Proprietary COVID-19 and Vaccine thread

[SORT14]

Yes, they are overlapping concepts but in my field it’s required to cover a broader scope. One is for evidence discovery and analysis of bravado, the other is just detection of self glorification. Maybe one day they will combine the fields. As for the particular operational definition of bullshit, Again….I have to be able to cover all at my level. You don’t become the country’s renowned expert by limiting the bullshit scope.

My bullshit detectors have been on overload on this board.

🦩

There has definitely been an abundance of bullshit. Of course, evidence discovery is the goal of scientific research and requires the precise application of the scientific method. In order to discover evidence, we have to acknowledge the known evidence.
Bravado is a distant and weak psychological characteristic that has no bearing on truth. Bravado and self-gratification need no analysis or detection - they/it is obvious and easy to dismiss. But bravado isn't bullshit.
The most functional definition of bullshit is pretty straightforward - someone who talks without concern for truth, but only concern for attention. They just yap without any substance. That's a bullshitter. Liars are a different category. Their intent is to deceive, not self-congratulate.
The country's renowned wouldn't have to limit the scope of bullshit, but they would have to delineate. Some bullshitters are dangerous, other harmless.
And just yelling 'bullshit' at something disagreeable doesn't make it bullshit. The objection must be articulated. Otherwise, the one claiming bullshit may very well be the true bullshitter.
Tricky stuff....

 

[jfegaly]

Ok back on topic. About that science that helps determine emotional state if text….. @SORT14

 

[SORT14]

Ok back on topic. About that science that helps determine emotional state if text….. @SORT14

I’ve done some work in this field Would you like an objective analysis of all of your posts on this thread?

 

[jfegaly]

There has definitely been an abundance of bullshit. Of course, evidence discovery is the goal of scientific research and requires the precise application of the scientific method. In order to discover evidence, we have to acknowledge the known evidence.
Bravado is a distant and weak psychological characteristic that has no bearing on truth. Bravado and self-gratification need no analysis or detection - they/it is obvious and easy to dismiss. But bravado isn't bullshit.
The most functional definition of bullshit is pretty straightforward - someone who talks without concern for truth, but only concern for attention. They just yap without any substance. That's a bullshitter. Liars are a different category. Their intent is to deceive, not self-congratulate.
The country's renowned wouldn't have to limit the scope of bullshit, but they would have to delineate. Some bullshitters are dangerous, other harmless.
And just yelling 'bullshit' at something disagreeable doesn't make it bullshit. The objection must be articulated. Otherwise, the one claiming bullshit may very well be the true bullshitter.
Tricky stuff....

Again, lets stick to facts. It’s self glorification, not self gratification. Two different things, although I suppose one could say self glorification is gratifying, but to me that false gratification.

Now, saying they don’t need detection….Apparently they do or folks wouldn’t hire me. A more in depth look is that people are wanting to differentiate between that and bullshit. In other words, is someone glorifying themselves, bullshitting, or glorifying themselves for the sake of bullshitting.

Now, back on topic….about that science that helps you discern emotional state of text.

 

[jfegaly]

I’ve done some work in this field Would you like an objective analysis of all of your posts on this thread?

You have already given that, no?

What I am looking for is the science, because your objectivity is already in question.

 

[SORT14]

Again, lets stick to facts. It’s self glorification, not self gratification. Two different things, although I suppose one could say self glorification is gratifying, but to me that false gratification.

Now, saying they don’t need detection….Apparently they do or folks wouldn’t hire me. A more in depth look is that people are wanting to differentiate between that and bullshit. In other words, is someone glorifying themselves, bullshitting, or glorifying themselves for the sake of bullshitting.

Now, back on topic….about that science that helps you discern emotional state of text.

Fair enough. We can sidebar this for now. See my other reply as to consolidate

 

[jfegaly]

Fair enough. We can sidebar this for now. See my other reply as to consolidate

Responded already

 

[SORT14]

You have already given that, no?

What I am looking for is the science, because your objectivity is already in question.

You can question my objectivity just as I can question yours. That’s immaterial. If you are ok with it, I’ll pull all of your comments on this thread and apply them to language processing algorithm that detects overall sentiment including anger. It’s 100% objective.

 

[jfegaly]

You can question my objectivity just as I can question yours. That’s immaterial. If you are ok with it, I’ll pull all of your comments on this thread and apply them to language processing algorithm that detects overall sentiment including anger. It’s 100% objective.

Looking for the science. Want the research. Why, because even programs are written by humans. You keep avoiding what I am asking for. Post the science, you know the research, who did it, who funded it etc. lets get to it.

“the science”. The stuff that changes every day and is never settled. In other words, the science behind text to emotion can……wait for it….change

 

[SORT14]

Looking for the science. Want the research. Why, because even programs are written by humans. You keep avoiding what I am asking for. Post the science, you know the research, who did it, who funded it etc. lets get to it.

I will scrape all of your posts on this thread and I will conduct a sentiment analysis. I will use Googles deep learning BERT algorithm and the NRC sentiment dictionary. The same I use in my research and that thousands of other scientists use in theirs. I’ll also provide you with several research papers on the validity of this approach. We are definitely getting to it. It will take me until the weekend. If you’re worried about the results, I’ll DM them to you and not post here.

 

[jfegaly]

I will scrape all of your posts on this thread and I will conduct a sentiment analysis. I will use Googles deep learning BERT algorithm and the NRC sentiment dictionary. The same I use in my research and that thousands of other scientists use in theirs. I’ll also provide you with several research papers on the validity of this approach. We are definitely getting to it. It will take me until the weekend. If you’re worried about the results, I’ll DM them to you and not post here.

Just want the results on the quote I sent you. Not worried about anything else.

 

[SORT14]

Lol. Here. Let me know how this one comes out.

“You know outside the four or five people in here that act as your echo chamber nobody really likes you. You’re a piece of shit. And you’re ignorant. And no that’s not you getting to me that’s just me wanting you to know the truth. Imagine in your real life very few people care for you either.”

This post probably didn’t help your anger score.

 

[jfegaly]

This post probably didn’t help your anger score.

Just put that quote in there and see how it scores me. Curious
If you will honestly do that quote, we can have a real discussion about science.

 

[SORT14]

Just put that quote in there and see how it scores me. Curious
If you will honestly do that quote, we can have a real discussion about science.

Refresh my memory.. which quote?
Getting late I will check back in the morning

 

[jfegaly]

Refresh my memory.. which quote?
Getting late I will check back in the morning

This one



“You know outside the four or five people in here that act as your echo chamber nobody really likes you. You’re a piece of shit. And you’re ignorant. And no that’s not you getting to me that’s just me wanting you to know the truth. Imagine in your real life very few people care for you either.”

 

[FresnoGator]

This one



“You know outside the four or five people in here that act as your echo chamber nobody really likes you. You’re a piece of shit. And you’re ignorant. And no that’s not you getting to me that’s just me wanting you to know the truth. Imagine in your real life very few people care for you either.”

Hey can we get rid of the personal attacks? Seems like a useless pissing contest.

Seems odd that we managed to get away from the topic at hand in this oh so lengthy proprietary catch-all thread on COVID / vaccines ...

 

[gator1776]

Again I greatly oppose mandates and this is why.

Popular Mississippi news anchor quits job after refusing Covid vaccine

Meggan Gray said a ‘forced decision to decide between a vaccination and the livelihood of an individual is a dangerous precedent’

www.google.com

 

[SORT14]

Mandates have the backfiring effect of making people more resistant, especially for conservatives when the mandate comes from a dem president (I suspect that if Trump had mandated masks, the left would've resisted just as much):

Negative attitudes about facemasks during the COVID-19 pandemic: The dual importance of perceived ineffectiveness and psychological reactance

This study reports a comprehensive empirical investigation of the nature and correlates of anti-mask attitudes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Accumulating evidence underscores the importance of facemasks, as worn by the general public, in limiting the spread of infection. Accordingly, mask...

journals.plos.org

Psychological reactance essentially just means people resist doing something when they are ordered to do it:

 

[grandhavendiddy]

Here is the good news and even the NYT (yes, the Times, David Leonhart is reporting it), the cases are dropping like a rock. NBC did the same last night.

SF City is considering lifting indoor mask mandates in middle of October.

Perhaps, reason and common sense is coming back into the equation. Let's see if it lasts.

 

[grandhavendiddy]

SORT14: I read the below:

At that time the WHO and other health authorities also averred that masks are ineffective for the general public, that masks provided a false sense of security, and that the wearing of masks would cause people to touch their faces, thereby increasing their chances of infection [5, 7]. Such concerns proved to be unfounded [7–9] and evidence steadily emerged to support the wearing of masks by members of the general public [10, 11]. Health authorities such as the WHO subsequently reversed their position on facemasks and recommended that masks be worn by the public when they were in public places, especially when social distancing was not possible [6].

And one wonders why people (including myself) have had such ambivalence towards mask wearing, especially sub N-95 cloth masks.

Here is the other consideration: after the millions and billions spent, how come we (CDC and WHO which we indirectly fund) could not have a clear view on the effectiveness or not of masks? As a taxpayer, it is maddening.

 

[jfegaly]

Hey can we get rid of the personal attacks? Seems like a useless pissing contest.

Seems odd that we managed to get away from the topic at hand in this oh so lengthy proprietary catch-all thread on COVID / vaccines ...

I agree. That quote was actually a quote from our very own @gator1776.

But I think the point and fallibility of text based reading of emotion has been proven. That is now two posters, a mod and @SORT14 who saw that quote, and applied an assumption. For @SORT14 part, he said the quote would likely raise my anger score. This quote, was literally copied and pasted from a comment @gator1776 made about myself. So as far as figuring out emotion based on text, this “settles the science”

See….this was good kids. We applied a test to the “science”. The science failed.

 

[SORT14]

SORT14: I read the below:

At that time the WHO and other health authorities also averred that masks are ineffective for the general public, that masks provided a false sense of security, and that the wearing of masks would cause people to touch their faces, thereby increasing their chances of infection [5, 7]. Such concerns proved to be unfounded [7–9] and evidence steadily emerged to support the wearing of masks by members of the general public [10, 11]. Health authorities such as the WHO subsequently reversed their position on facemasks and recommended that masks be worn by the public when they were in public places, especially when social distancing was not possible [6].

And one wonders why people (including myself) have had such ambivalence towards mask wearing, especially sub N-95 cloth masks.

Here is the other consideration: after the millions and billions spent, how come we (CDC and WHO which we indirectly fund) could not have a clear view on the effectiveness or not of masks? As a taxpayer, it is maddening.

There is no doubt that the yo-yoing messages about wear a mask, masks work/ don't wear a mask, masks don't work (vaxxed w/ mask, vaxxed w/o mask waffling...) has contributed significantly to that ambivalence, and rightfully so.
IF - huge IF - everyone wore a mask properly, social distanced, etc. then that would likely have helped against the spread of COVID. But there was no way that was ever going to happen. A solution to a problem is not a solution at all if it can't be realistically implemented.

 

[SORT14]

I agree. That quote was actually a quote from our very own @gator1776.

But I think the point and fallibility of text based reading of emotion has been proven. That is now two posters, a mod and @SORT14 who saw that quote, and applied an assumption. For @SORT14 part, he said the quote would likely raise my anger score. This quote, was literally copied and pasted from a comment @gator1776 made about myself. So as far as figuring out emotion based on text, this “settles the science”

See….this was good kids. We applied a test to the “science”. The science failed.

Nah, I can just remove any text in quotes. Science still works.

 

[jfegaly]

Nah, I can just remove any text in quotes. Science still works.

You’re missing the point. As usual. The quotation marks are not relevant. Text without CONtext is just that. It’s a CON. Here is why. I can text one of my buddies to eff off. My buddy, having context and knowing me, will know that we greet each other by flipping each other off all the time. Something of someone else? They might see it as something else.

Thats the point. The science for text based emotion reading is flawed.

It’s ok you got tricked into thinking I was angry, when all I simply did was copy and paste someone else’s text. So yes, the science is very new, and very flawed. Tricking you was to show that, and it did.

It’s why I didn’t include quotes initially and then went back and added them. Copy and pasting someone elses text carried no emotion

 

[SORT14]

You’re missing the point. As usual. Text without CONtext is just that. It’s a CON. Here is why. I can text one of my buddies to eff off. My buddy, having context and knowing me, will know that we great each other by flipping each other off all the time. Something of someone else? They might see it as something else.

Thats the point. The science for text based emotion reading is flawed.

It’s ok you got tricked into thinking I was angry, when all I simply did was copy and paste someone else’s text. So yes, the science is very new, and very flawed. Tricking you was to show that, and it did.

Wrong again. Science works regardless of whether you like it or not. That's my point that you keep missing.
Are you here to talk about COVID/vaccines etc.?

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

@jfegaly @SORT14

 

[SORT14]

@jfegaly @SORT14

I know... I'm trying to get the thread back on topic.

 

[jfegaly]

Wrong again. Science works regardless of whether you like it or not. That's my point that you keep missing.
Are you here to talk about COVID/vaccines etc.?

We are talking science of text to emotion, ITT we are talking about science, covid, disinformation, propaganda, covid etc….

I mean I can start a different thread, but the broader point being made was to show the fallacies of some of the “science” you put so much stock into. I have achieved that, heck, you have achieved that. So, WE have achieved that. Great work.

I will remind everyone when this veers off into russian disinformation campaigns that we need to get back to covid , strictly interpreted.

 

[SORT14]

We are talking science of text to emotion, ITT we are talking about science, covid, disinformation, propaganda, covid etc….

I mean I can start a different thread, but the broader point being made was to show the fallacies of some of the “science” you put so much stock into. I have achieved that, heck, you have achieved that. So, WE have achieved that. Great work.

I will remind everyone when this veers off into russian disinformation campaigns that we need to get back to covid , strictly interpreted.

I don't care if you believe in science or not. You do you. I'll DM you the results of your sentiment analysis and then you can choose to share or not.
Now, if you are done trying to derail the thread...

 

[jfegaly]

I don't care if you believe in science or not. You do you. I'll DM you the results of your sentiment analysis and then you can choose to share or not.
Now, if you are done trying to derail the thread...

Nor do I care if you do sir. My point on this particular science was made. I wasn’t the one who began going down this rail. The history is ITT. FWIW.

I gave you the quote I wanted interpreted. You can post the results publicly. TIA.

 

[gator1776]

I don't care if you believe in science or not. You do you. I'll DM you the results of your sentiment analysis and then you can choose to share or not.
Now, if you are done trying to derail the thread...

He is never done trying to derail threads.
🤣🤣

Jeff Van Gundy blasts NBA players for refusing COVID vaccine: 'You’re doing your own research?'

Jeff Van Gundy isn’t one to shy away from making controversial remarks, and on Thursday he took a shot at NBA players who refused to receive the coronavirus vaccine.

www.google.com

 

[SORT14]

He is never done trying to derail threads.
🤣🤣

Jeff Van Gundy blasts NBA players for refusing COVID vaccine: 'You’re doing your own research?'

Jeff Van Gundy isn’t one to shy away from making controversial remarks, and on Thursday he took a shot at NBA players who refused to receive the coronavirus vaccine.

www.google.com

Hopefully we are back on track now...

 

[gator1776]

I mean I can start a different thread, but the broader point being made was to show the fallacies of some of the “science” you put so much stock into.

These Southern states have fully vaccinated less than a third of eligible adolescents

With federal health officials set to consider Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine for children 5 years and older, most Americans are slated to qualify for a shot soon. But a widening gap between vaccination rates could slow the country's progress in its fight against Covid-19, an expert warned Thursday.

www.google.com

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Retired. I come to this board and have fun. Why do you keep calling me names? Jeff?

There’s another poster on here who likes to know what people do for a living. This is getting interesting

"What do you do for a living" is the point at which trolls realize they have lost the argument, and they need a distraction. Trolling 101.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

@fatman76 I've never seen any poster here mention the novavax shot before you. Did any of the posters such as internet doctor or his cheerleaders ever bring it up?

I mean, it seems like that would get mentioned here, assuming they had heard of it. And since they are positioning themselves as achieving 'mastery' and 'following the science', then they should definitely know about it

Did anyone see any mention of the novavax shot before @fatman76 did? If not, it makes you wonder what other relevant information we aren't seeing here.

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

@fatman76 I've never seen any poster here mention the novavax shot before you. Did any of the posters such as internet doctor or his cheerleaders ever bring it up?

I mean, it seems like that would get mentioned here, assuming they had heard of it. And since they are positioning themselves as achieving 'mastery' and 'following the science', then they should definitely know about it

Did anyone see any mention of the novavax shot before @fatman76 did? If not, it makes you wonder what other relevant information we aren't seeing here.

I have more than once and once months ago. In fact fatman was responding to me.

 

[gator1776]

"What do you do for a living" is the point at which trolls realize they have lost the argument, and they need a distraction. Trolling 101.

Human behavior will determine when the Covid-19 pandemic ends, CDC director says

The US is making headway in its battle against Covid-19 -- with infection and hospitalization rates on the decline after a surge fueled by the highly transmissible Delta variant.

www.google.com

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

@GhostOfMatchesMalone

Search results for query: novavax

florida.forums.rivals.com

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

@GhostOfMatchesMalone

Search results for query: novavax

florida.forums.rivals.com

Thank you. So the novavax shot also has 'nano particles'?

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

Thank you. So the novavax shot also has 'nano particles'?

Its nebulous as to how it is manufactured.