high horse?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Though I have taught myself most of what I know about finance, it's the credentials that really matter when people are thinking about giving you their money to invest for them...or investing in a business venture.

Really?

I thought it was the idea that mattered most in a financial investment.

quote:

perhaps you should listen to my suggestion and get an education then? you consider yourself an expert in demolitions, engineering and now economics yet you have no real education or professional experience in any of them. your analyses are wrong, your ability to deduce the information you have is lacking, and your confirmation bias is blatantly unprofessional.

I don't claim I am an expert, this is exactly where you are lying troll. All I have used is a common sense approach to everything I have ever posted.

And by the looks of it, what I have done with it far exceeds what you believe only an education can tell you. I don't expect you to understand either, you completely lack common sense.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut I don't claim I am an expert, this is exactly where you are lying troll. All I have used is a common sense approach to everything I have ever posted.

Wikipedia: conspiracy theory guide

Appeals to 'common sense';

Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut And by the looks of it, what I have done with it far exceeds what you believe only an education can tell you.

jesus, you really are deluded. your "understanding" of these issues would fail you right out of school.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Really? I thought it was the idea that mattered most in a financial investment.

The idea? I don't know what you're getting at. But for me to even advise someone on their finances, or to sell them a particular stock, I'de have to be licensed to do so. Much like a doctor, but I wouldn't need a doctorate degree. To be certified, I must takes specific tests, such as the Series 7 test. To even be able to take that, I'de have to be sponsored by a financial institution who is willing to pay for me to take the test. For them to hire me and want to pay for my certification, I would need to have studied a relevant subject (i.e. finance major), in a institution of higher learning. Contrary to what some in this thread are trying to shove down our throats, I can't go to work for a Goldman Sachs or Raymond James, by simply telling them, "oh, i didn't go to university, but I read a lot of articles on the internet! I know how to do people's finances! Trust me on this!" It's not going to happen..

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i am merely using you as an example of those that believe youtube is a substitute for formal education, and that your errors in facts and in logic proves my point that average people are incapable of teaching themselves a subject to the same degree as an institution.

To be fair, the fact that certain individuals have failed to educate themselves with regard to particular subjects doesn't prove that they aren't able to. You correctly recognize that their "research" is hampered by a considerable confirmation bias -- that fact, among others, might be the cause of their failure rather than a simple incapacity to teach themselves a subject to a reasonable degree of competency.

If, for example, they were to attempt to learn about a subject that they had no a priori emotional investment in, then I suspect that they would at least reach a higher level of comprehension than they manifestly have here, if perhaps not the level that one would expect of a university graduate (though probably not if they confined their investigation to Youtube...)

Moreover, your argument seems to assume, without justification, that these are average individuals. They may, in fact, be significantly below average, in which case their inability to learn independently could only reflect the capabilities of other people of like capability.

I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say that lawyers today are generally more capable than they used to be in the U.S., when law schools did not exist and lawyers typically learned through apprenticeships.

To be sure, though, there is a big difference between an extended apprenticeship and independent study. I leave open the question of whether an average person can become reasonably competent in any particular field through independent study alone. I have never known one to do so, but neither have I known an average person who had made a genuine effort at such self-education. For all I know, the average person is incapable of even understanding what such a genuine effort entails, although I would like to think otherwise...

Whether an average person can achieve such competence through independent study alone strikes me as quite irrelevant, since the mere possibility of it would offer no substantial evidence that some particular individual who claims to have done so has in fact. It would only ensure that it remained within the rather broad realm of things that are "possible." And, in any case, if someone has no credentials but they are able to back up the facts upon which their analysis is based with credible sources and their analysis does not depend upon fallacious reasoning, I don't expect you would object to considering their point of view.

On the other hand, if they provide no source or a non-authoritative source for the facts upon which they base their conclusions, engage in clearly fallacious reasoning, or craft analogies and identify connections that approach the outer reaches of the sane imagination, then I don't think we can reasonably believe that they have educated themselves on the subject even if they are capable of doing so. Where complex scientific or macroeconomic phenomena are evaluated with appeals to "common sense," where the individual cannot reasonably respond to issues that others raise with their facts or logic, and where citations to relevant authority are replaced with vague assertions of "research" or ad nauseam youtube documentaries, it seems as though there is more than enough evidence to reasonably conclude that they simply haven't the first clue what they are talking about.

Going back to the distinction between an apprenticeship and individual study, it seems to me what the apprenticeship and university study -- and, indeed, any form of learning that is likely to be productive (including proper independent study) -- have in common is that the person who is learning has an opportunity to receive feedback on their learning process so as to ensure that mistakes are corrected. In the case of independent study, this is much more difficult, which is probably why people pursuing that avenue are (generally) less successful in their attempts to learn. It can still be done, but it requires some authoritative source of information sufficient to reasonably confirm or deny the correctness of the learner's understanding. It also requires, of course, that the learner does not presume himself the expert, but rather defers to that source (otherwise, nothing is learned.)

This seems to pose a particular problem for so-called "conspiracy theorists." They are inherently suspicious of authority and, thus, the "authoritative" sources that they use tend to be exactly the conspiracies that they purport their "research" to confirm. But it is no wonder that they reach this result, since they are essentially begging the question. Notably, this pathological behavior shares a great deal with that of another, much larger, category of individuals who believe complete and utter nonsense, and who similarly tend to persist in that belief in the face of all the contraindicative facts as well as the abject and wholly evident illogic of their position...

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter To be fair, the fact that certain individuals have failed to educate themselves with regard to particular subjects doesn't prove that they aren't able to. You correctly recognize that their "research" is hampered by a considerable confirmation bias -- that fact, among others, might be the cause of their failure rather than a simple incapacity to teach themselves a subject to a reasonable degree of competency. If, for example, they were to attempt to learn about a subject that they had no a priori emotional investment in, then I suspect that they would at least reach a higher level of comprehension than they manifestly have here, if perhaps not the level that one would expect of a university graduate (though probably not if they confined their investigation to Youtube...)

Whilst you are certainly correct in your argument that they might be more than "able" to, I think its rather difficult to separate the confirmation bias from the person. What I mean is that learning institutions serve as a countering force to unsubstantiation, and that many indiviuals bereft of that countering force are liable to find themselves unable to learn adequately by themselves. So to argue that they could research subjects that they did not have a prior emotional investment is technically correct, it is also possible that their levels of logic have always been suspect, and devoid of any overarching 'supervision' like one receives via formal education, it is likely they will merely extend their lack of knowledge or logic to another field of interest.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Moreover, your argument seems to assume, without justification, that these are average individuals. They may, in fact, be significantly below average, in which case their inability to learn independently could only reflect the capabilities of other people of like capability.

Touche however there are many indivuals in the PDD (for instance) that I would consider higher than average intelligence, as well as possessing a higher than average degree of intellectual curiosity. Obviously both these assessments could be wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say that lawyers today are generally more capable than they used to be in the U.S., when law schools did not exist and lawyers typically learned through apprenticeships.

No, but that is still in line with my position. I don't advocate university as a catch-all for all knowledge or vocations, but rather an education of some sort that relies on more than one individual's opinion/experience (which is basically my main point). Education, be it at school or as an apprentice or various 'on the job' training levels is often (though not always) superior to an individual attempting to understand a subject on their own. Which ive just noticed you've said right here:

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter To be sure, though, there is a big difference between an extended apprenticeship and independent study. I leave open the question of whether an average person can become reasonably competent in any particular field through independent study alone. I have never known one to do so, but neither have I known an average person who had made a genuine effort at such self-education. For all I know, the average person is incapable of even understanding what such a genuine effort entails, although I would like to think otherwise…

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Whether an average person can achieve such competence through independent study alone strikes me as quite irrelevant, since the mere possibility of it would offer no substantial evidence that some particular individual who claims to have done so has in fact. It would only ensure that it remained within the rather broad realm of things that are "possible." And, in any case, if someone has no credentials but they are able to back up the facts upon which their analysis is based with credible sources and their analysis does not depend upon fallacious reasoning, I don't expect you would object to considering their point of view.

Precisely.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter On the other hand, if they provide no source or a non-authoritative source for the facts upon which they base their conclusions, engage in clearly fallacious reasoning, or craft analogies and identify connections that approach the outer reaches of the sane imagination, then I don't think we can reasonably believe that they have educated themselves on the subject even if they are capable of doing so. Where complex scientific or macroeconomic phenomena are evaluated with appeals to "common sense," where the individual cannot reasonably respond to issues that others raise with their facts or logic, and where citations to relevant authority are replaced with vague assertions of "research" or ad nauseam youtube documentaries, it seems as though there is more than enough evidence to reasonably conclude that they simply haven't the first clue what they are talking about.

Its like youre reading my mind today!

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Going back to the distinction between an apprenticeship and individual study, it seems to me what the apprenticeship and university study -- and, indeed, any form of learning that is likely to be productive (including proper independent study) -- have in common is that the person who is learning has an opportunity to receive feedback on their learning process so as to ensure that mistakes are corrected. In the case of independent study, this is much more difficult, which is probably why people pursuing that avenue are (generally) less successful in their attempts to learn. It can still be done, but it requires some authoritative source of information sufficient to reasonably confirm or deny the correctness of the learner's understanding. It also requires, of course, that the learner does not presume himself the expert, but rather defers to that source (otherwise, nothing is learned.)

Exactly, and this is the crux of my entire position. The only real difference between studying say, economics at university and reading an economics texbook in your spare time, is that you have others around you who will pass judgement on your work and make you justify your position(s). The process itself is virtually identical, but I would argue the results can be different by orders of magnitude. As you rightly identify, there is a real problem with one person presuming himself the expert when there is only ever one person judging the quality of the work that comes from the study. I would contend that we learn an awful lot from our failures, but if we are not aware of such failures, then our abilities for improvement are sorely diminished.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter This seems to pose a particular problem for so-called "conspiracy theorists." They are inherently suspicious of authority and, thus, the "authoritative" sources that they use tend to be exactly the conspiracies that they purport their "research" to confirm. But it is no wonder that they reach this result, since they are essentially begging the question. Notably, this pathological behavior shares a great deal with that of another, much larger, category of individuals who believe complete and utter nonsense, and who similarly tend to persist in that belief in the face of all the contraindicative facts as well as the abject and wholly evident illogic of their position...

Agreed.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The idea? I don't know what you're getting at. But for me to even advise someone on their finances, or to sell them a particular stock, I'de have to be licensed to do so. Much like a doctor, but I wouldn't need a doctorate degree. To be certified, I must takes specific tests, such as the Series 7 test. To even be able to take that, I'de have to be sponsored by a financial institution who is willing to pay for me to take the test. For them to hire me and want to pay for my certification, I would need to have studied a relevant subject (i.e. finance major), in a institution of higher learning. Contrary to what some in this thread are trying to shove down our throats, I can't go to work for a Goldman Sachs or Raymond James, by simply telling them, "oh, i didn't go to university, but I read a lot of articles on the internet! I know how to do people's finances! Trust me on this!" It's not going to happen..

Yeah. I think we're just in totally different dispositions on life, and that's cool and fine. That's what makes shit work in the first place.

Well, keep believing what you believe, there's certainly nothing I can fault you on necessarily regarding it, especially in the current sphere of intelligence regarding our current world and its immediate future.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I haven't read that much of Hall's work but I know he's recognized in esoteric circles as a genius by many.

Passing the Lamp - The Life of Manly P. Hall



[[ LINK REMOVED ]]

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter To be fair, the fact that certain individuals have failed to educate themselves with regard to particular subjects doesn't prove that they aren't able to. You correctly recognize that their "research" is hampered by a considerable confirmation bias -- that fact, among others, might be the cause of their failure rather than a simple incapacity to teach themselves a subject to a reasonable degree of competency. If, for example, they were to attempt to learn about a subject that they had no a priori emotional investment in, then I suspect that they would at least reach a higher level of comprehension than they manifestly have here, if perhaps not the level that one would expect of a university graduate (though probably not if they confined their investigation to Youtube...) Moreover, your argument seems to assume, without justification, that these are average individuals. They may, in fact, be significantly below average, in which case their inability to learn independently could only reflect the capabilities of other people of like capability. I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say that lawyers today are generally more capable than they used to be in the U.S., when law schools did not exist and lawyers typically learned through apprenticeships. To be sure, though, there is a big difference between an extended apprenticeship and independent study. I leave open the question of whether an average person can become reasonably competent in any particular field through independent study alone. I have never known one to do so, but neither have I known an average person who had made a genuine effort at such self-education. For all I know, the average person is incapable of even understanding what such a genuine effort entails, although I would like to think otherwise... Whether an average person can achieve such competence through independent study alone strikes me as quite irrelevant, since the mere possibility of it would offer no substantial evidence that some particular individual who claims to have done so has in fact. It would only ensure that it remained within the rather broad realm of things that are "possible." And, in any case, if someone has no credentials but they are able to back up the facts upon which their analysis is based with credible sources and their analysis does not depend upon fallacious reasoning, I don't expect you would object to considering their point of view. On the other hand, if they provide no source or a non-authoritative source for the facts upon which they base their conclusions, engage in clearly fallacious reasoning, or craft analogies and identify connections that approach the outer reaches of the sane imagination, then I don't think we can reasonably believe that they have educated themselves on the subject even if they are capable of doing so. Where complex scientific or macroeconomic phenomena are evaluated with appeals to "common sense," where the individual cannot reasonably respond to issues that others raise with their facts or logic, and where citations to relevant authority are replaced with vague assertions of "research" or ad nauseam youtube documentaries, it seems as though there is more than enough evidence to reasonably conclude that they simply haven't the first clue what they are talking about. Going back to the distinction between an apprenticeship and individual study, it seems to me what the apprenticeship and university study -- and, indeed, any form of learning that is likely to be productive (including proper independent study) -- have in common is that the person who is learning has an opportunity to receive feedback on their learning process so as to ensure that mistakes are corrected. In the case of independent study, this is much more difficult, which is probably why people pursuing that avenue are (generally) less successful in their attempts to learn. It can still be done, but it requires some authoritative source of information sufficient to reasonably confirm or deny the correctness of the learner's understanding. It also requires, of course, that the learner does not presume himself the expert, but rather defers to that source (otherwise, nothing is learned.) This seems to pose a particular problem for so-called "conspiracy theorists." They are inherently suspicious of authority and, thus, the "authoritative" sources that they use tend to be exactly the conspiracies that they purport their "research" to confirm. But it is no wonder that they reach this result, since they are essentially begging the question. Notably, this pathological behavior shares a great deal with that of another, much larger, category of individuals who believe complete and utter nonsense, and who similarly tend to persist in that belief in the face of all the contraindicative facts as well as the abject and wholly evident illogic of their position...

Your post reminded me of a Video that I watched in which Manly P. Hall said,

quote:

Mental division leads to ... weakness and it leads to the elevation of the functions of the mind above the purposes of the mind. We develop the thinker for the sake of the thinking and not for the sake of the thought. We develop the individual who writes beautiful words but never means anything. We see the grammarian who can construct a sentence perfectly but the sentence never contains anything that will change the course of history. It is skillful but not purposeful.

Anyhow, I find it difficult to understand how so many extremely bright people are able to justify using their intelligence to safeguard what appears to be a dangerously unhealthy degree of ignorance. Just because people watch and post videos doesn't mean that YouTube has formed the foundation of their knowledge but I'm sure that you knew that and were just hoping to beguile us here.

The way that I see it, if someone wants to honestly make the claim of being non-biased then they better be taking an interest in EVERYTHING and not just that finite amount of information that can be found in a normal academic environment.

And since you seem to be such a paragon of rationality and reason I figured that you of all people would agree that it's good to think outside of the box especially when simultaneously pursuing diverse fields of knowledge.

Now of course in all of your wisdom I'm sure you know that things aren't always as rational or as simple as they appear and that there are often strange and vaguely comprehensible things which occur in our world. I mean, it's not exactly a conspiracy theory to say that there are people in high places who engage in activities such as the occult worship of (what could be regarded as) spiritual or otherwise inorganic beings such their Virgoan goddess Isis (AKA Inanna, Ishtar, Minerva, Hecate, Selene, Artemis, Luna, Diana, Columbia, etc.) and her consort Osiris and son Horus.

The fact that Capitol Hill was modeled after Capitoline Hill in Rome, where the Capitoline Triad was worshipped (link) is one reason to raise an eyebrow to that effect but then if you realize the fact that Washington, D.C. actually sits upon a plot of land that once bore the name of Rome, Maryland and you have what amounts to be more than just a coincidence.

I'm sure you knew all about that and I figure that you probably also know all about the occultic admixture of geomancy and necromancy that they seem to hold so dearly which is evidenced by the many obelisks, fountains, sculptures and other architectural significances across the world from Washington, D.C. to the Vatican.

Anyway, I'm beginning to think that it's time to start cracking this sh*t open in order to further illuminate the fraud that has been (and continues to be) perpetuated upon mankind.

Are you down?

Edit: Link Fixed

Last edited by Trancer-X on Oct-29-2008 at 09:30

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X

The Teacher's Unions hold sway over our educational system. What needs to happen is our schools need to be allowed to compete, like Belgium's schools which are far superior to ours.

___________________