:rolleyes:
That is in the news section, any more demonstrations that you do not know when to stop digging?
You’re just kidding now, right? What section do you think technology.newscientist.com brings you to?
Why do you suppose http://technology.newscientist.com/article/mg19926746.200?DCMP=ILC-rhts&nsref=ts7_head_Software%20spots%20the%20spin%20in%20political%20speeches
brings you to the article? In the tech section? I really don’t have time to teach you how to use the internet.
levdragon:
Full disclosure : i have a degree in computer science, though not post-graduate.
I still feel fairly confident stating the following:
-
“intelligent” software for categorizing and analyzing intent, character, retorical skills and psychological traits of human authors of a written text - not to mention an orator of political speaches, today is a non-science. We know jack shit.
-
“Spin” is a buzzword among the chatter class on television in the united states. Where i’m at f.e. the term is unheard of, and the general concept is in no way the demanding presence in daily political discourse it is in your country.
If you believe that we can - with our current state of knowledge in AI - write software that performs the work of a psychologist and and/or an anthropologist - you are mistaken.
You are free, though, to link to some research of software that writes movie reviews or cures schizofrenia or analyzes the dress code of the bushmen of the kalahari desert?
In other words: it’s bad science, or rather non-science and the target audience were probably the papers from the start.
If you wish to make a (hopefully principled and coherent) defence of why this is in reality good, reliable science and why I am mistaken about the current state of research i will, however, be most willing to hear you out, and hopefully learn something in the process.
:rolleyes:
The only link on LHC in your early post I replied leads to “braking news”
Once again, not a scientific peer reviewed article, just so you get a clue how deep in the hole you are: you are still not realizing that the more you defend this article the more you are in the end dismissing McCain.
And as I mentioned, I would be happy to get confirmation for the conclusions the article is reaching regarding McCain.
Why do people get the name wrong so often?
I started this in IMHO. I guess because it contained the keywords, it got sent to GD. Now I’m defending the article. I must admit the initial opinions I got were about what I’d expect: “McCain is the liar!!!1! The article is wrong!!1!”
Well, I got my opinions. It’s been elucidating.
GIGObuster, everytime you repeat yourself I am apparently digging myself deeper. Look down for heaven’s sake, and quit shoveling!
If you were to pull out from a debate you were neither willing nor prepared to participate in from the start, i could certainly look the other way…
Sorry about the misspelling btw 
That is the problem, if the article is wrong then it is only bad for the makers of it, if the article is correct then McCain is insincere in the extreme and suffering for it.
Choose your poison.
Way to miss the point, please choose your [del]poison[/del] position to clarify, my position is based on the fact that so far this article is not reliable or based on science, therefore it is silly to take into account the unflattering conclusion that McCain says one thing when he is thinking of something else and “That might lead to what I would call a lack of credibility.” So as you are still missing it: Propping up this article damages McCain more than Obama, What I’m doing here is defending McCain even though I will not vote for him.
Now if confirmation comes from other independent parties I would be glad to get it.
I didn’t intend it for a debate. If I had, I’ll give you one guess where I would have started it.
I thought the article was interesting.
Response one, from Dio: McCain is the liar! (where did that come from?)
Response two, from Terrifel: Yeah, they said we’d have a relativity drive too! (alrighty then.)
It goes on, until we get to GIGObuster. “McCain is depressed! You lose!"
“And this means what?”
“It’s not a scientific study!”
“Who said it was?”
“McCain is depressed!”
“So?”
“Not scientific!”
“I heard you.”
“Not scientific!”
“I HEARD YOU.”
“The article is from the tech section!”
“So?”
“Not scientific!”
“I HEARD YOU. WE ALL HEARD YOU.”
“You’re digging a deeper hole! Not scientific!”
“Oh God, I’m getting tired. That’s what you wanted, wasn’t it? What’s the name of the “debate” technique?”
“Your hole is even deeper! Wrong web linky thing!”
“Uh, no.”
“Now you’re really in deep! Give up!”
"Uh, okay.”
On preview, GIGO’s back. “That is the problem, if the article is wrong then it is only bad for the makers of it, if the article is correct then McCain is insincere in the extreme and suffering for it.”
So? Maybe the article is correct. Maybe it’s wrong. Why do you think you have me trapped?
BTW, that’s an either or. Don’t you think it’s possible the article could be part right and part wrong? Or don’t you see the world that way?
Context is everything, do you deny you were implying that the conclusions were scientifically based in your OP?
Do you deny that if the conclusions are valid that McCain comes as depressed for being insincere?
As you are still missing it: even if I think this is partially correct it still makes it worse for McCain. I would still be happy then, but you need to produce independent confirmation for me and others to accept it.
I hear you bro’.
But now here you are in the forum for debates so take a friendly advice and choose between eating it up and you know actually debating which is what is done here or just take a gracious leave and let your thread die a merciful death.
I fully appriciate you are not where you intended to be and maybe haven’t got the means or the will to make a real argument. But hanging around, just cursing your bad luck kind of clogs the airwaves, know what i mean?
Not sure if this is germane to the discussion, but I have heard several times in my life that overly formal language in an insurance claim is a red flag to the assessors, so:
-
“I was proceeding in a southerly direction along Main Street when the other vehicle failed to yield at a red traffic signal and collided with my vehicle.”
= likely a fraudulent claim -
“I was driving down Main Street when the other car ran a red and hit my car.”
= likely a legitimate claim
There is science there, of course. Skillicorn isn’t using tarot cards. Did you read this:
It would appear there is some science afoot. Science doesn’t always mean “correct.” Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.
I don’t understand. Maybe he is depressed. Maybe he’s bat-shit crazy. Maybe this Pollermann woman is bat-shit crazy. I don’t see how McCain being depressed correlates with his being insincere. The article talks about how McCain may be perceived. If the article is wrong, it might have at least guessed right, considering how many threads there are on the board with people questioning McCain’s integrity and mental health.
Accept what? The article doesn’t look good for McCain? So? Is the article not allowed to not look good for McCain?
SherwoodAnderson, no. I don’t know what you mean. If you want this thread to die I can tell you one way you could help.
It’s in the article (see image on the right) - did you read it? Answer - slightly more spin than Hillary, slightly less than Bill; a little more spin than the average.
Ok, then ***if ***you are correct this is just confirmation that McCain should not the trusted, as many others showed in the thread, the “spin” Obama is making in the article is not spin as in “deceiving others” but just spinning items that Obama and many others see as the truth. McCain is “clinically depressed” and what I get of the article is the implication that McCain is not sincere in what he is saying.
That is what all then have to conclude if you are correct. Well, that makes me happy because I’m for Obama.
Are you sure you wanted this conclusion? I would rather wait for confirmation to then consider this scenario.
I’m going to let you continue to draw your own conclusions, because I can’t follow them.
No need to, **tomndebb **and many others pointed already to the flaws in the OP. Many already pointed also to the fact that the word “Spin” is not used by the researchers in article in the way you would prefer.
This is why if you insist in claiming the article is scientifically based or good to use in deciding how to vote that then it has to be pointed out that the article is not really painting Obama in a bad light, McCain is the one getting the shaft.
When you say “So? Is the article not allowed to not look good for McCain?” I’m being fair when I say the article is indeed allowed because it is.
Enough. This has turned into rather silly bickering.
I am closing it without prejudice, meaning that anyone can open a new thread on the topic, but this thread has been sufficiently tainted to prevent any successful continuation.
Here are a couple of point(er)s I would give to anyone who wishes to resurrect the discussion:
Make sure in the OP that it is clear that the word “spin” is being used in a nonstandard manner.
Be very clear in the OP exactly what opinion is being sought:[ul][li] Is it a comparison of the candidates based on the survey results? [/li][li] Is it an assessment of the value of the actual software?[/li][li] Is it an exploration of the value of “spin” (as the New Science article used the word, not as it is commonly understood) irrespective of the scores assigned to any of the speakers measured for the article?[/li][li] Is it something else, entirely?[/ul]I would also note that a number of posters appear to have jumped to a conclusion regarding what levdrakon took from the article that is not supported by anything that he has actually posted.[/li]
[ /Modding ]