4 ms·

Calling a federal law enforcement agency a domestic terror agency over Waco is precisely what I’m objecting to for the reasons I’ve given. I’m not making assum

by syki 5y ago

Calling a federal law enforcement agency a domestic terror agency over Waco is precisely what I’m objecting to for the reasons I’ve given. I’m not making assumptions on what you’ve said in this regard. I’m explaining why I think using “domestic terror organization” with regard to Waco is not justified. It is incorrect in my opinion to use Waco as an example of a law enforcement agency being in any way comparable to a domestic terror organization. Dunning-Kruger has nothing to do with this exchange. That effect is an observation that less intelligent people tend to overrate their abilities more than higher intelligent people. I’ve not rated my abilities at all in any of these exchanges.

notch656a 5y ago
>Dunning-Kruger has nothing to do with this exchange. That effect is an observation that less intelligent people tend to overrate their abilities more than higher intelligent people. I’ve not rated my abilities at all in any of these exchanges. False again. Dunning-Kruger is not about intelligence. It is about 'the cognitive bias whereby people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.' If you're saying you don't assign yourself any ability to determine if someone was to blame, then I guess you're also saying your claim of 'all the blame' being with the cult leaders to merely be a meaningless statement made by someone devoid of any confidence in their ability to make it. "Dunning-Kruger-esque": I'm referring to the limited ability we have to know what actually happened at Waco, which you then parley into the ability to outright assign that you have the ability to know where ALL the blame lies for what happened at Waco. >Calling a federal law enforcement agency a domestic terror agency over Waco is precisely what I’m objecting to for the reasons I’ve given. How many times must I repeat myself? I said DoJ should start with 'the domestic terror agency that fired upon civilians at Waco and Ruby Ridge.' Again, where are you pointing out that I said that I was calling them domestic terrorists BECAUSE of Waco? We've belabored this straw-man over again, it's not what I said.
- syki 5y ago
  I haven’t judged my abilities or rated them in our exchange and therefore Dunning-Kruger does not apply. You can’t know by how much I overrate myself or under rate myself; I’m just giving opinions. Just like you are giving an opinion about some federal law enforcement agencies being domestic terror organizations. This opinion of yours does not mean you think you are an expert or that you are overrating yourself. I could make the same baseless Dunning-Kruger accusation about you but I don’t because I actually understand that this cognitive bias pertains perceptions of oneself’s abilities and neither of us have made any self observations in our respective abilities. If you don’t believe Waco makes the law enforcement agencies in question domestic terror organizations then why bring up Waco? What is it that causes those agencies to be domestic terror organizations and why not give those reasons instead of bringing up Waco? These are rhetorical questions by the way.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    >I haven’t judged my abilities So you just went off spouting all the blame lied on the 'cult' [or leaders thereof] without even bothering to make the slightest judgement whether you had the ability to say that. I didn't expect such a stunning admission, but at least we got the truth.
    - syki 5y ago
      You stated an opinion about some law enforcement agencies being domestic terrorist organizations. You did not up this assertion. You provided no evidence other than to mention Waco. Was this opinion of yours, the certainty with which you made it, an example of Dunning-Kruger? If not then when is my stated opinion that federal agencies deserve no blame for Waco such an example? It’s strange that you don’t see how your reasoning about Dunning-Kruger applies to what you’ve written. You should strive to be consistent in your reasoning and apply it to your own arguments. It’s sloppy thinking to engage thusly.
      - notch656a 5y ago
        Well you admitted that you didn't assess your ability to make the statement. That you basically just spouted it off without thinking if you had the ability to say it truthfully: 'I haven’t judged my abilities.' So I agree, that isn't Dunning-Kruger on your part, just sloppy thinking. I withdraw the Dunning-Kruger statement based on your admission. I think we have way more information about the government and these agencies when looking at our national history, than just looking at single event Waco. With much more information, we have higher ability to make a statement. This is precisely why I did not say BECAUSE of Waco. But sure, Dunning-Kruger is merely observation of human trait, and not a sin at face. I think it's a lot more forgivable merely to actually over-estimate yourself after genuinely attempting to do so accurately. If I'm guilty of over-estimating my ability to think DoJ should investigate domestic terrorist organization that fired upon civilians at Waco, that can be your opinion. More forgivable than straight up not even assessing if you have ability to truthfully assign ALL of blame for dozens of horrible deaths with members of 'cult', but making the accusation anyway, which you have so sloppily done.

by syki 5y ago

notch656a 5y ago

>Dunning-Kruger has nothing to do with this exchange. That effect is an observation that less intelligent people tend to overrate their abilities more than higher intelligent people. I’ve not rated my abilities at all in any of these exchanges. False again. Dunning-Kruger is not about intelligence. It is about 'the cognitive bias whereby people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.' If you're saying you don't assign yourself any ability to determine if someone was to blame, then I guess you're also saying your claim of 'all the blame' being with the cult leaders to merely be a meaningless statement made by someone devoid of any confidence in their ability to make it. "Dunning-Kruger-esque": I'm referring to the limited ability we have to know what actually happened at Waco, which you then parley into the ability to outright assign that you have the ability to know where ALL the blame lies for what happened at Waco. >Calling a federal law enforcement agency a domestic terror agency over Waco is precisely what I’m objecting to for the reasons I’ve given. How many times must I repeat myself? I said DoJ should start with 'the domestic terror agency that fired upon civilians at Waco and Ruby Ridge.' Again, where are you pointing out that I said that I was calling them domestic terrorists BECAUSE of Waco? We've belabored this straw-man over again, it's not what I said.

syki 5y ago
I haven’t judged my abilities or rated them in our exchange and therefore Dunning-Kruger does not apply. You can’t know by how much I overrate myself or under rate myself; I’m just giving opinions. Just like you are giving an opinion about some federal law enforcement agencies being domestic terror organizations. This opinion of yours does not mean you think you are an expert or that you are overrating yourself. I could make the same baseless Dunning-Kruger accusation about you but I don’t because I actually understand that this cognitive bias pertains perceptions of oneself’s abilities and neither of us have made any self observations in our respective abilities. If you don’t believe Waco makes the law enforcement agencies in question domestic terror organizations then why bring up Waco? What is it that causes those agencies to be domestic terror organizations and why not give those reasons instead of bringing up Waco? These are rhetorical questions by the way.
- notch656a 5y ago
  >I haven’t judged my abilities So you just went off spouting all the blame lied on the 'cult' [or leaders thereof] without even bothering to make the slightest judgement whether you had the ability to say that. I didn't expect such a stunning admission, but at least we got the truth.
  - syki 5y ago
    You stated an opinion about some law enforcement agencies being domestic terrorist organizations. You did not up this assertion. You provided no evidence other than to mention Waco. Was this opinion of yours, the certainty with which you made it, an example of Dunning-Kruger? If not then when is my stated opinion that federal agencies deserve no blame for Waco such an example? It’s strange that you don’t see how your reasoning about Dunning-Kruger applies to what you’ve written. You should strive to be consistent in your reasoning and apply it to your own arguments. It’s sloppy thinking to engage thusly.
    - notch656a 5y ago
      Well you admitted that you didn't assess your ability to make the statement. That you basically just spouted it off without thinking if you had the ability to say it truthfully: 'I haven’t judged my abilities.' So I agree, that isn't Dunning-Kruger on your part, just sloppy thinking. I withdraw the Dunning-Kruger statement based on your admission. I think we have way more information about the government and these agencies when looking at our national history, than just looking at single event Waco. With much more information, we have higher ability to make a statement. This is precisely why I did not say BECAUSE of Waco. But sure, Dunning-Kruger is merely observation of human trait, and not a sin at face. I think it's a lot more forgivable merely to actually over-estimate yourself after genuinely attempting to do so accurately. If I'm guilty of over-estimating my ability to think DoJ should investigate domestic terrorist organization that fired upon civilians at Waco, that can be your opinion. More forgivable than straight up not even assessing if you have ability to truthfully assign ALL of blame for dozens of horrible deaths with members of 'cult', but making the accusation anyway, which you have so sloppily done.