating glazed donuts. Eating glazed donuts makes me very happy. I also love reading Plato. Reading Plato makes me very a happy. The question is: How many glazed doughnuts would I have to eat to make me as happy as reading Plato? It's difficult, if not impossible, to answer because there is a qualitative difference in the type of happiness experienced with each action/activity.
It would be far less problematic to compare eating glazed donuts to eating strawberry shortcake, because they are very similar qualitatively.
I'll address the rest of your post if/when you respond to this. Thanks.
I would have to read both the Timaeus and the Crito to equal one glazed donut.
Because happiness isn't essentially a quantity, it's a quality.The 18th century philosopher Jeremy Benthem thought he could quantify happiness, and developed what he called a "hedonic calculus." The chief objection to this idea is that in many aspects of happiness are not subject to quantification.Here's a example:I just love eating glazed donuts. Eating glazed donuts makes m
Oh the response is simple. Happiness can be quantified and it's trivial to prove. If one room has 8 happy people and 2 sad people in it, and another room has 2 happy people and 8 sad people in it, is one room happier than the other?
Alright, your turn.
Oh the response is simple. Happiness can be quantified and it's trivial to prove. If one room has 8 happy people and 2 sad people in it, and another room has 2 happy people and 8 sad people in it, is one room happier than the other?
Alright, your turn.
gonna have to side with geezer on this one. you haven’t shown a quantity of happiness exists, you are talking about a quantity of people with the quality of happiness.
gonna have to side with geezer on this one. you haven’t shown a quantity of happiness exists, you are talking about a quantity of people with the quality of happiness.
That's cool because that's exactly what I was trying to show, so it's perfect that that's what I was talking about. I never once claimed that one could quantify an individual person's level of happiness, and that's not what the happiness index is trying to show.
The happiness index is a measure of how happy a group of people is, not how happy each individual is. How happy a group of people is is at least partly determined by how many people in that group claim to be happy vs. not happy. Seems pretty simple. As my previous post showed there are a lot of other factors that go into it, and, very importantly, companies that improve this number provably have better employee retention.
It must mean something.
