Reason Roundup

At Least Half of What You Know About Psychology Is Probably Wrong: Reason Roundup

Plus: Capital letters could scare college students, free market groups fight tax breaks, and troops pulled from border before caravan comes.

|

20TH CENTURY FOX / Album/Newscom

Psychology's "reproducibility crisis" grows, as Many Labs 2, a global collaboration of scientists attempting to replicate the results of hyped psychology experiments past, continues to fail (or succeed, depending on how you look at it). In attempting to "replicate 28 classic and contemporary published findings," the group was only able to do so around half of the time.

Depending on whether they used conventional or "strict significance criterion," the Many Labs team was able to replicate 15 or 14 of the 28 original studies, respectively.

This is common, notes Ed Yong at The Atlantic. "Whenever psychologists undertake large projects, like Many Labs 2, in which they replicate past experiments en masse, they typically succeed, on average, half of the time," he writes. "Ironically enough, it seems that one of the most reliable findings in psychology is that only half of psychological studies can be successfully repeated."

A few years ago, the Open Science Collaboration's three-year Reproducibility Project looked at 100 previous psychology studies and was able to replicate psychology research results about 40 percent of the time.

"Even famous, long-established phenomena—the stuff of textbooks and TED Talks—might not be real," Yong points out. Here are some of the previous research findings unable to be backed up by repeated experiments:

  • the idea that mimicking happy facial expressions can actually boost people's moods
  • social priming ("the field of research about how thinking about or interacting with something … can affect later, vaguely related behaviour," as one Psychology Today writer puts it)
  • the idea that willpower is a finite personal resource that can be depleted (the subject of a very well-received 2011 book Willpower by social psychologist Roy Baumeister and journalist John Tierney)
  • the finding that exposure to heat primes people to have more belief in global warming
  • the finding that birth order within a family can predict altruism

Some psychologists have blamed non-reproducable results on isolated bad actors–researchers with sloppy technique or unscrupulous data manipulation. Others insist its the replication scientists who are sloppy, using too-small data sets, or failing to understand how the original experiment was done. To ward off these latter critiques, Many Labs took several steps:

  • Many Lab scientists consulted with researchers behind the original experiments
  • Replication-attempt studies had many more participants than in the originals
  • Replication studies were done repeatedly and with participants from different countries

Different cultures and places ultimately didn't matter much in terms of whether a study was reproducable or not. "Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively)," reports Many Lab. In addition, "moderation tests indicated that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the tasks were administered in lab versus online."

You can read about Many Labs work in more detail here.

FREE MINDS

Capitalized words could scare college students, a U.K. university warned its faculty. The staff memo at Leeds Trinity advised professors to "write in a helpful, warm tone, avoiding officious language and negative instructions" when explaining course requirements and tasks.

Despite our best attempts to explain assessment tasks, any lack of clarity can generate anxiety and even discourage students from attempting the assessment at all. Generally, avoid using capital letters for emphasis and "the overuse of 'do', and, especially, 'don't'.

The memo stated that capitalizing certain words might make students anxious by reminding them of "the difficulty or high-stakes nature of the task."

FREE MARKETS

Free market groups fight tax-break package. Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce are urging Congressional Republicans not to renew certain tax extenders, which "provide special interest tax breaks and unfairly pick winners and losers by propping up select industries and companies over others," they say.

"Americans across the country, including lawmakers from both sides of the aisle, have rightfully decried the billions of dollars in corporate welfare given to Amazon," the letter continued. "The billions more that are up for renewal in the tax extender package are no different."

"More than two dozen tax provisions, known as 'tax extenders,' expired at the end of 2017, including tax breaks that benefit the renewable energy, motorsports and horse racing industries," notes The Hill.

Outgoing House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) told reporters last week that he's developed a "draft package" about which of the expired tax breaks he thinks should be renewed and which should be eliminated following the enactment of Republicans' tax-cut law last year. He also said it's unclear what appetite Congress will have to address the expired provisions in the lame-duck session.

FOLLOWUP

Troops pulled from border before caravan arrives. File under good news, bad motives: After deploying thousands of troops to the U.S.-Mexico border in the days leading up to the midterm election, with a supposed purpose of thwarting a group of Central American migrants seeking refuge here, the Trump administration is now pulling the troops before the migrant caravan even shows up.

In other asylum-seeker news, a federal judge has temporarily blocked enforcement of the Trump administration's new rules limiting who can request to come here.

QUICK HITS

  • Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee pushes back against his colleague Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) misrepresenting the FIRST STEP Act.
  • Ivanka pulls a Hillary.
  • "If Iran has a policy of detaining dual nationals as a tool of diplomatic leverage then there will be consequences for Iran," British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Jeremy Hunt said on his recent trip there. "We will not let them get away with it scot-free. They have to understand this is not a sustainable situation."
  • Here's the FDA's new statement on lab-grown meat.
  • Russian police general Alexander Prokopchuk could wind up leading the international law enforcement agency Interpol. "With a Putin-appointed police general at the helm, the Kremlin would no longer need to abuse Interpol to pursue its goals; it would be able to place the organization at its service," warns Washington Post contributor Vladimir Kara-Murza.
  • Women's March founder Teresa Shook is not happy with what it's become:

Advertisement

NEXT: Too Many Asians at Harvard? No, Not Enough Asians at Harvard.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Psychology’s “reproducibility crisis” grows…

    Scientists always trying to copy each other’s work is definitely a problem, I say.

    1. Hello.

      “The memo stated that capitalizing certain words might make students anxious by reminding them of “the difficulty or high-stakes nature of the task.”

      We’re failing the kids.

    2. This shit slops on over to almost purely social and historical matters… The vast majority of voters would NOT vote for a politician whose symbol was a swastika, and who used Jews as scapegoats. That memory is still too fresh; we still can recall the details of the outcomes. The jury pool has been pretty much contaminated world-wide! So no, that experiment can NOT be re-run!

      I am mostly serious… People criticize Philip Zimbardo’s fake-prison experiments for this… But any time that Zimbardo is going to want to repeat the experiment, his student-subjects already know of the experiment and its results, and-or, they will “Google” it and learn of it, and NOT want to be embarrassed, being caught being asshole “guards”. So the problem that I describe is very real!

      You have to MIX IT UP and change things drastically, before you can repeat the experiment! So this time around, the scapegoats are illegal sub-humans, not Jews; and the symbol is an elephant, not the Swastika!

      1. You’re an idiot

        1. Thank you for your thoughtful, in-depth analysis. I especially like your cogent point number three, and the evidence and links that you brought to bear!

          1. I gave you thoughtful in depth analysis on the subject and you spent the day making a fool of yourself and insisting Zimbardo’s long debunked garbage was valid and demonstrated a real effect.

            In fact, it was proving to you that basically everything Zimbardo did has been debunked that made you turn into a moron who follows me around and spew shit everywhere.

            So, stop pretending you deserve anything other than “you’re an idiot.”

            1. Then refute the “tainted jury pool” theory that I have just described above.

              Not everything is a valid subject for strict scientific analysis. Your opinion, Tulpa… Or your birth, and existence… Have they ever been scientifically studied with a statistically valid sample size of you, using a double-blind method? If not, you should dismiss yourself AND your opinions, since you are a statistically insignificant anecdote!

              I personally have experienced the Zimbardo effect of “you become the role that you play” in a simulated prison environment. So go eat shit, you grade-school-level hurler of utterly mindless turds!


              1. Then refute the “tainted jury pool” theory that I have just described above.

                Simply put, most people don’t have any idea what the hell you’re talking about. Especially college kids.

                You screen your potential pool of candidates, and one of those screen questions is almost certainly going to be if they’ve heard of the other study.

                I don’t really know why I’m replying since you strike me as a possible lunatic, albeit and amusing one, but this is fairly basic study procedure across most disciplines.

                1. “I don’t really know why I’m replying since you strike me as a possible lunatic”

                  Is he ever. I posted studies and he didn’t read them. I posted quotes from those studies explaining why Zimbardo was wrong and he ignored them. I linked to the personal testimony of the participants and he didn’t care.

                  HE fell prey to HIS OWN expectancy effect, and flatly refuses to accept or even attempt to understand what that means.

                2. As if potential jurors never lie. As if the relatively new concept of “just Google it” hasn’t changed it all. I have read that experimental drug trials are largely shot to shit these days, because the pill-takers Google each other and go to all sorts of measures to figure out who is getting the real pill v/s the placebo.

                  As is so often the case, theory is one thing, reality is another.


                  1. As if potential jurors never lie. As if the relatively new concept of “just Google it” hasn’t changed it all.

                    Which, if you believe that, then it means all studies are flawed and any results produced from them are automatically suspect if not outright false. You just blew up your own battleship, congrats.

                    On the subject of ‘just Google it’, well, this is why you sequester the participants.

                    Egads, you are your own worst enemy on this one.

              2. “So go eat shit, you grade-school-level hurler of utterly mindless turds!”

                See? Completely loses his shit when you point out his stupid beliefs are garbage.

                “Then refute the “tainted jury pool” theory that I have just described above.”

                I already did. For and entire day. As I said, it’s why you completely lose your shit about me.

                1. Liar! I din’t even trot out that aspect of things till just now! And, as usual, you refuse to engage in a serious discussion!

                  1. “you refuse to engage in a serious discussion!”

                    “So go eat shit, you grade-school-level hurler of utterly mindless turds!”

                    The information that debunks Zimbardo also answers your question.

                    As usual, you are an incoherent troll.

                    1. As usual, you and your opinions are statistically insignificant anecdotes!

                      I have seen things that you are somehow ideologically blinded to. I might as well argue with my wallpaper.

                    2. “As usual, you and your opinions”

                      I posted many links to studies.

                      As usual you are a lying incoherent troll.

                    3. “I have seen things”

                      “As usual, you and your opinions are statistically insignificant anecdotes!”

                      So, my opinions are statistically insignificant anecdotes, but yours are magically valid.

                      Lol this is what you get with this guy EVERY SINGLE TIME.

                    4. “I posted many links to studies.”

                      World-class liar, right up there with Trump!

                    5. Link to the thread where we originally discusses this then.

                    6. Any time now, should be easy to prove I didn’t post numerous links in that thread.

                    7. What are you waiting for? Link to the thread already.

                    8. Come on, it shouldn’t take this long to post the link to the thread you claim I didn’t post any studies in.

                      Unless of course you know you’re lying.

                    9. Still waiting on you liar.

                    10. I guess that’s all we need to know.

                      TuIpa wins, SQRAZY is still crazy and stupid

                      There. I win.

                    11. I don’t take commands from psychopathic narcissists, knowing that doing so is wasting time.

                      Could you please summarize exactly what Zimbardo was wrong about, since you are such an expert? I don’t mean nit-picking arguments about his methods, I mean, about his conclusions. Nit-picking about methods is for small minds… It is like arguing against Copernicus about the heliocentric solar system, because he wasn’t using the right telescope, and holding his mouth just right. If Zimbardo was wrong, why aren’t you out there publishing about just why and how he was wrong, using your better methods, anyway?

                      So… What conclusions was Zimbardo wrong about?

                    12. “Could you please summarize exactly what Zimbardo was wrong about”

                      I did already. In that thread I linked to.

                      “I don’t take commands”

                      No, you don’t link to threads that prove you’re a liar and then you make excuses.

                      “SQRLSY One|11.20.18 @ 1:46PM|#

                      The germ theory of disease was debunked, as was the heliocentric solar system, and the round earth, and plate tectonics, and on and on… So what?

                      See? You’re literally insane.

                    13. “I did already. In that thread I linked to.”

                      Did not, grade-school liar!

                      When you’re ready to argue like a grown-up, you will once again be worth my time. In the meantime…

                      In days of old,
                      When knights were bold,
                      And toilets weren’t invented,
                      We stopped by the road,
                      And dropped our load,
                      And walked away contented!

                      The days of old are over now… We have toilets now. Please be considerate of others, and drop your loads there, instead of a nice, clean, rational web site like Reason.com!

                    14. “Did not”

                      The link is there for anyone who wants to see that you’re lying.

                      I provided a link, you called names.

                      The entire internet knows you’re lying now.

                    15. http://www.deviantart.com/ghos…..-285968677

                      “Gozer the Traveller! He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldronaii, the Traveller came as a large and moving Torb! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the Meketrex Supplicants they chose a new form for him–that of a Giant Sloar! Many Shubs and Zulls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Sloar that day, I can tell you.”

                      Wow, I am now as smart as The Great Tulpa!!! Maybe even smarter!!! Not only have I posted a link; I have also done the extra work to pull out the relevant part, for all to see!!!

                    16. Except I have a link that proves you’re a liar and you have nothing.

                      So I win.

                    17. You win at the job of being a greasy eel who can’t be pinned down to make a coherent argument, because your brain has few if any neurons, let alone thoughts.

                    18. Except I have a link that proves you’re a liar and you have nothing.

                      So I win.

      2. You’re an idiot

      3. Do you actually even believe a quarter of the horseshit you spew here?

        1. Oh, about 80% of it is sincere, 15% is hyperbole, and 5% sarcasm / humor…

          It CAN happen here and it WILL happen here if we all follow Der Orders of Der TrumpfenFuhrer, who has ZERO wisdom, love of others, conscience, humility, or self-restraint!

          “I was just following orders” will not be an acceptable excuse!!!

          1. This is indeed dumb. America is not fucking fascist or even close to it.

            1. It is “merely” approaching fascism with thought control and speech control on the left, on college campuses, and with the scapegoating of all “ferriners” (trade-wise and illegal sub-human wise) by Der TrumpfenFuhrer. If better people and institutions were NOT standing in their way, Der TrumpfenFuhrer and His Trumpistas, right now, would be rounding up the non-violent opponents of His Fourth Reich.

      4. No, but out on the streets we have that political terrorist group whose flag is red, black and white who use jews (((zionists))) as scapegoats and the left and the media cheer them on.

        It’s really hard to say ‘Never Again’ when the lefts’ screeching drowns out ‘never’ so all they hear is ‘Again! Again!’

        1. Look they’re not anti-Israel they’re pro-Palestine. Which, of course, is exactly the same thing in most cases.

  2. Capitalized words could scare college students, a U.K. university warned its faculty.

    You know who else capitalized nouns?

    1. NAZIS?

      1. They were only following orders.

    2. ROMANES EVNT DOMVS

  3. Troops pulled from border before caravan arrives.

    Didn’t figure Trump for a cut-and-runner.

    1. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

    2. It’s a holiday week.

    3. Don’t need troops. The bureaucracy processing 100 applicants per day will leave much of the caravan in Tijuana for months, and the citizens there are already tired of them.

  4. Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee pushes back against his colleague Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) misrepresenting the FIRST STEP Act.

    i believe this is the first step to a STEP UP act 4, though.

    1. STEP UP 2: THE STREETS is my favorite movie

  5. At Least Half of What You Know About Psychology Is Probably Wrong

    Its a “soft science”? And by science, I mean barely reproducible.

    1. Similar results have emerged from medical research. The problem isn’t the ‘hardness’ or ‘softness’ of the science, but things like p-hacking and the file-drawer problem:

      http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyo…..chart.html

      1. One of my favorited blogs.

    2. Very similar to juries… How reproducible are the results of juries? I get my head chopped off, and my family is perhaps rewarded by $5.00, if that (minus the lawyer’s take). Guy down the street get his little toe run over by Trump’s limo… If the “randomly chosen” jury is all Democrats, he just me get a set of “compensation payments” of value = $35.876.969.22!!!!!!

      1. Zimbardo has still been totally debunked.

        1. The germ theory of disease was debunked, as was the heliocentric solar system, and the round earth, and plate tectonics, and on and on… So what?

          1. “The germ theory of disease was debunked, as was the heliocentric solar system, and the round earth, and plate tectonics,”

            No actually, none of what you claim has been debunked there has been debunked.

            “So what?”

            So you believe in debunked stupidit and will lie rather than admitting it, obviously.

            1. Thanks, you have now debunked the theory that Tulpa has enough neurons to rub together to detect sarcasm.

              For morons, what I meant to say is, current “scientific” thinking isn’t always correct, and is NEVER perfect! Only Tulpa is perfect, in His Own Mind!

              1. Except I have a link that proves you’re a liar and you have nothing.

                So I win.


      2. How reproducible are the results of juries?

        Uhh…juries are not expected to produce identical results so what is your point? Also, you might note the existence of the Court of Appeals.

        1. My point is that both juries and psychology involved flawed and VERY complex humans, and so, “mushy” and hard-to-reproduce results are inherent in the game. We can only do the best that we can, and then make ourselves content with it, if we can’t find ways to make things better…

          1. Juries dont claim to know what is best for you, acts like doctors, and prescribe mood altering medications.

            1. In his case it looks like they should.

  6. Ivanka pulls a Hillary.

    you too, reason? hillary maintaining her own private email server is not a superficial detail.

    1. good news: the article gets into this detail

    2. No reasonable prosecutor would bring charges.

      1. No one wants to commit suicide via multiple bullets to the back of the head

    3. It’s depressing that there are so many stupid people who don’t know the difference between a personal email account and a personal, unsecure server. Hillary broke FOIA laws but her supporters defend her. Ivanka broke no laws but those same people want to see her jail. Utterly insane.

      1. Ivanka broke no laws but those same people want to see her jail.

        It would certainly improve the quality of the shower scenes on Orange is the New Black if Ivanka were involved.

        1. I wonder if Ivanka agreed to go to jail would Hillary agree to go to jail too?

          Trump could pardon Ivanka and let Hillary rot.

      2. It’s also Ironic that those who want to see Ivanka go to jail still don’t think Hillary should go to jail for doing far worse. Shows its not about the crime but the person

      3. Does Ivanka’s job involve the same type of sensitive material the Secretary of State deals with?

        I doubt this is on quite the same level.

      4. “It’s depressing that there are so many stupid people who don’t know the difference between a personal email account and a personal, unsecure server.”

        I’m certain that is a wilful ignorance in many cases, and in others feigned in the hopes of continuing the deception.

      5. It’s depressing that there are so many stupid people who don’t know the difference
        They know the difference, they’re banking on the hope that their readers don’t know the difference.
        For the postmodernist left there is no such thing as objective truth. Just different narratives to be exploited.

      6. I wonder if the Hillary supporters ever realize that a bad precedent was set when she was let off the hook.

        1. Its a “living constitution” so everything will be fine.

    4. Wait so Donald beat Hillary for President and Ivanka succeeded her as Secretary of State?

      Even if you didn’t like Trump, that would be some pretty respectable trolling/ownage.

    5. Ivanka Trump’s lawyer slams ‘misinformation being peddled’ after report that she used private email for government business

      https://tinyurl.com/yaqq82e5

      “In a statement to Fox News, Peter Mirijanian, the spokesperson for Trump’s ethics lawyer Abbe Lowell, emphasized those distinctions to the Hillary Clinton email scandal that engulfed the 2016 presidential campaign.

      “”To address misinformation being peddled about Ms. Trump’s personal email, she did not create a private server in her house or office, there was never classified information transmitted, the account was never transferred or housed at Trump Organization, no emails were ever deleted, and the emails have been retained in the official account in conformity with records preservation laws and rules,” Mirijanian said.

      “He added: “When concerns were raised in the press 14 months ago, Ms. Trump reviewed and verified her email use with White House Counsel and explained the issue to congressional leaders.” Mirijanian told the Post that Trump had used a personal account prior to being briefed on ethics rules.

    6. And there are by now probably 10,000 comments on the article screaming that she (Ivanka. Not Hillary) should be jailed, deported, or something equally horrible.

  7. Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee pushes back against his colleague Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) misrepresenting the FIRST STEP Act.

    Infighting already endangering the GOP senate majority!

  8. In other asylum-seeker news, a federal judge has temporarily blocked enforcement of the Trump administration’s new rules limiting who can request to come here.

    Nothing that miles of concertina wire cannot mitigate.

    1. “I don’t believe in astrology; I’m a Sagittarius and we’re skeptical.”

      -Arthur C. Clarke

  9. Here’s the FDA’s new statement on lab-grown meat.

    As long as the synthetic animals aren’t vaping…

    1. “Lab grown meat” was my nickname in college.

  10. About 99% of what psychologists say they know is pure bunkem. The rest os made up.

  11. Teresa Shook

    an excellent name as sentence.

    1. Scared to death, scared to look, they shook
      ‘Cause ain’t no such things as halfway crooks

  12. Women’s March founder Teresa Shook is not happy with what it’s become

    Women ruin everything, ammirite?

    1. A women’s march composed entirely of slightly tipsy, straight, middle-aged men in drag would be a glorious thing to behold.

  13. Ivanka pulls a Hillary.

    And no one on either side can say anything because hypocrisy?

    1. I’ll step up and say that anyone who works for the government and put the lives of Americans at risk through either laziness or incompetence or negligence should never be allowed to work for the public again, and no government funds or tax breaks should go towards any of their foundations or organizations in which they started.

    2. Lock them all up!

      That’s the joy of being on the side that pulls 5% of the vote.

  14. Troops pulled from border before caravan arrives.

    MIGRANT CARAVAN!

    1. Hey you changed back to your PB sock.

  15. Electoral Three-Card Monte: How The Democrats Stole Orange County
    So the PDRC is a one-party state. Democrats hold all the statewide offices, and Republicans do not even make it onto the ballot to oppose. So, uh, gee ? do you think the election counting here is more sacrosanct than it is when Democrats count ballots elsewhere, like in Mayor Daley’s Chicago, Landslide Lyndon’s Texas, Dennis Roberts’s Rhode Island, Christine Gregoire’s Washington, Al Franken’s Minnesota, the Alaska that stole it from Ted Stevens, or Brenda Snipes’s Broward County?

    1. Did Fox News Cost the GOP Orange County?
      Nearly 90 minutes before polls closed in California, Fox News chose to make the irresponsible announcement that Republicans had already lost the U.S. House of Representatives. Did that early call cost the Republicans Orange County, California?

      1. Hundreds of thousands of republican voters didnt vote this midterm election for whatever reason.

        Nearly every Democrat that wanted to vote did.

        The Democrats are freaking out because their plans of demographic changes are not working fast enough.

        The 2020 Census will take House seats from Blue states like California and hand them to Red states like Georgia and Texas.

        The 2020 election will likely result in voting participants similar to 2016 where the GOP cleaned up and Trump will be reelected.

  16. Florida is suing CVS and Walgreens for allegedly contributing to the opioid crisis.

    i will sue them for the ennui i get when a new building is being built and i imagine the great businesses that might be housed there only to find its either a walgreens, cvs, or a bank i’ve never heard of.

    1. I will sue CVS for the hernia I got trying to lift their receipt.

  17. We will not let them get away with it scot-free.

    Oh for the days when this meant something coming from a Limey.

    1. Scot-free sounds racist towards the Scottish. Very problematic.

      1. No true Scotsman would be offended by that.

  18. Florida is suing CVS and Walgreens for allegedly contributing to the opioid crisis.

    Florida cannot get elections wrapped up in less than a week but got resources to sue for imaginaryland type crisis?

    Call me when Florida sues PAIN for allegedly contributing to the opioid crisis.

    1. Please don’t capitalize letters; it’s triggering.

    1. Adult baby (licking rainbow whirl lollipop): Why do Antifa have coloured hair mommy?

      Mother: Because they’re clowns, honey. Dangerous, illiterate clowns.”

      Adult baby: Ohhh. Okay mommy. I’m never gonna be a clown.

      Mother (looks on disgustingly): No my son. No you won’t.

      /Cue Pink Floyd’s ‘Mother’.

    2. It Doesn’t End Well For Her.

      I’d say it didn’t start well for her. Her face looks pretty hideously swollen from some previous beating.

    3. It is so hilarious at the taunts from AntiFa. They keep saying “nobody likes you” and “you dont have any friends”

      A bunch of pussies who think their taunts are scary. They are a joke.

      They are so going to get wiped out when they start Civil War 2.0

      1. They will run away from Civil War 2.0.

        Crying for mom.

  19. “Ironically enough, it seems that one of the most reliable findings in psychology is that only half of psychological studies can be successfully repeated.”

    have fun replicating this finding

  20. “Even famous, long-established phenomena?the stuff of textbooks and TED Talks?might not be real,”

    One thing that is real and has been proven time and time again is that psychologist are fucking lunatics, and probably only entered the field to try and figure out what the fuck is wrong with themselves.

    1. Interesting.

      TED talks are annoying.

      1. It kinda blew my mind a little bit to see TED talks and textbooks to be described analogously this way.

        1. TED talks….those sacred, esteemed institutions of ancient knowledge

        2. My wife occasionally watches TED talks, and I have to say that most of the one’s I’ve seen are patent bullshit.

    1. I’m sure they will process the paperwork in the usual expedited fashion the government is known for.

    2. It’s good to know that individual judges, all on their own, are able to dictate immigration policy to the President and Congress.

      1. District Court judges still have national authority?

        Lets just disband the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Their jurisdiction is limited to their Circuits.

        1. The concept that federal rights and laws apply to everyone who live under its jurisdiction equally is the way it should be.

  21. “Even famous, long-established phenomena?the stuff of textbooks and TED Talks?might not be real,”

    are you telling me i have to dig up all of those time capsules i built with TED talks recorded on to cassette tapes?

    1. That is not how I expect a Micah Rhodes to look.

    2. But gay men can NOT be pedophiles. I have been told so many times, that gay men dont like under age boys.

  22. Hm. Re the psychology study, will be interesting to hear Jordan Peterson’s take.

    Not that Reason would ever interview him.

    Much easier to flick cards at him from afar.

    1. I don’t think Jordan Peterson knows much about experimental psychology (which is what the reproducibility crisis is about). He’s a clinical psychologist — a different field.

      1. Watch out, you’re dangerously well informed for this comments section.

        1. Oh look at the road kill the cat dragged in.

        2. Well that makes one of you.

          1. Get thee behind us, ye Hihnister Satulpatanic Satanulpinipulator ye!

            Yer lies will not be believed here; we believe in REASON, not your obvious LIES, ye Evil One!

      2. Ah. Thanks for the distinction.

        Still, he does dabble.

  23. Russian police general Alexander Prokopchuk could wind up leading the international law enforcement agency Interpol.

    In Russia, crimes stop police.

  24. Shouting ‘Mexico First,’ Hundreds In Tijuana March Against Migrant Caravan
    “We want the caravan to go; they are invading us,” said Patricia Reyes, a 62-year-old protester, hiding from the sun under an umbrella. “They should have come into Mexico correctly, legally, but they came in like animals.”

    1. I didn’t know that there were so many racist Trump supporters in Mexico

      1. It’s disgusting how they don’t want all those delicious food trucks in TJ.

        1. Don’t you mean doctors, lawyers, and an obviously even ratio of women and children?

    2. Haz que M?xico sea genial otra vez

      Make Mexico Great Again, en espanol.

  25. Orange County goes blue, as Democrats complete historic sweep of its seven congressional seats

    LA Times

    The Dotard’s tax hike also hurt him in Orange County.

    1. You think that California, or even Orange county, gives a flying fuck about low taxes? Spoiler alert: they pay California taxes.

      If anything, California is probably pissed off that they lost the SALT deduction.

    2. RINOS anyway.

  26. Women’s March founder Teresa Shook is not happy with what it’s become…

    Building a movement based on exclusion and hate while labeling it one of inclusion and love still has exclusion and hate at its foundation.

  27. “Ironically enough, it seems that one of the most reliable findings in psychology is that only half of psychological studies can be successfully repeated.”

    Which indicates psychology is more “science” than science.

  28. Ivanka pulls a Hillary.

    Unless we hear round-the-clock coverage about this from now until November 2020, it will prove what I’ve been saying all along. The media was totally biased against Hillary Clinton throughout all of the 2016 election. And that extreme bias was one of the major factors contributing to Drumpf’s tainted “victory.” (Other factors were Russian hacking, the Comey letter, and GamerGate.)

    #StillWithHer

    1. LOCK THEM BITCHES UP!

      1. Hey Mr. Buttplug, you live in Georgia right? I assume you voted Abrams for governor. Are you angry she was cheated out of victory by Republican dirty tricks?

        1. Rethuglikkkans Gerrymandered the state borders

        2. I’m pretty sure Russian trolls on Facebook decided that one.

  29. Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce are urging Congressional Republicans not to renew certain tax extenders, which “provide special interest tax breaks and unfairly pick winners and losers by propping up select industries and companies over others,” they say.

    They’re pushing for the tax breaks to extend to all taxpayers!

  30. Judges Shouldn’t Have the Power to Halt Laws Nationwide
    Democrats were ecstatic when a judge in Honolulu barred enforcement of the Trump administration’s travel ban. They were thrilled when a judge in Chicago halted a policy to rescind grant funding to sanctuary cities. In both cases, the judges extended their ruling beyond the litigants to the whole country, issuing so-called national injunctions.

    For opponents of Donald Trump’s administration, this legal maneuver has seemed like a godsend. Now it may come back to haunt them, as a single federal judge in Texas considers putting the Affordable Care Act on ice?not only in Texas, but anywhere in the country.

    1. Principals, not principles

      1. Look, those tactics are only valid when they do it. When anyone else does it, well that’s when they gotta slam the door shut behind themselves.

        This is why the Republicans will need to be killed off. I mean, the Democrats just can’t trust them with the levers of power that they’ve installed to circumvent the constitutional limitations on government. Republicans want those levers, don’t get me wrong, but Democrats just can’t trust them with that level of unfettered and unchecked power.

  31. A group of 45 House Republican lawmakers wrote President Trump Friday stating that they were “deeply concerned” by the inclusion of “sexual orientation and gender identity” language in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada-Agreement on trade.

    The representatives said the inclusion was “inappropriate and insulting to our national sovereignty” and urged Trump to remove the language.

    The letter suggests the president may lose some key Republican support when the deal, which would replace the North American Free Trade Agreement, comes before before Congress for approval next year.

    https://goo.gl/wbauNV

    LMAO – the Dotard’s “free trade” deal is all gayed up.

    1. You make it sound like a bad thing.

      1. No, I get to laugh at the idiots here (John, LovesTrumpsTinyMushroomdick1789, others) who actually believed the Trump people were working on a “free trade” deal.

        They can’t even copy and paste correctly.

        1. as a free-trade advocate and a libertarian, which you have professed to be many times, why would you celebrate the failure of a free trade deal? I don’t understand.

          1. Turd lies. That’s what he does.

          2. No, you understand perfectly.

            1. Get thee behind us, ye Hihnister Satulpatanic Satanulpinipulator ye!
              Yer lies will not be believed here; we believe in REASON, not your obvious LIES, ye Evil One!

          3. You see, even though NAFTA isn’t free trade it’s freer trade and will always be freer trade than any other deal that could possibly be made in the future. Of course, you have to ignore all the tariffs in NAFTA but hey if we have to ignore facts to score own-goals on Trump, well that’s just what we’re going to have to do!

            /sarc

  32. We’ve moved well beyond the vortex of ignorance where college freshman don’t know basic civics. “Progressive darling and Democratic Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York didn’t accurately name the three branches of government on Sunday despite her upcoming role as a congresswoman,” Molly Prince writes on the Daily Caller. “‘If we work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress, uh, rather, all three chambers of government ? the presidency, the Senate and the House ? in 2020,’ Ocasio-Cortez said. ‘We can’t start working in 2020.'”

    “The self-proclaimed Democratic socialist seemed to be confusing the two chambers of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, with the three branches of American government, the Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Ocasio-Cortez graduated cum laude from Boston University in 2011 with a bachelors degree in economics and international relations.”

    Awesome education system you got there.

    Take a bow NY. She’s all yours.

    https://bit.ly/2Fzld21

    1. She is the prog version of Sarah Palin.

      Wait – no one tried to make her VP.

      Okay – they are just both stupid.

      I recall when Sarah Palin wanted to call the Queen of England about the Iraq War.

      1. I’m pretty sure Palin wasn’t this ignorant. In fact, she was pretty sharp on some issues and instances.

        This is just plain an illiterate ignoramus.

        And honestly, you’re a bit damaged in the head when it comes to Palin. Let it go already. She hasn’t been relevant since 2008 or something. Find new material or someone else to obsess over.

        1. No, Sarah Palin is beyond ignorant – maybe brain-damaged in some way

          Katie Couric “Which newspapers do you read to keep up with current events?”

          SP “I read them all Katie”

          Couric “Give us idea though. Which ones?”

          SP “All of them”

          Couric ” Can you name a couple? One?”

          (Blank stare)

          1. I would have responded, ‘I read Cunty Couric’.

          2. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug|11.20.18 @ 10:14AM|#
            “No, Sarah Palin is beyond ignorant – maybe brain-damaged in some way”

            No one with a room-temp IQ like yours is capable of making such judgements. Besides which YOU LIE.
            So siddown and shaddup. When we want your opinion, we’ll tell it to you.

          3. It’s weird to me that you come on here and cheer for socialists. Sure, Sarah Palin is dumb, but I don’t remember her attacking the constitution on a regular basis. Ya know, that piece of paper that protects our rights, the ones AOC wants to remove… via force since elections don’t seem to work in leftists favor.

            I like to troll too, but you won’t see me defend people who hate American values

          4. I judge Sarah Palin by two measures:

            The arrest-to-college degree ratio of her children.

            The unplanned problem pregnancy-to-professional accreditation ratio of her family.

            She is an apt icon for those who don’t want to be elite, or anything close to it.

            Carry on, clingers.

            1. All that matters is how her kids turned out?

              If being elite means that I want to hold minorities to lower standards in order prop myself up and virtue signal, make friends with socialists who want to dismantle the foundations of this country, and make fun of people who choose to not murder babies, I’ll pass on the elite status.

              Carry on “elitist”

            2. “”The unplanned problem pregnancy-to-professional accreditation ratio of her family.

              Judging people on that criteria put you in company with my racist uncle.

          5. Hey, remember when Obama forgot how many States are in the Union?

    2. This is what Affirmative Action gives you.

    3. I’m already tired of the way conservatives pounce on every perceived misstatement by AOC. I think it’s largely based on sexism and a fear she could be a formidable Presidential candidate when she’s old enough.

      Regardless, she has a lot to offer us Koch / Reason libertarians since she wants to #AbolishICE.

      1. SWIFT-BOAT THAT BITCH NOW!

        1. You mean tell the unequivocal and absolute truth about her?

          Because that’s what the Swift Boat vets did to John Kerry.

    4. Not everyone can be a renaissance man like Donald Trump.

      1. Lol.

        You people.

        This is your response?

        1. You’re going to take this one misstatement and hang onto it for like the better part of a decade, pretending that every mind-explodingly ignorant or malicious thing POTUS said never happened, right?

          1. More like it’s the first of many to come.

            1. But suddenly you care about whether politicians know basic shit because of the letter after her name, correct?

            2. Like Trudeau, she’s been spewing gibberish since, like, um well before this incident.

              There’s no excuse to vote for these “lamaie” as Socrates once described fools.

          2. Er? ONE?!?

            ONE/?

            Fack off.

            1. Restated:

              Fack aff!

              Sorry, eh?!

      2. Can’t wait till she starts tweeting more.

    5. Yes, but in order to take back the 3 chambers they would have to win the House popular vote in all 53 states, correct?

      1. According to Obama there are 57 states.

  33. More from MSNBC about the stolen Georgia governor’s election:

    Fmr. Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams tells @chrislhayes that the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race was “not a free and fair election.”

    It’s frustrating that the #BlueTsunami would have been even bigger if Republicans hadn’t cheated.

    1. In 2018 getting more votes = cheating.

    2. Imagine that! Loser whines!
      Just like Tony, turd, the asshole rev the lot of the losers who backed that miserable hag.

      1. Sevo, why are you such an angry old bastard?

        1. You can’t be certain that he is old

        2. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug|11.20.18 @ 10:36AM|#
          “Sevo, why are you such an angry old bastard?”

          Turd, I’m not angry; I just don’t suffer lying assholes like you (and others so described) worth a hoot.
          Oh, and did I tell to fuck off yet today?
          Well, fuck off anyway, you lying piece of lefty shit.

  34. Different cultures and places ultimately didn’t matter much in terms of whether a study was reproducable or not. “Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively),” reports Many Lab.

    The assumption seems to be that Western cultural values can never change

    1. Lol, I would love to see your explanation of why a lack of differences among different cultures assumes a single culture doesn’t change over time.

      I’m sure your explanation will prove that you are in fact not so stupid that the existence of your children is making the country worse.

      1. Hey girl! How’s it going?!

      2. You should probably bone up on your reading comprehension, since the response was that “The assumption seems to be that Western cultural values can never change,” indicating an awareness that they can change.

        But then, that would get in the way of your typical passive-aggressive idiocy.

        1. No, what she’s really trying to say is that she wants to babysit for me because her cats are just not cutting it in the companionship department lately. She just doesn’t quite know how to say it, but I can read between the lines.

    2. Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures

      The bias is right there in the name!

      1. I’m curious which Western states are not democratic…

  35. “At Least Half of What You Know About Psychology Is Probably Wrong: Reason Roundup”

    So psyche mumbo-jumbo isn’t quite as accurate as flipping a coin.

  36. An expensive troop deployment done for transparently racist political demagoguery? But Obama did the fast and furious and the emailz… I mean, emailz are ok now… but the derpy derp 57 states birth certificate… Benghazi?

    1. Isn’t it a bit early to be drinking?

      1. Muast be it. He left out “But, Bush…”

    2. I knew you’d bring the abject retard as soon as I saw the Ivanka link. Thanks for not disappointing me.

  37. Soft sciences have variables that are more difficult to isolate and the conclusions drawn from such studies are more uncertain than they would be otherwise. The conclusions from such studies can still be useful.

    We also shouldn’t assume that the conclusions drawn from experiments in Chemistry, Physics, Biology, etc. don’t come with an uncertainty factor either. Science isn’t a priesthood that conveys certainty and truth. All of its conclusions come with a side of uncertainty, it’s just that the softer sciences come with a larger portion.

    Incidentally, the real world is rife with uncertainty–even in mathematics–and businesses need to make decisions in the face of uncertainty all the time. That isn’t to say that the conclusions we draw from them are useless either. When we’re making decisions about the future, we do things like look for the assumptions with the lowest margin of error or the least negative consequences if assumptions are wrong. that doesn’t make us irrational.

    It’s the same thing with psychology, I’m sure. Anyone who applies any of psychology’s conclusions with the certainty that they’re right was already making a huge error. In the real world, we have to market to customers, motivate employees, raise our children, and treat depression, and anybody who completely ignores what psychology has to tell us about how to do these things since the results of their experiments are only reproducible about half the time is being willfully ignorant.

    1. Science isn’t a priesthood that conveys certainty and truth
      This.
      That’s what pisses me off about the “I believe in science” crowd. Science is a method, not a belief system.
      It’s like saying “I believe in mathematics”, and then yelling “math denier” at anyone who raises the possibility that there is an error in their favourite mathematician’s calculation.

      1. “It’s like saying “I believe in mathematics”, and then yelling “math denier” at anyone who raises the possibility that there is an error in their favourite mathematician’s calculation.”

        I’m stealing that.

  38. “NEW: A federal judge in California has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing new limits on who can apply for asylum — the TRO will be in effect until Dec. 19 https://t.co/nOGTYtVX5n pic.twitter.com/70HQ1bHGIm”

    I don’t see any point in assuming that Trump’s withdrawal of troops from the border is unrelated to the ruling. Even if the ruling came afterward, I’m sure the writing was on the wall.

    I maintain that Trump’s early claim that there may be terrorists in the caravan was a calculated move–the last time the lower courts ruled on his travel ban, they cited his campaign rhetoric (rather than the text of the ban) as unconstitutional! If the Trump administration appears in front of the same judges in this go ’round, I hope his lawyers throw that ridiculous precedent back in the judge’s face.

    We’re citing the president’s press conferences!

    Chew on that.

    1. Ken the media was trying to push that Trump could NOT send troops to the US border.

      That didnt work, so they have latched on to this district court judge’s ruling.

      All these district court judges trying to stop securing the border and enforcing immigration law, have been reversed because their decisions are garbage.

  39. Capitalized words could scare college students

    More scare tactics from the e e cummings scholars’ lobby

    1. You can use caps, you just have to use a big friendly font.

  40. Oh, and if any “libertarians” belong on the wall of shame, it’s those who claim that using American troops to defend our borders is unconstitutional.

    Sending American troops to Vietnam or Kenya without Congress declaring war may be unconstitutional, but the libertarian purpose of our military is to defend our borders.

    The legitimate purpose of libertarian government is to protect our rights. We have police to protect our rights from criminals, criminal courts to protect our rights from the police, civil courts to protect our contractual rights from each other, and a military to protect our rights from foreign threats. Even in a perfectly libertarian isolationist world, the military would patrol and defend our borders from foreign threats.

    When you make the argument that it’s unconstitutional for our military to patrol our borders, you’re effectively telling people that it’s unconstitutional for our military to engage in its only truly constitutional purpose in peacetime. Why would you want to trash a century of libertarian and isolationist principles–just because you want the free flow of labor across borders? It’s not an either/or issue.

    1. This is how Jane Fonda got started. Her opposition to the Vietnam War was reasonable at first, but protest didn’t put an end to it, so she felt like she had to do more. In the end, she was posing on enemy antiaircraft guns with spent shells all around it and vouching for the good treatment of American POWs, who were actually being tortured. How can somebody go so far off track?

      It’s easy. You focus on one issue to the exclusion of principles (like intellectual honesty) and you focus on how much you hate President Nixon. If you’re a libertarian who sold your principles down the river for the issue of immigration and your hatred of President Trump, do the libertarian movement a favor–give yourself an uppercut and stop acting like a moron.

      1. give yourself an uppercut and stop acting like a moron.

        Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. This is Hit & Run.

      2. If Jane Fonda really was apologetic (which she is not) she would tell all these young people to be careful about letting their Lefty protests and actions go too far.

        I still refuse to watch any movie with Fonda in it and still mention how that bitch is a traitor.

        Jane Fonda still cannot believe how Americans hold that against her.

        1. Did you miss the episode of Norm McDonalds show where he had Jane Fonda on, and they talked about this very thing? She seemed to have a bit of regret and seemed to chalk at least some of her antics up to youthful ignorance. It’s not an excuse, just interesting.

    2. Ken, a CTRL+F of this thread reveals that you are the only one using the word “unconstitutional” here.

      The claim isn’t that the deployment of troops to the border is unconstitutional, merely that it was political theater in this specific case. How else can you explain the deployment of troops to the border just before the election, and then the subsequent withdrawing of the troops after the election but before any migrant caravan has arrived at the border. Do you really think the mission of 5000+ troops was to string a few miles of razor wire?

      1. There are things that have been said outside of this thread!

        No really.

        1. So someone somewhere said it’s unconstitutional.

          You didn’t address my points. Do you really think the mission of 5000+ troops was to string a few miles of razor wire?

          1. “Do you really think the mission of 5000+ troops was to string a few miles of razor wire?

            You’re the one who seems to believe that.

            I’ve already addressed what I thought he was trying to do.

          2. The media said the caravan arrived a week ago.

            1. Now the media is saying the caravan DIDNT arrive?

      2. How else can you explain the deployment of troops to the border just before the election, and then the subsequent withdrawing of the troops after the election but before any migrant caravan has arrived at the border.

        BEST F*CKING WAR EVAH!

        1. I mean… yeah. It could have been worse. Or it could have never happened at all. It’s really inconsequential, but isn’t that the point?

      3. “How else can you explain the deployment of troops to the border just before the election, and then the subsequent withdrawing of the troops after the election but before any migrant caravan has arrived at the border.”

        You seem to be missing the context.

        When I wrote:

        “I don’t see any point in assuming that Trump’s withdrawal of troops from the border is unrelated to the ruling. Even if the ruling came afterward, I’m sure the writing was on the wall.”

        —-Ken Shultz

        https://reason.com/blog/2018/11…..nt_7568629

        I meant that I don’t see any point in assuming that Trump withdrawing troops from the border is unrelated to the ruling that enjoins his EO to require asylum seekers to come through points of entry.

        The purpose of the troops deployments was to force asylum seeks and others to come through points of entry.

        1. Maybe we should review what happens when someone claims asylum.

          “To initiate the asylum process, migrants must first establish in what is known as a “credible fear” interview that they face danger if returned to their home country. According to U.S. government statistics, 77% of migrants interviewed passed the credible-fear test in the first four months of fiscal 2018.

          Migrants may then apply for asylum status through the U.S. immigration court system, which can take years to get a ruling because of a backlog of immigration cases. At the end of September, there were about 768,000 pending cases in that system, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, or TRAC.”

          http://www.wsj.com/articles/mi…..1542376796

          Once they get a court date, years in the future because of the backlog, they’re free to stay in the U.S. pending their ruling on asylum. Reports I’ve read suggest that many never show up for their court date. They just become illegal aliens.

          The purpose of the troops and razor wire, as I understand it, is to funnel people seeking asylum through checkpoints, rather than just having them make their way through the desert and claim asylum status if and when they’re picked up. That’s a reasonable stop if your goal is to shut the border down to illegal immigration so that the only people coming into the country are doing so illegally or requesting asylum.


          1. The purpose of the troops and razor wire, as I understand it, is to funnel people seeking asylum through checkpoints, rather than just having them make their way through the desert and claim asylum status if and when they’re picked up. That’s a reasonable stop if your goal is to shut the border down to illegal immigration so that the only people coming into the country are doing so illegally or requesting asylum.

            Which is, of course, about as plausible of a goal as creating a giant mirror in space to reflect sunlight away from Earth to prevent global warming.

            No offense, but you’d need a whole lot more people than the entire United States military to even pretend to ‘guard’ the southern border. And the cost would be massive and ongoing, so it’s immigration theater at massive expense.

            Yet another issue where modern Republicans sound almost exactly like circa 1995 Democrats.

            1. The media made a big deal about an immigrant caravan of some thousands.

              Trump sent military of some thousands to “reinforce” the border.

              I hate to break it you but government does similar stuff in places like the DMZ. North Korea does something, so Allied DMZ units do something to counter that.


              1. I hate to break it you but government does similar stuff in places like the DMZ. North Korea does something, so Allied DMZ units do something to counter that.

                I hate to break it to you, but the DMZ is a literal foreign war zone and is only about 160 miles across. Compare that to 2000 miles across on domestic soil and a border that isn’t actually contested by either nation that shares it.

                Look, I’m no open borders fanatic but neither am I a delusional Republican. A border wall, and ‘guarding the border with troops’, is a fantasy-land proposal. Leo has it exactly right, this was a political move to inspire voting during the mid-terms. You’d need to be blind not to see it.

                And, for what it’s worth, that isn’t an opposed goal to what Ken is saying either. Both could exist in the same space.

                1. Trying to pretend that walls are completely ineffective at keeping people out is preposterous.

                  Have you seen Israel?

                  440 miles along the West Bank. The one through Jerusalem runs for 125 miles.

                  There are open questions as to whether the expense is worth it (that’s why I’m against it, especially since I’m pro-immigration), but why pretend these ridiculous things–like that barriers are ineffective at keeping people out?

                  These are memes.

                  IF IF IF gun ownership really were associated with more violent crime, I’d still support gun rights anyway–because I’d never go around telling anti-gun people that ridding society of guns would be ineffective in cutting down on gun crime. I’ll say things like, “Well, don’t you think people may violently resist having their guns confiscated? Do you really want to put the country through that? Wouldn’t you give up after a while–if the government started going after gun rights people in the U.S. like the Mexican government went after cartels in Mexico?”

                  I’ll say things like that freedom is worth more than the crime we have to suffer–on the same grounds that we let murderers have a jury trial, presume their innocence, let them not testify against themselves, etc., etc.

                  You don’t have to propagate silly ideas in order to defend your position–whatever the position is.


                  1. Trying to pretend that walls are completely ineffective at keeping people out is preposterous.

                    Even your example of Israel, which is only a tiny faction of the overall length of the southern U.S. border and is essentially a hostile war zone (recall they fire rockets into Israel past that wall), the wall itself doesn’t keep them safe or people out. Their willingness to shoot or blow up anyone that they catch is the deterrent.

                    Bonus question: are you suggesting that all citizens of the United States be conscripted into the army for a number of years to guard the southern border wall like Israel does? Guessing not, but this is one policy area where Republicans are entirely delusional. No offense, that’s just my view.

            2. “No offense, but you’d need a whole lot more people than the entire United States military to even pretend to ‘guard’ the southern border. And the cost would be massive and ongoing, so it’s immigration theater at massive expense.”

              You’d need to start somewhere, too.

              5,000 troops along the border certainly don’t make it easier to cross the border illegally.

              Oh, and just because an action doesn’t completely solve the problem doesn’t mean that it doesn’t help.

              We have cops that go on patrol in Los Angeles. There are still gang shootings and armed robberies anyway, so I guess we might as well not even bother trying?

              Does not compute.

              Taking a Tylenol doesn’t kill viruses, so you might as well just suffer from a fever and forget about the pain?

              Because you want illegal immigration is no reason to pretend that sending 5,000 troops to the border will be completely ineffective. Find a better argument. Maybe argue that cheap labor is good for the economy! That’s what I do.


              1. 5,000 troops along the border certainly don’t make it easier to cross the border illegally.

                Wrong question. It doesn’t make it harder to cross the border illegally. The Mexican nation is laughing, and it is because they know about ladders and shovels.

                Oh, and just because an action doesn’t completely solve the problem doesn’t mean that it doesn’t help.

                That isn’t the metric. The metric is will it do anything to curb the problem for the price tag of several trillion dollars and that answer is an emphatic no.


              2. Because you want illegal immigration is no reason to pretend that sending 5,000 troops to the border will be completely ineffective.

                Cool story Ken. You just lost some respect over that line given that I’d hope by now you’d realize that isn’t my point. My point is that deregulation of labor and wage policy in the U.S. is the only possible way to accomplish this particular task. Every other ‘plan’ is a politician blowing smoke up your ass and half-formed ‘common sense’ that is anything but.

        2. It’s also important to remember that Trump is likely to win his case–if the Supreme Court’s decision on the travel ban is any indication.

          Here’s Justice Roberts writing the majority opinion that upheld Trump’s travel ban:

          “Next, the court turns to the statutory text. ?1182(f) of the INA, the court emphasizes, seems to give the president broad discretionary power. The provision empowers the president to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” if he “finds” that entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The court explains that this language “exudes deference” to the president, a deference heightened by the foreign policy and national security context. The court also emphasizes that the statute only mentions a presidential finding of national interest; the statute does not, however, seem to require the president “to explain that finding with sufficient detail to enable judicial review.” Moreover, given the sparse explanations offered in previous exercises of ?1182 (such as President Bill Clinton’s 1996 exclusion of Sudanese government and military officials), Trump’s explanation of the ban’s purpose more than suffices.

          http://www.lawfareblog.com/sup…..ng-summary

          1. The important to me, from a libertarian and constitutional perspective, is the question of whether the president can implement these things or whether the Constitution requires Congress to step in and make these changes. Roberts explaining that the rules Congress has passed exude deference to the President addresses that.

            Because you like immigration and don’t like Trump simply isn’t a good enough reason to pretend the law says something other than what it says.

          2. P.S. Shika Dalmia claiming that the President is undermining the rule of law is ludicrous when the problem is that the law gives too much deference to the president. If you want Congress to change the law, then say that. Don’t make it all about Trump.

            And Congress really shouldn’t be so deferential to the president.

            1. And Congress really shouldn’t be so deferential to the president.

              I certainly don’t disagree with you on this point.

              My concerns, related to the words written in this Reason article, are about the optics of it all. If Trump is using military deployments to achieve political goals, that’s problematic at best. Here is what happened as far as I can tell:
              Deploy troops to the border before the election in order to stir up fear about the “crisis” of hoards of people coming to the US to seek asylum. Yesterday we learn that the troops have strung some 22 miles of razor wire, which I personally find hard to believe will accomplish the goal of funneling migrants to ports of entry on a near 2000 mile border. And now apparently we’re declaring “Mission Accomplished” and sending the troops home after the election is over. If there were a legitimate threat to national security at the border from these migrants, then certainly we should leave the troops there, right?

              To any objective observer, those events seem to be suspiciously politically motivated… don’t you agree?

              It would be nice if, as in both war and peace, high level military objectives are spelled out by the person deploying the troops. If Trump had stated the mission is to put up 22 miles of temporary fence in order to secure the border then we wouldn’t be having this particular conversation. We might be questioning why it takes 5000 troops to accomplish this task, but that’s a different discussion.

              1. You guys are also suddenly believing the media to get facts straight and we know that they are notorious liars.

                1. You guys may not believe this, but right here–in the United States of America–the president’s actions are politically motivated!!!

                  In Librertopia, our leaders won’t give a shit what the people want–and that’s what the separation of powers and libertarianism is all about?

                  God save us all from politicians whose actions are politically motivated–is that what I’m supposed to think?

              2. “If Trump is using military deployments to achieve political goals, that’s problematic at best.”

                Only you can control the voices in your head.

                “To any objective observer, those events seem to be suspiciously politically motivated… don’t you agree?”

                Three out of the four voices in your head say that immigration is a suspiciously politically motivated issue, and the president shouldn’t bow to politics?!

                What kind of response to expect on that.

                From letting the states regulate marijuana and working with Putin to fight ISIS to deregulation, tax cuts, trade wars, and immigration, Trump has done a pretty good job of keeping his promises–whether you like his promises or not.

                He’s been fighting to shut down immigration for two years now, trying to get a wall built, etc., but because there’s an election, you think his anti-immigration moves are now politically motivated–and you think that’s a bad thing?! Is pulling troops back from a conflict a bad thing if it’s politically motivated?

                Not every argument is a good argument just because it’s pro-immigration and anti-Trump, and getting psychotic about the president complying with an injunction from the court doesn’t make much sense.

                Set the conspiracy theories aside, and, yeah, Trump is claiming emergency powers to use the military to shut the border down–and that is probably perfectly legal. Why not just address those facts and leave the intrigue from the voices in your head completely out of it?

    3. The only thing I am sure of is that the government should be protecting Americans from foreign powers. It’s the last thing I’d cross off their to-do list.

      Not a coincidence that leftists believe the only thing the government shouldn’t do is care about the people who pay them.

      1. Certainly. We should all feel threatened by the migrants heading to our border now, or we never should have… right?

        Or to ask the question another way… If 5000 troops were really needed to secure our border against this coming crisis, what specifically has changed such that they are no longer a threat to national security?

        1. That district court judge’s decision makes the immigrants a non-threat?

  41. I highly respect my colleague from Arkansas but everything in his tweet and this thread is 100% Fake News.

    Unless that was said tongue in cheek with the understanding that the first part of the sentence falls into the category of “this thread is 100% Fake News”, I just lost a lot of respect for Mike Lee. Tom Cotton deserves no respect for his attempt to make Jeff Sessions look like Mary Poppins.

    1. >>>I just lost a lot of respect for Mike Lee

      just?

  42. unconstitutional!

    >>>will not let them get away with it scot-free

    will cost at least six scots

  43. Capitalized words could scare college students

    That is interesting. Random capitalization seems to be greatly comforting to half-educated, gullible, bigoted losers.

  44. >>>Trying to link pheasant hunting season in South Dakota with sex trafficking??

    genius. the fuck else to do @night in South Dakota?

  45. the idea that mimicking happy facial expressions can actually boost people’s moods
    social priming (“the field of research about how thinking about or interacting with something … can affect later, vaguely related behaviour,” as one Psychology Today writer puts it)
    the idea that willpower is a finite personal resource that can be depleted (the subject of a very well-received 2011 book Willpower by social psychologist Roy Baumeister and journalist John Tierney)
    the finding that exposure to heat primes people to have more belief in global warming
    the finding that birth order within a family can predict altruism

    I’m no psychologist but that list above sounds like a sm?rg?sbord of bullshit.

    1. >>>the finding that exposure to heat primes people to have more belief in global warming

      outweighed greatly by those who snark @AlGore every time it snows.

  46. The memo stated that capitalizing certain words might make students anxious by reminding them of “the difficulty or high-stakes nature of the task.”

    As Iowahawk stated, the modern snowflake-driven culture just sprang forth, Venus-like from a mysterious clamshell.

    1. I have to admit THAT WHEN IS SEE PEOPLE LIKE HIHN using all caps, it comes across like a ransom note with letters cut out from a magazine.

    1. I didn’t read the link since I don’t follow Reason commentariat links at work, but I assume this ‘scientist’ means that we need to entreat the bureaucrats to do something instead since they have all the real power? I mean, it’s a bit of a stretch to call anyone at the U.N. a ‘politician’ since I don’t think any of them are really elected…

  47. Child bride auctioned on Facebook in ‘barbaric use of technology’ – CNN

    Cultural relativism must be exhausting. Invite these people into your homes you racist lefties

    1. Look, Mohammed wasn’t a pedophile even though he married a kid and then subsequently fucked said kid so really who are we to judge when modern adherents to the faith created by Mohammed use him as a model of how to behave?

      Sort of like your Christians that follow old testament rules, only the religion itself is schizophrenic instead of just the adherents.

      Honestly, to me, this is the big divide between ‘Americanized’ Muslims and…most of the rest of the world’s Muslims. They claim Islam is a religion of peace because they choose to follow the peaceful bits instead of the ‘cleanse the world of all non-Muslim’ bits.

      Wake me up when there’s a Muslim Martin Luther, eh? Until then, statistically speaking, Muslim’s are living in the 10th century or so. At best. You’d have as much success transplanting African Pygmies, which is to say none at all.

      1. “a Muslim Martin Luther”

        I thought Wahhab (sp?) was the Muslim Martin Luther.

  48. The will is infinite. I buy into that teaching of Schopenhauer’s.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.