I’m slogging through my copy. Easy to read, but I am even more concerned over Mike’s analysis. I’m still working on the first couple of chapters, but for a conservative it is rife with loaded commentary and bias confirmation statistics.
Perhaps if the first few chapters were less biased and presented more equally, they would have been more believable. As it is written, it appears that the early findings were just confirmation of his existing bias. As an example, one thought I had consistently when he compared per capita GDP results was where are the various Presidents’ GDP outcomes relationships to recessions?
You have been here at AB long enough to know it was a ideological book. I just think he should have went full bore that way. To many assumptions that don’t meet the laugh test, so why not make it an anti-republican screed. You’ll get more sales and invited to the right (well left) parties!
As to the “bias” accusation, well, that’s the same story CoRev told all the way through the development of the book in posts here, in a huge demonstration of the pot calling the kettle, the dish towel, the runcible spoon and the vanilla ice cream black. So who cares?
Since I have yet to get a response to my repeated, tearful, pleading “Kindle?” comments, I don’t have a view of the atmospherics of the text. I am, however, fairly familiar by not with the data being presented. The data show what they show. Honest people can disagree regarding details, and dishonest people can keep insisting that there is some circumstance in every period that makes the data useless, but the data show what they show.
By the way, micro fans, Presimetrics is available for $16.47 through Amazon, unless you buy it “new” in which case you can have one for $16.31, or “used” in which case you can have it for $39.69. Think I’m gonna pass on that seductive, new-book smell and get me one of those used ones to save some money.
Buff said: “…so why not make it an anti-republican screed.” He’s awfully close at this point in my reading.
KH, yup a book doesn’t make that much difference in mind changing, when it just repeats the original screed, but is more blatantly biased. I’m still waiting for that Ah hah moment.
BTW, Buff, you comment on the assumptions is graphically correct. I can’t remember which topic it was, but he has too little support for one of his early positions. While reading his findings, I was thinking how did he get here? Oh well, read it and enjoy.
BTW, Buff, your comment on the assumptions is graphically correct. I can’t remember which topic it was, but he has too little support for one of his early positions. While reading his findings, I was thinking how did he get here? Oh well, read it and enjoy.
As to the “bias” accusation, well, that’s the same story CoRev told all the way through the development of the book in posts here, in a huge demonstration of the pot calling the kettle, the dish towel, the runcible spoon and the vanilla ice cream black. So who cares?
Since I have yet to get a response to my repeated, tearful, pleading “Kindle?” comments, I don’t have a view of the atmospherics of the text. I am, however, fairly familiar by now with the data being presented. The data show what they show. Honest people can disagree regarding details, and dishonest people can keep insisting that there is some circumstance in every period that makes the data useless, but the data show what they show.
I don’t know if Mike is available as he might be sleeping now and doing 1 AM and 3 AM feedings, but no plan to ‘kindle’ has been mentioned by the publisher according to Mike.
I’m slogging through my copy. Easy to read, but I am even more concerned over Mike’s analysis. I’m still working on the first couple of chapters, but for a conservative it is rife with loaded commentary and bias confirmation statistics.
Perhaps if the first few chapters were less biased and presented more equally, they would have been more believable. As it is written, it appears that the early findings were just confirmation of his existing bias. As an example, one thought I had consistently when he compared per capita GDP results was where are the various Presidents’ GDP outcomes relationships to recessions?
Will continue reading.
YEA!!! I haven’t got mine yet. Maybe today.
Congratulations again cactus!!!
CoRev,
You have been here at AB long enough to know it was a ideological book. I just think he should have went full bore that way. To many assumptions that don’t meet the laugh test, so why not make it an anti-republican screed. You’ll get more sales and invited to the right (well left) parties!
Islam will change
Kindle?
As to the “bias” accusation, well, that’s the same story CoRev told all the way through the development of the book in posts here, in a huge demonstration of the pot calling the kettle, the dish towel, the runcible spoon and the vanilla ice cream black. So who cares?
Since I have yet to get a response to my repeated, tearful, pleading “Kindle?” comments, I don’t have a view of the atmospherics of the text. I am, however, fairly familiar by not with the data being presented. The data show what they show. Honest people can disagree regarding details, and dishonest people can keep insisting that there is some circumstance in every period that makes the data useless, but the data show what they show.
By the way, micro fans, Presimetrics is available for $16.47 through Amazon, unless you buy it “new” in which case you can have one for $16.31, or “used” in which case you can have it for $39.69. Think I’m gonna pass on that seductive, new-book smell and get me one of those used ones to save some money.
Buff said: “…so why not make it an anti-republican screed.” He’s awfully close at this point in my reading.
KH, yup a book doesn’t make that much difference in mind changing, when it just repeats the original screed, but is more blatantly biased. I’m still waiting for that Ah hah moment.
BTW, Buff, you comment on the assumptions is graphically correct. I can’t remember which topic it was, but he has too little support for one of his early positions. While reading his findings, I was thinking how did he get here? Oh well, read it and enjoy.
For Mike, as I said it’s a good and easy read.
BTW, Buff, your comment on the assumptions is graphically correct. I can’t remember which topic it was, but he has too little support for one of his early positions. While reading his findings, I was thinking how did he get here? Oh well, read it and enjoy.
For Mike, as I said it’s a good and easy read.
Kindle?
As to the “bias” accusation, well, that’s the same story CoRev told all the way through the development of the book in posts here, in a huge demonstration of the pot calling the kettle, the dish towel, the runcible spoon and the vanilla ice cream black. So who cares?
Since I have yet to get a response to my repeated, tearful, pleading “Kindle?” comments, I don’t have a view of the atmospherics of the text. I am, however, fairly familiar by now with the data being presented. The data show what they show. Honest people can disagree regarding details, and dishonest people can keep insisting that there is some circumstance in every period that makes the data useless, but the data show what they show.
I don’t know if Mike is available as he might be sleeping now and doing 1 AM and 3 AM feedings, but no plan to ‘kindle’ has been mentioned by the publisher according to Mike.
Pg. 18, 24-25, 76, 271-272 to start.