It has begun

[Ovinomancer]

You agree that you weren't clear enough, yet quote a post you made to show that you were clear enough. If you agree that you weren't clear enough originally, why quote the second post you made in the thread to show you were clear? What was the purpose of doing that?

I quoted it because you said I hadn't made that point prior to that. I had. I agreed I could have been clearer, as it seemed that you needed a very clear statement to grasp my intent. Everything after that has been you seeming to insist I did something wrong. Right after I dared impugn behavioral scientists as just people, which appears to be a bad thing.

I don't think you're qualified to determine how much effort I put into a response. It wasn't much, to be honest. You also shouldn't worry about how much effort I put into responses. I mean, would it really make a difference to you if I put a lot of effort in my response? Would you suddenly change your position because of the effort I put into it?

It's interesting. You've stated that you think that people are generally good, but seem to think that I have some nefarious purpose here. I would take more care to try to understand your point if I felt you put a effort into it. More effort implies it's more important to you. I apologize if I offended you by suggesting that you might have put more effort into a post where you looked for a quoted posts from earlier in the thread, which is more effort than just typing. I had only the intent making a similar effort in understanding your intent as it appeared you put into it.

It may not establish new oversight, but it does it need to? Do you believe that there is no oversight previously established by The Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST) or the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)?

They're both advisory boards.

No, but maybe I should ask that. You're an engineer, right? Would you accept my judgement on whether or not you are being ethical in your profession? Why or why not?

Are we talking informally or formally? Surely the former, as nothing I've said implied I have any formal capacity, so, sure, I can't stop you, judge away. Most ethical standards are pretty universal, so armed with just that an a record of my pertinent actions there's no reason you couldn't judge me. I'm sure you judge others all the time. Just the other day, for instance, you judged an entire political party.

So let's see if we can clear this up. You can't judge the color of my shirt because you haven't seen it, correct? If you did see it, however, you would be perfectly able and qualified to judge the color. You've previously stated that you don't know any behavioral scientists. I'll assume you also haven't seen the ethics rules that behavior scientist have to follow. So, not knowing any behavior scientist or the ethics rules they have to follow, how are you able to judge how likely they are to violate their ethics or if/when they violate their ethics?

I'm sorry that you're offended that I made a general statement that behavioral scientists are just like other people. This appears deeply troubling to you, despite the fact that you've yet to note how they might be different from normal people; how they are special. You keep trying to spiral down into absurdity, placing more and more restrictions on your constructs, to find a place where I'll trip and you can say 'aha!' I'll be sorry to disappoint you in the end.

But, to answer your question, I would assume that behavioral scientists are people, and there's nothing special about them as a group when it comes to things like ethical behavior. I would assume this because there's no special requirement for a behavioral scientist to have a higher than normal concentration of ethical behavior to get their degrees or land a job. If they show unethical behavior, they lose their jobs, but this is generally the same for many such positions. Therefore, if there's no indications that behavioral scientist have above average or below average ethical behaviors, then I would assume that the likelihood that they would violate ethical standards would be the same as the general population. I have no need to actually know a behavioral scientist or the specific ethical codes they follow to make this assumption. I assume the mean.

This is a time honored position when you don't have more information that the target group is different from other groups -- you assume they're the same. If you can run a test, you can then see if it holds up, but I believe that running such a test would require IRB approval, especially since the test would require manipulation and lying to the subjects.

Or, and this is critical, you could ask someone that is in a better position to know more about the subject group what it is about the group that makes them better or worse than the mean. I believe I've asked that very question and you've yet to answer it.

It appears that you have a pre-conceived notion about behavior scientist, and all people, actually. It's a bias you have, which affects the way you interpret the communist manifesto that this executive order is.

Well, gosh, did me saying that I have that perception clue you in? I mean, I've been saying that I think that people are people, most good, some bad, and that behavioral scientists are people, most good, some bad, for a few posts now. Is this a controversial or dangerous preconception? It seems pretty vanilla to me.

Okay, let's compare. You have a high school teacher and Martin Shkreli. Who is more likely to be unethical?

I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with the profession of Martin Shkreli. What do Martin Shkrelis do?

Or, maybe you'd like to suggest two professions to compare instead of a profession and an individual?

I'm not even sure where you're getting that from.
Not sure where you're getting that from, either. It just appears that you're on the edge of going over to the government conspiracist's side believing that this is meant to be used for nefarious reasons. The argument doesn't come off as it can be used for nefarious purposes, but that it will be used for nefarious purposes. You might be arguing the former, but you're coming off as the latter.

Okay, if wanting a transparent government with solid oversight and controls is on the edge of going over to the government conspiracists' side, sign my up alongside the Framers.

And I find it ironic that you'd say that I'm coming off as the latter despite my clearly (as you so noted) stating that's not my position. I keep having to defend myself from increasingly pointed attacks as if that is my position, which is frustrating, because it's not. I could say it again, but we've covered the fact that I shouldn't do that because it introduces confusion about my prior clarity.

Do you believe all professions have the same level of ethics? That is to say, would the ethical guidelines for lawyers be the same as for a truck driver or a painter? Would they all be equally as strict? Would he repercussions for violating a rule be the same for all three?

Painting is a vocation, as is truck driver. Professions require lengthy specialized education and formal qualifications. And, yes, I think that most professions have a similar standard of ethical conduct.

What irony? I said luckily most people are not libertarians. I've never said that there are no people that want to harm others. Of course there are. Most people aren't looking to be jerks. Most people aren't libertarians. In fact, I know some people that say they're libertarians, but they don't really know what a libertarian is.

So, then, you're a person that wants, at least occasionally, to do harm? Because that was the irony, you claiming most people won't do harm and then you go and do harm. Limited, verbal harm, but still. It's ironic that you think most people are good, except that group over there that you feel free to malign as you will. That you base your maligning on your assessment of their true intent and not their stated intent is even more amusing, as it's directly analogous to what you seem to be accusing me of doing. What I'm actually doing is just think that people are like people, in general.

Sure, however, it appears that you believe that this oversight isn't going on, or it's not going on strictly enough, and I would disagree with you.

You're more than welcome to do so. although it would be better for your position to show a case of oversight occurring. That would go further towards showing me incorrect than just disagreeing with me, yes? I'd love to show you no oversight, but it's hard to show a lack.

So you have no experience with IRBs?

Didn't say that. Said I don't have to do them for my job.

So if there were no ethical standards, you wouldn't restrict yourself?

Nope. I was unclear. I do act ethically in my job and would if I weren't reviewed. I've had the opportunity to directly refuse to do something because I felt it was just over the line unethical. The person directing me wasn't a bad person, they just thought that it was on the right side of the line. We disagreed, and I didn't do it (it didn't get done at all, as a matter of fact, which is good as I didn't particularly want to report it).

The bolded parts seems to contradict each other.

How so? I mean, you can claim the contradict each other, I don't think they do, but without more than that I'm uncertain as to how I should respond. My previous attempts to glean your thinking always seem to end up with me off the mark. I must just be bad at this. I'm okay with that, I can always ask or try again.

But, if I were to guess, I would think that you're not following that 'as a whole' means everyone in the group. Most in a group can do a thing, yet the group, as a whole, doesn't do that. As a whole generally means together as a group, not as individuals or separate pieces. So, no, I don't see anything contradictory in there.

That's the part that makes you appear as some anti-government conspiracy theorist.

It's anti-government conspiracy theory to recognize that the government has the monopoly on force, or that it wield incredible power over the citizens' lives? Okay, um, not sure where to go with that as those are facts and generally acknowledged by pro-government people.

Why would I care what liberals used to think or what they think now? How is that pertinent to our discussion?

Because I'm advocating a position that, until the last decade or two, was a strongly liberal doctrine. At no time was that liberal doctrine anti-government, it just acknowledged the power of government and the possibility of abuse, if not watched. It's entirely relevant, especially since you started leveling anti-government conspiracy theorist insinuations at me.

It seems that your distrust goes far beyond government. I'd say you distrust everyone. This bias that you have affects the manner in which you view the executive manifesto order.

It's usually a bad idea to assume someone's positions and thoughts when they're right there and you can ask them. I don't distrust everyone, I'm pretty well adjusted. I get along very well with my coworkers, am polite and helpful in public, and have few issues with talking to just about anyone. I distrust government to the point that I want transparency and oversight and not any further. That's also healthy (or was when I was a younger man). You seem keen to label me as a nutcase. Is that because it makes me easier to dismiss? As a behavioral scientist, how would you view those actions in someone else?

Well, now we're going to have to o into what you consider strict controls and transparent to all So, what would fit your requirement to be a satisfactory strict enough control? I mean, you've stated that you don't, and won't ever trust government, so how could you trust that they are meeting your transparency and strict controls requirements?

Putting words into my mouth so that you can make it easier to dismiss me isn't appreciated. I trust government to the extent that it can be watched. As for specific oversight -- a listed organization given oversight responsibilities including setting public standards for all research to adhere to; a required reporting path to said organizations for all programs engaged in behavioral research; the authority granted to that organization to enforce its standards across government, including but not limited to suspending research and launching investigations; annual reporting on the status of all government research; results of research done by government made public domain and freely released; the ongoing status of all programs that have adopted policies based on behavioral research including exact changes made or policies implemented, tracked metrics (defined prior to initiation), and any formal assessment results for a period of no less than five years after a change has been implemented (after five years, it's established); a clear accounting of all funds used for behavioral research and for implementation of said research.

None of that is much more than what's required by universities for behavioral research. It's not unreasonable, or overly burdensome.

 

[Kramodlog]

Tears have been shed.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

I quoted it because you said I hadn't made that point prior to that. I had. I agreed I could have been clearer, as it seemed that you needed a very clear statement to grasp my intent.

Great, so there is no need to vontinue discussing how unclear you were. We're both in agreement, so lets move on.

Everything after that has been you seeming to insist I did something wrong.

You did do something wrong. Very wrong. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Right after I dared impugn behavioral scientists as just people, which appears to be a bad thing.

No, that's incorrect. It was lawyers. You insulted lawyers, and I had to stick up for them. You were the one that chose to focus on behavioral scientist.

By the way, who would you consider a behavioral scientist? We should probably have discussed this first.

It's interesting. You've stated that you think that people are generally good, but seem to think that I have some nefarious purpose here. I would take more care to try to understand your point if I felt you put a effort into it. More effort implies it's more important to you. I apologize if I offended you by suggesting that you might have put more effort into a post where you looked for a quoted posts from earlier in the thread, which is more effort than just typing. I had only the intent making a similar effort in understanding your intent as it appeared you put into it.

I believe you may have misunderstood. I apologize if I wasn't clear. I didn't mean for you to believe that I thought your judgement on how much effort, or lack there of, I put into a response would be used by you for nefarious reasons. I just don't believe you are qualified to judge how much effort I, or anyone else really, has put into a response. Just the same, I don't believe I'm qualified to judge how much effort you put into a response. In any case, the effort you put into a response doesn't really matter. What matters is the response. I mean, you could have put a lot of effort into a response. You could have spent 10+ hours researching articles and ended up posting a terrible response full of logical fallacies. Should I be burdened with with putting in as much time and effort to understand your terrible response? Of course not, and you shouldn't either. So, as I said, the effort you put into it doesn't matter. Concern yourself with my response, not the effort, or lack there of, you believe Ive put into a response.

They're both advisory boards.

So just to be clear, you believe that neither of them has any ability to stop the implementation of procedures that may be unethical?

Are we talking informally or formally? Surely the former, as nothing I've said implied I have any formal capacity, so, sure, I can't stop you, judge away. Most ethical standards are pretty universal, so armed with just that an a record of my pertinent actions there's no reason you couldn't judge me. I'm sure you judge others all the time. Just the other day, for instance, you judged an entire political party.

Sure, I could judge you, but would my judgement be correct?

I'm sorry that you're offended that I made a general statement that behavioral scientists are just like other people. This appears deeply troubling to you, despite the fact that you've yet to note how they might be different from normal people; how they are special. You keep trying to spiral down into absurdity, placing more and more restrictions on your constructs, to find a place where I'll trip and you can say 'aha!' I'll be sorry to disappoint you in the end.

No, you didn't offend me. I believe you have missed my point. I may not have explained it clearly enough for you. As I said several times, you don't appear to have an issue with behavioral scientist only. You seem to have an issue with all people. As you've said, behavioral scientist are people, and it seems you have this general belief that people are untrustworthy.

But, to answer your question, I would assume that behavioral scientists are people, and there's nothing special about them as a group when it comes to things like ethical behavior. I would assume this because there's no special requirement for a behavioral scientist to have a higher than normal concentration of ethical behavior to get their degrees or land a job.

I see what the problem is. You just don;t actually know ethical requirements for a person to earn a degree in a behavioral science is. Let's ignore behavior scientist. Would you assume that a law student could earn their degree without having a higher concentration of ethical behavior? How about a police officer?

If they show unethical behavior, they lose their jobs, but this is generally the same for many such positions. Therefore, if there's no indications that behavioral scientist have above average or below average ethical behaviors, then I would assume that the likelihood that they would violate ethical standards would be the same as the general population. I have no need to actually know a behavioral scientist or the specific ethical codes they follow to make this assumption. I assume the mean.

And how did you come about identifying the mean likelihood that ethics would be violated by the general population? Are you just assuming the mean as well?

This is a time honored position when you don't have more information that the target group is different from other groups -- you assume they're the same. If you can run a test, you can then see if it holds up, but I believe that running such a test would require IRB approval, especially since the test would require manipulation and lying to the subjects.

You'd be surprised. IRB approval isn't required for every study you want to conduct.

Or, and this is critical, you could ask someone that is in a better position to know more about the subject group what it is about the group that makes them better or worse than the mean. I believe I've asked that very question and you've yet to answer it.

What makes you believe that I'm in a better position to know more about behavior scientist? You're making a lot of assumptions. That can be a problem. It can lead you to incorrect conclusions.

Well, gosh, did me saying that I have that perception clue you in? I mean, I've been saying that I think that people are people, most good, some bad, and that behavioral scientists are people, most good, some bad, for a few posts now. Is this a controversial or dangerous preconception? It seems pretty vanilla to me.

I'm sorry, I seem to have upset you. That was not my intent.

I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with the profession of Martin Shkreli. What do Martin Shkrelis do?

Or, maybe you'd like to suggest two professions to compare instead of a profession and an individual?

Actually, I said a high school teacher. That would indicate an individual. You should be able to make that comparison. If you need a specific high school teacher, you can substitute one of your high school teachers. If you only want to use professions, you know what Shkreli's profession is.

Okay, if wanting a transparent government with solid oversight and controls is on the edge of going over to the government conspiracists' side, sign my up alongside the Framers.

And I find it ironic that you'd say that I'm coming off as the latter despite my clearly (as you so noted) stating that's not my position. I keep having to defend myself from increasingly pointed attacks as if that is my position, which is frustrating, because it's not. I could say it again, but we've covered the fact that I shouldn't do that because it introduces confusion about my prior clarity.

I'm not sure why you are so offended. I'm not attacking you in any way. I've said that it you are making one argument, but you're coming off as if you're making a different argument. Go back and read what I wrote. It's right there.

Painting is a vocation, as is truck driver. Professions require lengthy specialized education and formal qualifications. And, yes, I think that most professions have a similar standard of ethical conduct.

Truck drivers do have to meet formal qualifications. Would you consider police work a profession?

So, then, you're a person that wants, at least occasionally, to do harm? Because that was the irony, you claiming most people won't do harm and then you go and do harm. Limited, verbal harm, but still. It's ironic that you think most people are good, except that group over there that you feel free to malign as you will. That you base your maligning on your assessment of their true intent and not their stated intent is even more amusing, as it's directly analogous to what you seem to be accusing me of doing. What I'm actually doing is just think that people are like people, in general.

I don't believe that stating my belief is harming anyone. That's like claiming that a libertarian stating their belief about government is harming government workers. Do yo believe that?

You're more than welcome to do so. although it would be better for your position to show a case of oversight occurring. That would go further towards showing me incorrect than just disagreeing with me, yes? I'd love to show you no oversight, but it's hard to show a lack.

That's very interesting. Wouldn't it also be better for your position for you to how an ethical violation occurring? It would definitely go further towards showing me incorrect than just assuming it's happening. I'd love to show you no ethical violations occurring, but as you've pointed out, it's hard to show a lack.

Didn't say that. Said I don't have to do them for my job.

Have you ever?

Nope. I was unclear. I do act ethically in my job and would if I weren't reviewed. I've had the opportunity to directly refuse to do something because I felt it was just over the line unethical. The person directing me wasn't a bad person, they just thought that it was on the right side of the line. We disagreed, and I didn't do it (it didn't get done at all, as a matter of fact, which is good as I didn't particularly want to report it).

So why do you assume that others wouldn't do the same? What makes you different than the general population?

How so? I mean, you can claim the contradict each other, I don't think they do, but without more than that I'm uncertain as to how I should respond. My previous attempts to glean your thinking always seem to end up with me off the mark. I must just be bad at this. I'm okay with that, I can always ask or try again.

You said "I don't have much faith that people will not violate ethical standards as a whole." Then you said "Most won't." So which is it? Do you believe that most people will violate their ethical standards, or do you believe that most people won't violate their ethical standards?

It's anti-government conspiracy theory to recognize that the government has the monopoly on force, or that it wield incredible power over the citizens' lives? Okay, um, not sure where to go with that as those are facts and generally acknowledged by pro-government people.

As I said, that's what makes you appear a certain way. I'm not claiming you are a certain way. You just come off that way.

Because I'm advocating a position that, until the last decade or two, was a strongly liberal doctrine.

Right, b At no time was that liberal doctrine anti-government, it just acknowledged the power of government and the possibility of abuse, if not watched. It's entirely relevant, especially since you started leveling anti-government conspiracy theorist insinuations at me. [/quote] Right, but why does it matter if it was once liberal doctrine? It wouldn't matter if it was currently liberal doctrine. I'm just not seeing your point in bringing liberals into this discussion.

It's usually a bad idea to assume someone's positions and thoughts when they're right there and you can ask them. I don't distrust everyone, I'm pretty well adjusted. I get along very well with my coworkers, am polite and helpful in public, and have few issues with talking to just about anyone. I distrust government to the point that I want transparency and oversight and not any further. That's also healthy (or was when I was a younger man). You seem keen to label me as a nutcase. Is that because it makes me easier to dismiss?

See, you're making incorrect assumptions, again. Not once have I said you're a nutcase. I've said that you are making one argument, but the manner in which you make that argument comes off in a different way.

As a behavioral scientist, how would you view those actions in someone else?

Your actions or mine?

Putting words into my mouth so that you can make it easier to dismiss me isn't appreciated.

I can say the same thing to you.

I trust government to the extent that it can be watched. As for specific oversight -- a listed organization given oversight responsibilities including setting public standards for all research to adhere to; a required reporting path to said organizations for all programs engaged in behavioral research; the authority granted to that organization to enforce its standards across government, including but not limited to suspending research and launching investigations; annual reporting on the status of all government research; results of research done by government made public domain and freely released; the ongoing status of all programs that have adopted policies based on behavioral research including exact changes made or policies implemented, tracked metrics (defined prior to initiation), and any formal assessment results for a period of no less than five years after a change has been implemented (after five years, it's established); a clear accounting of all funds used for behavioral research and for implementation of said research.

None of that is much more than what's required by universities for behavioral research. It's not unreasonable, or overly burdensome.

How do you know all that isn't there already? Do you need it to be specifically stated in this executive order?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I've decided to treat your post as you recommend, not on any assumption of effort, but on the general appearance of worth. Considering you haven't, in many words, stated anything remotely like a position that you're holding, and instead seem to be engaging in an ever shifting Socratic questioning session, I'm just going to ask you to either get to the point you're hoping to question me into or state a position so there's something concrete to discuss.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Meh... I got bored of this topic a while back. I think it's best we just move on.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Meh... I got bored of this topic a while back. I think it's best we just move on.

Loud and clear.