Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 181

Thread: UKIP - wtf?

  1. #101
    Trusted Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    5,479

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Wilde View Post
    I hope you are right about the significance of party logos
    I haven't made any claim about the significance of party logos on ballot papers; I've just described my own experience in the booth where I've made use of them to both identify and confirm the person I wish to vote for. Each individual voter has their own experience and I don't presume that my experience is typical.

    Having asked the question about research I've seen this elcomm report from 2009.

    http://www.electoralcommission.org.u...gn---FINAL.pdf

    4.1.2.
    Participants liked having logos on the ballot papers. Logos helped participants identify parties easily. Some participants said that they used the logos to help them find the party they wanted to vote for.

    4.1.4.
    Candidates who did not have logos on the ballot paper were seen as inferior. Independent candidates are not permitted to use a logo on the ballot paper. Participants saw these candidates as being “inferior”, and said they would be unlikely to vote for them as they didn’t seem “official enough”.

    4.1.6.
    Having the candidates address on ballot papers was disliked. ...
    A negative for FRESH CHOICE FOR LONDON:

    4.1.9.
    If parties were listed alphabetically on ballot papers, this highlighted inconsistencies in party names
    The position of a particular party on ballot papers which list parties alphabetically can vary between elections, depending on the name/description used (a political party may register up to 12 party descriptions, and may then use any one of these descriptions or the registered party name on the ballot paper). This resulted in participants taking longer to locate their chosen party if it was not listed in the order they would expect.
    4.2.5.
    Party names are important in helping people find their choice, but are sometimes hard to find. Party names were not always instantly recognisable or prominent. The majority of participants said they identify their choice by party name or logo first. In particular this affected new voters who were not as familiar with party logos. They had to read the ballot paper closely to identify their choice

    4.5.1.
    Party descriptions were disliked by many voters.
    Participants did not notice or comment on the party descriptions until they were pointed out. They did not affect the results of the actual voting task. ... Most participants did not like them. ... Some participants thought they were very sloganised and inappropriate, and there was also comment on the practicality of fitting them on the ballot paper: ... Overall, even though there were a few mildly positive comments, the amount of strong negatives far outweighed these.

    4.5.2.
    Expanded party descriptions make the ballot more difficult to read. Most participants were of the feeling that ‘less is more’ when it comes to the amount of text on the ballot. As a result of this, most thought party descriptions must be kept to a minimum if allowed at all.
    5. Conclusion

    The main positive findings include:
    Ballot papers:
    Logos on the ballot paper meant participants could easily identify their party/candidate.
    A clear visual indicator of where to cast the vote is helpful.

  2. #102
    Gardening Leave
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,186

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traditionalist View Post
    You are now getting desperate.
    The shapes and patterns have nothing to do with national flags of anything else that is defined by culture.
    Traditionalist: Perhaps the 'typo' which Richard Allen noticed in #91, was my sub-conscious guess when reason would finally reach you. In addition, perhaps CB100's approbation in #97 was undeserved. To conclude the 'guessing game' perhaps you do not understand what are the attributes/definition of culture?

    It is agreed by all psychologists and psychiatrists, ( I know of no exception) that intelligence is transmitted mainly by inheritance. The exact amount cannot be accurately measured but c70% is broadly accepted as being correct. Are you saying that being exposed to cultural factors has no effect on the development of intelligence? Are you saying that the remaining 30% has an immunity from any influence from cultural factors? A child incarcerated from all human contact (apart from being provided access to water and food) would not be intellectually retarded by that experience? An important factor in a childs intellectual development is imitative; language and accent, for a start; music, dance and play. The written word, and 'numbers'; finding things out by experience (empirical knowledge). Indeed, an inability not to learn by experience is a mental illness ( within the psychopathy group). Symbolism is a common mnemonic aid for understanding everything from Creation, to locations on a map. Finally, remember the definition of prejudice given in the Black Report. Roughly it was; 'A belief or opinion which is unsupported either by experience or the evidence'.
    Think on these things.

  3. #103
    Trusted Member Steve Morson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Magnificent Midlands
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traditionalist View Post
    You support racists like Dianne Abbott?
    No. Foolish inference # 254.

    I merely believe that she is more likely to know (a lot) more about about the culture of British Caribbean youths than I do, so was cited accordingly.

    Type less, read more?
    Steve

  4. #104
    Trusted Member Traditionalist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    6,432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier View Post
    Traditionalist: Perhaps the 'typo' which Richard Allen noticed in #91, was my sub-conscious guess when reason would finally reach you. In addition, perhaps CB100's approbation in #97 was undeserved. To conclude the 'guessing game' perhaps you do not understand what are the attributes/definition of culture?

    It is agreed by all psychologists and psychiatrists, ( I know of no exception) that intelligence is transmitted mainly by inheritance. The exact amount cannot be accurately measured but c70% is broadly accepted as being correct. Are you saying that being exposed to cultural factors has no effect on the development of intelligence? Are you saying that the remaining 30% has an immunity from any influence from cultural factors? A child incarcerated from all human contact (apart from being provided access to water and food) would not be intellectually retarded by that experience? An important factor in a childs intellectual development is imitative; language and accent, for a start; music, dance and play. The written word, and 'numbers'; finding things out by experience (empirical knowledge). Indeed, an inability not to learn by experience is a mental illness ( within the psychopathy group). Symbolism is a common mnemonic aid for understanding everything from Creation, to locations on a map. Finally, remember the definition of prejudice given in the Black Report. Roughly it was; 'A belief or opinion which is unsupported either by experience or the evidence'.
    Think on these things.
    Have we not been over this.
    Even Black children brought up by white adoptive parents had lower IQ's that Whites.
    I provided a number of links to show that enviroment made little difference.
    So again why do you want the races to be all of equal intelligence?

  5. #105
    Trusted Member Traditionalist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    6,432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Morson View Post
    No. Foolish inference # 254.

    I merely believe that she is more likely to know (a lot) more about about the culture of British Caribbean youths than I do, so was cited accordingly.

    Type less, read more?
    But she is a racist and you dont like racists right?

  6. #106
    Trusted Member Traditionalist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    6,432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CB100 View Post
    You have made a very compelling case and won the debate with traditionalist on assessing IQ levels very comfortably even though he may not realise it (which would, in any event, be quite understandable).
    Won it?
    When all his evidence was based on a socialist fraudster from the 1920's.
    My evidence is all knew and posted with links for you all to read.
    Even many on the left now have to admit that IQ differences between the races are genetic.
    You people need to seperate what you want to be true for your own political reasons and what the evidence shows you to be true.

  7. #107
    Trusted Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traditionalist View Post
    You can pretend all the races are equal all you like but it will not make it so.
    Frankly, I'm rather indifferent on the issue so I couldn't raise the enthusiasm to pretend.

    I have all the evidence on my side.
    You have information but then you have your prejudices superimposed over it.

    And since we had our earlier economic discussion about your view that you could eliminate the entire UK budget deficit in 2 years, you will have to forgive me if I'm not convinced by your "evidence".

    You have egalitarian hope which will be met with horrific reality.
    I'm an elitist so my only focus is on quality.

    On immigration, I side with Enoch Powell's views as expressed in 1968. That is about the unsustainability of high immigration into the UK not about white supremacy.

  8. #108
    Trusted Member Traditionalist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    6,432

    Default

    This is very rich coming from you. The moronic sentences you posted on here not long ago, were so short and devoid of syllables or significance, I pondered for a time if you were responding in haiku.

    IIRC, Geoffrey Collier is or was a college lecturer - in Political and Economic History (I stand to be corrected, as we met 6 years ago - remember Geoffrey?!). It is why his responses on here - to serious discussion - are well worth reading. You will end up if not persuaded, at least better informed. Anyone would think, by the rude and personal way you attacked him, that you were a UKIP member (they don't like 'intellectuals'). And clearly, you just plain don't understand them; which figures.
    Very worrying but it explains why "Almost 90 per cent of the students could not name a single British prime minister from the 19th century."referring to a survey of history undergraduates carried out by Professor Derek Matthews at Cardiff University, Mr Gove said: "The survey asked them to name the British general at Waterloo, the monarch during the Armada, Brunel's profession, a single 19th century prime minister and the location of the Boer War.
    You may have noticed too that Collier likes to dish out an attempt at condescending abuse in every post, which doesn't really work when talking to some one with a far greater level of knowledge than yourself.



    However, what you've spewed out in post #83, regarding race / ethinicty and IQ levels, reallly took the biscuit. It was hiilarious, in a way. It is an ennervating and tedious trait for some on this forum, to copy and paste from Wikipedia (of all places!), tracts on subjects they know absolutely s0d all about, in an attempt to give themselves a 'ring' of authority. It has exactly the opposite effect, for reasons stated in previous posts. Wikipedia, for me, has as much authority as the Dandy or Beano.
    Wiki is not the source. I listed the source which was 6 books involving over 1000 people in the field on the subject.
    But you ignore that for political reasons.
    You need the races to be the same in every way do you not?

    There are many factors affecting indvidual IQ and many warnings about extrapolating that data on a racial basis. It has been theorised for some years that IQ may actually be a combination of nature and nurture; a rare juncture in the psychological sciences. I offer this extract from a fine piece of some years ago in the New York Times, which should summate adequately:

    "Dr. Flynn sees his data as a direct challenge to the theories of Arthur Jensen, an educational psychologist at the University of California at Berkeley, who has calculated that 80 percent of I.Q. is traceable to genetic differences, while only 20 percent is traceable to environment. The great malleability of I.Q. scores in a single generation, however, points to environment, rather than genes, as having a much larger influence.

    Dr. Neisser of Emory agrees. In his view, the low I.Q. scores and poor academic achievement of black children ''has little to do with their race or their genes: it is a consequence of the structure of society as a whole.
    ''

    I can identify with Dr. Ulric Neisser's comments, because I have heard both Dianne Abbott and David Lammy - as MPs - among many other commentators claim that, among British Caribbean youths, it is seen as undersirable, even suspicious and worst of all 'effiminate', to excel in any way scholasticallly at school. Academically advantaged children are the focus of the worst bullying, and I've heard a famous boxer admitting to this. It accounts for the "socially disadvantaged" tag being trotted out, at every opportunity by the political Left. A pox on their houses.
    Mmmm so you are you now suggesting Blacks are more violent and aggressive than the other races?

    Daniel Goleman's books are very readable, and rewarding. Also, in the test for British MENSA, apart from shapes, sequences and word associations, there was an additional test called the Culture Fair, "...designed to test non-verbal intelligence while minimizing cultural or educational biases." The Culture Fair was invented, as was an IQ calculation scale, by 'Brummie'-born psychologist Raymond Cattell.
    Strange how East Asians are top in IQ tests designed by Europeans isnt it?

  9. #109
    Trusted Member Traditionalist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    6,432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CB100 View Post
    Frankly, I'm rather indifferent on the issue so I couldn't raise the enthusiasm to pretend.



    You have information but then you have your prejudices superimposed over it.

    And since we had our earlier economic discussion about your view that you could eliminate the entire UK budget deficit in 2 years, you will have to forgive me if I'm not convinced by your "evidence".



    I'm an elitist so my only focus is on quality.

    On immigration, I side with Enoch Powell's views as expressed in 1968. That is about the unsustainability of high immigration into the UK not about white supremacy.
    Who mentioned white supremacy?
    The data shows East Asians have the highest IQ.

  10. #110
    Trusted Member Steve Morson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Magnificent Midlands
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traditionalist View Post
    But she is a racist and you dont like racists right?
    Correct. What difference does that make?
    Steve

Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •