Nope. Just understand the value of good research and how little anecdotal evidence is actually worth.

Yeah OK.

I remember being part of an evaluation group testing out a new firefighting nozzle developed by a guy without firefighting experience. He developed it as an alternative to the standard fog nozzle to prevent property loss from water damage.

Using the standard expansion ration of 1700:1 of steam from water droplets and the theory that smaller droplets means more surface area thus a far more rapid conversion to steam and quicker knockdown of a fire he used pressurized air to atomize smaller amounts of water. The scientific principle was sound as it was based upon tried and true figures, and in theory there is no reason why it shouldn't work. He had all the data and video from his tests using mockups of the typical room and contents of your standard residence. We were excited to try it for ourselves and secured the use of several older buildings being razed for a commercial development for the tests.

The excitement quickly changed to sheer terror when the perfect based upon data nozzle couldn't control a room and contents fire set in a real world structure. We quickly went from testing mode to rescue mode as we had to advance traditional hoselines in the structure to extract the test crew who was quickly overrun by fire because the great per the research nozzle was unable to overcome the relatively low BTUs of a standard room and contents fire that a large department like FDNY handles multiple times every day with nothing more than a 2.5 gallon pressurized water extinguisher. The lesson learned was that while in theory you should be able to put out more fire with less water if the water surface area is increased the real world reality is when fire is licking at your ass there is no substitute for gallons per minute.

As an aside the nozzle developer did find a market for his nozzle for fire control on ships and in similarly built non-combustible low fire load structures. In those situations enviromental conditions can be managed to make the situation as close to perfect for a successful result while the real world typical structure can't. On the typical fire front he fell for the same thing that most people in the fire service with primarily book learning with no real world experience fighting actual fires do and put his absolute trust in science and a formula and completely discounted the unaccounted for factors that are actually present in the real world.

So how many low income homes have you personally set foot in in your lifetime?

(02-11-2015 07:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Yeah OK.

I remember being part of an evaluation group testing out a new firefighting nozzle developed by a guy without firefighting experience. He developed it as an alternative to the standard fog nozzle to prevent property loss from water damage.

Using the standard expansion ration of 1700:1 of steam from water droplets and the theory that smaller droplets means more surface area thus a far more rapid conversion to steam and quicker knockdown of a fire he used pressurized air to atomize smaller amounts of water. The scientific principle was sound as it was based upon tried and true figures, and in theory there is no reason why it shouldn't work. He had all the data and video from his tests using mockups of the typical room and contents of your standard residence. We were excited to try it for ourselves and secured the use of several older buildings being razed for a commercial development for the tests.

The excitement quickly changed to sheer terror when the perfect based upon data nozzle couldn't control a room and contents fire set in a real world structure. We quickly went from testing mode to rescue mode as we had to advance traditional hoselines in the structure to extract the test crew who was quickly overrun by fire because the great per the research nozzle was unable to overcome the relatively low BTUs of a standard room and contents fire that a large department like FDNY handles multiple times every day with nothing more than a 2.5 gallon pressurized water extinguisher. The lesson learned was that while in theory you should be able to put out more fire with less water if the water surface area is increased the real world reality is when fire is licking at your ass there is no substitute for gallons per minute.

As an aside the nozzle developer did find a market for his nozzle for fire control on ships and in similarly built non-combustible low fire load structures. In those situations enviromental conditions can be managed to make the situation as close to perfect for a successful result while the real world typical structure can't. On the typical fire front he fell for the same thing that most people in the fire service with primarily book learning with no real world experience fighting actual fires do and put his absolute trust in science and a formula and completely discounted the unaccounted for factors that are actually present in the real world.

So how many low income homes have you personally set foot in in your lifetime?

Nothing that you said is relevant to this discussion in any way, shape, or form. You need to start learning how to make compelling arguments that are logically sound, because it's pretty clear you're out of practice with it. Stating more anecdotes as a response to my pointing out the inherent problems and uselessness of anecdotes doesn't work. This isn't Rush, you need to form coherent thoughts which make compelling arguments that are directly related to the subject matter at hand.

(02-11-2015 12:27 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 12:04 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 11:55 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote: Anecdotal is what people see with their own eyes - and it's not all that hard to find. Why should people ignore it when they have seen abuses of the system?

If you can't answer that yourself, you need to return your diploma.

The fact is, they shouldn't ignore it and should demand of their government that tax dollars be spent on welfare or whatever for that matter, as frugally as people do in their own household. Period. The fact that our government p!sses away just a ton of money is why they are currently running such a deficit. Private sector businesses that run that inefficiently go bankrupt.

What did you major in? Honest question because I can't imagine anyone in any heavily statistics or research based field actually stating this.

All together now, ANECDOTES ARE NOT DATA. You CANNOT use them if you're actually interested in making nationwide social policy. Why? Because of inherent sampling bias due to your geography/demographics, along with confirmation bias making you inherently more likely to notice and recollect those abusing the system than those quietly using their government assistance to help themselves get back onto their feet.

I never once claimed that anecdotes were data. People don't have to have data to form impressions, in fact, my bet is that the majority of people form opinions on what they actually see. Their opinions may or may not be erroneous.

Bottom line, when people see other people abusing the welfare system, it p!sses them off to know that their tax dollars are funding it. You claim that the abuse is just a small part of the total, however, anyone living where there is a very high percentage of folks on the dole can walk into a store or carry out and see the abuse happen.

(02-11-2015 07:36 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 12:27 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 12:04 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 11:55 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote: Anecdotal is what people see with their own eyes - and it's not all that hard to find. Why should people ignore it when they have seen abuses of the system?

If you can't answer that yourself, you need to return your diploma.

The fact is, they shouldn't ignore it and should demand of their government that tax dollars be spent on welfare or whatever for that matter, as frugally as people do in their own household. Period. The fact that our government p!sses away just a ton of money is why they are currently running such a deficit. Private sector businesses that run that inefficiently go bankrupt.

What did you major in? Honest question because I can't imagine anyone in any heavily statistics or research based field actually stating this.

All together now, ANECDOTES ARE NOT DATA. You CANNOT use them if you're actually interested in making nationwide social policy. Why? Because of inherent sampling bias due to your geography/demographics, along with confirmation bias making you inherently more likely to notice and recollect those abusing the system than those quietly using their government assistance to help themselves get back onto their feet.

I never once claimed that anecdotes were data. People don't have to have data to form impressions, in fact, my bet is that the majority of people form opinions on what they actually see. Their opinions may or may not be erroneous.

Bottom line, when people see other people abusing the welfare system, it p!sses them off to know that their tax dollars are funding it. You claim that the abuse is just a small part of the total, however, anyone living where there is a very high percentage of folks on the dole can walk into a store or carry out and see the abuse happen.

You want to know a secret? It pisses liberals off too, probably more than you realize. I DESPISE those who steal from welfare, because not only are they stealing, they're wantonly giving ammunition to those who have no real concern about the overall well-being of welfare recipients. We're not different there, I can promise you that.

The difference is, instead of just letting my most basic instinct guide my decision on broad social policy, I realize the limitations of my own experiences and understand the problems with relying on even personal anecdotes to make decisions like this. So instead of knee-jerking 'UGH I'VE SEEN XXX PEOPLE WHO I THINK WERE PROBABLY ABUSING WELFARE THEREFORE IT'S GOT TO GO!', I find the best research available on the actual rates of abuse and look at that as objectively as possible. It's part of being an educated adult, and I guess it's too much to ask the same of the people on this messageboard?

(02-11-2015 07:44 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 07:36 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 12:27 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 12:04 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 11:55 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  If you can't answer that yourself, you need to return your diploma.

The fact is, they shouldn't ignore it and should demand of their government that tax dollars be spent on welfare or whatever for that matter, as frugally as people do in their own household. Period. The fact that our government p!sses away just a ton of money is why they are currently running such a deficit. Private sector businesses that run that inefficiently go bankrupt.

What did you major in? Honest question because I can't imagine anyone in any heavily statistics or research based field actually stating this.
All together now, ANECDOTES ARE NOT DATA. You CANNOT use them if you're actually interested in making nationwide social policy. Why? Because of inherent sampling bias due to your geography/demographics, along with confirmation bias making you inherently more likely to notice and recollect those abusing the system than those quietly using their government assistance to help themselves get back onto their feet.

I never once claimed that anecdotes were data. People don't have to have data to form impressions, in fact, my bet is that the majority of people form opinions on what they actually see. Their opinions may or may not be erroneous.
Bottom line, when people see other people abusing the welfare system, it p!sses them off to know that their tax dollars are funding it. You claim that the abuse is just a small part of the total, however, anyone living where there is a very high percentage of folks on the dole can walk into a store or carry out and see the abuse happen.

You want to know a secret? It pisses liberals off too, probably more than you realize. I DESPISE those who steal from welfare, because not only are they stealing, they're wantonly giving ammunition to those who have no real concern about the overall well-being of welfare recipients. We're not different there, I can promise you that.
The difference is, instead of just letting my most basic instinct guide my decision on broad social policy, I realize the limitations of my own experiences and understand the problems with relying on even personal anecdotes to make decisions like this. So instead of knee-jerking 'UGH I'VE SEEN XXX PEOPLE WHO I THINK WERE PROBABLY ABUSING WELFARE THEREFORE IT'S GOT TO GO!', I find the best research available on the actual rates of abuse and look at that as objectively as possible. It's part of being an educated adult, and I guess it's too much to ask the same of the people on this messageboard?

The real abusers in the welfare system are not the people gaming the system at the bottom. The real abusers are
1) the legion of administrators and gate keepers who drive costs to ridiculous levels compared to the benefits paid to needy people, and
2) the legion of demagoguing politicians who systematically enact welfare programs in order to trap the poor in a dependency cycle where their votes can reliably be bought with the promise of additional handouts.

With a respect to 1), there's a reason why the top 3 counties in the US in terms of average household income, and 7 of the top 12, are in the DC metro area. And that reason is not because the funding of welfare programs is not going disproportionately large to useless bureaucrats and disproportionately small to actual needy people.

With respect to 2), keep them dumb, keep them poor, and keep them voting democrat.

(02-11-2015 07:44 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 07:36 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 12:27 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 12:04 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 11:55 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  If you can't answer that yourself, you need to return your diploma.

The fact is, they shouldn't ignore it and should demand of their government that tax dollars be spent on welfare or whatever for that matter, as frugally as people do in their own household. Period. The fact that our government p!sses away just a ton of money is why they are currently running such a deficit. Private sector businesses that run that inefficiently go bankrupt.

What did you major in? Honest question because I can't imagine anyone in any heavily statistics or research based field actually stating this.

All together now, ANECDOTES ARE NOT DATA. You CANNOT use them if you're actually interested in making nationwide social policy. Why? Because of inherent sampling bias due to your geography/demographics, along with confirmation bias making you inherently more likely to notice and recollect those abusing the system than those quietly using their government assistance to help themselves get back onto their feet.

I never once claimed that anecdotes were data. People don't have to have data to form impressions, in fact, my bet is that the majority of people form opinions on what they actually see. Their opinions may or may not be erroneous.

Bottom line, when people see other people abusing the welfare system, it p!sses them off to know that their tax dollars are funding it. You claim that the abuse is just a small part of the total, however, anyone living where there is a very high percentage of folks on the dole can walk into a store or carry out and see the abuse happen.

You want to know a secret? It pisses liberals off too, probably more than you realize. I DESPISE those who steal from welfare, because not only are they stealing, they're wantonly giving ammunition to those who have no real concern about the overall well-being of welfare recipients. We're not different there, I can promise you that.

The difference is, instead of just letting my most basic instinct guide my decision on broad social policy, I realize the limitations of my own experiences and understand the problems with relying on even personal anecdotes to make decisions like this. So instead of knee-jerking 'UGH I'VE SEEN XXX PEOPLE WHO I THINK WERE PROBABLY ABUSING WELFARE THEREFORE IT'S GOT TO GO!', I find the best research available on the actual rates of abuse and look at that as objectively as possible. It's part of being an educated adult, and I guess it's too much to ask the same of the people on this messageboard?

Why doesn't it surprise me in the least that a 20 something thinks he has all the answers. I have never once stated that the welfare system has got to go. In fact, my biggest beef with it has always been that, as a system, it does little to help or encourage people to get off it.

(02-11-2015 08:12 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 07:44 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 07:36 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 12:27 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 12:04 PM)Crebman Wrote:  The fact is, they shouldn't ignore it and should demand of their government that tax dollars be spent on welfare or whatever for that matter, as frugally as people do in their own household. Period. The fact that our government p!sses away just a ton of money is why they are currently running such a deficit. Private sector businesses that run that inefficiently go bankrupt.

What did you major in? Honest question because I can't imagine anyone in any heavily statistics or research based field actually stating this.

All together now, ANECDOTES ARE NOT DATA. You CANNOT use them if you're actually interested in making nationwide social policy. Why? Because of inherent sampling bias due to your geography/demographics, along with confirmation bias making you inherently more likely to notice and recollect those abusing the system than those quietly using their government assistance to help themselves get back onto their feet.

I never once claimed that anecdotes were data. People don't have to have data to form impressions, in fact, my bet is that the majority of people form opinions on what they actually see. Their opinions may or may not be erroneous.

Bottom line, when people see other people abusing the welfare system, it p!sses them off to know that their tax dollars are funding it. You claim that the abuse is just a small part of the total, however, anyone living where there is a very high percentage of folks on the dole can walk into a store or carry out and see the abuse happen.

You want to know a secret? It pisses liberals off too, probably more than you realize. I DESPISE those who steal from welfare, because not only are they stealing, they're wantonly giving ammunition to those who have no real concern about the overall well-being of welfare recipients. We're not different there, I can promise you that.

The difference is, instead of just letting my most basic instinct guide my decision on broad social policy, I realize the limitations of my own experiences and understand the problems with relying on even personal anecdotes to make decisions like this. So instead of knee-jerking 'UGH I'VE SEEN XXX PEOPLE WHO I THINK WERE PROBABLY ABUSING WELFARE THEREFORE IT'S GOT TO GO!', I find the best research available on the actual rates of abuse and look at that as objectively as possible. It's part of being an educated adult, and I guess it's too much to ask the same of the people on this messageboard?

Why doesn't it surprise me in the least that a 20 something thinks he has all the answers. I have never once stated that the welfare system has got to go. In fact, my biggest beef with it has always been that, as a system, it does little to help or encourage people to get off it.

Show me a man at 20 who isn't a liberal, and I'll show you a man with no heart. Show me a man at 40 who isn't a conservative, and I'll show you a man with no brain.

Do a 12 hour shift in any metro ER and lay eyes on all the Medicaid patients or Medicare patients under the Medicare age limit i.e. the disabled. Count how many of them are truly disabled or truly so poor that they need government assistance. Get out in the real world where the abusers congregate and see with your own eyes what these people wear, drive, or own. Then tell me how the system isn't abused as much as the stats say.

(02-11-2015 09:35 PM)dfarr Wrote:  Do a 12 hour shift in any metro ER and lay eyes on all the Medicaid patients or Medicare patients under the Medicare age limit i.e. the disabled. Count how many of them are truly disabled or truly so poor that they need government assistance. Get out in the real world where the abusers congregate and see with your own eyes what these people wear, drive, or own. Then tell me how the system isn't abused as much as the stats say.

What stats? No one has shown any stats, they've just done exactly like yourself and have thought their personal experiences grant them the expertise to make statements about how abused something is. It doesn't, and neither does yours. Furthermore, by the fact that you think you can simply 'count those who are truly disabled', as in you're diagnosing patients of any long term disability by sight is downright ludicrous. You're acting like a child, and if you're fine with that go on doing it. Just know that you're not making a rational or logically defensible choice based on evidence, you're just an ape who's made because he doesn't know how cognitive bias's work.

(02-12-2015 08:52 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 09:35 PM)dfarr Wrote:  Do a 12 hour shift in any metro ER and lay eyes on all the Medicaid patients or Medicare patients under the Medicare age limit i.e. the disabled. Count how many of them are truly disabled or truly so poor that they need government assistance. Get out in the real world where the abusers congregate and see with your own eyes what these people wear, drive, or own. Then tell me how the system isn't abused as much as the stats say.

What stats? No one has shown any stats, they've just done exactly like yourself and have thought their personal experiences grant them the expertise to make statements about how abused something is. It doesn't, and neither does yours. Furthermore, by the fact that you think you can simply 'count those who are truly disabled', as in you're diagnosing patients of any long term disability by sight is downright ludicrous. You're acting like a child, and if you're fine with that go on doing it. Just know that you're not making a rational or logically defensible choice based on evidence, you're just an ape who's made because he doesn't know how cognitive bias's work.

And if you're truly a nurse practitioner, I'm pretty bummed about what sort of weak research requirements your degree program requires. Next you'll be prescribing drugs on a 'hunch' and looking at tea leaves for advice on treatment.

I think we're wandering too far from the point.

Let's assume for a moment that nobody abuses the system and that everybody who gets it sorely needs it.

Now, 46.5 million people is 15+ ******* % of our population.

That's a tragedy, not a damn talking point.

(02-12-2015 09:22 AM)Smaug Wrote:  I think we're wandering too far from the point.

Let's assume for a moment that nobody abuses the system and that everybody who gets it sorely needs it.

Now, 46.5 million people is 15+ ******* % of our population.

That's a tragedy, not a damn talking point.

This we can agree on.

(02-12-2015 09:22 AM)Smaug Wrote:  I think we're wandering too far from the point.

Let's assume for a moment that nobody abuses the system and that everybody who gets it sorely needs it.

Now, 46.5 million people is 15+ ******* % of our population.

That's a tragedy, not a damn talking point.

I agree.

(02-12-2015 09:22 AM)Smaug Wrote:  I think we're wandering too far from the point.

Let's assume for a moment that nobody abuses the system and that everybody who gets it sorely needs it.

Now, 46.5 million people is 15+ ******* % of our population.

That's a tragedy, not a damn talking point.

I agree.

(02-12-2015 10:19 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-12-2015 09:22 AM)Smaug Wrote:  I think we're wandering too far from the point.

Let's assume for a moment that nobody abuses the system and that everybody who gets it sorely needs it.

Now, 46.5 million people is 15+ ******* % of our population.

That's a tragedy, not a damn talking point.

I agree.

Yep, that was my point. It's not something to brag about. It's an embarrassment and speaks to decades of governmental failure.

(02-12-2015 10:20 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-12-2015 10:19 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-12-2015 09:22 AM)Smaug Wrote:  I think we're wandering too far from the point.

Let's assume for a moment that nobody abuses the system and that everybody who gets it sorely needs it.

Now, 46.5 million people is 15+ ******* % of our population.

That's a tragedy, not a damn talking point.

I agree.

Yep, that was my point. It's not something to brag about. It's an embarrassment and speaks to decades of governmental failure.

I think you miss the point.

It's something to be proud of that we have the resources to care for these people. However, at the same time, we should be concerned that so many people need it.

(02-12-2015 10:20 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-12-2015 10:19 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-12-2015 09:22 AM)Smaug Wrote:  I think we're wandering too far from the point.

Let's assume for a moment that nobody abuses the system and that everybody who gets it sorely needs it.

Now, 46.5 million people is 15+ ******* % of our population.

That's a tragedy, not a damn talking point.

I agree.

Yep, that was my point. It's not something to brag about. It's an embarrassment and speaks to decades of governmental failure.

And as I said, nobody is bragging or boasting about anything. They merely pointed out the statistics and supplied some facts. Our famous original poster is really bad about understanding what he reads.

(02-11-2015 05:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 07:23 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Only Dems would consider welfare something to be proud of.

Quote:In response to a recommendation made by the Communist government of Cuba, the U.S. State Department is boasting in a report submitted to the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights on Friday that there were “46.5 million” people on food stamps in the United States last year and that a quarter of all Americans received government “food assistance.”

In response to the same Cuban recommendation, the State Department also told the U.N. High Commissioner that 9 million people have signed up for Medicaid since October 2013—as part of the impact of Obamacare.

“In FY2014, we invested more than $103 billion in domestic food assistance programs, serving one in four Americans during the year,” the State Department told the U.N. High Commissioner.

“[N]early nine million individuals have enrolled in coverage in state-run Medicaid programs since October 2013,” said the State Department.

The State Department report was presented as part of the “Universal Periodic Review” that the U.N. Human Rights Council is conducting this year on human rights condition in the United States.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/terence-p-jeffre...um=twitter

So, detailing facts is boasting?

But yes...I'm proud that I live in a country where we try to help the least and the lost. Matthew 25:44-45

Not so much, but I don't think the verse you quoted quite captures just how little help food stamps, or any assistance program are actually helping. Leave the graft and corruption aside, there has been free education, free housing and job assistance programs for the past 50 years in the US, yet 15% percent of the populous still needs help. More is wrong than what is given and the quantity.

(02-12-2015 08:54 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-12-2015 08:52 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 09:35 PM)dfarr Wrote:  Do a 12 hour shift in any metro ER and lay eyes on all the Medicaid patients or Medicare patients under the Medicare age limit i.e. the disabled. Count how many of them are truly disabled or truly so poor that they need government assistance. Get out in the real world where the abusers congregate and see with your own eyes what these people wear, drive, or own. Then tell me how the system isn't abused as much as the stats say.

What stats? No one has shown any stats, they've just done exactly like yourself and have thought their personal experiences grant them the expertise to make statements about how abused something is. It doesn't, and neither does yours. Furthermore, by the fact that you think you can simply 'count those who are truly disabled', as in you're diagnosing patients of any long term disability by sight is downright ludicrous. You're acting like a child, and if you're fine with that go on doing it. Just know that you're not making a rational or logically defensible choice based on evidence, you're just an ape who's made because he doesn't know how cognitive bias's work.

And if you're truly a nurse practitioner, I'm pretty bummed about what sort of weak research requirements your degree program requires. Next you'll be prescribing drugs on a 'hunch' and looking at tea leaves for advice on treatment.

I don't recall anyone requesting a thesis or dissertation. Also, NPs and MDs aren't research based degrees, they're knowledge based. No questions about statistics or t-tests, standard deviations, double blind studies were on my boards. But I'm sure you already knew that. However if you want my research paper I did while getting my MSN feel free to PM me your email and I'll send it to you.

When I ask a patient why they're on disability and what doctor they see for their disability and they can't name either, I'm pretty sure they're full of ****. Doesn't take much investigating or research to figure it out.