Whites to become minority in Metro Vancouver by 2031 - Polidicks

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40133745]Why don't you bet money too? If you're correct then it's literally free money for you in a hundred years time.[/QUOTE] i'll make the bet, but i'm not betting a measly 100 pounds. that's p. much a dollar and 2 quarters a year for me. how about 20k pounds? i want some real cash when i am well over 100 years old. you should have the money considering you are such a distinguished figure in the field of racial intelligence science.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40133771]Because reality can only be one way? It would be like noticing that you need to use different flat maps of the world depending on your latitude and then not realizing you're looking at a three-dimensional globe.[/QUOTE] I'd liken it more to having different pants for different occasions. Fact of the matter is some theories describe some things better than others, and because of this it's a good idea to instruct students on the differences between the theories so you can switch to one when a situation calls for it.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40133796]i'll make the bet, but i'm not betting a measly 100 pounds. that's p. much a dollar and 2 quarters a year for me. how about 20k pounds? i want some real cash when i am well over 100 years old. you should have the money considering you are such a distinguished figure in the field of racial intelligence science.[/QUOTE] Sure.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40133895]Sure.[/QUOTE] I understand your need to have everything in neat little boxes - Everything quantifiable, measurable, and consistent. But social science is a developing discipline. We do not have the technology to accurately predict human behavior, because human beings are consistently inconsistent. We have theoretical frameworks that seem to fit - Several of them, and sociologists use combinations of theories to explain behavioral and psychological phenomena. Until we have that understanding, taking a bunch of numbers that could indicate a million different things and throwing them at a wall isn't going to get you accurate results - ESPECIALLY where human intelligence is concerned. I study psychology, but I can't call myself an expert on people. I'll admit that the more I learn, the more questions I have. But you should never go seeking results that seem to prove an idea you have, grasping at straws and doing your best to discount the vast amount of evidence that contradicts that idea. The idea that there are racial differences in intelligence is then an agenda, not a fact. You're no expert either.

[QUOTE=Madtoker;40122363]I always hear that Vancouver and BC in general is a good place to live other than the high costs, i would definitely move their from Ontario if i got a good job offer there or something.[/QUOTE] It doesn't cost that much in the suburbs, and translink's system is great so no transportation issues. I don't understand why this thread turned into a 11 page ego-war, it makes no sense.

[QUOTE=Episode;40114996][img]http://s14.postimg.org/4auaioqrl/1363843753020.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] I know this is pages back but this is not a fair comparison. White males have been in a position of power and have oppressed these groups that have stood for pride. The purpose of the other pride groups there are because they are historically underrepresented and oppressed while whites clearly are not.

foreigners fuck everywhere. It doesn't matter where they're from. Foreign White People fuck up places where white people live too. it's not racism, it's fact. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting/Xenophobia" - Megafan))[/highlight]

It is FACT it is supported by the EVIDENCE of ME SAYING SO [editline]4th April 2013[/editline] And it's not RACISM it's XENOPHOBIA which is somehow BETTER gosh get it right!!!

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;40133322]It's difficult to call one theory the "best" one in Sociology because they're all accurate depending on the circumstances, same with Political Science. Symbolic Interactionalism can go great with Conflict theory to describe certain societal behavior while Functionalism claims a completely different cause, or Neorealism does a good job describing Cold War international dynamics while it does a poor job at describing post-Cold War behavior (unlike Neoliberalism.)[/QUOTE] Why not pick the one which is best at actually explaining human behaviour? I.e it should be correct the most when compared to every other theory. Picking and choosing multiple differing theories is not science and won't help you to understand humans. [editline]4th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Harnbrand;40134268]I understand your need to have everything in neat little boxes - Everything quantifiable, measurable, and consistent. But social science is a developing discipline. We do not have the technology to accurately predict human behavior, because human beings are consistently inconsistent. We have theoretical frameworks that seem to fit - Several of them, and sociologists use combinations of theories to explain behavioral and psychological phenomena.[/QUOTE] Why not just choose a theory which best explains humans? At least if it's wrong, you can modify it or come up with a better theory once you figure out it is. What makes the social sciences bad to a degree is that it's filled more with people seeking to prove their theories. I mean for fucks sake, Marxists are still taken seriously here, when for all intents and purposes they are a dead end. [quote]In 1959 statistician Theodore Sterling examined the results of psychological studies and discovered that 97% of them supported their initial hypotheses, implying a possible publication bias.[86][87][88] Similarly, Fanelli (2010)[89] found that 91.5% of psychiatry/psychology studies confirmed the effects they were looking for, and concluded that the odds of this happening (a positive result) was around five times higher than in fields such as space- or geosciences. Fanelli argues that this is because researchers in "softer" sciences have fewer constraints to their conscious and unconscious biases. In 2010, a group of researchers reported a systemic bias in psychology studies towards WEIRD ("western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic") subjects.[90] Although only 1/8 people worldwide fall into the WEIRD classification, the researchers claimed that 60–90% of psychology studies are performed on WEIRD subjects. The article gave examples of results that differ significantly between WEIRD subjects and tribal cultures, including the Müller-Lyer illusion.[/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#Systemic_bias[/url] When you do science, you actually have to do science. A lot of the problems that is hampering our knowledge of human behaviour is caused not only by people who aren't conducting scientific investigation with the proper rigour, but those (moreso in sociology than psychology, but Frued is a big one) who make unfalsifiable theories too. If we want to start doing proper science, we should not only study humans representative of all groups (maybe even provide a slamdunk argument for/against innate difference between them), but also chuck out every theory which can't be falsified, and research which doesn't use scientific methodology seriously.