Total Posts:102|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Religion Breeds Selfishness?

EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 5:46:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Now that you're here from that clickbait title, take a look at this.

http://www.cell.com...(15)01167-7

NOTE - DDO screws up the link, so you have to copy/paste it into a separate tab to read this one. Numbers included. If you're on a mobile/find it difficult to do, here's the simpler one:

http://news.uchicago.edu...

Long story short is that children brought up in religious homes (specifically Christians and Muslims), contradictory to popular belief, are more selfish/less altruistic than their atheist or secular peers.

The study included 1,170 children aged 5-12 from Canada, the United States, China, Jordan, South Africa, and Turkey.

I've learned from experience that my writing a lengthy response to this will mean no one else will post, so I'm just going to leave this here and see what everyone has to say.

Please share your thoughts.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 7:34:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Can't say I'm surprised. Religion often acts as a shortcut to achieve obedience (do this or else), and I can easily see parents using it in that fashion. By the way, I recognize that you can be a parent like that without religion, but its prevalence makes it an easy, lazy tool to use. Anyway, from my own experience, raising kids like that only works up through preschool, and then you need to start helping them understand why acting morally is virtuous and not just relate it to negative consequences.

I also think that this probably would correlate to the quality of parenting that is going on and not just religion. The demographics indicate that non-religious people tend to be more educated and financially secure, which then is also positively associated with more attentive parenting. If they accounted for socio-economic factors, the difference between religious and non-religious households might evaporate.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 8:48:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's exceedingly ironic.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,076
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 10:40:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is important to note, of course, that when these children grow up they become more generous than their atheistic counterparts.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 11:28:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 7:34:34 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Can't say I'm surprised. Religion often acts as a shortcut to achieve obedience (do this or else), and I can easily see parents using it in that fashion. By the way, I recognize that you can be a parent like that without religion, but its prevalence makes it an easy, lazy tool to use. Anyway, from my own experience, raising kids like that only works up through preschool, and then you need to start helping them understand why acting morally is virtuous and not just relate it to negative consequences.

I also think that this probably would correlate to the quality of parenting that is going on and not just religion. The demographics indicate that non-religious people tend to be more educated and financially secure, which then is also positively associated with more attentive parenting. If they accounted for socio-economic factors, the difference between religious and non-religious households might evaporate.

That's an interesting theory too. I can definitely see it contributing.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 11:28:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 8:48:28 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
It's exceedingly ironic.

I thought so too, especially with how many religious institutions do a world of good. Lots of charity work and support for the homeless, for example.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 11:29:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 10:40:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It is important to note, of course, that when these children grow up they become more generous than their atheistic counterparts.

I saw nothing in the study to support that claim.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 11:52:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 5:46:15 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Now that you're here from that clickbait title, take a look at this.

http://www.cell.com...(15)01167-7

NOTE - DDO screws up the link, so you have to copy/paste it into a separate tab to read this one. Numbers included. If you're on a mobile/find it difficult to do, here's the simpler one:

http://news.uchicago.edu...

Long story short is that children brought up in religious homes (specifically Christians and Muslims), contradictory to popular belief, are more selfish/less altruistic than their atheist or secular peers.

The study included 1,170 children aged 5-12 from Canada, the United States, China, Jordan, South Africa, and Turkey.

I've learned from experience that my writing a lengthy response to this will mean no one else will post, so I'm just going to leave this here and see what everyone has to say.

Please share your thoughts.

Bad study =\ The beta coefficient use with such small and erratic sample sizes raises eyebrows. For example, the study makes worldwide claims, yet the sampling anywhere near representative, seeing as samples were almost entirely urban and failed to adequately sample Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews, which would have been able to be examined had the sampling been representative. The metrics are also a bit wonky; this game isn't a well-establish metric for altruism, and it seems like a simplistic version to begin with. Plus, the study referenced by this study points out that socioeconomic class was a HUGE predictor of altruism with this game; it seems pretty obvious that this variable ought to have been controlled for during sampling if one wished to isolate religion from a known confounding variable. Yet it wasn't. Big methodological errors + biased researcher (this guy is not a fan of religion) + media hype = made-for-Yahoo! science.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,076
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 12:43:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 11:29:05 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 11/9/2015 10:40:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It is important to note, of course, that when these children grow up they become more generous than their atheistic counterparts.

I saw nothing in the study to support that claim.

I'm referring to a different study.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 2:08:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 5:46:15 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Now that you're here from that clickbait title, take a look at this.

http://www.cell.com...(15)01167-7

NOTE - DDO screws up the link, so you have to copy/paste it into a separate tab to read this one. Numbers included. If you're on a mobile/find it difficult to do, here's the simpler one:

http://news.uchicago.edu...

Long story short is that children brought up in religious homes (specifically Christians and Muslims), contradictory to popular belief, are more selfish/less altruistic than their atheist or secular peers.

The study included 1,170 children aged 5-12 from Canada, the United States, China, Jordan, South Africa, and Turkey.

I've learned from experience that my writing a lengthy response to this will mean no one else will post, so I'm just going to leave this here and see what everyone has to say.

Please share your thoughts.

- Among the overload of stupid social experiments out there, this one takes the cake.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 2:14:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 11:52:06 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/9/2015 5:46:15 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Now that you're here from that clickbait title, take a look at this.

http://www.cell.com...(15)01167-7

NOTE - DDO screws up the link, so you have to copy/paste it into a separate tab to read this one. Numbers included. If you're on a mobile/find it difficult to do, here's the simpler one:

http://news.uchicago.edu...

Long story short is that children brought up in religious homes (specifically Christians and Muslims), contradictory to popular belief, are more selfish/less altruistic than their atheist or secular peers.

The study included 1,170 children aged 5-12 from Canada, the United States, China, Jordan, South Africa, and Turkey.

I've learned from experience that my writing a lengthy response to this will mean no one else will post, so I'm just going to leave this here and see what everyone has to say.

Please share your thoughts.

Bad study =\ The beta coefficient use with such small and erratic sample sizes raises eyebrows. For example, the study makes worldwide claims, yet the sampling anywhere near representative, seeing as samples were almost entirely urban and failed to adequately sample Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews, which would have been able to be examined had the sampling been representative. The metrics are also a bit wonky; this game isn't a well-establish metric for altruism, and it seems like a simplistic version to begin with. Plus, the study referenced by this study points out that socioeconomic class was a HUGE predictor of altruism with this game; it seems pretty obvious that this variable ought to have been controlled for during sampling if one wished to isolate religion from a known confounding variable. Yet it wasn't. Big methodological errors + biased researcher (this guy is not a fan of religion) + media hype = made-for-Yahoo! science.

http://media.giphy.com...
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 2:21:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 11:52:06 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/9/2015 5:46:15 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Now that you're here from that clickbait title, take a look at this.

http://www.cell.com...(15)01167-7

NOTE - DDO screws up the link, so you have to copy/paste it into a separate tab to read this one. Numbers included. If you're on a mobile/find it difficult to do, here's the simpler one:

http://news.uchicago.edu...

Long story short is that children brought up in religious homes (specifically Christians and Muslims), contradictory to popular belief, are more selfish/less altruistic than their atheist or secular peers.

The study included 1,170 children aged 5-12 from Canada, the United States, China, Jordan, South Africa, and Turkey.

I've learned from experience that my writing a lengthy response to this will mean no one else will post, so I'm just going to leave this here and see what everyone has to say.

Please share your thoughts.

Bad study =\ The beta coefficient use with such small and erratic sample sizes raises eyebrows. For example, the study makes worldwide claims, yet the sampling anywhere near representative, seeing as samples were almost entirely urban and failed to adequately sample Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews, which would have been able to be examined had the sampling been representative. The metrics are also a bit wonky; this game isn't a well-establish metric for altruism, and it seems like a simplistic version to begin with. Plus, the study referenced by this study points out that socioeconomic class was a HUGE predictor of altruism with this game; it seems pretty obvious that this variable ought to have been controlled for during sampling if one wished to isolate religion from a known confounding variable. Yet it wasn't. Big methodological errors + biased researcher (this guy is not a fan of religion) + media hype = made-for-Yahoo! science.

+1.

However, even if a better study came out proving the same thing I wouldn't even call it proof that secular children are better adjusted than religious children. Altruism is a good, but like with all goods it has to be in moderation or else it becomes an evil. Have you heard of the concept of pathological altruism?

I would be shocked if secular people were not more likely to be pathologically altruistic than the devout. Everyone feels the need to virtue signal, to broadcast their holiness. When you take a group that cannot engage in virtue signaling through religious activity, they'll virtue signal through other means. Means like giving away Europe to anybody who shows up on a boat because it would be mean not to
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Insignifica
Posts: 285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 3:06:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 11:52:06 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/9/2015 5:46:15 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Now that you're here from that clickbait title, take a look at this.

http://www.cell.com...(15)01167-7

NOTE - DDO screws up the link, so you have to copy/paste it into a separate tab to read this one. Numbers included. If you're on a mobile/find it difficult to do, here's the simpler one:

http://news.uchicago.edu...

Long story short is that children brought up in religious homes (specifically Christians and Muslims), contradictory to popular belief, are more selfish/less altruistic than their atheist or secular peers.

The study included 1,170 children aged 5-12 from Canada, the United States, China, Jordan, South Africa, and Turkey.

I've learned from experience that my writing a lengthy response to this will mean no one else will post, so I'm just going to leave this here and see what everyone has to say.

Please share your thoughts.

Bad study =\ The beta coefficient use with such small and erratic sample sizes raises eyebrows. For example, the study makes worldwide claims, yet the sampling anywhere near representative, seeing as samples were almost entirely urban and failed to adequately sample Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews, which would have been able to be examined had the sampling been representative. The metrics are also a bit wonky; this game isn't a well-establish metric for altruism, and it seems like a simplistic version to begin with. Plus, the study referenced by this study points out that socioeconomic class was a HUGE predictor of altruism with this game; it seems pretty obvious that this variable ought to have been controlled for during sampling if one wished to isolate religion from a known confounding variable. Yet it wasn't. Big methodological errors + biased researcher (this guy is not a fan of religion) + media hype = made-for-Yahoo! science.

f*cking destroyed...
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 3:15:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 11:52:06 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/9/2015 5:46:15 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Now that you're here from that clickbait title, take a look at this.

http://www.cell.com...(15)01167-7

NOTE - DDO screws up the link, so you have to copy/paste it into a separate tab to read this one. Numbers included. If you're on a mobile/find it difficult to do, here's the simpler one:

http://news.uchicago.edu...

Long story short is that children brought up in religious homes (specifically Christians and Muslims), contradictory to popular belief, are more selfish/less altruistic than their atheist or secular peers.

The study included 1,170 children aged 5-12 from Canada, the United States, China, Jordan, South Africa, and Turkey.

I've learned from experience that my writing a lengthy response to this will mean no one else will post, so I'm just going to leave this here and see what everyone has to say.

Please share your thoughts.

Bad study =\ The beta coefficient use with such small and erratic sample sizes raises eyebrows. For example, the study makes worldwide claims, yet the sampling anywhere near representative, seeing as samples were almost entirely urban and failed to adequately sample Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews, which would have been able to be examined had the sampling been representative. The metrics are also a bit wonky; this game isn't a well-establish metric for altruism, and it seems like a simplistic version to begin with. Plus, the study referenced by this study points out that socioeconomic class was a HUGE predictor of altruism with this game; it seems pretty obvious that this variable ought to have been controlled for during sampling if one wished to isolate religion from a known confounding variable. Yet it wasn't. Big methodological errors + biased researcher (this guy is not a fan of religion) + media hype = made-for-Yahoo! science.

+1
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 3:17:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 2:21:57 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/9/2015 11:52:06 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/9/2015 5:46:15 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Now that you're here from that clickbait title, take a look at this.

http://www.cell.com...(15)01167-7

NOTE - DDO screws up the link, so you have to copy/paste it into a separate tab to read this one. Numbers included. If you're on a mobile/find it difficult to do, here's the simpler one:

http://news.uchicago.edu...

Long story short is that children brought up in religious homes (specifically Christians and Muslims), contradictory to popular belief, are more selfish/less altruistic than their atheist or secular peers.

The study included 1,170 children aged 5-12 from Canada, the United States, China, Jordan, South Africa, and Turkey.

I've learned from experience that my writing a lengthy response to this will mean no one else will post, so I'm just going to leave this here and see what everyone has to say.

Please share your thoughts.

Bad study =\ The beta coefficient use with such small and erratic sample sizes raises eyebrows. For example, the study makes worldwide claims, yet the sampling anywhere near representative, seeing as samples were almost entirely urban and failed to adequately sample Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews, which would have been able to be examined had the sampling been representative. The metrics are also a bit wonky; this game isn't a well-establish metric for altruism, and it seems like a simplistic version to begin with. Plus, the study referenced by this study points out that socioeconomic class was a HUGE predictor of altruism with this game; it seems pretty obvious that this variable ought to have been controlled for during sampling if one wished to isolate religion from a known confounding variable. Yet it wasn't. Big methodological errors + biased researcher (this guy is not a fan of religion) + media hype = made-for-Yahoo! science.

+1.

However, even if a better study came out proving the same thing I wouldn't even call it proof that secular children are better adjusted than religious children. Altruism is a good, but like with all goods it has to be in moderation or else it becomes an evil. Have you heard of the concept of pathological altruism?

I would be shocked if secular people were not more likely to be pathologically altruistic than the devout. Everyone feels the need to virtue signal, to broadcast their holiness. When you take a group that cannot engage in virtue signaling through religious activity, they'll virtue signal through other means. Means like giving away Europe to anybody who shows up on a boat because it would be mean not to

Yeah, I agree. That study talks about a demonstrable in-group bias when it comes to religious altruism, and the undertone is so snide. I'm just like, "What? How is that a bad thing?" Because in-group bias is an essential building block of human society, and the irony is that the author (check his twitter feed https://twitter.com...) has a pretty glaring in-group bias towards progressives and secularists when it comes to his rhetoric.

They also talk about having a dim view of interpersonal harm and being accepting of harsh punishment of it as if it is a bad thing (the whole undertone of the article is 'secular kids are better than religious kids, because they fit the secular mold of what 'good' is.')

This is why I dislike the soft sciences. When I read an article on orchid paleobotany, I don't get the mental image of a sneering fanboy giggling at the concept of Australia being the ancestral origin of dendrobium while all his friends titter behind him.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 4:00:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 3:17:56 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Yeah, I agree. That study talks about a demonstrable in-group bias when it comes to religious altruism, and the undertone is so snide. I'm just like, "What? How is that a bad thing?" Because in-group bias is an essential building block of human society, and the irony is that the author (check his twitter feed https://twitter.com...) has a pretty glaring in-group bias towards progressives and secularists when it comes to his rhetoric.

- I don't even know where to begin. How is altruism associated to 'sharing a stick'?!!! Sharing has to do with trust, with friendliness, with familiarity, with mood, with need, with want, with sympathy... & a thousand other thing. Maybe the Jordanian kids just like the sticks better than the other kids! This is just monumentally stupid.

This is why I dislike the soft sciences.

- As do I. I particularly despise the fact that they share the label 'Science' with serious sciences. Every time I see 'scientists did (some almost certainly stupid social experiment)' I hate myself for having to share that same label. I actually know some of these guys, my roommate is a sociologist & does tons of these supposed 'studies', & I am sorry to say this, but he is not the brightest kid on the block (me being too nice here).
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 10:14:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 11:52:06 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/9/2015 5:46:15 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Now that you're here from that clickbait title, take a look at this.

http://www.cell.com...(15)01167-7

NOTE - DDO screws up the link, so you have to copy/paste it into a separate tab to read this one. Numbers included. If you're on a mobile/find it difficult to do, here's the simpler one:

http://news.uchicago.edu...

Long story short is that children brought up in religious homes (specifically Christians and Muslims), contradictory to popular belief, are more selfish/less altruistic than their atheist or secular peers.

The study included 1,170 children aged 5-12 from Canada, the United States, China, Jordan, South Africa, and Turkey.

I've learned from experience that my writing a lengthy response to this will mean no one else will post, so I'm just going to leave this here and see what everyone has to say.

Please share your thoughts.

Bad study =\ The beta coefficient use with such small and erratic sample sizes raises eyebrows. For example, the study makes worldwide claims, yet the sampling anywhere near representative, seeing as samples were almost entirely urban and failed to adequately sample Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews, which would have been able to be examined had the sampling been representative. The metrics are also a bit wonky; this game isn't a well-establish metric for altruism, and it seems like a simplistic version to begin with. Plus, the study referenced by this study points out that socioeconomic class was a HUGE predictor of altruism with this game; it seems pretty obvious that this variable ought to have been controlled for during sampling if one wished to isolate religion from a known confounding variable. Yet it wasn't. Big methodological errors + biased researcher (this guy is not a fan of religion) + media hype = made-for-Yahoo! science.

I was wondering when someone would point this out.
The study size exceeds 1,000, making it reputable by definition. It transcends national boundaries, meaning it can't be culturally biased. It sampled sects of all religions (Jews were 2.5% of the study) - and, as might even be expected from real life, those groups were too small to register. Willingness to give/share, a fundemental Christian principle, is a decent metric for children for measuring altruism. The only point I can agree with is the possible confounding variable for socioeconomic class, and I wish the study had gone broader in separating responses among classes.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 10:16:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 2:21:57 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/9/2015 11:52:06 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/9/2015 5:46:15 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Now that you're here from that clickbait title, take a look at this.

http://www.cell.com...(15)01167-7

NOTE - DDO screws up the link, so you have to copy/paste it into a separate tab to read this one. Numbers included. If you're on a mobile/find it difficult to do, here's the simpler one:

http://news.uchicago.edu...

Long story short is that children brought up in religious homes (specifically Christians and Muslims), contradictory to popular belief, are more selfish/less altruistic than their atheist or secular peers.

The study included 1,170 children aged 5-12 from Canada, the United States, China, Jordan, South Africa, and Turkey.

I've learned from experience that my writing a lengthy response to this will mean no one else will post, so I'm just going to leave this here and see what everyone has to say.

Please share your thoughts.

Bad study =\ The beta coefficient use with such small and erratic sample sizes raises eyebrows. For example, the study makes worldwide claims, yet the sampling anywhere near representative, seeing as samples were almost entirely urban and failed to adequately sample Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews, which would have been able to be examined had the sampling been representative. The metrics are also a bit wonky; this game isn't a well-establish metric for altruism, and it seems like a simplistic version to begin with. Plus, the study referenced by this study points out that socioeconomic class was a HUGE predictor of altruism with this game; it seems pretty obvious that this variable ought to have been controlled for during sampling if one wished to isolate religion from a known confounding variable. Yet it wasn't. Big methodological errors + biased researcher (this guy is not a fan of religion) + media hype = made-for-Yahoo! science.

+1.

However, even if a better study came out proving the same thing I wouldn't even call it proof that secular children are better adjusted than religious children. Altruism is a good, but like with all goods it has to be in moderation or else it becomes an evil. Have you heard of the concept of pathological altruism?

I would be shocked if secular people were not more likely to be pathologically altruistic than the devout. Everyone feels the need to virtue signal, to broadcast their holiness. When you take a group that cannot engage in virtue signaling through religious activity, they'll virtue signal through other means. Means like giving away Europe to anybody who shows up on a boat because it would be mean not to

This anti-immigration bias of yours is starting to seep into otherwise sound judgments.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 10:17:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's also absurd that this has turned into a criticism of genuine and important sciences like sociology, psychology, and anthropology. I'll have to make another thread defending why those are so important.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 10:20:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 2:21:57 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/9/2015 11:52:06 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/9/2015 5:46:15 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Now that you're here from that clickbait title, take a look at this.

http://www.cell.com...(15)01167-7

NOTE - DDO screws up the link, so you have to copy/paste it into a separate tab to read this one. Numbers included. If you're on a mobile/find it difficult to do, here's the simpler one:

http://news.uchicago.edu...

Long story short is that children brought up in religious homes (specifically Christians and Muslims), contradictory to popular belief, are more selfish/less altruistic than their atheist or secular peers.

The study included 1,170 children aged 5-12 from Canada, the United States, China, Jordan, South Africa, and Turkey.

I've learned from experience that my writing a lengthy response to this will mean no one else will post, so I'm just going to leave this here and see what everyone has to say.

Please share your thoughts.

Bad study =\ The beta coefficient use with such small and erratic sample sizes raises eyebrows. For example, the study makes worldwide claims, yet the sampling anywhere near representative, seeing as samples were almost entirely urban and failed to adequately sample Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews, which would have been able to be examined had the sampling been representative. The metrics are also a bit wonky; this game isn't a well-establish metric for altruism, and it seems like a simplistic version to begin with. Plus, the study referenced by this study points out that socioeconomic class was a HUGE predictor of altruism with this game; it seems pretty obvious that this variable ought to have been controlled for during sampling if one wished to isolate religion from a known confounding variable. Yet it wasn't. Big methodological errors + biased researcher (this guy is not a fan of religion) + media hype = made-for-Yahoo! science.

+1.

However, even if a better study came out proving the same thing I wouldn't even call it proof that secular children are better adjusted than religious children. Altruism is a good, but like with all goods it has to be in moderation or else it becomes an evil. Have you heard of the concept of pathological altruism?

I would be shocked if secular people were not more likely to be pathologically altruistic than the devout. Everyone feels the need to virtue signal, to broadcast their holiness. When you take a group that cannot engage in virtue signaling through religious activity, they'll virtue signal through other means. Means like giving away Europe to anybody who shows up on a boat because it would be mean not to

Though I guess you could say I'm biased too, since I believe perhaps the ultimate good is helping others even at the cost of yourself.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 10:23:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 12:43:43 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/9/2015 11:29:05 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 11/9/2015 10:40:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It is important to note, of course, that when these children grow up they become more generous than their atheistic counterparts.

I saw nothing in the study to support that claim.

I'm referring to a different study.

Presumably this one: http://www.hoover.org...

But for every one of those, there's one of these: http://news.berkeley.edu...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 3:12:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 10:14:57 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 11/9/2015 11:52:06 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/9/2015 5:46:15 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Now that you're here from that clickbait title, take a look at this.

http://www.cell.com...(15)01167-7

NOTE - DDO screws up the link, so you have to copy/paste it into a separate tab to read this one. Numbers included. If you're on a mobile/find it difficult to do, here's the simpler one:

http://news.uchicago.edu...

Long story short is that children brought up in religious homes (specifically Christians and Muslims), contradictory to popular belief, are more selfish/less altruistic than their atheist or secular peers.

The study included 1,170 children aged 5-12 from Canada, the United States, China, Jordan, South Africa, and Turkey.

I've learned from experience that my writing a lengthy response to this will mean no one else will post, so I'm just going to leave this here and see what everyone has to say.

Please share your thoughts.

Bad study =\ The beta coefficient use with such small and erratic sample sizes raises eyebrows. For example, the study makes worldwide claims, yet the sampling anywhere near representative, seeing as samples were almost entirely urban and failed to adequately sample Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews, which would have been able to be examined had the sampling been representative. The metrics are also a bit wonky; this game isn't a well-establish metric for altruism, and it seems like a simplistic version to begin with. Plus, the study referenced by this study points out that socioeconomic class was a HUGE predictor of altruism with this game; it seems pretty obvious that this variable ought to have been controlled for during sampling if one wished to isolate religion from a known confounding variable. Yet it wasn't. Big methodological errors + biased researcher (this guy is not a fan of religion) + media hype = made-for-Yahoo! science.

I was wondering when someone would point this out.
The study size exceeds 1,000, making it reputable by definition.
..., no, it doesn't. The sample size needs to be representative of the body which it is claiming to represent. In this case, that body is the entire world population, in which case a bit over 1,000 people drawn from a grand total of seven urban centers is a laughably small and unrepresentative sample size.

It transcends national boundaries, meaning it can't be culturally biased. It sampled sects of all religions (Jews were 2.5% of the study) - and, as might even be expected from real life, those groups were too small to register.

Which means that Jews were overrepresented by a factor of five. Hindus, however, should have better represented, but since there were no samples drawn from India they were not. A representative sample ought to be representative. It is exceptionally hard to prove any support of worldwide sociological claim, and this study fails miserably at it.

Willingness to give/share, a fundamental Christian principle, is a decent metric for children for measuring altruism.

Says WHO? I looked up the metric used (the dictator game) and found one example of it being used experimentally, and that one example brings up the biggest confounding variable. Metrics need to be tested for accuracy before we just take them for granted.

The only point I can agree with is the possible confounding variable for socioeconomic class, and I wish the study had gone broader in separating responses among classes.

What about the use of beta coefficients? That one really stands out for me, and exacerbates the already bad sampling to the point where the whole study is untenable.

I mean, if wanted a textbook example of cargo cult science, I would choose this study.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 3:18:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 3:12:56 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/10/2015 10:14:57 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 11/9/2015 11:52:06 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/9/2015 5:46:15 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Now that you're here from that clickbait title, take a look at this.

http://www.cell.com...(15)01167-7

NOTE - DDO screws up the link, so you have to copy/paste it into a separate tab to read this one. Numbers included. If you're on a mobile/find it difficult to do, here's the simpler one:

http://news.uchicago.edu...

Long story short is that children brought up in religious homes (specifically Christians and Muslims), contradictory to popular belief, are more selfish/less altruistic than their atheist or secular peers.

The study included 1,170 children aged 5-12 from Canada, the United States, China, Jordan, South Africa, and Turkey.

I've learned from experience that my writing a lengthy response to this will mean no one else will post, so I'm just going to leave this here and see what everyone has to say.

Please share your thoughts.

Bad study =\ The beta coefficient use with such small and erratic sample sizes raises eyebrows. For example, the study makes worldwide claims, yet the sampling anywhere near representative, seeing as samples were almost entirely urban and failed to adequately sample Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews, which would have been able to be examined had the sampling been representative. The metrics are also a bit wonky; this game isn't a well-establish metric for altruism, and it seems like a simplistic version to begin with. Plus, the study referenced by this study points out that socioeconomic class was a HUGE predictor of altruism with this game; it seems pretty obvious that this variable ought to have been controlled for during sampling if one wished to isolate religion from a known confounding variable. Yet it wasn't. Big methodological errors + biased researcher (this guy is not a fan of religion) + media hype = made-for-Yahoo! science.

I was wondering when someone would point this out.
The study size exceeds 1,000, making it reputable by definition.
..., no, it doesn't. The sample size needs to be representative of the body which it is claiming to represent. In this case, that body is the entire world population, in which case a bit over 1,000 people drawn from a grand total of seven urban centers is a laughably small and unrepresentative sample size.

In statistics, no study can be considered even remotely reliable unless it has at least 1,000 participants. That's the minimum.

It transcends national boundaries, meaning it can't be culturally biased. It sampled sects of all religions (Jews were 2.5% of the study) - and, as might even be expected from real life, those groups were too small to register.

Which means that Jews were overrepresented by a factor of five. Hindus, however, should have better represented, but since there were no samples drawn from India they were not. A representative sample ought to be representative. It is exceptionally hard to prove any support of worldwide sociological claim, and this study fails miserably at it.

No, but the study's claims specifically relate to Christians and Muslims. Since no sampling happened in India or Pakistan, finding only a minuscule amount of Hindus is expected and even representative.

Willingness to give/share, a fundamental Christian principle, is a decent metric for children for measuring altruism.

Says WHO? I looked up the metric used (the dictator game) and found one example of it being used experimentally, and that one example brings up the biggest confounding variable. Metrics need to be tested for accuracy before we just take them for granted.

Says common sense. It's children. You can't go around tossing deep questions at them. Stickers, candy - all you can do is see how they share/distribute their own property.

The only point I can agree with is the possible confounding variable for socioeconomic class, and I wish the study had gone broader in separating responses among classes.

What about the use of beta coefficients? That one really stands out for me, and exacerbates the already bad sampling to the point where the whole study is untenable.

I mean, if wanted a textbook example of cargo cult science, I would choose this study.
thett3
Posts: 14,367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 4:13:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 10:16:42 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 11/10/2015 2:21:57 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/9/2015 11:52:06 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/9/2015 5:46:15 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Now that you're here from that clickbait title, take a look at this.

http://www.cell.com...(15)01167-7

NOTE - DDO screws up the link, so you have to copy/paste it into a separate tab to read this one. Numbers included. If you're on a mobile/find it difficult to do, here's the simpler one:

http://news.uchicago.edu...

Long story short is that children brought up in religious homes (specifically Christians and Muslims), contradictory to popular belief, are more selfish/less altruistic than their atheist or secular peers.

The study included 1,170 children aged 5-12 from Canada, the United States, China, Jordan, South Africa, and Turkey.

I've learned from experience that my writing a lengthy response to this will mean no one else will post, so I'm just going to leave this here and see what everyone has to say.

Please share your thoughts.

Bad study =\ The beta coefficient use with such small and erratic sample sizes raises eyebrows. For example, the study makes worldwide claims, yet the sampling anywhere near representative, seeing as samples were almost entirely urban and failed to adequately sample Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews, which would have been able to be examined had the sampling been representative. The metrics are also a bit wonky; this game isn't a well-establish metric for altruism, and it seems like a simplistic version to begin with. Plus, the study referenced by this study points out that socioeconomic class was a HUGE predictor of altruism with this game; it seems pretty obvious that this variable ought to have been controlled for during sampling if one wished to isolate religion from a known confounding variable. Yet it wasn't. Big methodological errors + biased researcher (this guy is not a fan of religion) + media hype = made-for-Yahoo! science.

+1.

However, even if a better study came out proving the same thing I wouldn't even call it proof that secular children are better adjusted than religious children. Altruism is a good, but like with all goods it has to be in moderation or else it becomes an evil. Have you heard of the concept of pathological altruism?

I would be shocked if secular people were not more likely to be pathologically altruistic than the devout. Everyone feels the need to virtue signal, to broadcast their holiness. When you take a group that cannot engage in virtue signaling through religious activity, they'll virtue signal through other means. Means like giving away Europe to anybody who shows up on a boat because it would be mean not to

This anti-immigration bias of yours is starting to seep into otherwise sound judgments.

I'm not really that anti-immigration. I think immigration can be a good thing but that immigration policy should be designed only to benefit the national interest and that it should be limited in scope so as to not upset the ethnic and cultural makeup of the host nation. This is the position every sane person held until relatively recently.

I brought up that example specifically because I knew it would trigger you, lol, but it's a pretty good example. This article explains the concept of pathological altruism very well: "Oakley defines pathological altruism as "altruism in which attempts to promote the welfare of others instead result in unanticipated harm." A crucial qualification is that while the altruistic actor fails to anticipate the harm, "an external observer would conclude [that it] was reasonably foreseeable."" http://www.wsj.com...

European immigration policy is a clear example of pathological altruism. I was concerned about it because of its effect on the native culture but it took me about 30 seconds to find out that, surprise surprise, these people everywhere commit crimes at rates several times that of the native European population. To any outside observer who has their head on straight it's reasonably foreseeable that this will end badly.

This is a particularly salient example but you can think of others. The article brings some up. Western society is awash in pathological altruism. If it actually were proven that religious children were less altruistic there are at least certain circumstances where I would interpret that as showing that they are better adjusted than secular children.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 4:20:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What I don't get about the conclusion is this:
Children from religious families were less likely to share with others than were children from non-religious families.

How is that relevant when excluding all group bias and evaluating say, the altruism of average Joe off the street to Average Bill?

I mean, where is the control bar for all that? It seems almost impossible to figure that metric out: our altruism absent of ALL group bias. Almost everyone follows a certain herd. How do you eliminate that factor?
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 4:29:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 4:13:00 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/10/2015 10:16:42 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 11/10/2015 2:21:57 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/9/2015 11:52:06 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/9/2015 5:46:15 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Now that you're here from that clickbait title, take a look at this.

http://www.cell.com...(15)01167-7

NOTE - DDO screws up the link, so you have to copy/paste it into a separate tab to read this one. Numbers included. If you're on a mobile/find it difficult to do, here's the simpler one:

http://news.uchicago.edu...

Long story short is that children brought up in religious homes (specifically Christians and Muslims), contradictory to popular belief, are more selfish/less altruistic than their atheist or secular peers.

The study included 1,170 children aged 5-12 from Canada, the United States, China, Jordan, South Africa, and Turkey.

I've learned from experience that my writing a lengthy response to this will mean no one else will post, so I'm just going to leave this here and see what everyone has to say.

Please share your thoughts.

Bad study =\ The beta coefficient use with such small and erratic sample sizes raises eyebrows. For example, the study makes worldwide claims, yet the sampling anywhere near representative, seeing as samples were almost entirely urban and failed to adequately sample Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews, which would have been able to be examined had the sampling been representative. The metrics are also a bit wonky; this game isn't a well-establish metric for altruism, and it seems like a simplistic version to begin with. Plus, the study referenced by this study points out that socioeconomic class was a HUGE predictor of altruism with this game; it seems pretty obvious that this variable ought to have been controlled for during sampling if one wished to isolate religion from a known confounding variable. Yet it wasn't. Big methodological errors + biased researcher (this guy is not a fan of religion) + media hype = made-for-Yahoo! science.

+1.

However, even if a better study came out proving the same thing I wouldn't even call it proof that secular children are better adjusted than religious children. Altruism is a good, but like with all goods it has to be in moderation or else it becomes an evil. Have you heard of the concept of pathological altruism?

I would be shocked if secular people were not more likely to be pathologically altruistic than the devout. Everyone feels the need to virtue signal, to broadcast their holiness. When you take a group that cannot engage in virtue signaling through religious activity, they'll virtue signal through other means. Means like giving away Europe to anybody who shows up on a boat because it would be mean not to

This anti-immigration bias of yours is starting to seep into otherwise sound judgments.

I'm not really that anti-immigration. I think immigration can be a good thing but that immigration policy should be designed only to benefit the national interest and that it should be limited in scope so as to not upset the ethnic and cultural makeup of the host nation. This is the position every sane person held until relatively recently.

I brought up that example specifically because I knew it would trigger you, lol, but it's a pretty good example. This article explains the concept of pathological altruism very well: "Oakley defines pathological altruism as "altruism in which attempts to promote the welfare of others instead result in unanticipated harm." A crucial qualification is that while the altruistic actor fails to anticipate the harm, "an external observer would conclude [that it] was reasonably foreseeable."" http://www.wsj.com...

European immigration policy is a clear example of pathological altruism. I was concerned about it because of its effect on the native culture but it took me about 30 seconds to find out that, surprise surprise, these people everywhere commit crimes at rates several times that of the native European population. To any outside observer who has their head on straight it's reasonably foreseeable that this will end badly.

This is a particularly salient example but you can think of others. The article brings some up. Western society is awash in pathological altruism. If it actually were proven that religious children were less altruistic there are at least certain circumstances where I would interpret that as showing that they are better adjusted than secular children.

I explained my views on immigration already. It should be like a controlled faucet, not an uncontrollable waterfall. Society can't be shocked into change without violent and negative repercussions. If you dump hundreds of immigrants in the middle of Europe, of course things will sour.
thett3
Posts: 14,367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 4:31:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I really wouldn't be surprised if this study was true despite being obviously biased and flawed. Skep posted a while ago about Haidt's work--of the five moral axises, liberals only really respond to the "care/harm" dichotomy. There are exceptions, but typically the only people who think it's even a remotely sane idea to raise your children without religion are going to be leftists. It shouldn't be surprising if their children even at a young age have a greater response to the care/harm principle.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 4:33:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 4:29:59 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 11/10/2015 4:13:00 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/10/2015 10:16:42 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 11/10/2015 2:21:57 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/9/2015 11:52:06 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/9/2015 5:46:15 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Now that you're here from that clickbait title, take a look at this.

http://www.cell.com...(15)01167-7

NOTE - DDO screws up the link, so you have to copy/paste it into a separate tab to read this one. Numbers included. If you're on a mobile/find it difficult to do, here's the simpler one:

http://news.uchicago.edu...

Long story short is that children brought up in religious homes (specifically Christians and Muslims), contradictory to popular belief, are more selfish/less altruistic than their atheist or secular peers.

The study included 1,170 children aged 5-12 from Canada, the United States, China, Jordan, South Africa, and Turkey.

I've learned from experience that my writing a lengthy response to this will mean no one else will post, so I'm just going to leave this here and see what everyone has to say.

Please share your thoughts.

Bad study =\ The beta coefficient use with such small and erratic sample sizes raises eyebrows. For example, the study makes worldwide claims, yet the sampling anywhere near representative, seeing as samples were almost entirely urban and failed to adequately sample Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews, which would have been able to be examined had the sampling been representative. The metrics are also a bit wonky; this game isn't a well-establish metric for altruism, and it seems like a simplistic version to begin with. Plus, the study referenced by this study points out that socioeconomic class was a HUGE predictor of altruism with this game; it seems pretty obvious that this variable ought to have been controlled for during sampling if one wished to isolate religion from a known confounding variable. Yet it wasn't. Big methodological errors + biased researcher (this guy is not a fan of religion) + media hype = made-for-Yahoo! science.

+1.

However, even if a better study came out proving the same thing I wouldn't even call it proof that secular children are better adjusted than religious children. Altruism is a good, but like with all goods it has to be in moderation or else it becomes an evil. Have you heard of the concept of pathological altruism?

I would be shocked if secular people were not more likely to be pathologically altruistic than the devout. Everyone feels the need to virtue signal, to broadcast their holiness. When you take a group that cannot engage in virtue signaling through religious activity, they'll virtue signal through other means. Means like giving away Europe to anybody who shows up on a boat because it would be mean not to

This anti-immigration bias of yours is starting to seep into otherwise sound judgments.

I'm not really that anti-immigration. I think immigration can be a good thing but that immigration policy should be designed only to benefit the national interest and that it should be limited in scope so as to not upset the ethnic and cultural makeup of the host nation. This is the position every sane person held until relatively recently.

I brought up that example specifically because I knew it would trigger you, lol, but it's a pretty good example. This article explains the concept of pathological altruism very well: "Oakley defines pathological altruism as "altruism in which attempts to promote the welfare of others instead result in unanticipated harm." A crucial qualification is that while the altruistic actor fails to anticipate the harm, "an external observer would conclude [that it] was reasonably foreseeable."" http://www.wsj.com...

European immigration policy is a clear example of pathological altruism. I was concerned about it because of its effect on the native culture but it took me about 30 seconds to find out that, surprise surprise, these people everywhere commit crimes at rates several times that of the native European population. To any outside observer who has their head on straight it's reasonably foreseeable that this will end badly.

This is a particularly salient example but you can think of others. The article brings some up. Western society is awash in pathological altruism. If it actually were proven that religious children were less altruistic there are at least certain circumstances where I would interpret that as showing that they are better adjusted than secular children.

I explained my views on immigration already. It should be like a controlled faucet, not an uncontrollable waterfall. Society can't be shocked into change without violent and negative repercussions. If you dump hundreds of immigrants in the middle of Europe, of course things will sour.

Then we agree and the only thing we may disagree on is the size of the immigration, and there are certain populations I would heavily screen. Hardly some massive anti immigrant bias on my part if you agree!
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 4:41:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The most pathologically altruistic segment of the population, progressives, have largely abandoned religion (as opposed to being nominally Christian like they would've been a generation ago). If their children are more altruistic, clearly religion causes people to be selfish and is evil
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right