-
Posts
3546 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Everything posted by Hank Chinaski
-
2024 Transfer Thread - The Pedantic Circlejerk
Hank Chinaski replied to closetojumping's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
-
Texas Recruiting Notes 2024: Bags Don't Beat Bankrolls
Hank Chinaski replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
-
Texas Recruiting Notes 2024: Bags Don't Beat Bankrolls
Hank Chinaski replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
That and any class that didn’t meet on Fridays. -
Texas Recruiting Notes 2024: Bags Don't Beat Bankrolls
Hank Chinaski replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
The first time you tried to register on Tex, you’d go in thinking you had your semester lined up perfectly. Then within 3 minutes that motherfucker would be hanging up on you after telling you that you didn’t get any of the classes you wanted and you’d be left holding the phone, frozen, wondering what in the fuck just happened. You eventually learned to go into your calls with Tex with a fucking binder full of decision trees and emergency plans like you were in Mission Control. -
2024 Transfer Thread - The Pedantic Circlejerk
Hank Chinaski replied to closetojumping's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
1) what the fuck is a “birthday couple?” 2) if my friend invited me to a goddamn birthday party (adult birthday parties, Christ) that required me to travel and be stuck on a boat for 3 days with a bunch of other people, and I actually had to go, I would get a crew together and give him the Full Metal Jacket treatment one night… -
Bill Belichick no longer coaching in new england
Hank Chinaski replied to BurntOrange&White's topic in Football
Why is this always presented a a binary choice? Isn’t the most likely answer that they’re both great, and they both necessarily had to be great to accomplish what they did? Brady in 2001 wasn’t anything like what Brady became in later years. That team won it all on scheme and defense. In those early years, NE was thought of as a defensive team that was good enough on offense. And to Huck’s point - the SB losses to the Giants (and many other playoff games) were low-scoring games and, at least one of them required an improbable miracle play by the NYG to win it. (Conversely, they won a SB because the Seahawks threw a pass at the goal line despite having the best short-yardage RB in the league. Game of inches I guess.) You don’t do what NE did for 20 years without a great coach AND a great QB. It’s silly to try to dissect who gets credit for what. -
And this, to me, speaks to the beauty of science and research - it is all there, the methods, the data, the analysis, the rationale. It is all laid out in black and white. It isn’t an editorial. As such, if you want to argue the science, have at it - but argue the actual science. Point out what you think is flawed in the actual science. That’s not what conspiracy kooks even try to do. Now, if you want to argue about how the science should be applied to society from a policy perspective- as is usually the motivation for people who make issues out of these things - that’s perfectly fine, and reasonable people can certainly disagree about this, because societies and cultures are incredibly complex. But don’t try to make your point by discrediting the actual science unless you can, you know, intelligently cite how the actual science is flawed, which means demonstrating that a whole bunch of really dedicated people all got something wrong in every paper that it relevant to a field.
-
Yeah. When defending your research in front of other researchers, you better know any and all important papers in the field inside and out, because they 100% will try to burn you with anything you found that may contradict something else (and you’d better have a good explanation about what may account for any discrepancy). You’ve got to know your stuff.
-
These people should really stop saying “do your research” because, as you say, it instantly tells anyone listening that they’re either (1) full of shit or (2) actually dumb enough to think that whatever they’ve done in any way constitutes “research.” Here comes a dorky rant from someone who spent way too much time in grad school… ”Research” is the process of meticulous experiment and observation in order to answer a question or series of questions. “Research” requires the description of one’s methods in painstaking detail, transparency of the results of those methods, a description of the statistical methods used to determine the best answer to the question, and a descriptive rationale as to why this MAY be the best answer to the question. This process must then stand up to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. (For those who don’t know - these motherfuckers absolutely live to poke holes in the work of others.) If it does, it gets published in a journal and is considered a legitimate research paper (though some journals are taken less seriously than others). Then, if it’s a worthwhile research paper, it will be used to help answer future research papers to ultimately build out the overall body of knowledge in a field of study. In other words, reading a single research paper - which went through all the steps it takes to get published - wouldn’t even really be considered “researching” a topic. It’s simply reading an article. Now, compare that to the “do your research” kooks, who are literally talking about watching videos on the fucking internet that comfortably connect their preferred reality to a cause or an outcome. So yeah, it is galling, as someone who spent countless hours running through meticulous experimental processes, analyzing heaps of experimental data, and having to defend all of it before groups cutthroat academicians (who are often insecure people whose entire self-worth is tied up in proving to everyone how smart they are), to hear fucking imbeciles and nutjobs and attention-seekers like Aaron fucking Rodgers purport that he has done “research” about the absurd, banal bullshit that flows out of his mouth. It’s literally the opposite of “research” - forming conclusions based on unsubstantiated conjecture from whoever-the-fuck on the goddamn internet, which can’t stand up to any degree of scrutiny. Ironically and embarrassingly, people who don’t realize this, and think that by believing something that has no foundation rooted in any sort of evidence whatsoever makes them seem “informed,” announce to the world that they are lowest common denominator dipshits who should never be taken seriously. Edit: I think it is important to note that legitimate research necessarily involves some degree of humility on the part of the authors; always be skeptical of those who speak in absolutes about their conclusions, and serious scientists don’t.
- 981 replies
-
- 19
-
-
-
-
-
Quinn "La Joya" Ewers - The Man The Myth The Mullet
Hank Chinaski replied to Coach pop a bitch's topic in Football
This is the worst masturbation ever. -
Quinn "La Joya" Ewers - The Man The Myth The Mullet
Hank Chinaski replied to Coach pop a bitch's topic in Football
Yeah. And I mean…a guy who started for 4 years at Texas and then played for 14 years in the NFL may have seen something that the 20 year old kid didn’t? Is this supposed to be some indictment on QE? Christ. -
It could be his job application…
-
2024 Texas Football Coaching and Support Staff Thread
Hank Chinaski replied to RaysBoomBoomRoom's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
Dang, this makes me feel old; I was in high school when he was making those Grandmama commercials. -
Negative Recruiting Your Own School: The aggy Screenshot Megathread
Hank Chinaski replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
Yes, and then when a reasonable waiting period has transpired and the disappointing returns are in, they may backtrack a bit with the “greatest ever” talk, but will remain steadfast in their argument that whoever or whatever they’re talking about is still better than tu’s. This is how you get people who watched college football from 2002-2005 and concluded that Reggie McNeal was still better than Vince Young. -
2024 Transfer Thread - The Pedantic Circlejerk
Hank Chinaski replied to closetojumping's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
The Dolphins played Washington in the SB of their undefeated season I think…but yes, played Minn at Rice Stadium. -
Texas Recruiting Notes 2024: Bags Don't Beat Bankrolls
Hank Chinaski replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
All I could ever think about, after reading that kid’s supposed opposition to women romancing each other, was the scene where Jerry (playing the part of the OU kid) tells George he’s not going to participate in the ménage, which George’s advice set into motion, and George (playing the part of Surly) is rightfully incensed and outraged… (Sadly I can’t find a gif for the best part of this exchange, where George yells at the top of his lungs, “ARE YOU CRAZY!?!?” J. Alexander nails the stunned/confused/outraged reaction there.) -
Blowhard politicians perpetually seek attention because that has basically become the job description for elected officials (no CR). There is nothing substantive or genuine or meaningful about it. Carnival barkers carnival barking.
-
Negative Recruiting Your Own School: The aggy Screenshot Megathread
Hank Chinaski replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
Holy shit, imagine writing something - and then doubling and tripling down on it - so fucking asinine (and pretty overtly racist) that you (rightly) get almost unanimously called out and shamed on fucking texags for it. -
Negative Recruiting Your Own School: The aggy Screenshot Megathread
Hank Chinaski replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-bul0000392.pdf From a summary of the paper: The researchers found that overall, people were motivated to believe in conspiracy theories by a need to understand and feel safe in their environment and a need to feel like the community they identify with is superior to others. The researchers also found that people with certain personality traits, such as a sense of antagonism toward others and high levels of paranoia, were more prone to believe conspiracy theories. Those who strongly believed in conspiracy theories were also more likely to be insecure, paranoid, emotionally volatile, impulsive, suspicious, withdrawn, manipulative, egocentric and eccentric. -
Negative Recruiting Your Own School: The aggy Screenshot Megathread
Hank Chinaski replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
-
Texas Recruiting Notes 2024: Bags Don't Beat Bankrolls
Hank Chinaski replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
-
Texas Recruiting Notes 2024: Bags Don't Beat Bankrolls
Hank Chinaski replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
Which state?
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!