Cummings' Jobs Advert
Discussion
DeepEnd said:
s2art said:
I think you are missing the point. Producing peer reviewed academic work wasnt Cummins selection criteria. He was selected because of his super-predictor performance.
And he failed to predict brexit.....s2art said:
longblackcoat said:
s2art said:
longblackcoat said:
.
If anyone can point me to any published, peer-reviewed work he's produced I'd be grateful - in the absence of this I'll continue to think of him as a kind of UK equivalent to Stephen Miller.
I think you are missing the point. Producing peer reviewed academic work wasnt Cummins selection criteria. He was selected because of his super-predictor performance.If anyone can point me to any published, peer-reviewed work he's produced I'd be grateful - in the absence of this I'll continue to think of him as a kind of UK equivalent to Stephen Miller.
El stovey said:
Yeah but you’re missing the nuance/comprehension. 
If you look as hard as the apologists have, you might be able to see something to make him look less bad. Hope they’ll all be aplying the same levels ofnothing to see here nuance/comprehension when someone they don’t support says something repellent.
I think you're being a little harsh there to be fair.If you look as hard as the apologists have, you might be able to see something to make him look less bad. Hope they’ll all be aplying the same levels of
They have made it very clear that they're only in favour of the good eugenics.
longblackcoat said:
s2art said:
longblackcoat said:
.
If anyone can point me to any published, peer-reviewed work he's produced I'd be grateful - in the absence of this I'll continue to think of him as a kind of UK equivalent to Stephen Miller.
I think you are missing the point. Producing peer reviewed academic work wasnt Cummins selection criteria. He was selected because of his super-predictor performance.If anyone can point me to any published, peer-reviewed work he's produced I'd be grateful - in the absence of this I'll continue to think of him as a kind of UK equivalent to Stephen Miller.
There’s a good article here about super forecasters. It doesn’t cover what’s his name but touches on the methodology and what’s involved. Looks like it’s about being open minded and applying probability to events but not specifically based on knowledge of the subject.
Originally I thought fair enough what’s wrong with having a superforecaster with dodgy views on eugenics or women, he’s just a forecaster.
Really though, does number 10 want to be associated with these views? and who’s to say that he won’t end up being able to apply these views or influence policies, based on poor science into helping create a poor science led political ideology that’s a bit racist and lacking in morality? Yes it’s about perception also but should people like that really be that close to number 10?
longblackcoat said:
s2art said:
longblackcoat said:
s2art said:
longblackcoat said:
.
If anyone can point me to any published, peer-reviewed work he's produced I'd be grateful - in the absence of this I'll continue to think of him as a kind of UK equivalent to Stephen Miller.
I think you are missing the point. Producing peer reviewed academic work wasnt Cummins selection criteria. He was selected because of his super-predictor performance.If anyone can point me to any published, peer-reviewed work he's produced I'd be grateful - in the absence of this I'll continue to think of him as a kind of UK equivalent to Stephen Miller.
Sway said:
Why would you want to perpetuate seemingly now preventable illnesses such as breast cancer or sickle cell anemia?
I wouldn't but I tend to leave that sort of thing to doctors and medical professionals rather than special advisers who so far as I know have no medical expertise.Strange chap to go to bat for but I guess it takes all sorts.
DeepEnd said:
He admitted he got brexit wrong in the earier linked article.
The superforecasters put leave at 23% in June 2016.....which is pretty dismal really.
Hell, I am a Brexiteer and even at my most optimistic thought it touch and go. Even Farage wobbled. So I dont put much weight on that, rather look at a range of predictions.The superforecasters put leave at 23% in June 2016.....which is pretty dismal really.
s2art said:
DeepEnd said:
He admitted he got brexit wrong in the earier linked article.
The superforecasters put leave at 23% in June 2016.....which is pretty dismal really.
Hell, I am a Brexiteer and even at my most optimistic thought it touch and go. Even Farage wobbled. So I dont put much weight on that, rather look at a range of predictions.The superforecasters put leave at 23% in June 2016.....which is pretty dismal really.
Cummings is clever but look at his blog - he’s just an amateur in many topics, and out of his depth.
DeepEnd said:
He admitted he got brexit wrong in the earier linked article.
The superforecasters put leave at 23% in June 2016.....which is pretty dismal really.
Isn’t that super forecasters in general?The superforecasters put leave at 23% in June 2016.....which is pretty dismal really.
I definitely read an interview yesterday with him about super forecasting and his scores and he said himself he got brexit wrong. I can’t find it now though.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: I wouldn't but I tend to leave that sort of thing to doctors and medical professionals rather than special advisers who so far as I know have no medical expertise.
Strange chap to go to bat for but I guess it takes all sorts.
Because in gene editing there is a big political angle, hence it was recently a debate in the House of Lords.fStrange chap to go to bat for but I guess it takes all sorts.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Sway said:
Why would you want to perpetuate seemingly now preventable illnesses such as breast cancer or sickle cell anemia?
I wouldn't but I tend to leave that sort of thing to doctors and medical professionals rather than special advisers who so far as I know have no medical expertise.Strange chap to go to bat for but I guess it takes all sorts.
However, it is by definition "eugenics", which you seem by your comments to think is beyond the pale in any circumstances.
s2art said:
DeepEnd said:
He admitted he got brexit wrong in the earier linked article.
The superforecasters put leave at 23% in June 2016.....which is pretty dismal really.
Hell, I am a Brexiteer and even at my most optimistic thought it touch and go. Even Farage wobbled. So I dont put much weight on that, rather look at a range of predictions.The superforecasters put leave at 23% in June 2016.....which is pretty dismal really.
I think the comments are about someone asking for evidence of his abilities in forecasting that led him to be hired in the first place.
DeepEnd said:
s2art said:
DeepEnd said:
He admitted he got brexit wrong in the earier linked article.
The superforecasters put leave at 23% in June 2016.....which is pretty dismal really.
Hell, I am a Brexiteer and even at my most optimistic thought it touch and go. Even Farage wobbled. So I dont put much weight on that, rather look at a range of predictions.The superforecasters put leave at 23% in June 2016.....which is pretty dismal really.
Cummings is clever but look at his blog - he’s just an amateur in many topics, and out of his depth.
You cant draw a trend from a single datum point. Regarding amateurs, I would class most politicians as amateurs, so general good judgement is desirable.
El stovey said:
DeepEnd said:
He admitted he got brexit wrong in the earier linked article.
The superforecasters put leave at 23% in June 2016.....which is pretty dismal really.
Isn’t that super forecasters in general?The superforecasters put leave at 23% in June 2016.....which is pretty dismal really.
I definitely read an interview yesterday with him about super forecasting and his scores and he said himself he got brexit wrong. I can’t find it now though.
Funny to think the superforecasters succumbed to “group think”.
Sway said:
He didn't "bat for" CRISPR techniques. Nor did he suggest sterilisation as some are repeatedly claiming, nor killing people in a Nazi fashion.
However, it is by definition "eugenics", which you seem by your comments to think is beyond the pale in any circumstances.
I think you have to be very careful whether that's an avenue to go down yes.However, it is by definition "eugenics", which you seem by your comments to think is beyond the pale in any circumstances.
I think Adam Rutherford said similar when this story came out.
I'm more comfortable with geneticists and people who are qualified to do so discussing it than someone who by sheer coincidence seems to have an interest in eugenics and whether certain races are more intelligent than others and compulsory contraception to prevent creating an "underclass".
Kwasi Kwarteng seems to have summed it up quite nicely when he said his comments were “racist, offensive and objectionable”.
Now personally I think Kwarteng looked a right prat with some of the things he's said in the past but it's hard to disagree with him on that one.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff