I think this part of the study:

Quote:1) Present four scenarios (frames) depicting behaviors commonly not associated with subject sets.

would indicate that bigotry is not in play- since it is obvious that FFF does not view these behaviors as associated with Christians (since he clearly understood the nature of the design before performing the experiment).

That said, it WAS inflammatory to put Christians in the role of the bad guys.

THAT said, I'm sure it was fun to put that distractor in there and watch me- and everybody else- squawk about it.

I know I pressed you,FFF, but I feel you should have gotten a bigger sample set. Or maybe I'm just used to experimental subjects in the 10^20 range.

(October 26, 2013 at 9:24 pm)Zazzy Wrote: I think this part of the study:

Quote:1) Present four scenarios (frames) depicting behaviors commonly not associated with subject sets.

would indicate that bigotry is not in play- since it is obvious that FFF does not view these behaviors as associated with Christians (since he clearly understood the nature of the design before performing the experiment).

That said, it WAS inflammatory to put Christians in the role of the bad guys.

THAT said, I'm sure it was fun to put that distractor in there and watch me- and everybody else- squawk about it.

I know I pressed you,FFF, but I feel you should have gotten a bigger sample set. Or maybe I'm just used to experimental subjects in the 10^20 range.

Zazzy,

I would have loved a bigger sample set, but I have run this model on classes of dozens of students with varying detractors and qualifiers while sustaining the model format. The result is always nearly the same. Groups that "disagree" with one another disagree for reasons other than those that seem apparently obvious. THANK YOU for participating!

(October 26, 2013 at 9:30 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote: I would have loved a bigger sample set, but I have run this model on classes of dozens of students with varying detractors and qualifiers while sustaining the model format. The result is always nearly the same. Groups that "disagree" with one another disagree for reasons other than thoes that seem apparently obvious. THANK YOU for participating!

Can you elaborate on what I bolded? I am interested in these results, so I'd love to know in what context they wander (if you are suggesting they wander. It may be you are merely showing full discovery of a statistical blip).

(October 26, 2013 at 9:23 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote:

(October 26, 2013 at 9:09 pm)catfish Wrote:

@kittyfish, you may officially have the last word as long as it's cogent. If all you intend to do at this point is mock and jest, then I have already had the last word long ago.

"Proof" of your bigotry...
"Welcome Tara in Colorado. Please try not to feed the trolls. You'll spot them easily if you keep your BS radar on alert (hint: it's mostly the theists)."

Care to deny your own words?

(October 26, 2013 at 9:38 pm)catfish Wrote:

(October 26, 2013 at 9:23 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote: @kittyfish, you may officially have the last word as long as it's cogent. If all you intend to do at this point is mock and jest, then I have already had the last word long ago.

"Proof" of your bigotry...
"Welcome Tara in Colorado. Please try not to feed the trolls. You'll spot them easily if you keep your BS radar on alert (hint: it's mostly the theists)."

Care to deny your own words?

No. I said that. Facts are STILL facts, and it is the theists here who have DEMONSTRATED that fact.

(October 26, 2013 at 9:47 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote:

(October 26, 2013 at 9:38 pm)catfish Wrote: "Proof" of your bigotry...
"Welcome Tara in Colorado. Please try not to feed the trolls. You'll spot them easily if you keep your BS radar on alert (hint: it's mostly the theists)."

Care to deny your own words?

No. I said that. Facts are STILL facts, and it is the theists here who have DEMONSTRATED that fact.

OMG, you're not reading what you write, are you?

(October 26, 2013 at 9:35 pm)Zazzy Wrote:

(October 26, 2013 at 9:30 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote: I would have loved a bigger sample set, but I have run this model on classes of dozens of students with varying detractors and qualifiers while sustaining the model format. The result is always nearly the same. Groups that "disagree" with one another disagree for reasons other than thoes that seem apparently obvious. THANK YOU for participating!

Can you elaborate on what I bolded? I am interested in these results, so I'd love to know in what context they wander (if you are suggesting they wander. It may be you are merely showing full discovery of a statistical blip).

@Zazzy,

The results in the "nearly the same" category have been compiled over many years of research and testing. This exercise supports it's model, and NOT vice-versa. The variance in resulting data IS NOT restrained by the frames suggested in this model. This was a micro-study of a limited cross-section, and I for one, am pleased with the results of the exercise. The fruit I share with the rest of you is that the study indicates that our beliefs do not dictate our differences, but rather, our differences dictate beliefs.

Hmmm.

So if I've understood correctly (a rare thing), it looks like my reply was also "non-ratable", so I also contributed nothing but hot air.

Apologies.

(October 26, 2013 at 9:51 pm)catfish Wrote:

(October 26, 2013 at 9:47 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote: No. I said that. Facts are STILL facts, and it is the theists here who have DEMONSTRATED that fact.

OMG, you're not reading what you write, are you?

I was clearly giving you more credit than you deserve. You're not a clueless moron like I thought... You're a TROLL!

(October 26, 2013 at 10:00 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote:

(October 26, 2013 at 9:51 pm)catfish Wrote:

OMG, you're not reading what you write, are you?

I was clearly giving you more credit than you deserve. You're not a clueless moron like I thought... You're a TROLL!

And your actions (and words) have proven my statement.
There's nothing more telling than you trying to justify your bigotry. Go fix yourself...