If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Studies show conservatives "low-effort" thinking. Well this is obviously false. Conservatives are the elephants and elephants have bigger brains than donkeys   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 165
    More: Amusing, University of Arkansas, conservatives, lead author, political parties  
•       •       •

3139 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Apr 2012 at 12:54 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



165 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-09 03:25:10 PM

Grungehamster: Much of conservative and liberal populism is based on this very deep desire to see the "cheats" at whichever end of the scale they see them at get punished


The difference perhaps being that liberals seem deeply worried that someone may not be getting help who deserves it, while conservatives seem deeply worried that someone may be getting help who doesn't.
 
2012-04-09 03:28:24 PM

BojanglesPaladin: There is a very well travelled adage (attributed incorrectly to a number of people):

"A man who is young and is not a liberal has no heart. A Man who is old is not a conservative has no brain"

It is also an expression of the ancient idea of a "bleeding heart liberal" meaning someone whose political views were overpowered by their sympathy and emotions.

Many Farkers may be too young to appreciate that the stereotype of the stupid conservative is a relatively recent political charicterization. For quite some time, conservative thought was a very intellectual enterprise, and liberalism was less intellectual and more about doing what was 'right' regardless of analytical considerations.


I started college right before Bush became president, so, yeah, my experience with conservatives has not been as you describe.
 
2012-04-09 03:31:10 PM

abb3w: Grungehamster: Much of conservative and liberal populism is based on this very deep desire to see the "cheats" at whichever end of the scale they see them at get punished

The difference perhaps being that liberals seem deeply worried that someone may not be getting help who deserves it, while conservatives seem deeply worried that someone may be getting help who doesn't.


I can also see it as Liberals wanting to see justice brought to ponzi schemers, lehman brothers, halliburton, and the like. I know I do.
 
2012-04-09 03:44:41 PM

KarmicDisaster: Conservative Deep Thinking in a nutshell:

"My buddy told me that his friend's dad said that he heard such and such happened. Therefore such and such happens all the time and is a huge problem, so suck it libs".


Yeah. What I said about anecdote =/= data? Make that anecdote > data.
 
2012-04-09 03:48:13 PM

MadMonk: You dumb liberals don't know what you're talking about. With your fancy shmancy white coats and clip boards, just a bunch of phewie if'n you ask me.

Actin' all smart and uppitty jus cuz you managed to get Osama Bin Obama in the Whitehouse, don't mean you all gotta go and tell real Americans that their dumber than you. Ask that Santorum feller, he'll tell ya, College is evil and nobody should go, all that book reading's just a waste of time, only book you need is the Holy Bible.


And Atlas Shrugged.
 
2012-04-09 03:48:42 PM
skool.us
 
2012-04-09 03:49:29 PM
www.atheistconnect.org
 
2012-04-09 03:52:25 PM
Most conservatives I know have to work very very hard to keep things aligned with their omni-permeating fears and confirmation bias, there ain't no way yer gonna tell me that's "low-effort."

They're like people who believe in astrology. "Of course you'd say that. You're an Aquarian."
 
2012-04-09 03:55:16 PM
Ah, the usual "conservatives don't think" arguments. One wonders what junk science they used to try and justify silencing the opposition this time.
 
Bf+
2012-04-09 04:00:21 PM
Ah, the usual "the sky is blue" arguments. One wonders what junk science they used to try and justify silencing the opposition this time.
 
2012-04-09 04:00:46 PM

Millennium: Ah, the usual "conservatives don't think" arguments. One wonders what junk science they used to try and justify silencing the opposition this time.


dude thats awesome
 
2012-04-09 04:01:12 PM

QU!RK1019: I started college right before Bush became president, so, yeah, my experience with conservatives has not been as you describe.


It is VITALLY important to understand that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, eyc. are NOT Conservative thinkers.

They are paid provacatuers who make a living by parroting a lowest-common denominator bastardization of conservative thought diluted with retarded moral majorityisms.
 
2012-04-09 04:06:01 PM

BojanglesPaladin: It is VITALLY important to understand that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, eyc. are NOT Conservative thinkers.


Also, not Scotsmen.

/not truly
 
2012-04-09 04:19:59 PM

naveline: They're like people who believe in astrology. "Of course you'd say that. You're an Aquarian."


Well, although it's probably just a sampling artifact, winter signs are marginally less likely to consider Astrology scientific....
 
2012-04-09 04:25:19 PM

Mr_Fabulous: Also, not Scotsmen.


Are you arguing that any of them ARE intelectuals?

SURELY you don't consider them to be intellectuals.
 
2012-04-09 04:36:37 PM

Dr Dreidel:

Which makes me appreciate my dinner table conversations with my parents.

My folks are religious, and they live just outside DC, making them the left edge of the community. They had some friends over for Passover on Saturday, and the discussion went from incredulity at the insanity of the GOP (citing legislation as if they'd read a thing or two about it) to religious observance (is the tradition itself the important thing, or is the observance?). With a healthy dose of science (my dad's a chemist, his buddy is an electrical engineer, my mom is a PA, buddy's wife worked at NARAL and is a public policy wonk of some sort) and the sociology of religious schooling (buddy's kids, twins a few years younger than me, who had attended HS with me).

Real highfalutin' stuff.

The one thing I didn't really get was emotional satisfaction. Ideas were exchanged honestly and with respect/polite disagreement, but we were all dismayed at the fact that our type of argumentation and the observations we 8 or so casual observers made went (and will likely continue to go) unnoticed by those with the power to address or correct them.


Would like to subscribe to you and your parents newsletter.

There are more dismayed casual observers out here than people realize, if we could all just get together we'd have a shot at fixing some real issues.
 
2012-04-09 05:19:34 PM
One word: Detroit

One more thing: If Democrats are so smart, why do they need the government to take care of them?
 
2012-04-09 06:31:43 PM
No shiat. They are low information voters who believe in simplistic, black and white answers to the major issues of life. The GOP serves up simplicity in spades.
 
2012-04-09 06:43:19 PM

MyRandomName: spongeboob: FTFA As it turned out, the political viewpoints of patrons with high blood alcohol levels were more likely to be conservative than were those of patrons whose blood alcohol levels were low.

That says to me that liberals are poor and can't afford to imbibe as much. Without knowing the base statistics of the groups, that means nothing. This is a perfect reason why the science part of social science is wrong. A more correct study would be test, drink, test. Not skip to just the third part.


Your inner retard is showing.
 
2012-04-09 06:56:45 PM

QU!RK1019: BojanglesPaladin: There is a very well travelled adage (attributed incorrectly to a number of people):

"A man who is young and is not a liberal has no heart. A Man who is old is not a conservative has no brain"

It is also an expression of the ancient idea of a "bleeding heart liberal" meaning someone whose political views were overpowered by their sympathy and emotions.

Many Farkers may be too young to appreciate that the stereotype of the stupid conservative is a relatively recent political charicterization. For quite some time, conservative thought was a very intellectual enterprise, and liberalism was less intellectual and more about doing what was 'right' regardless of analytical considerations.

I started college right before Bush became president, so, yeah, my experience with conservatives has not been as you describe.


Using an old adage as proof of something strikes me as overly simple thinking.
 
2012-04-09 06:58:47 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: BojanglesPaladin: But the religious right/social right is not the same thing as George Will, William F. Buckley type conservatism which is most definately intellectual.

And nearly extinct.


Possibly you can explain this one. What exactly makes William F. Buckley 'intellectual'? This is the "Standing athwart history with my hand out yelling 'Stop!'" Buckley, right? What positions did he take that were more deeply thought out or evidence based than the current right wing? The same question goes for George Will, incidentally. He's definitely more erudite that the average conservative commentator, but I've never seen him actually cite evidence for his positions, nor do they appear any better thought out than those of Hannity etc.
 
2012-04-09 07:00:24 PM

Smackledorfer: Using an old adage as proof of something strikes me as overly simple thinking.


Speaking of overly simple thinking- I wonder who you think used it "as proof" of anything? Or even what was being 'proven'?

/Protip: sometimes a comment is not a supportive statement for an argument.
 
2012-04-09 07:06:18 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Smackledorfer: Using an old adage as proof of something strikes me as overly simple thinking.

Speaking of overly simple thinking- I wonder who you think used it "as proof" of anything? Or even what was being 'proven'?

/Protip: sometimes a comment is not a supportive statement for an argument.


I assume people say things for a reason. I can favorite you as peter Griffin if you are prone to saying things that hold no meaning or relevance to the conversation at hand.

I retract any implications about you that you may have taken from my previous post.
 
2012-04-09 07:12:03 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Smackledorfer: Using an old adage as proof of something strikes me as overly simple thinking.

Speaking of overly simple thinking- I wonder who you think used it "as proof" of anything? Or even what was being 'proven'?

/Protip: sometimes a comment is not a supportive statement for an argument.


Especially when "studies show" that people become more liberal as they grow older.
/the comment above is not a supportive statement for an argument.
 
2012-04-09 07:14:36 PM

Smackledorfer: Your inner retard is showing.


Smackledorfer: Using an old adage as proof of something strikes me as overly simple thinking.


Smackledorfer: I assume people say things for a reason. I can favorite you as peter Griffin if you are prone to saying things that hold no meaning or relevance to the conversation at hand.

I retract any implications about you that you may have taken from my previous post.


Cool your jimmies, cowboy.
 
2012-04-09 07:21:40 PM

UndeadPoetsSociety: Possibly you can explain this one. What exactly makes William F. Buckley 'intellectual'? This is the "Standing athwart history with my hand out yelling 'Stop!'" Buckley, right? What positions did he take that were more deeply thought out or evidence based than the current right wing? The same question goes for George Will, incidentally. He's definitely more erudite that the average conservative commentator, but I've never seen him actually cite evidence for his positions, nor do they appear any better thought out than those of Hannity etc.


I think this is a valid question, but honestly to answer it fully, you would have to understand the topic in more depth than I can provide to you in this forum.After all, what makes Anyone 'intellectual'? Without knowing your criteria or your definition, I couldn't say what fits your bill. But you can.

I can point you to a number of collections of their columns and a book or two they have written. Read one of Buckley's for instance and then read whatever crap-fest Beck or Savage have put out. If you can't tell the difference, then I wouldn't be able to explain it to you anyway.

(I didn't mention Hannity by the way, and I don't follow him, but what I heard of him 5 or 6 years ago gave me the impression that he might not be the as completely paid provacatuer as many of the rest. Look at Beck and O'Rielly and Savage and the rest. Before they figured out they could make a killing spouting psuedo-conservative pablum, they were just anonymous media also-rans. Their careers are built on getting big in the media - right-wing derp is just thier meal ticket today. If they could have been shock-jocks, they would have. If they could have been sports casters, they would have.And if this well runs dry, they will be something else. Beck is one of the worst. I can't even be in the same room when he is on.farking retard).

This really isn't a blow-off. I read two Naom Chomsky books to see what he was all about and why everyone venerated his political brilliance. I own Micheal Moore's books as well, along with Kinky Friedman and even Al Franken. I hunted down and bought Pat Buchannan books to see if he was as racist as everyone said he was, and I have read Robert Bork's book to see why everyone thought he was so awful.

The point it, don't take my word for it. If you really want to see what the differnece is, see for yourself. It is never a bad idea to make an earnest effort to understand opposing viewpoints.
 
2012-04-09 07:34:23 PM
BojanglesPaladin
(I didn't mention Hannity by the way, and I don't follow him, but what I heard of him 5 or 6 years ago gave me the impression that he might not be the as completely paid provacatuer as many of the rest.

He is. He most assuredly is.

/and has the most punchable face in the world
 
2012-04-09 07:40:29 PM

patrick767: BojanglesPaladin
(I didn't mention Hannity by the way, and I don't follow him, but what I heard of him 5 or 6 years ago gave me the impression that he might not be the as completely paid provacatuer as many of the rest.

He is. He most assuredly is.

/and has the most punchable face in the world


Hey now! That's just being racist toward the Irish!

Personally he has always looked like someone else:

img.mediaspanonline.comwww.nbc.com
 
2012-04-09 07:46:22 PM

BojanglesPaladin: UndeadPoetsSociety: Possibly you can explain this one. What exactly makes William F. Buckley 'intellectual'? This is the "Standing athwart history with my hand out yelling 'Stop!'" Buckley, right? What positions did he take that were more deeply thought out or evidence based than the current right wing? The same question goes for George Will, incidentally. He's definitely more erudite that the average conservative commentator, but I've never seen him actually cite evidence for his positions, nor do they appear any better thought out than those of Hannity etc.

I think this is a valid question, but honestly to answer it fully, you would have to understand the topic in more depth than I can provide to you in this forum.After all, what makes Anyone 'intellectual'? Without knowing your criteria or your definition, I couldn't say what fits your bill. But you can.

I can point you to a number of collections of their columns and a book or two they have written. Read one of Buckley's for instance and then read whatever crap-fest Beck or Savage have put out. If you can't tell the difference, then I wouldn't be able to explain it to you anyway.

(I didn't mention Hannity by the way, and I don't follow him, but what I heard of him 5 or 6 years ago gave me the impression that he might not be the as completely paid provacatuer as many of the rest. Look at Beck and O'Rielly and Savage and the rest. Before they figured out they could make a killing spouting psuedo-conservative pablum, they were just anonymous media also-rans. Their careers are built on getting big in the media - right-wing derp is just thier meal ticket today. If they could have been shock-jocks, they would have. If they could have been sports casters, they would have.And if this well runs dry, they will be something else. Beck is one of the worst. I can't even be in the same room when he is on.farking retard).

This really isn't a blow-off. I read two Naom Chomsky books to see what he was all about and why e ...

I've read many of Geroge Will's columns, and although he phrases it differently, the actual policy propositions he advances are only marginally different to what is pushed by conservative politicians. His tone is very different, but he's a climate change denier, buys into the 'taxes are inherently evil' line and the rest of the Austrian/Chicago school economic bullshiat, etc. He's not a creationist, but that's the only matter where evidence seems to have been accepted to give him a view different to th ordinary conservative BS. As for Buckley, anyone whose goal is to try to stop history cannot possibly be thinking their position through very carefully, which removes them from the category of intellectual in my book. FWIW, I wouldn't really call Moore and intellectual, although he does make good points sometimes; he's really more about emotional punch than facts, figures and reasoning. Chomsky is full of it at least 70% of the time, IME, but he does at least give the impression of caring about facts and reason. Freidman and Franken I have no particular problem with; I probably don't agree with them about everything, but they do think their positions through and base them on evidence; in cases where we disagree, I would expect to find that we were looking at different subsets of the evidence, or merely disagreed as which tradeoffs are best.
 
2012-04-09 07:50:55 PM

BojanglesPaladin: It is never a bad idea to make an earnest effort to understand opposing viewpoints.


Though depends how much free time one has, some triage may need be involved.

That said... Buckley is a conservative heavyweight, his thought influential to the current conservative movement, and worth some attention therefore. Contrariwise... he's dead. Who would you suggest is the most intellectual heavyweight of his school, among living conservatives?

/Chomsky's an ass
 
2012-04-09 08:02:12 PM

UndeadPoetsSociety: His tone is very different, but he's a climate change denier


Is he? Note that there is a difference between denying that the global temprature is rising and being unconvinced that it has a significantly anthrogenesis cause which is different from accepting that cap and trade, or other regulatory authoritarian efforts are called for. There is a lot of nuance on that particluar topic that too many people on both sides are too willing to blow right by and declare everyone 'for or against'!

I would be interested in any specific citations, becasue I have honestly not heard him speak on the topic.

As for Buckley, anyone whose goal is to try to stop history cannot possibly be thinking their position through very carefully, which removes them from the category of intellectual in my book.

As I said, only you can decide what your criteria are, and who fits it. I would suggest that casting aside a body of writings and thought that spans decades over one punch-up line might be a bit... premature.

FWIW, I wouldn't really call Moore and intellectual, although he does make good points sometimes

I don't thank many people would. But MAN did he show potential in the early days. Before he confused his importance as the mnessenger with the importance of the message.

Chomsky is full of it at least 70% of the time

You are toooo kind. And he has a near pathological problem with distorting and cherry picking facts. Becasue of his reputation, it took me a long time to finally start fact checking him, and i was extremely disapointing. I will grant that he is a brilliant linguist and has done great work in his field, but on politics? not so much.

Freidman and Franken I have no particular problem with; I probably don't agree with them about everything, but they do think their positions through and base them on evidence; in cases where we disagree, I would expect to find that we were looking at different subsets of the evidence, or merely disagreed as which tradeoffs are best.

Freidman, like Hightower I like quite a lot. Something about Texas left-wingers I just kinda dig. Franken I DO NOT think is a genuine thinker. He's a doctrinaire partisan.
 
2012-04-09 08:32:18 PM

BojanglesPaladin:

Is he? Note that there is a difference between denying that the global temprature is rising and being unconvinced that it has a significantly anthrogenesis cause which is different from accepting that cap and trade, or other regulatory authoritarian efforts are called for. There is a lot of nuance on that particluar topic that too many people on both sides are too willing to blow right by and declare everyone 'for or against'!

Not really. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that climate change is real, anthropogenic, and causing increasingly serious problems. Cap and trade is a proven solution which worked very well for reducing sulfur emissions and associated acid rain. There are other methods which would also work, e.g. carbon taxes, but none that are being proposed or supported by conservatives.
Here's a reference (new window)



As for Buckley, anyone whose goal is to try to stop history cannot possibly be thinking their position through very carefully, which removes them from the category of intellectual in my book.

As I said, only you can decide what your criteria are, and who fits it. I would suggest that casting aside a body of writings and thought that spans decades over one punch-up line might be a bit... premature.

He also defended segregation and McCarthyism, among other things. I have a limited amount of time to spend reading, and so far nothing I've learned about Buckley has convinced me that he's worth any of it.


Chomsky is full of it at least 70% of the time

You are toooo kind. And he has a near pathological problem with distorting and cherry picking facts. Becasue of his reputation, it took me a long time to finally start fact checking him, and i was extremely disapointing. I will grant that he is a brilliant linguist and has done great work in his field, but on politics? not so much.

No, his linguistic work is no great shakes either. All of his 'accomplishments' have pretty much revolved around his Universal Grammar, and universal grammar is complete crap.
 
2012-04-09 08:39:03 PM

bigpeeler: Ha ha ha....."studies".


Speaking of, it's the bigotry, stupid (new window).

/or rather the bigotry is making you stupider
//or at least there's a significant correlation between low IQ, social conservatism and prejudice
///vicious circles
 
2012-04-09 08:39:45 PM
It's the best I could come up with to give the man SOME credit for something.
 
2012-04-09 08:44:44 PM

UndeadPoetsSociety: universal grammar is complete crap.


Also, this. Chomsky's linguistics work is pretty naive in some critical respects -- on my reading basically on account of insufficient reconciliation with his political theory. As such they both end up being pretty inadequate. (See the Labov-Chomsky or Foucault-Chomsky debates -- pretty eye-opening...)
 
2012-04-09 09:17:14 PM

yourgodsucks: As much as I dislike conservative philosophies, I have to say that article is actually a good example of low-thinking.

Researcher: "People endorse conservative ideology more when they have to give a first or fast response"
Writer: "lol conservatives are dumb."


Have you been paying any goddamn attention for the past two decades? Because if you have, and you have friends with dark skin, gay friends\siblings, enjoy being protected by a union and making a living wage, or having a mother, you have a stake in making sure the GOP is derailed.

Or, for that matter, if you didn't like the first Third Reich.
 
2012-04-09 09:47:38 PM
Less effort: no new, keep old

More effort: do something different

Conservatism is inherently ... conservative, and a rational fallback position for somebody who isn't experiencing an immediate problem with the status quo.

Problems? fark you buddy, I got mine.
 
2012-04-09 10:17:33 PM

Vaccinium Arboreum: UndeadPoetsSociety: universal grammar is complete crap.

Also, this. Chomsky's linguistics work is pretty naive in some critical respects -- on my reading basically on account of insufficient reconciliation with his political theory. As such they both end up being pretty inadequate. (See the Labov-Chomsky or Foucault-Chomsky debates -- pretty eye-opening...)


Thirded.

/And his politics are just as grotesque as Buckley's.
 
2012-04-09 10:33:09 PM

BojanglesPaladin: bugontherug: More to the point, just as conservatives have canonized anti-intellectuals like Palin and Limbaugh, so have progressives elevated to positions of high influence unemployed stoner slackers.

First off, I think you means Republicans, not conservatives. Overlapping but different political subgroups. And yes, the Republican party is suffering from a bad problem of letting the retards from the back of the bus hold the steering wheel.


No, I mean conservatives. Rush Limbaugh is, after all, the intellectual father modern conservatism. Ayn Rand being its intellectual mother.

Now, visualize Rush Limbaugh and Ayn Rand having sex. Now, visualize what their child would look like.

Yup. That's modern conservatism.
 
2012-04-09 10:34:35 PM

RosettaStone: bugontherug: BojanglesPaladin: I think we can all agree that that maroons like Palin and Rush ditto-head trightwing bible-thumpers typify low-intellect thinking in much the samw way that unemployed stoner slackers typify the low end of the brain poll for the left.

More to the point, just as conservatives have canonized anti-intellectuals like Palin and Limbaugh, so have progressives elevated to positions of high influence unemployed stoner slackers.

In what way, bug?


Was using the tone of irony as regards Democrats and stoner/slackers.
 
2012-04-09 10:51:35 PM

bugontherug: No, I mean conservatives. Rush Limbaugh is, after all, the intellectual father modern conservatism. Ayn Rand being its intellectual mother.

Now, visualize Rush Limbaugh and Ayn Rand having sex. Now, visualize what their child would look like.

Yup. That's modern conservatism.


Ron Paul?
 
2012-04-09 11:02:23 PM
I worked with a guy a couple of years ago who was a conservative and yes, a very low-effort thinker. Sweet guy, but just not very bright. I made the same observation about him then: he'd listen to talk radio and read the newspaper and not really have any thoughts about it, but just parrot whatever someone said that he trusted. It was acceptable just the way it was.
 
2012-04-09 11:24:50 PM

bugontherug: BojanglesPaladin: I think we can all agree that that maroons like Palin and Rush ditto-head trightwing bible-thumpers typify low-intellect thinking in much the samw way that unemployed stoner slackers typify the low end of the brain poll for the left.

More to the point, just as conservatives have canonized anti-intellectuals like Palin and Limbaugh, so have progressives elevated to positions of high influence unemployed stoner slackers.


Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
 
2012-04-09 11:30:10 PM

bugontherug: No, I mean conservatives. Rush Limbaugh is, after all, the intellectual father modern conservatism. Ayn Rand being its intellectual mother.


You know how I know you have a true understanding of conservativism?

Here's a hint: Micheal Moore is not the father of modern liberalism.
 
2012-04-09 11:45:15 PM

Bf+: Ah, the usual "the sky is blue" arguments. One wonders what junk science they used to try and justify silencing the opposition this time.


Creationism.
 
2012-04-09 11:45:20 PM

UndeadPoetsSociety: universal grammar is complete crap


...not quite. His conception of how it applies to humans seems to be.
However, the math for equivalence of Universal (unrestricted, type-0) grammars corresponding to the recursively enumerable languages corresponding to those recognizable by Church-Turing Automata... that's solid.

BojanglesPaladin: Franken I DO NOT think is a genuine thinker. He's a doctrinaire partisan.


Possibly. But with better than par memory, at least; and a stand-up comedian's ability to respond live.
 
2012-04-09 11:46:33 PM

Jim_Callahan: So how did the conservatives respond when the studies showed them this low-effort thinking? Did they suggest subby enroll in some sort of remedial grammar class or did they just make an "accidentally the whole thing" joke?

//Though I guess failing to create a coherent sentence is the usual outcome when trying to make fun of someone's supposed lack of intelligence. It's happened to me so I won't hate that much.
//Also kind of silly for journalism major types to write articles accusing anyone of lacking intelligence, honestly. Glass houses and all that.


I'm also compelled to note submitter's poor grammar despite my liberal political views. Lrn2English, subby.
 
2012-04-09 11:59:33 PM

abb3w: UndeadPoetsSociety: universal grammar is complete crap

...not quite. His conception of how it applies to humans seems to be.
However, the math for equivalence of Universal (unrestricted, type-0) grammars corresponding to the recursively enumerable languages corresponding to those recognizable by Church-Turing Automata... that's solid.

BojanglesPaladin: Franken I DO NOT think is a genuine thinker. He's a doctrinaire partisan.

Possibly. But with better than par memory, at least; and a stand-up comedian's ability to respond live.


Chomsky is rumored to make his butter as a linguist. UG is a theory of linguistics, not math or computer science.
 
2012-04-10 12:50:09 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: UG is a theory of linguistics, not math or computer science.


The mathematically solid part is the Chomsky Hierarchy, which is math/CS.
The UG notion relates... loosely, anyway.

He's a better mathematical theoretician than linguistic empiricist.
 
2012-04-10 12:58:08 AM

abb3w: demaL-demaL-yeH: UG is a theory of linguistics, not math or computer science.

The mathematically solid part is the Chomsky Hierarchy, which is math/CS.
The UG notion relates... loosely, anyway.

He's a better mathematical theoretician than linguistic empiricist.


No dispute that MIT has done wonders in computation.
The problem is he's a professor of linguistics, and his work has really farked up linguistics theory.
 
Displayed 50 of 165 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report