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.
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 differences in the brain and game outcomes, great... someone can e
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)
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)
I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were some relatively reliable way to distinguish brains in men and women. Even so, that fact, standing alone, wouldn't get anywhere close to proving the range of things that you want to prove when it comes to biological explanations for differences in behavior between men and women.
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 tha
What's your take on my claim that very small average differences in interests or talents from early childhood between groups can generate massive differences in outcomes between groups when adult, because of path dependence of choices about what to focus on with your time?
I'd like to say that the new method of just deleting iffy posts seems to be working well. It got me posting again over the previous method. I truly didn't believe it would work, but I'm happy that it is.
I think if we'd had this months back, a few people would still be with us.
Good work mod team
suck up....
I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were some relatively reliable way to distinguish brains in men and women. Even so, that fact, standing alone, wouldn't get anywhere close to proving the range of things that you want to prove when it comes to biological explanations for differences in behavior between men and women.
I mean, the fact that it takes advanced machine intelligence to distinguish men's and women's brains unambiguously is bad news for the calipers crowd, but bless their hearts, they're too dim to ever catch on.
It’s actually a lot more work for me but I try to make things nice where I can, even if everyone is just constantly mad at me anyway
Thanks, rafiki ♥
Stanford medicine magazine
(Spring 2017)
/
The neuroscience literature shows that the human brain is a sex-typed organ with distinct anatomical differences in neural structures and accompanying physiological differences in function, says UC-Irvine professor of neurobiology and behavior Larry Cahill, PhD. Cahill edited the 70-article January/February 2017 issue of the Journal of Neuroscience Research — the first-ever issue of any neuroscience journal devoted entirely to the influence of sex differences on nervous-system function.
Brain-imaging studies indicate that these differences extend well beyond the strictly reproductive domain, Cahill says. Adjusted for total brain size (men’s are bigger), a woman’s hippo*campus, critical to learning and memorization, is larger than a man’s and works differently. Conversely, a man’s amygdala, associated with the experiencing of emotions and the recollection of such experiences, is bigger than a woman’s. It, too, works differently, as Cahill’s research has demonstrated.
In 2000, Cahill scanned the brains of men and women viewing either highly aversive films or emotionally neutral ones. The aversive films were expected to trip off strong negative emotions and concomitant imprinting in the amygdala, an almond-shaped structure found in each brain hemisphere. Activity in the amygdala during the viewing experience, as expected, predicted subjects’ later ability to recall the viewed clips. But in women, this relationship was observed only in the left amygdala. In men, it was only in the right amygdala. Cahill and others have since confirmed these results.
Seriously, can we at least get a containment thread for the calipers/eugenics stuff?
I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were some relatively reliable way to distinguish brains in men and women. Even so, that fact, standing alone, wouldn't get anywhere close to proving the range of things that you want to prove when it comes to biological explanations for differences in behavior between men and women.
Do an eeg while showing pictures of attractive women (and a few men) and you'll have a reasonably reliable detector.
Not sure that tells us much about their interests in history
It’s actually a lot more work for me but I try to make things nice where I can, even if everyone is just constantly mad at me anyway
Thanks, rafiki ♥
I'm sorry it's more work. I think some of us are trying to spot stuff that gets deleted, and not repeat it. I do think some folks are very good at baiting though. Efforts will be made to not take the bait.
Fwiw my sense is there's a lot less mad than before. It feels a lot better around here. Full credit.
bruv comes into the thread celebrating massive death and destruction and then accuses others of baiting.
Got to keep the genocide flame alive.
Quit it! I’m gonna only be around lightly today bc we’re doing family celebrations for Rosh Hashanah. Everybody be nice! ♥
If I'm not calling people names, it has nothing to do with modding. I just feel emotionally less invested. I still think most of you are monsters.
Happy New Year!
Wow Joe Biden finally does a WH press briefing? Is this the first one 15 whole minutes
Must have been cloudy on the beach
I've used rugs to kill weeds before. Just move them around to different parts of the yard to kill everything underneath. Eventually you forget about it and over time it becomes buried.
I got an infraction by crossnerd for a purported insult to a fellow poster , for a post where i was describing rightwing low info low iq voters who fall for obvious scams as "low value lives", i don't understand
I got an infraction by crossnerd for a purported insult to a fellow poster , for a post where i was describing rightwing low info low iq voters who fall for obvious scams as "low value lives", i don't understand
I got one too for telling someone to use his sex organs on himself. And I don't get it either because that sounds like fun.
