#11 - Kopitar Prefers Amps That Go to Eleven

[dekedangle_rpf_mod]

This is the eleventh post of Deke Dangle RPF Anon, a community for all your ice hockey anon meme needs.

THE RULES

1. Mods retain the right to delete, freeze, and/or screen threads and comments.
2. Meme rules do not require warnings.
3. Respect flock. Do not repost or share information from private tumblrs, locked twitter accounts, flocked LJ posts, etc.
4. No linking fans to their real life identities.
5. No looks bashing or body shaming. This applies to players and people associated with those players and their clubs, as well as fellow fans.
6. No embedded music.
7. No embedded images.
8. No spamming the meme, whether through repeated comments or other means.

Meme rules do not require spoiler cuts. However, this layout does allow for them. Any of the following tags will create a spoiler cut when closed: <div cut>, <span cut>, <font cut>, <font color="white">

Threaded View
Flat View
Top-Level Comment View

Next post opens at 5,000 comments.

Comments

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

And not only is she refusing to make a claim until we know "all" of the evidence (a phrase that I find troubling in a legal/criminal case context), but she's also deliberately obfuscating the evidence we do have. She's the one who was saying on stickhandled that grand juries always do what the prosecutor wants and that the prosecutor is always seeking an indictment. What is scientific about looking at a system as complex as the US justice system and concluding it always works perfectly?!?!?!

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

What is scientific about looking at a system as complex as the US justice system and concluding it always works perfectly?!?!?!

A-freaking-greed. The idea of seeing things through the lens of science needs to be understanding that science isn't everything, and that there is a role for other analyses as well. The CSI issue in prosecuting cases is pretty well-known - people suddenly want a lot more physical evidence than they have in the past while simultaneously misunderstanding that there can never be a 100 percent likelihood of DNA match, just a 99.9999999 percent likelihood of match, and so the shadow of a doubt doesn't actually live in that very small fraction of a percent.

Also, the notion that science precludes understanding other forces and systems - racism, classism, sexism, etc. - is, well, ahahahahaha. No.

OK, I didn't mean to get my blood up on a weekend, so, let's just agree to agree on this. Glad that there are other reasonable hockey nonnies.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

SA
*needs to be couched in understanding that science. Also, I had a subject-verb agreement issue in the previous post. Sigh, I swear I can write in English.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

Evolutionary psychology is living proof that people will gleefully couch their racism, classism, and sexism in the trappings of science in the attempt to legitimatize them.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

Well, yes, but that's the point. Science isn't absent those things, and seeing things through the lens of science doesn't mean you're not also participating in an -ist system. Also, fuck evolutionary psychology.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

Nah I was backing you up, there. A certain type of person will attempt to faux-vulcan their biases, like fannishtalk is doing, and that's best exemplified through the execrable practice that is evolutionary psychology.

fannishtalk wouldn't be going through these hoops if it was an athlete she didn't like and write about accused, because she wouldn't have any stock with them. She doesn't have a problem with how prosecution and culpability are handled when athletes are alleged of rape, she has a problem with Patrick Kane being alleged of rape. That she pretends her justifications are because she's trying to look at it through the ~wider lense~ of scientific accuracy rather than because she doesn't want Kane to be a rapist is bullshit.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

FAUX-VULCAN - Yes! That is an excellent way to put it. I get the same vibe from the GG bros who are like, oh, facts and science and rationality, rather than seeing their own inherent myopic biased view of the world. She sounds like a case of confirmation bias run amok.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Agreed. True scientists acknowledge their bias and take steps to counteract it, such as random allocation (with allocation concealment) and double-blinding.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

As a research psychologist, I can assure you that evolutionary psychology is not considered science in the field.

/tangent

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

Good to hear! Evolutionary psychology studies are fucking GREAT ways to delve into the particular psychology of the person behind doing the study and worth jack shit for else.

I'm always down to talk shit on evolutionary psychology. F U C K it.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

While I have heard that, it's unfortunately often both taught without nuance at an undergrad level and perpetuated by journalists who don't know better than to disregard some evopsych idiot's new book. I took a few psych courses at a university that was accredited by the APA and while the professor went into criticisms of it, there was a hesitation to portray it as completely invalid. I assume that happens at a higher level, but sadly that doesn't stop a million non-professionals from thinking it's legit. :(

/a nonny with a degree in a different science

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, there's unfortunately a lot of crap being taught to undergrads. The thing about evolutionary psych is that it can't be refuted by experiment (unlike biological evolution, which has been shown to operate under shorter time frames).

If you can't test the null hypothesis, it's not science. My graduate advisor called evolutionary psych "Just So Stories," which I think is pretty apt.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

Indeed. I just wish the standard for teaching undergrads was different, because in general there are more people who either did undergrad psych or rely on journalism than there are actual professionals. :(