PartSkeptic’s Thread for Predictions and Other Matters of Interest

[abaddon]

Keep reading. I read your post after my post just before this one.

Your reaction of shooting from the lip is predictable by anyone of us.

I have told you how I operate. I do an initial skim. A quick analysis to gauge the effort required.

When I did the IQ test it was what I did first. Skim and strategize how to tackle the test. I did not jump to the first question and then hammer away at getting the answer. If I did not get an immediate obvious answer I went to the next question. My second pass was more studied but it took about 4 or 5 iterations and I spent a fair amount of time on the hardest question right at the end.

As Pixel42 points out. Intelligence also comes with experience. One has to know how to use it.

I disregard junk - such as those that who repeat stuff and are irrelevant. So far your link is not junk and I am giving it due process.

Oh I know it is not junk because I have the professional qualifications to accurately assess it.

You do not. Any assessment you make will therefore be useless.

 

[Pixel42]

When I did the IQ test it was what I did first. Skim and strategize how to tackle the test. I did not jump to the first question and then hammer away at getting the answer. If I did not get an immediate obvious answer I went to the next question. My second pass was more studied but it took about 4 or 5 iterations and I spent a fair amount of time on the hardest question right at the end.

When I took the Mensa entrance IQ test I just did it, no strategizing seemed required. (152, in case you were wondering).

I'd just moved to a new area and it seemed like a good way of meeting interesting people, but I let my membership lapse after a year. There were no nearby groups so all I got out of it was the magazine, which seemed to be written by and for wankers.

 

[abaddon]

When I took the Mensa entrance IQ test I just did it, no strategizing seemed required. (152, in case you were wondering).

I'd just moved to a new area and it seemed like a good way of meeting interesting people, but I let my membership lapse after a year. There were no nearby groups so all I got out of it was the magazine, which seemed to be written by and for wankers.

Interesting. Never been a member, but I have heard they are a bunch of elitist tossers. No idea how true that is.
I did the test and got 156. So I beat you by four and I have no idea if that even means anything in the real world.

I am pretty sure that within my skill set, I could easily slap the snot out of you. I am equally certain that within your skill set, you would slap seven shades out of me.

So what do those numbers really mean realistically?

Not much, I think.

 

[tusenfem]

So what is the conclusion at this early stage. The authors have indicated harm in their early papers and have established their credential. Simko does a nice job on detail and explanation.

The question is: Have they been influenced to do this review in which they acknowledge it is too early to tell. The the Telco do their spin saying "See - no harm."

Hahaha, way to do science! Just only select the authors that are "untainted" because they wrote something you agree with.

 

[Pixel42]

At this point I wonder why Abaddon used this review. It seems to be indicating just what the anti-emf scientists are warning about - which is that an untested technology is about to be unleashed on the world in additions to the existing harmful technology.

I imagine he chose it for the same reason I picked out the one I did from the list I got when I searched pubmed - it's a metastudy, and hence gives a better picture of the current state of this area of research than any single paper would do.

I note your assumption that abaddon cherry picked this link in support of a particular, predetermined, position, and point out that this is simply projection on your part.

 

[Mojo]

Interesting. Never been a member, but I have heard they are a bunch of elitist tossers. No idea how true that is.
I did the test and got 156. So I beat you by four and I have no idea if that even means anything in the real world.

It means that you’re (both) pretty good at doing IQ tests.

 

[bruto]

Sidetracking a little, I never tried the Mensa test nor did I ever bother to join Mensa. I took the GRE back in 1967, and my score more than qualified me for Mensa without their test. So, I think, did an earlier SAT, but I never bothered to check. I knew a couple of Mensa members back in college days, and yes, they were arrogant tossers.

But I have to throw in one small comment in PS's favor, whether or not it's relevant to any of the nonsense he spouts here. The technique for taking such tests has some validity. Tests such as the SAT and GRE are calculated, in part, on the presumption that you will start at the beginning and never quite finish. If you break it up and skim first, you may do better. I always did pretty well on such tests, because I would first go through them and do the easiest answers right to the end. Then I'd go back and do the ones that I felt I could do, but that would take some time. After that I'd go back and do the really tough ones, including those I might have to guess.

It worked pretty well. As far back as third grade in the 1950's, we had the "Iowa Tests" every year in school, and they were in the same pattern. One of the great lessons I learned was in third grade. In that pre-computer age the teachers themselves scored the test using a template over the answer sheet. When the teacher saw an absolutely horrible result on mine, she was unconvinced that I was that stupid, and moved the template a space. I had lost count and filled in the wrong boxes. She cut me some slack, and told me what had happened, and for ever after, I made sure to check that I had not accidentally skipped to the wrong line on the answer sheet. If you check the numbers every five or ten questions, you always have time for corrections. I suspect that some people don't do this, and end up with bad scores simply because of bad technique.

OK, now back to the nonsense. Remember, PS, that skimming first is only valid if you then go back and finish the job!

 

[Hans]

Hahaha, way to do science! Just only select the authors that are "untainted" because they wrote something you agree with.

It does speed up the process for fully self -deluding one's self. Other ways might take years.

 

[EHocking]

I know, its just that we have two very certain doom prophets both claiming to certainly know the future who both base their predictions on cognitive bias and their own sense of superiority over the rest of us for seeing the pattern noone else sees.
However as they are contradicting each other I thought it would be interesting to point them out to each other. (Ok, so I'm a bit bored in lockdown)

At least Gret Thunberg has given us 8-11 years.
I’m going with her numbers.

 

[abaddon]

It means that you’re (both) pretty good at doing IQ tests.

Ha. Likely true. Still not sure what utility such a metric actually has.

 

[abaddon]

Sidetracking a little, I never tried the Mensa test nor did I ever bother to join Mensa. I took the GRE back in 1967, and my score more than qualified me for Mensa without their test. So, I think, did an earlier SAT, but I never bothered to check. I knew a couple of Mensa members back in college days, and yes, they were arrogant tossers.

But I have to throw in one small comment in PS's favor, whether or not it's relevant to any of the nonsense he spouts here. The technique for taking such tests has some validity. Tests such as the SAT and GRE are calculated, in part, on the presumption that you will start at the beginning and never quite finish. If you break it up and skim first, you may do better. I always did pretty well on such tests, because I would first go through them and do the easiest answers right to the end. Then I'd go back and do the ones that I felt I could do, but that would take some time. After that I'd go back and do the really tough ones, including those I might have to guess.

It worked pretty well. As far back as third grade in the 1950's, we had the "Iowa Tests" every year in school, and they were in the same pattern. One of the great lessons I learned was in third grade. In that pre-computer age the teachers themselves scored the test using a template over the answer sheet. When the teacher saw an absolutely horrible result on mine, she was unconvinced that I was that stupid, and moved the template a space. I had lost count and filled in the wrong boxes. She cut me some slack, and told me what had happened, and for ever after, I made sure to check that I had not accidentally skipped to the wrong line on the answer sheet. If you check the numbers every five or ten questions, you always have time for corrections. I suspect that some people don't do this, and end up with bad scores simply because of bad technique.

OK, now back to the nonsense. Remember, PS, that skimming first is only valid if you then go back and finish the job!

It's a long time since I sat such a test, but I used a "3 pass" methodology.

Pass 1: Low hanging fruit. Skim all the questions fast. Only answer those questions for which you readily have the answer. Any uncertainty means skip it for now.

Pass 2: The ones you can work out. These take a little more time, but you know you can figure them out. That's OK because you already have pass 1 in the bag and the time pressure is reduced.

Pass 3: This is the catch all for any outstanding unanswered questions. If you can work it out, great. If not, simply guess some answer before the time allowed elapses.

This is what provokes me to question the validity of such tests. If a simple iterative technique can drastically alter ones score, what exactly is being measured?

 

[bruto]

It's a long time since I sat such a test, but I used a "3 pass" methodology.

Pass 1: Low hanging fruit. Skim all the questions fast. Only answer those questions for which you readily have the answer. Any uncertainty means skip it for now.

Pass 2: The ones you can work out. These take a little more time, but you know you can figure them out. That's OK because you already have pass 1 in the bag and the time pressure is reduced.

Pass 3: This is the catch all for any outstanding unanswered questions. If you can work it out, great. If not, simply guess some answer before the time allowed elapses.

This is what provokes me to question the validity of such tests. If a simple iterative technique can drastically alter ones score, what exactly is being measured?

Yes, I did the same triage. I don't recall that anyone ever suggested it. So perhaps there is a validity to those tests after all, if there's some intelligence involved in figuring out how to take them. It's pretty clear most did not, given the volume of groans when the proctor said "pencils down," and the grumbling about not being able to finish. I didn't exactly finish either, but I'd always gotten to the end at least once.

I suspect that the iterative technique can elevate a score up to a point, but not if you actually don't know the answers. It probably saved me from utterly bombing the math portion but I never did very well.

But you're right of course that while one can suppose that a good score means at least something, a bad one can mean anything from an actual lousy student to a person who doesn't do well on that kind of test, or someone who just screwed up the answer sheet.

I'm reminded of a notorious case recently (I think there was a thread on it here) about a student who got a poor score, retook the test and got a good score, and was disqualified over the difference. Of course some of the issue is presumably that she crammed and learned some tricks, but it's hubris on the part of the testers to presume that a huge variation can't just be a matter of chance, or attitude, or simply not making huge mistakes like putting the answers in the wrong spaces.

 

[erlando]

When I did the IQ test it was what I did first. Skim and strategize how to tackle the test. I did not jump to the first question and then hammer away at getting the answer. If I did not get an immediate obvious answer I went to the next question. My second pass was more studied but it took about 4 or 5 iterations and I spent a fair amount of time on the hardest question right at the end.

IQ tests mean nothing. They have no practical use in the real world and the result really only "matters" at Mensa meetings. At best they measure a person's ability to solve puzzles. At worst they are random.

I maxed out the initial Mensa test and was invited to a second test to establish my score more precisely than ">155". I didn't go. There was no point.

I took it from the top, skipped questions that was not immediately obvious (most were to be frank), and circled back to the ones I skipped at first. I spent the last 5 minutes building stick men with pencils.

 

[PartSkeptic]

I imagine he chose it for the same reason I picked out the one I did from the list I got when I searched pubmed - it's a metastudy, and hence gives a better picture of the current state of this area of research than any single paper would do.

I note your assumption that abaddon cherry picked this link in support of a particular, predetermined, position, and point out that this is simply projection on your part.

Where do I criticize and assume that the paper was cherry picked? You are an intelligent person. or are you misreading something I wrote.

I was careful to take a neutral position, although my initial skimming was informed by my knowledge of the industry.

Before I proceeded to look deeper into the paper I looked at various anti-emf sites that tout the latest research. I could not find much except reviews and opinion.

I agree that choosing a review was a good way to go. And I do not think that the authors are biased one way or the other. I do think that the Telcos were aware of the fact that there are NO studies which are clear in terms of MMW effects, and certainly no epidemiological studies other than anecdotal, and were happy to get the result they funded.

If I was a Telco executive I would want such a "honest" study so that the company would have "plausible deniability" in investing in and expanding the 5G network.

The problem is that 5G requires an equally massive investment in 4G and other MW technologies, and these DO have studies showing harm. When I suggested that we each choose a paper, I was going for the science showing harm in these areas.

So far the alarm about 5G is that it is unknown and untested, and that it is in the same position of 2G, 3G and 4G were at the time they were being rolled out.

Let me give an example which would be difficult to prove in a study but should be given consideration as a potential concern. The penetration of the 6 to 60 Ghz waves would be shallower that the 0.8 to 2.5 Ghz and we could consider it to be a skin effect. The review paper looks at skin studies.

Where would one find corona viruses as they are passed from one creature or human to the other. On the surface where they have massive exposure. The possibility for mutation is greatly increased. How exposed are our nasal and throat passages to MMW? Would the cells on the surfaces be affected? It is likely. You will agree that the human race is facing exponential increases in viral threats due to over-population.

The activation of the Wuhan 5G network a month or two before the corona virus start could be seen as coincidence. Some say God works using coincidence. It could be seen as a warning. But that is my opinion.

Check the documentary on Netflix called "Corona Virus explained".

 

[PartSkeptic]

It's a long time since I sat such a test, but I used a "3 pass" methodology.

Pass 1: Low hanging fruit. Skim all the questions fast. Only answer those questions for which you readily have the answer. Any uncertainty means skip it for now.

Pass 2: The ones you can work out. These take a little more time, but you know you can figure them out. That's OK because you already have pass 1 in the bag and the time pressure is reduced.

Pass 3: This is the catch all for any outstanding unanswered questions. If you can work it out, great. If not, simply guess some answer before the time allowed elapses.

This is what provokes me to question the validity of such tests. If a simple iterative technique can drastically alter ones score, what exactly is being measured?

You have "qualified" yourself as intelligent. Intelligent people know that tests are used throughout life and that the result is important. I had a widely varied career and I did some part-time lecturing to people wanting to qualify as a professional engineer, and to some Technikon students studying C++. One of the things I taught them was exam technique.

When I was in my early twenties I would have just started at the beginning and used sheer brain power. But when I was 50 I had the advantage of experience.

I also had the advantage of doing puzzles and tests similar to IQ tests. It is known that one can study IQ tests and thus prepare. If getting high marks is important then one does so. High marks for myself were like unnecessary work.

 

[PartSkeptic]

I am going to give this articles as my "study" of the harm. The reason is that it is an excellent and accurate summary of the risks of electrsmog. I know the references and can access them for anyone who is serious about wanting to know.

This article is cause for concern. The industry knows the harm and is covering up.

https://www.thenation.com/article/a...cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/

...Outside critics soon came to suspect that Carlo would be the front man for an industry whitewash. They cited his dispute with Henry Lai, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Washington, over a study that Lai had conducted examining whether cell-phone radiation could damage DNA.

...Carlo sent letters to each of the industry’s chieftains on October 7, 1999, reiterating that the WTR’s research had found the following: “The risk of rare neuro-epithelial tumors on the outside of the brain was more than doubled…in cell phone users”; there was an apparent “correlation between brain tumors occurring on the right side of the head and the use of the phone on the right side of the head”; and “the ability of radiation from a phone’s antenna to cause functional genetic damage [was] definitely positive….”

...Carlo’s story underscores the need for caution, however, particularly since it evokes eerie parallels with two of the most notorious cases of corporate deception on record: the campaigns by the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries to obscure the dangers of smoking and climate change, respectively. Just as tobacco executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1960s) that smoking was deadly, and fossil-fuel executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1980s) that burning oil, gas, and coal would cause a “catastrophic” temperature rise, so Carlo’s testimony reveals that wireless executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1990s) that cell phones could cause cancer and genetic damage.

...Central to keeping the scientific argument going is making it appear that not all scientists agree. Again like the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries, the wireless industry has “war gamed” science, as a Motorola internal memo in 1994 phrased it. War-gaming science involves playing offense as well as defense: funding studies friendly to the industry while attacking studies that raise questions; placing industry-friendly experts on advisory bodies like the World Health Organization; and seeking to discredit scientists whose views depart from the industry’s.

...When Henry Lai, the professor whom Carlo tried to get fired, analyzed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2005, he learned that 56 percent found a biological effect from cell-phone radiation and 44 percent did not; the scientific community apparently was split. But when Lai recategorized the studies according to their funding sources, a different picture emerged: 67 percent of the independently funded studies found a biological effect, while a mere 28 percent of the industry-funded studies did.

...The Nation has not been able to find a single insurance company willing to sell a product-liability policy that covered cell-phone radiation.

...The Internet of Things will require augmenting today’s 4G technology with 5G, thus “massively increasing” the general population’s exposure to radiation, according to a petition signed by 236 scientists worldwide who have published more than 2,000 peer-reviewed studies and represent “a significant portion of the credentialed scientists in the radiation research field,”

...Lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does not mean the technology is safe, yet the wireless industry has succeeded in selling this logical fallacy to the world.

...Wireless radiation has been shown to damage the blood-brain barrier, a vital defense mechanism that shields the brain from carcinogenic chemicals elsewhere in the body (resulting, for example, from secondhand cigarette smoke). Wireless radiation has also been shown to interfere with DNA replication, a proven progenitor of cancer.

...To be sure, the industry could not have been pleased with some of the Interphone study’s conclusions. The study found that the heaviest cell-phone users were 80 percent more likely to develop glioma. (The initial finding of 40 percent was increased to 80 to correct for selection bias.)

 

[PartSkeptic]

I would add that I have some experience of "corporate think".

The company I worked for in SA when I was in my 20s got a large contract for cable installation at a shipping port. I was tasked with approving the installation. The cables ALL failed. I went to a drum of cable and it failed as well. I cut off a length and discovered it was badly made.

I was asked to attend a top level meeting and to present my findings. After 3 minutes, the CEO cut me off and said they had no argument with my findings. The problem was not the testing but how to get the customer to accept the cable.

In hindsight I reckon they got the contract by having the customer put a requirement for water immersion in, and then cheated on the manufacture. When they got caught they had the answer. That the cable tunnels would never be subjected to floods and water ingress.

This same Swedish company got around government regulation in "clever" ways. No company could have more than 49 percent foreign ownership. So they set up 3 domestic companies and had 49% ownership in each. Then each owned 51 percent of one of the others in a ring of A to B to C to A.

The same company was able to claim "Made in the USA" in Swedish products by importing the goods and putting a Made in USA sticker on the goods. The accounting showed that this "value added" (the label) was more than 50% the cost of the goods to be sold.

And yet posters here are not skeptics when it comes to accepting the corporate spin.

 

[Pixel42]

Where do I criticize and assume that the paper was cherry picked?

You wondered why abaddon chose a paper which you perceive to be supporting your position, so you were clearly expecting it to support what you assume to be his.

 

[RedStapler]

And yet posters here are not skeptics when it comes to accepting the corporate spin.

Great "logic": "Some company was bad 40 years ago therefore all companies are bad till eternity especially the ones I (and only I) point to."

 

[abaddon]

You wondered why abaddon chose a paper which you perceive to be supporting your position, so you were clearly expecting it to support what you assume to be his.

My position is pretty straightforward. The research and hence the evidence is simply not there to support the kind of wild claims made by PS.

While it is remotely possible that there exists some subset of humankind which is unexpectedly sensitive to NIR (or any species really) such effect has never been demonstrated consistently. Correlation is not causation.

To illustrate, consider the daily fail list of claims about what causes cancer.

http://thetownend.com/index.php?topic=38270.0;wap2

Eliminate all of those list items from your own life and consider where you end up.