5 ms·

You do realize that the "research" you cite comes from an ultra-rightwing think tank, right? They have a longstanding agenda of trying to make people believe th

by ambler0 15y ago

You do realize that the "research" you cite comes from an ultra-rightwing think tank, right? They have a longstanding agenda of trying to make people believe that poverty doesn't exist in America.

tptacek 15y ago
Uh huh. http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/CNP/FILES/NHANES-NSLP.pdf http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/CNP/FILES/NHANES... Data from the National School Lunch Program suggests the same thing. Protein deficiency is not statistically a challenge faced by Americans living below the poverty line. You can disagree with Heritage's politics (I certainly do), but it's naive to suggest that they're simply fabricating their underlying data.
- ambler0 15y ago
  I didn't suggest an outright fabrication. No need to restate here all of the cliches about how statistics can be manipulated. My only suggestion was that the Heritage Foundation are an absolutely worthless source. If you've provided a better one, that's great. Even if we grant that protein deficiency itself is not a huge problem for America's poor, it nevertheless remains that the protein (and food generally) available to our poor is of the lowest quality.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Since Heritage here provided data that ultimately appears to be correct, your assertion that it's a "worthless" source isn't borne out, and so I'm less inclined to pursue a tangent about protein "quality" with you. That's too bad, because I have a lot of thoughts about protein quality, and I think you'd probably agree with them. Unfortunately, you're in a place where you seem more inclined to troll threads with politics, so, maybe some other time.
    - ambler0 15y ago
      I disagree with your logic here. To my mind, there are many sources that are absolutely not worth wasting any time on who may nevertheless say true things from time to time. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a source that tells only lies. Heritage's data come from a Dept of Ag study. This seems like an excellent example of why we should try to cite original authors instead of intermediaries. I honestly didn't mean to do anything trollish. And what's with "quality" in scare quotes?
      - tptacek 15y ago
        The guy who attempts to refute an apparently correct study by putting the word "research" in scare quotes doesn't get to complain about other people's quotation marks, but for what it's worth, I'm a local protein guy. Next time someone who does not share your exact political beliefs (or your orthodoxy in ensuring that his/her tertiary sources have unimpeachable credentials), I suggest you actually read what they're saying and come back with facts. The reality is that in a community of professionals, you're unlikely to find yourself conversing solely with people who agree with your worldview. The irony is, I probably do agree with your politics, but I find the way you handled this particular wrinkle of the discussion so repellant that I've been driven somewhat apey.
        ambler0 15y ago
        I had totally forgotten that I had put "research" in scare quotes. You're right: it turned out to be unwarranted. That having been said, I think you misunderstand me. I'm quite eager to learn from people who don't share my beliefs; it's the only reason I spend any time slogging through these comments in the first place. The spirit of my original reply, and what I should have said, is that bringing the Heritage Foundation into the discussion can only serve to muddle things.
        tptacek 15y ago
        He didn't bring Heritage into it. He sourced a fact to a Heritage report, which turned out to be (surprise!) a fact. Please just stop talking about Heritage. An HN survival skill that has served me in good stead: just say "I was wrong, sorry." People will even upvote you for saying it, because it's so rare for a nerd to say it. You will be amazed how many pointless arguments those words get you out of.

by ambler0 15y ago

You do realize that the "research" you cite comes from an ultra-rightwing think tank, right? They have a longstanding agenda of trying to make people believe that poverty doesn't exist in America.

tptacek 15y ago

Uh huh. http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/CNP/FILES/NHANES-NSLP.pdf http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/CNP/FILES/NHANES... Data from the National School Lunch Program suggests the same thing. Protein deficiency is not statistically a challenge faced by Americans living below the poverty line. You can disagree with Heritage's politics (I certainly do), but it's naive to suggest that they're simply fabricating their underlying data.

ambler0 15y ago
I didn't suggest an outright fabrication. No need to restate here all of the cliches about how statistics can be manipulated. My only suggestion was that the Heritage Foundation are an absolutely worthless source. If you've provided a better one, that's great. Even if we grant that protein deficiency itself is not a huge problem for America's poor, it nevertheless remains that the protein (and food generally) available to our poor is of the lowest quality.
- tptacek 15y ago
  Since Heritage here provided data that ultimately appears to be correct, your assertion that it's a "worthless" source isn't borne out, and so I'm less inclined to pursue a tangent about protein "quality" with you. That's too bad, because I have a lot of thoughts about protein quality, and I think you'd probably agree with them. Unfortunately, you're in a place where you seem more inclined to troll threads with politics, so, maybe some other time.
  - ambler0 15y ago
    I disagree with your logic here. To my mind, there are many sources that are absolutely not worth wasting any time on who may nevertheless say true things from time to time. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a source that tells only lies. Heritage's data come from a Dept of Ag study. This seems like an excellent example of why we should try to cite original authors instead of intermediaries. I honestly didn't mean to do anything trollish. And what's with "quality" in scare quotes?
    - tptacek 15y ago
      The guy who attempts to refute an apparently correct study by putting the word "research" in scare quotes doesn't get to complain about other people's quotation marks, but for what it's worth, I'm a local protein guy. Next time someone who does not share your exact political beliefs (or your orthodoxy in ensuring that his/her tertiary sources have unimpeachable credentials), I suggest you actually read what they're saying and come back with facts. The reality is that in a community of professionals, you're unlikely to find yourself conversing solely with people who agree with your worldview. The irony is, I probably do agree with your politics, but I find the way you handled this particular wrinkle of the discussion so repellant that I've been driven somewhat apey.
      - ambler0 15y ago
        I had totally forgotten that I had put "research" in scare quotes. You're right: it turned out to be unwarranted. That having been said, I think you misunderstand me. I'm quite eager to learn from people who don't share my beliefs; it's the only reason I spend any time slogging through these comments in the first place. The spirit of my original reply, and what I should have said, is that bringing the Heritage Foundation into the discussion can only serve to muddle things.
        tptacek 15y ago
        He didn't bring Heritage into it. He sourced a fact to a Heritage report, which turned out to be (surprise!) a fact. Please just stop talking about Heritage. An HN survival skill that has served me in good stead: just say "I was wrong, sorry." People will even upvote you for saying it, because it's so rare for a nerd to say it. You will be amazed how many pointless arguments those words get you out of.