Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is nothing wrong with the research. The example you proposed is one that can be largely quantified and determined by binary: do we contribute to climate change or not? Once the evidence has pointed in one direction, anyone who disagrees is simply wrong, not opinionated, wrong.
The immigrant example you keep harking on is clearly an opinion, because it cannot be fully quantified. You can look at the finances of farmers who rely on migrant workers, or you can look on the effect of crime in a city after migrant influx. Those are quantifiable. But the emotions of people when encountering an influx of migrants is something that cannot be quantified, and as such, the concept of migrants being good and bad is an opinion, as you enter the realm of non-quantifiable things, such as "what is American", "what will our culture become", "what do I want my society to look like", etc.
Pew's research is fine. Since you have a PhD is psychology, you should be fully aware on how un-quantifiable and uncertain human emotion and opinion is, considering how many psych papers are being constantly retracted.
So you'll be regressive to the point where you deny everything and anything just to disprove the concept of what a 'fact' is? We might as well ditch this shallow political debate and jump right into the philosophy of existence and fundamental reality since that is what you seemingly want to drive towards. Are you going to next suggest that nothing is real, and that since we don't know if this is your dream, nothing can ever be set in stone? Nothing can ever be known because none of this could be real?
My argument might seem like a mountain-from-a-mole-hill hyperbole, but that is what your argument is to Pew.
No comment. You sound completely irrational to me.
You have completely misunderstood the research, and you have completely misunderstood my example. And you also seem to not understand scientific research in general.
It is not really possible for climate scientists to get a definite answer about human causes of climate change. A consensus has been formed based on probabilities. That's first of all. But wait, there is more ...
The research did not ask if a statement was true or not. They asked if it was a fact or an opinion. Often there is no clear answer to that, but they assume there is. But the real problem is that a supposedly factual statement will not be called a fact by a respondent who happens to think it is not true.
I am quite capable of interpreting research. I'll ignore your insults, as my work speaks for itself. Let's try to tone it back though. I'll let bygones be bygones because I feel as if a decent conversation can still be salvaged from this wreck.
I sort of see what you were saying with that example, that on the "spectrum" between fact and opinion, so let's rewind.
Fact is a binary. Cause and effect. You can definitively say cigarettes cause cancer through accumulated damage on DNA via carcinogens delivered via the cigarette. You can say that CO2, generated in large amounts by mankind's everyday industries and travel, trap solar radiation on Earth, causing climate alterations. These are explainable facts that can be hashed out with scientific explanations. These are examples of facts.
Immigrants being bad or good, is something you can analyze through mass statistical data. No clear result has been derived if they are good or bad. One might argue that, let's say, a younger person may be exposed to studies saying "immigration is good for the economy" while an older person may be exposed to studies saying "immigration is bad for crime".
There I can see your argument, HOWEVER, the individual's view does not make something right or not. Their bias, regardless of liberal or conservative, does not equate to an overall, unbiased perspective that immigration is somewhere in the gray.
YES, I see what you mean in that Pew has bias, they probably should have also asked if "Immigration is good" is an opinion, to which the older people would have responded that yes, that is an opinion. However, this does not "erase" the bias seen within the older cohort.
So I DO see what you mean, but I have my reservations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
No comment. You sound completely irrational to me.
Bygones be bygones. I shouldn't have been so rude, and I apologize, although you are quite rude yourself.
This is not meant to be a condescending tip in any way, but if you want people to accept your ideas more, coming off with such an angry tone will only warrant pushback. I had to put aside all the emotional charge in this thread to finally see what you meant, and you do have a fair point, but you coat it in all this political silliness that make people resistant. The reason why this country is so ugly right now is because people treat discussion like it's a gladitorial arena. They come out swinging and sour the entire tone.
Last edited by sad_hotline; 11-02-2018 at 01:27 PM..
There was an obvious bias in the fact vs opinion research -- at least it was obvious in the example statements.
And it isn't hard to guess the motivation for this research. One of the big complaints Democrats have about Trump supporters is that they can't differentiate between facts and opinions. So here we have science affirming what they suspected -- younger Americans (who are probably less likely to be Trump supporters) are better at deciding if a statement is fact or fiction.
This is your apparent problem - you didn't read beyond the example statements? Because if you had you would learn something. Sorry, some of us did read further and found some answers that you are lacking.
Interesting that now you are seeking to politicize all this to distract from your weak initial arguments that were completely unconvincing.
It says that older people are worse at deciding if a statement is a fact or an opinion. Well, we suspected all along that young people are smarter, right? So this is not news. Another victory for age discrimination! Fire everyone in your company who is over 50.
But wait ... was the research fair and unbiased? Or was it contrived to "prove" something?
Here is one of the statements the researchers consider an opinion:
"Immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally are a very big problem for the country today."
61% of the over-50s knew that's an opinion, while 74% of the under-50s knew.
Well, OBVIOUSLY, that statement is considered a fact by a lot of conservatives, but not many liberals. And WE KNOW that older people are more likely to be conservative.
There are similar problems with most of the other statements.
So WHY is this research reported as if it shows what it supposedly shows?
And WHY is the PEW research center trying to inspire age discrimination?
Regardless of one's political leanings, "Immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally are a very big problem for the country today." is an opinion statement. A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false. An opinion is an expression of a person's feelings that cannot be proven. Opinions can be based on facts or emotions and sometimes they are meant to deliberately mislead others. The portion "very big problem" requires personal judgment (also known as opinion), regardless of whatever evidence one brings or does not bring to the table. So maybe the young folks are smarter, after all....
You have completely misunderstood the research, and you have completely misunderstood my example. And you also seem to not understand scientific research in general.
It is not really possible for climate scientists to get a definite answer about human causes of climate change. A consensus has been formed based on probabilities. That's first of all. But wait, there is more ...
The research did not ask if a statement was true or not. They asked if it was a fact or an opinion. Often there is no clear answer to that, but they assume there is. But the real problem is that a supposedly factual statement will not be called a fact by a respondent who happens to think it is not true.
You are patently incorrect - here is an excerpt from the methodology link within the article you posted:
After respondents classified a statement as either a factual or opinion statement, they were asked one of two follow-up questions. After a factual classification, they were asked if they thought the statement was accurate or inaccurate. After an opinion classification, they were asked if they agreed or disagreed with it.
Do you seriously not know how to read or do you just not understand how to click on a link? I'm actually starting to wonder if you have a deeper problem cognitively.
I can't believe that some don't accept this basic fact. No need to be political. No need to discredit a statement or an org.
Older people lose a lot of what they had.
They don't pick out fighter pilots from the ranks of the over-40.
The top physicists are young.
Even in surgery, which requires you HAVE to be a certain age (lots of training) , it is well known that many of the best surgeons lose their edge when they are over 50. That doesn't mean they aren't good...or even great. They may have experience that makes them actually better than the hotshots who are 35.
But when they put away the scapel and head home and turn on the TV, they are less able to discern fact from fiction. If they started medical school at 40 or 45 or 50, they probably would never become that top surgeon. Too dumb by then...
There have been many many studies similar to this and not a single one differs in the general sense. Actual scientific tests of brain activity, reaction, etc. all correlate with this.
The older brain is less flexible. This is the same reason the older set will often go to the same places over and over again (like a mouse who learned where the cheese was), while the younger person will break new ground.
Flexibility is perhaps the strongest sign of an active and learning mind.
This is why the age of the Rush listener (over 60) and of the former O'Reilly audience (over 65) was that way. If you ask THEM they'd say that's because only old people are SMART enough to understand the truth. But the real truth is the exact opposite! Only older people or those with stale brains or preconceived opinions would ever watch or listen to that stuff.
This is a situation that isn't up for debate. No matter what you say or what you think or what you link to, age deteriorates our brains and makes it harder to "hunt for the right game". Nature is very clear in it's methods and intentions. There is no need for the over-50 to figure out whether the Mastodon goes to the creek to drink every evening near sundown. But there is a need for the 15-25 year old to know that.
Use it or lose it. People who sit in chair or cars and listen to "infotainment" are, by studies, losing it.
I can't believe that some don't accept this basic fact. No need to be political. No need to discredit a statement or an org.
Older people lose a lot of what they had.
They don't pick out fighter pilots from the ranks of the over-40.
The top physicists are young.
Even in surgery, which requires you HAVE to be a certain age (lots of training) , it is well known that many of the best surgeons lose their edge when they are over 50. That doesn't mean they aren't good...or even great. They may have experience that makes them actually better than the hotshots who are 35.
But when they put away the scapel and head home and turn on the TV, they are less able to discern fact from fiction. If they started medical school at 40 or 45 or 50, they probably would never become that top surgeon. Too dumb by then...
There have been many many studies similar to this and not a single one differs in the general sense. Actual scientific tests of brain activity, reaction, etc. all correlate with this.
The older brain is less flexible. This is the same reason the older set will often go to the same places over and over again (like a mouse who learned where the cheese was), while the younger person will break new ground.
Flexibility is perhaps the strongest sign of an active and learning mind.
This is why the age of the Rush listener (over 60) and of the former O'Reilly audience (over 65) was that way. If you ask THEM they'd say that's because only old people are SMART enough to understand the truth. But the real truth is the exact opposite! Only older people or those with stale brains or preconceived opinions would ever watch or listen to that stuff.
This is a situation that isn't up for debate. No matter what you say or what you think or what you link to, age deteriorates our brains and makes it harder to "hunt for the right game". Nature is very clear in it's methods and intentions. There is no need for the over-50 to figure out whether the Mastodon goes to the creek to drink every evening near sundown. But there is a need for the 15-25 year old to know that.
Use it or lose it. People who sit in chair or cars and listen to "infotainment" are, by studies, losing it.
Research has not shown what you are saying. And by the way, you are EXTREMELY bigoted against old people.
I was at a music event tonight at a pacifist organization. I am not a pacifist, but I was performing there with some Trump-hating friends.
There were the typical angry speeches about Trump and how he is exactly like Hitler.
At one point, the man running the event mentioned this research. Trump-hating Democrats love it because they think it explains the situation. Cognitively impaired old people are responsible for electing and supporting Trump. It is imperative to get the smart young people out to vote.
They don't pick out fighter pilots from the ranks of the over-40.
The top physicists are young.
Even in surgery, which requires you HAVE to be a certain age (lots of training) , it is well known that many of the best surgeons lose their edge when they are over 50. That doesn't mean they aren't good...or even great. They may have experience that makes them actually better than the hotshots who are 35.
But when they put away the scapel and head home and turn on the TV, they are less able to discern fact from fiction. If they started medical school at 40 or 45 or 50, they probably would never become that top surgeon. Too dumb by then...
There have been many many studies similar to this and not a single one differs in the general sense. Actual scientific tests of brain activity, reaction, etc. all correlate with this.
The brain's processing speed can slow down with age. But that depends a lot on an individual's health.
Other kinds of intelligence -- verbal ability, knowledge, wisdom, etc. -- do not decline. That is what research has shown.
YOU ARE WRONG.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
