The hypocrisy post of the day (Brought to you by Mark Tokarski)

I found this little gem today:

Mark Tokarski posted this on Douglas Ernst’s blog:

“It’s tough being an American. We have to form opinions without knowing anything. We do our best. Mr. Ernst, you’re making the best of it.”

So Mark comes in and makes a snide remark.

Douglass then responds:

“Your problem is that you’re the type of guy who mistakes sarcasm for intelligence. Your problem is that you’re the type of guy who uses self-congratulation as the basis for public policy. Your problem is that you leave snarky comments on blogs and then smirk at how witty and wise you imagine yourself to be.”

This does seem like a well deserved response.

Mark then replies:

Oh, I followed Lizard’s link here, though I am not allowed to comment on his blog, I do like his writing. I am writing about you as we speak, and imagined as I finished that you would not approve my comment, so I came back to grab it before it disappeared. Voila! it made the cut!

I write a lot about opinion management and thought control in pretend democracies, which require that we imagine our voices to matter. The post you clipped was about how, in my view, the Tea Party was suggested upon us to allow “Obama” political cover to carry forward with the right wing agenda. I’m pretty well read on this stuff, having read Bernays, Ellul, Lippmann, Quigley and Neibuhr, to drop a few names. In essence we are allowed to have huge election extravaganzas as bread and circus while the real business of running the country is done in private. It has to be that way, they say, as the public is uneducated and highly emotional, and yet dangerous if it really does take the reins. Letting us have elections is a palliative. Controlling our choices is essential.

I am also clever and annoying. You might want to consider banning me.”

Now one might ask why are you not allowed to comment on his blog?

Mark also says Douglas should consider banning him?

Douglas Ernst responded with:

“My guess is that you’re too clever by half. If by “annoying” you’re saying “I’m a troll,” then I’ll have no problem banning you. In your little blog post about me you said you were “just being proactive,” so … again, if you’re admitting you’re a troll just say so and I’ll add you to the banned list ASAP.”

Now if you look at what Mark posted on his blog:

“He let it stand! We’ll see how long I last there. He answered me, I answered him, and then suggested he ban me. Just being proactive.”

So to be fair you said he should consider banning you, he responded and you want to act as if he was mean and censoring your post? It would be fair to say that you failed.

Then when I confronted Mark in his blog he responded:

“Please, I don’t want to truck on his road. First, he’s Lizard’s toy, and I don’t have permission to play.”

Mark did not want to go down this road? I think he went down the road and got stuck.

“Second, if he banned Lizard, the nicest of people, he did so for content, meaning he’s intolerant. Third, just reading that one thread, I am picking up on aggressive stupidity.”

Lizard has not always been nice in his post, that is a fact. Lizard was never banned for content that was proper.

Really…. you are the tolerant one? “I am picking up on aggressive stupidity” People who live in glass houses….

I don’t mind stupidity. I might be stupid, as by definition it is something we don’t know about ourselves. Aggressive stupidity is a different animal. It is to take what little you know and weaponize it”

Then maybe you should be less aggressive.

To be fair Mark did respond with this to me:

“Fair enough. I probably qualify. My thoughts about messing with Lizard’s turf came after I went there. The aggressive stupidity is on display over there. I’ll keep my own here. You know what would happen, right? He’d get mad an ban me. It’s undignified to be banned, gives people too much power over you, and we walk into those situations eyes wide open.

Tell him to come here. I won’t ban him. I almost never do that, and then only for true trolling, or non-stop posting.”

Mark this is a step in the right direction.

I then thought I would try to have a resalable conversation with mark but it seems that all he wants to do is try to prove that he is intellectual superior (and he fails at it).

He the continued down the same path he would try to act interested then after you reply he responded with snark replies.

I called him out on a snide post that he made:

‘“I have a similar experience at Barnes and Noble, Current events section, where diversity of viewpoints is unlimited on the right wing, and any nut job can have a book ghostwritten for him, where on the left, the furthest one can go is Chomsky. He’s should call his last book before he passes “This far, no further!”””

He then responded with:

“That comment has to do with gatekeepers of the left. It’s a phenomenon I’ve written about quite a bit, where there seems no limits on what a right winger can or write, but people on the left are required to stay in bounds. I call it the Ellen Goodman syndrome, after the mild-mannered Boston op-ed writer who took up space in newspapers and allowed right wing editors to claim they were balanced because they printed her (when real lefties were available and shut-out). She’s a gatekeeper. In the same manner, Chomsky represents the left in print, and yet in his writings avoids the major issues of our time. He too is a gatekeeper.
That’s all that comment was about. You jumped in a discussion midway without knowing what came before.”

I responded with the following:

“Mark, many would argue the opposite is true (and many studies back this up). It seems that the far left can say any rude thing and block any real discussion or sharing of other views (you can see this in my blog). To be fair my perspective runs counter to yours I see conservative views being held back and vilified every day. I also read the entire conversation online that I posted your quote from, I did not just jump in. It seems that you are looking at things from only one perspective and it portrays you as a victim (which surprises me since you focus on the mind and thought), have you considered that it works both ways. For example you read the resent comments on Douglas’s blog you will see a sharing of different views and all were embraced.


Mark responded with a straw man:

“I am not talking about blogs, but mainstream American journalism. In fact, blogs have allowed us to avoid media censorship in a small way.”

I never said anything about blogs nice twist. He then continued with his talk as if he is superior in thought.

I responded:

“See you are being subjective and that does not mean you are right. If it does not fit your reading avoid it then that is fair. If you look it was not an attack read the responses he even defends the view of the woman. It has become very clear that you cannot move past your preconceived views this saddens me since you want to portray yourself as such a deep thinker. Based on your snark responses I feel there is no need to continue this discussion with you at this time.”

His response:

“All that you say is true. It’s just boring. He picked an easy target and had some fun. Where’s the beef?”

I called him out and he even admitted that he was bias, yet notice how he has to try to deflect to others with delusions of grander.

I mentioned that many studies run counter to his beliefs and he replies like this:

“PS: “Many studies?” Please.”

I responded with a warning:

“Yes, many (some I have conducted several myself). Notice your snark which is not productive. Snide remarks that are void of facts just to come off as witty (or in your terms aggressive is not a good move especially with a statistics professor). You are not helping yourself here. Keep it up and I will also discontinue this discussion with you.”

He then tried to act like it was not snark.

“I want to know about the studies! What’s being studied? What is the question, what is the answer? That’s why I said “please,” as a reference to an anonymous study is an appeal to authority. The least you could do is give me the authority source.”

I decided to go with it and give him the benefit of the doubt:

“Really (I thought you were being snarky, my mistake). I have had many classes conduct many studies. We have done many on the trust of media and fairness as well as media time devotion to political candidates. You will have to give me more time to pull up the details (I am working at this time).”

I later responded with a little more detail on one of the studies:

“We recently did conduct a fun study to see if people are hypocritical in their views on giving and it had some interesting results.
The study was conducted in 2 phases.
Phase one was to ask if all people should be covered for health care and we asked about their views on the fairness of the tax system.
Months later the same group of people (968 people) was asked a question something like this.
If you received an A in this class would you be willing to reduce your grade to a B and give others in your class the points in order to help the ones that are failing pass?
The results were very interesting (a quick summary).
436 believed we should all have health care.
863 believed the top brackets should get a higher tax to support the lower income groups.
39 stated they would take a grade reduction to help others.
When it came to actually providing the assistance the majority was against it, yet when it would come from others they were fine with having them embrace the burden.
The next goal may be to see how much a person is willing to pay…..

This study had much more depth but I will need more time to provide that type of information.”

Mark removed this comment from the comments then used it in a blog post later cutting the last section out to hide the truth.

Quote pic

Notice the last sentence it will come into play soon. Now look at his response:

Your study regarding health care – could you have been more contrived? Give away grades versus universal health care?

I think you’re comparing apples and oranges and ‘educating’ rather than surveying. I’ve written extensively here on health care systems, and how well they work in other countries precisely because they do what you say is so wrong, simply treat it like a utility and part of the commons. The for-profit model, and especially the insurance model, do not work in health care because it is something that we all need and that cannot be fairly rationed based on income. Further, our ability to make money in a profit-based economy rests completely apart form our health care needs – both the janitor and a professor working for Harvard can be stricken with identical cancer and need access to care.

So countries more sane and democratic than ours simply use government-run, owned or single payer, and the results are amazing, 100% access, costs 1/3 to 1/2 of what we pay, healthier population and better outcomes.

Meanwhile you guys sit around debating who should pay while the house burns around, and complaining about taxes as right wingers are so inclined to do. Some of us see value in utilities and taxes to pay for things that the private sector does not do well.”

Now look at this he calls a study contrived before he even has been informed on how it was conducted……busted. I then called him out on his rude response and lack of details.

“First off I gave you a summary, the wording was in a way that it was non bias.
“they do what you say is so wrong” I am sorry but what did I say was wrong ..nothing it sounds like you are playing games here. The study was conducted to see if people are willing to pay for what they believe everyone should have. For example if you are a high earner should you pay more (a great comparison to grades).

“So countries more sane and democratic than ours simply use government-run, owned or single payer, and the results are amazing, 100% access, costs 1/3 to 1/2 of what we pay, healthier population and better outcomes.”

Sorry but the buzzer went off on this big time. The access is not 100% the costs are less but studies also show that the quality is not exactly great in all cases either. Granted we are not at the top in many studies but this statement was far from fact.

“Meanwhile you guys sit around debating who should pay while the house burns around, and complaining about taxes as right wingers are so inclined to do. Some of us see value in utilities and taxes to pay for things that the private sector does not do well.”

Notice you judgment again, “you guys” I am sorry when did I declare I was one of “you guys”. The last sentence also fails I am sorry but when has the government done well on any of those items…it has a poor track record on these items. You are quick to judge and short on facts. For a final note notice your first sentence “Your study regarding health care – could you have been more contrived?”

A quick rude judgment without many facts once again proving my point you are trying to sound witty while trying to act as if you are open to consider other views. The study was constructed so that it did not lead in any way. I am a professional in the field and I had nothing to gain from the response.
I also stated in my post:
“This study had much more depth but I will need more time to provide that type of information.”

I think you have now proven several times that you were really trying for a gotcha moment and every time you were caught you backpedaled out of it. I went with it to give you the benefit of the doubt but time and time again your actions proved otherwise. You jump to conclusions and provide snark responses you then ask a question and when responded to you try again.

I wish you and your blog well but I do not see a point in continuing this conversation since it is clear that you have a misguided agenda.”

With that said what would you expect from Mark except for more attempts to be witty and failing.

“Well, I would have answered you, but you left. That’s a tactic I’ve seen often, the dismissive wave as you leave. It has the effect of having the last word without having the last coherent thought. The only problem you are having with me is that I have not devoted the amount of time to this that your assertions demand. I’m not terribly busy but I do have alternative activities, and right now making a picture frame is the one in which I am absorbed.”

 So to be clear, Mark will act like he wants a conversation only to reply with a condescending remark to try to make himself look witty. You catch him just like I did with his “contrived”  comment which is clearly bias because he did not even have any information on how a study was conducted proving that he will not think past his personal bias. Then he must try to make it look like you left the conversation without having a coherent thought to make himself seem superior. But rest assured that is okay because the only reason you really stopped talking to him is because he does not have the time that you demand for the conversation……really……

Sorry Mark your “tactic” might work on some but not on people that can look past your games I guess you were not as witty as you thought you were. You proved my suspicions from the start, you are trying to act as if you are a great thinker yet you have a shallow view and you cannot even see past your own hypocrisy.

Addition 6/26/14

You will now see that Mark decided to go on a rant with his blog. Please notice he judges the survey and yet he had not details on how it was conducted.

You can see his post here:


Notice how he leaves out this key point “This study had much more depth but I will need more time to provide that type of information.”

Mark nice attemp to hide  the truth.

Yet he automatically jumped to a conclusion that it was contrived and bashes the study (once again he did not have any read information just a quick summary).

Now think about this, we work and pay a portion of what we earn in taxes. The study used grades instead of money. When students were asked if they would give some of their points to help others earn a passing grade the majority was against it. How is this not comparable to taking some of your hard-earned money and distributing it to others?

Obviously Mark has  tunnel vision and cannot have rational thought. He also proved my point about his conversation style of acting like he has something to offer followed by rude comments with a major lack of facts and thought.

Here is an example from Mark:

“normally they try to be clever and disguise their objectives. They did so in this study, and here is what they discovered: The people doing the study do not understand money, social structure, caring and compassion, or the health care system. They are stupid. “

Normally they who?

I Never even explained how the study was conducted…Yet he knew how?

The people who conduced this study do not understand…? Really, a study that he has very little information on tells him all of this?

Preconceived judgment…Hypocrisy proven.

I was never angry I told him why I left as you see in my post.

Sorry Mark the truth is easy to see and it is clear that you lie.

Mark tried to come off a sensible nice guy and look how he responded when he was caught.


Mark tried to hid his lies by removing my responses in his blog. As you can see here he misquoted me in his blog post as well in order to hide the truth. I can see why Mark is banned from blogs. I find it fascinating that he tends to not understand the real reason why, when you lie, call people rude names are incapable of seeing past personal bias and act intolerant you tend to lack value in conversation. Mark still kept his blog because as Mark said he likes to have the last word.

Notice Mark will say anything to condemn something he does not agree with even if he has yet to have any facts, but all it takes is “my brother said….” from a person and that is an acceptable study because it produces the results he wants.

Sorry Mark my blog deals with the truth.

Feel free to read his blog but I would only recommend it if you like irrational fiction.



43 comments on “The hypocrisy post of the day (Brought to you by Mark Tokarski)

  1. Award accepted. Didn’t know about your blog. Maybe I’ll get banned here someday too!

  2. The only way you will get banned is by posting incredibly rude comments or profanities. Different views are always allowed here.
    I just hope that I do not end up posting a post about myself for hypocrisy someday.

  3. Wow Mark is a nut! How can a person come up with conclusions that a study is contrived without have any information about how the study is conducted? Wait I know he has super left wing nut job powers that enable him to read minds inaccurately. Mark is clearly upset that you revealed the fool that he really is. I love how he left out information in order to sell his lie.
    Nice lie of omission Mark!
    You gave him a chance in his blog and you warned him several times and yet he pulled the same crap. He tried his game and he lost. He is just pissed that you caught him and left him looking dumb.
    Mark you are not nearly as witty as you think you are.

    • Thanks for reading spider,as you can see when challenged he went to his usual game. Mark was busted and now he has to try to save face.
      I love how he judges the study without any facts, then when I called him on it he tried to act dignified. I do ask that you refrain from calling names I do not want to sink to his style of comments.

  4. Mark is a joke, I tried to read his crap and he sounds like he is trying hard to be smart and it is obvious that he is not.

  5. Thanx for sharing this either Mark is a troll or he is an idiot.

  6. Apologies, but what study are you referring to?

    • Thank you Rob, I was referring to a class study that was conducted around 8 months ago with one of my statistics classes. You have a great point, as you see in the article I posted a little information on a study since he asked for some information (I did not expect to post the whole study in a short reply). Once again I did not present the whole study I was just providing a little summary. I might add the study was for correlation not causation. I also read your post on his site about taking me to task, there is a difference between asking a question and jumping to judgment. I also stated that it had much more detail (which he neglected and skipped in his quote). He then went into condescending judgment without any of the facts and that was my issue. Let me ask you, how can you make the judgments Mark made with the little detail that he had?

      Mark was clearly looking for a gotcha moment and you can see that in his responses to each of my replies, he acted interested then he would rudely respond. I gave him the benefit of the doubt it became clear what his goals really were. From reading your post I think you are looking for the same.

      I could present more of the data I should have it on file. To answer some of your questions now:
      The data methods was a controlled sample this was to see how the same group would respond. The sample group consisted of ages 18-54
      The data was collected using anonymous questionnaires that were delivered to a cluster sample of classes.
      The study was peer reviewed by other University statistics professionals.

      On a side note I am a professional in this field and I have conducted many professional studies for many industries.
      The real issue is how could Mark come up with his comments without taking time to gather facts, he was very quick to judgment.

      I might add that it seems like you are jumping to conclusions as well since you stated this “I too would like to know what assumptions went into this psuedo-scientific effort at Atlas-shrugging fantasy.”
      “What he presented wasn’t a ‘study’, it was an unverifiable anecdote of Randian delusion.”

      I did not post the study, Mark clearly asked “I want to know about the studies! What’s being studied? What is the question, what is the answer?”

      Notice I did not post the study I stated “We recently did conduct a fun study to see if people are hypocritical in their views on giving and it had some interesting results.”
      A quick summary of some results is not a study it will take much more to post the entire study but then again you new that…or you should have.

      So I ask how are you asking a real question when you are already making statements such as this? To be fair I doubt it, it sounds like you are just like him where you want to ask a question about something that you already came to a fact devoid answer to yourself.

      I have read your post your motive is as obvious to see as his.

      Just for the record for everyone that reads this:
      This is Rob’s post that he made before pretending that he was being objective:

      “Mark, I have to give you props and due credit for taking this guy to task for his “study”. What he presented wasn’t a ‘study’, it was an unverifiable anecdote of Randian delusion. If it were a ‘study’ then it would be documented, published at least at some level, and very easily pointed to …somewhere. Yet he links back here, whining his sorry unprofessional ass off that you didn’t ‘give him time’ to “provide the information”. He claims to have been involved as an administrator of the study and he doesn’t have the information? Whatever; fans have been waiting for years for George R.R. Martin’s next work of fiction.

      I too would like to know what assumptions went into this psuedo-scientific effort at Atlas-shrugging fantasy. Was it ever established that sharing grades would actually “help” anyone else on a survival level (like health care, or public weal)? It seems the only assumption well clarified is that the ‘studiers’ were convinced of a hypocrisy, whether one was exhibited or not. That much was made clear. So, this is one of the very few times I will thank you for ‘schooling’ somebody, if for no other reason than saving me the trouble.

      Off topic, please don’t recycle your snarky blog comments on my Facebook page. That’s kind of shabby.”

      Sorry Rob but you were caught as well and your post was pretty shabby too.

  7. Objectivity isn’t pretense. Either you present it or you don’t. So far, you haven’t, though I appreciate your continuing claims that you will. To not do so at this point would be … truly shabby.

    • Rob, you do realize that you have not even given him 24 hours to get the study right? Wait that is not your real goal because you can see that you already judged it before you had it. Your tactics are truly shabby.

      Truth, this guy is a nut and he is defending an equally crazy or worse nut.

      Maybe I should make a blog and title it.
      Take your pretense and shove it a tale of two nitwits trying to look witty and failing a true story about Mark and Rob.

  8. Pretense, really look at your post what was your objective? I love how you made judgments as well without even seeing the study then you come here and act like you really want to know. Good try Rob you were just as fake as Mark.

    Let’s look again shall we at your objectivity “I too would like to know what assumptions went into this psuedo-scientific effort at Atlas-shrugging fantasy.”

    Sorry but the bull buzzer is going off hard on your objectivity..or should I say pretense.
    I plan to present it but now I may just make an article about it so it will take a little more time.
    Let me give you a tip .Next time you want to act like you are looking for information and with an open mind don’t go on another blog and post your true intentions and preconceived judgements.

    So lets correct this “misunderstanding”, in the interests of conversation. You came here acting like you really wanted answers while you were just like Mark looking for a gotcha and you were caught.

  9. Rob or should I call you Mark’s clone, if you really ask a question you may get an answer. I suggest you don’t make posts like a jerk and expect someone to respond to you. For the record I work at the same college and I know about this study so Rob I suggest you learn to not judge so fast because it seems to only make you look foolish.

    Rob your pretense is showing. I will give an example of Rob and Mark tactics.

    On one blog- Hi I have a question would you help me understand the situation?
    On another blog- I am going to get this guy for you buddy he will regret catching you being a hypocrite.

    He caught me so I will try to sound witty and post this “Objectivity isn’t pretense”, this will cover my butt.

    Rob I think you were acting like a child as well as your buddy Mark. It seems that you think you are superior to others and you come off as rude and ignorant, or should I say shabby.

    Truth please don’t even waste your time with this guy.

  10. I agree with spider11211, this person is a nut trying to act smart. You busted him and you have nothing to gain. I will look forward to reading about this study though!

    • Thank you for the support Jbegata. I have read the other responses here and they have a point they are not really objective and their goal is to try to look witty or superior. With that in mind I will not cater my blog to the lowest common denominator. It has inspired me to conduct a new class project. Here are my thoughts: I will run the same project again but as each phase is conducted I will blog the process and eventually the data provided form the results so that readers can come up with their own statistical inferences.
      How does that sound?

    • I guess Mark should take his trash article and lies and shove it. I am sure Rob will run after it like a dog. Pun intended.

      Good catch on how he left out a key line when he quoted you.

  11. Truth don’t even waste your time on these nuts you were 100% correct. I checked out some of their posts and you were dead on with their tactics.
    You called mark out on his bull and he was hurt so he ran to his friends to try to cook up a gotcha scheme.

    “When it is obvious that the goals cannot be reached, don’t adjust the goals, adjust the action steps”


    You can’t please these guys they were not even trying to get the facts they jumped to a conclusion to fit their false narrative.

    Mark and his buddy Rob go to posts and try to act like they know everything but then they reply like brats when they are called out.

    They would learn from this-
    “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing”


    Since people like Mark and Rob think they know everything and judge how a college project study was conducted without any real facts proves they really are not being subjective.

    They will never learn and they only continue to make themselves look foolish.

  12. Thanks Tina, you have a good point I just look at his post and comments and found this.
    “There is no study. “968″ sounds authoritative until you realize that quantity does not matter if they have done their diligence. He was trying to impress me that the study had creds. It’s a crock, he’s a poseur. That much is clear.

    Not sure what I did wrong on FB other than be Mark. If you want to unfriend me I have no problems as I am not sure how we got friended. I might have been drunk.”

    So he expected me to be able to post an entire study in less than 24 hours…the same guy that said I was mad because he did not put enough time into the discussion…..wow…that is telling. I was not trying to impress him at all, why do I need to? He does not even know who I am and what I do but he knows enough to make character attacks. Maybe he was drunk when he made his posts too because they come off pretty silly.

    Notice Ron also avoided all of my questions on how he could automatically dismiss the credibility before he even asked for the facts……Liberal debate tactics as usual.

  13. The study, such as it is, if it even is, is on its face a sham. It takes something that cannot be done, giving away a grade, and aligns it alongside something that can be done, and in fact is actually is done all over the world: pooling of resources for universal health care. Therefore, I think it safe to say that such a study would not obtain any funding, as smarter people above you would nix it, unless you’re at Bob Jones or some such place. Therefore I speculate that there ain’t no study or that you’ve done it on your own, which makes it a bit of private vanity. This is bizarre!

    I know how the Randian brain works, I know how you imagine yourselves productive machines that are feeding lesser beings. I get all that. It’s a delusion, but a crazy percentage of our country has bought into that outlook. I do wish you would all just go Galt on us, so that we can get on with the business of making things work in a complex interdependent society. You won’t be missed, no one will come looking for you.

    This is stupidity.

  14. Mark, I am sorry but it is something that could be done if we wanted in academics (it would take some big moves for approval but it is possible and it could even be done with extra credit)and I might add it is already done with the curve and sometimes extra credit. As for your healthcare point, many studies have been conducted and most of them have no conclusive data and yet they for the most part rank us as good but not the best. With that said the quality of health care was never the topic of our discussion (nice move to try to sway the topic). As for funding it did not take any special funding it was an inexpensive study conducted with a few statistics classes working together. I love how you think you know how smart I am (I would guess that I have more education that you think). Once again notice how you continue to jump to judgment without knowing any facts, I guess that is your style. You like to think are superior to everyone and when you get caught you bring out the attacks.
    I also like how you perceive others as lessor beings….wow you must think you are something truly special.
    Classic Mark quote:
    “I do wish you would all just go Galt on us, so that we can get on with the business of making things work in a complex interdependent society. You won’t be missed, no one will come looking for you”

    I will let others judge you on that silly comment.

    The only stupidity I see is your tactics, I can see why you left Douglas’s blog and claimed it was a preemptive move now, you knew they would see past your attempts to act like you wanted a discussion while then trying to make cheap shots, you were caught.
    I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but you showed your true colors. Just for the record I plan to post a study but as you can see in my comments I am going to have some fun with it by having a similar study and posting the phases here over time. I may still taken the hours it would require to post the past study but why should I? I would be happy to if you were genuine but I will not waste my time on a person that pretends to be open minded while making snark comments hoping to not get caught. You are not as witty as you think you are.

    • Well, you never know, giving away a grade could be done. I think that it would be most likely to happen in a communist state, though. So, all we’d need to do to study the results of such a practice would be to create an artificial communist mini-state. However, we’d have to figure out some way of controlling the other effects of communism so we could tell what was really happening just because of the grade averaging in a class. Also, we’d have to make sure we had a good sample of the general population, though of course that means we wouldn’t be that likely to get anyone with an IQ higher than the “gifted” range or much lower than just average. Though testing on people with higher or lower than average IQs would make for a fascinating follow-up study. And then, again, should the average be taken over an entire class, or should it be taken through the whole school? It would be completely possible that one class in a school would be made up of significantly worse scholars than any other class. To make it truly equalizing, we’d have to do it across the school. However, people’s IQs tend to vary from area to area. What about an entire school district? Or should we conduct the study at a national level and average EVERYONE’S grades? Hmmm… let’s see… Anyway, after a few months we see about the effects on emotional and physical health, relationships, and so forth. And afterward, we would have to compensate for any harm that came to people through the study, and remunerate people for their time. That would be a fascinating study, I think. Or is my purely hypothetical study too specific to be a good study? Should we just study about the psychological effects of communism in general???
      On an entirely practical level, though, people take grade-point-averages across their various classes in their life. And I think (I could be wrong) that some schools use an average on the grades of different students to determine which programs the school excels most at. (Though I think it’s mostly that they test their students against students from other schools. Is that how it works???) It’s not entirely impossible as a concept, though I doubt that any country but a thoroughly communist one without much thought behind it would actually put it into practice. It makes sense to have something to judge where someone would be best placed for maximum efficiency.
      (I’m fairly certain that there is no real point to this post. Except that I’m too curious for my own good, and that I don’t believe that “inconceivable” means what Vizzini thinks it means. I don’t know what he thinks it means. Thinking is funny that way, y’know? And no matter how high my IQ, I think my attention span is inversely related to it. That’s just how it is with me.)

      • The curve actuality does apply socialism by giving points to ones that have not earned them and it can take points away from top earners. On top of that an actual study was done.

        “An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

        The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

        After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

        The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

        When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

        As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

        To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
        It could not be any simpler than that.

        There are five morals to this story:

        1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

        2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

        3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

        4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

        5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.”

        Source of this information (that was one of the 3 studies that helped inspire the class study that we ran)

      • Wow. I think the professor’s response to the class’s insistence that socialism supposedly works was a very good answer.
        Actually, I met someone who got very upset when the greater part of the American Govt. class I was in insisted that anti-terrorism actions are a good thing. We were arguing that sometimes–even often–preemptive action against terrorists is needed, and she insisted that preventative measures (as opposed to actual preemptive operations) would be enough. I said that we have to strike a balance between security and freedom. That was when things got ugly and she said to me in this horrible tone, “You come from a military family don’t you?” Which is true, except both my parents are retired and have been since I was in grade school. We argued that, though human life is precious, we have to sometimes choose between taking down a few malevolent people and loosing hundreds of innocent lives. In the end, she got up and left the classroom, despite the fact that we hadn’t been deliberately nasty to her or anything. It was kind of scary for a few moments, though most of the debate that went on about where the best balance of security and personal freedoms lay was fascinating.

      • Well at least some good discussion came from it. It seems that people like to attack the person to avoid the discussion today.

      • It’s so irritating when people do that (which is probably why they do it.) Still, I think that the biggest difference between fascism, socialism, and communism is the rate at which people decide to drag their feet, since obviously “earning wages” is no longer a valid excuse for anything…

  15. The only stupidity I see was from Mark, I can see that he is a really classy guy. Mark, Truth would be missed but we cannot say as much for you and your pompous attitude.

  16. Mike you should learn a lesson from tina’s comment.

    “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing””

    This quote fits you very well. Go troll somewhere else we don’t need your ignorant crap getting in the way of real discussions.

    FTR truth I would like to be updated on that study your last one was very interesting.

  17. Well Mark got what he wanted. I gave Mark a 30 day ban. Mark Tokarski when you decide to behave and have a real conversation I will look forward to you comments. Until then I suggest you take a break for the next 3o days and consider why you are offensive to others. You continued to repeat false accusations and judgments without even getting the facts of the study, a study that you asked about and I provided a little bit of information until I had time to present the whole report (which I even stated). I love how you judge everyone as if you know all about them. Your assumptions are just that and they serve no purpose in discussion. Not everyone is as “stupid” as you think they are and based on your posts and from what I have seen and heard from them you really should not be throwing stones. I might add that it does not mean a person has a fetish of some sort just because they do not agree with you. I gave you a lot of rope and the benefit of the doubt but I can see why you get banned from forums often. Learn to have a civil discussion and I will welcome you back, continue with your childish ways and you will be banned again.

    I also suggest everyone here cool off as well.

  18. What did Mark expect? What did he offer? Nothing. He asked for something you gave him some and said you can get the whole thing later and then he makes rude remarks without even seeing the study. This guy had an agenda form the start just like in Dougs blog, he just came it to troll. I went to Marks blog as well and as for meat it was a vegetarian meal with only one dish.
    FYI Mark I have read the study as well as the other professors, it was approved.

    Mark you wont be missed.

    • Thanks spider, but to be fair Mark was not aware of what I do for a living or that you work for the same University that I do. Lets move past this Mark thing he will serve his time and then he will have a new chance.
      As I have stated I may post the study but it will take some time I would have to remove names and such. I do also find the idea of constructing the study and sharing it here step by step to be a fun opportunity.

      I find Marks logic of argument very flawed that he is unwilling to compare giving something that you work for away to help others (grades) to giving something that you work for away to help others (money) and cannot make the connection.

      His whole argument is that you cannot give grades away? The study gave a situational analysis (I will paraphrase with less detail here) that asked students if they could would they, it was rather simple.

      The funny thing is that this was a variation of a existing study we just added more depth and conducted it more professionally. Here is a little info on the original study:

      So Rob and Mark both need to learn to ask real questions and they may get the answers they seek.

      So to be clear, you work with students to create a study, they conduct the study and gather the results under the Professors guidance. You then allow the students to use the data and come up with their own interpretations of the data (statistical inference). How was that contrived? That is real teaching, standing and telling students only the positives of a system is not teaching. I believe in exploring the options on all sides and then I allow them to make decisions for themselves…that is critical thinking, which may be why one of the reasons I have earned a crystal apple award for college teaching.

  19. Another thing I want to address in this topic is that some proponents that say the study is not fair because we cannot give grades away, but is that true? The answer is no. Let me explain, for one if a class is doing poorly the instructor may give extra credit (which many have done), but the professor may not have given the same opportunity to all classes…is that not a form of distribution to bring everyone up to the same level? Now the top earners have average scores. Now let’s go to a better example. How about the curve is that not grade redistribution? Yes! I will not go into all of the detail here on the curve and how it works but I will give you some information will help:
    This very point alone shows the failure in some peoples logic when they say we always get what we have earned, when the truth is sometimes the goal posts are moved and this can be at the expense of others. A true curve can and often does take away from the high earners and that is redistribution of grades.

  20. Great article showing how some people try to act like they are big minds yet they are closed minded trolls. I have seen a similar study conducted at my college as well, it has been also used successfully in debates. People like Mark want to try to discredit the study because it proves their views wrong.

    Truth what is your thoughts on healthcare?

    • LaurenP,
      Thank you for reading but let’s keep the discussion on target and stay away from name calling I will not let my blog sink to that level it is undignified. With a little hope he and all of us can learn from the experience.

      I am not sure I understand your question but I will give you an overview of my “view” remember this is just my opinion it does not mean that I think my answer is the only way or the best way.
      First off, I think our system needs work, studies show that we are not the best but to be fair we are not the worst. With that said there is always room for improvement but I do not see the affordable healthcare act as the proper fix. The affordable care act increased the financial burden on the government which is one thing we really do not want to do especially now. Since some parts of the law was suspended (which is a whole other discussion) it has reduced the damage some but it still more of a burden than a fix. Legislation increased government spending for Medicaid as well as subsidies for private insurance. This act also led to tax hikes with levies on selected targets (and I am not a fan of tax hikes in economically slow times).
      Professor Casey Mulligan of the University of Chicago stated that “Obamacare” (I don’t like to call it that I think it is used to provide a negative reaction) contains huge implicit tax hikes on work and other forms of productive behavior. I also tend to agree with his assessment, government reduces incentives to be more productive and earn more money when it provides handouts that are based on people earning less money.
      As you can see here Thanks to the American Enterprise Institute, we now have a more detailed picture showing the impact of redistribution programs.
      Now with this said it does not mean that I am against healthcare reform, I would like to see everyone have access and affordable health care.
      With that said the affordable care act is not the answer we need a way that will benefit all at a better cost. To quote Professor Mulligan:
      “During a period that included more than a dozen tax increases, the ACA is arguably the largest as a single piece of legislation, adding about six percentage points to the marginal tax rate faced, on average, by workers in the economy. The only way to cite larger marginal tax increases would be to combine multiple coincident laws, such as the Revenue Acts of 1950 and 1951 and the new payroll tax rate that went into effect in 1950. Even with these adjustments, the ACA is still the third largest marginal tax rate hike during the seventy years. …Let’s not be surprised that, as we implement a new law that taxes jobs and incomes, we are ending up with fewer jobs and less income.”
      As I stated I want everyone to have healthcare but I also want everyone to have the opportunity to have a job. Without a job how can we pay for healthcare (this is something that some people just cannot seem to understand based on a simple lack of economic education, which is why I am a strong supporter of basic business principles and economics being mandatory before high school graduation.
      The Affordable Care Act may also be providing a negative impact on the workforce by making government dependency a more attractive offer. Economic output is a function of how much labor and capital are being productively utilized. I suggest reading about Henry Ford he knew this (and do not believe the social hype and twists that Ford raised the wages for a social good it was a business decision first and it had a good impact on the area second). I can explain that and provide some great sources of information on that if you would like later.
      I hope that addressed your question if not please let me know and feel free to share your views on this subject as well.

  21. I must say that the logic of Mark is seriously flawed, I noticed he judged the study that truthwillwin1 mentioned without having any facts and he made sure to leave an important part out of the quote to hide the truth.

    What makes this even better is now he removed your comments to cover his lie.

    Then another guy named Steve W says “Last week my brother told me that 97% of statistics that people bring up in an argument are made up on the spot.”
    Mark’s response was what? “Agreed. He made it up for the sake of credibility.”

    Mark is okay with that why, it is simple if he agrees it does not matter how made up the data is but if he does not agree with it he will make any excuse he can to discredit the study or the source.

    He is a perfect source for hypocrisy.

  22. Mark continues to sink to new lows. I can really see why he has been banned from blogs. If you disagree with Mark he loses his cool and goes off the deep end.
    I would suggest only reading his blog if you enjoy bias irrational fiction.

  23. I will skip Mark’s blog I am not into political hack fiction especially when it is proven that he will hide and lie about the truth in order to spread his message. Thank you for sharing your views on healthcare as well.

    Good day

  24. Keep up the good work truth you did great on catching these nuts on trying to make a point of nothing. It was funny that you provided Mark with some info on a study then he twisted it like you had to post the entire study in a comment. Then he has a guy post a fake concern and expects a real answer after posting something stupid.
    “Rob Kailey says:
    June 26, 2014 at 3:08 pm
    Mark, I have to give you props and due credit for taking this guy to task for his “study”. What he presented wasn’t a ‘study’, it was an unverifiable anecdote of Randian delusion.”
    You clearly did not say this is the study, you shared some results from the study and since he could not stand the truth he had to come up with a character attack. From what I have read this is his common troll move.
    FYI not all college studies are published, but he should know that if he had any sense, on top of that if you provided it here you would lose your anonymity. I find it also funny that similar studies have been conducted with the same results but I guess they would ignore that as well. Also great job on explaining how the curve actually is a form of socialism which also proves Mark and his buddy wrong. You took the high road on this one and I look forward to your next study.
    I guess he will need to continue his blog of lies and hope that he can generate more conspiracy nuts that cannot embrace reality.

  25. Thank you Jonzeal, I know better than to waste my time on that guy and his buddy. I was going to do the work to remove all of the names and connections to preserve my identity but if I am going to do all of that work I might as well do something more productive and provide a new study later! I think it will be a nice experiment to see it evolve with blog posts. I figured why bother they are biased from the start so I might as well do something productive instead. I don’t have a stats class running at this time but the next one I have will generate a new study. What I found even more fun was that the students wanted to conduct the study it was their idea not mine so the whole “pushing an agenda…I can read your mind” was crazy from the start. People like Mark and Rob think they are great thinkers and everyone else cannot measure up to them and as you can see here most people see how crazy they are.
    Once again notice their judgement without any facts all they had was bias judgement rending their response to a pure emotional crazy fit. What makes it even interesting is that for two people that pride themselves on being open minded they rush to judgment with conclusions that fit their own delusions. If they would have behaved like adults I would have been more than happy to provide them with the study. Now they can wait for my next one before they whine about the results.

  26. FYI- I am still waiting on the next stats course so we can run a new experiment.

  27. I thought I would share some quotes that were made about Mark so that everyone knows who I was dealing with:

    “Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS May 8, 2012 at 4:43 PM
    Mark, What he is saying…. The Plain, non-beating-around the bushes conversation is your not a Montanan your from Colorado. You don’t live here, You do not speak like a Montana democrat, You definitely dont speakfrom any shade of Left, You speak only as a tool for the Right!

    My version of you is: You are a pompous lying Ass, who hasn’t won a debate here once. Your a man who openly writes about everything he hates in Montana, and most of the time, your #1 comment is loosely translated that you hate Montanans. The second is how you tell people your always right, the 3rd is how you continually sputter lies.”

    How true he failed to win here as well, he lied and it did not work.

  28. I am curious about one thing… I read another professor’s study, in which students with top grades were assigned to tutor students with the lowest grades, which was a form of socialism (I believe they based it off of Sweden, but might have been Norwegian), and had an opposing group where the students could use their money to buy answers to tests and other money based ways of getting a good grade (basically approved cheating), and this group was the American Capitalist way. The Socialist way as a group did MUCH better than the Capitalist group, and only the richest and most talented students did well in the Capitalist group. Your study seems to have found the opposite, though of course the methods of coming to the end conclusion were different. What did you expect to find when you wrote the study out? Did your conclusions support your theory? What I’m getting at, is that as humans, we often MAKE things support what we think by the way we go at getting the answers. I mean, it would seem that your study doesn’t support socialism, but this other professor’s study DID…and honestly, I have no issues with Capitalism until it is ruled by greed… Socialism (or social contracts) have their place too. Otherwise, NOTHING gets done, we have no military, we have no cops, we have no safety net, we don’t take care of the poor, disabled, or young. These are all necessities of living in society, and they require a certain amount of socialism. A hand up vs a hand out, etc. I just get the feeling from what you wrote that you felt that socialism was a failed idea…and I only agree insofar that COMMUNISM doesn’t work on a governmental level. The idea that we can level the field totally is kind of crazy…but the idea that we should take care of those that cannot take care of themselves, or help others for the good of the whole is not only good, but in my mind, necessary. True socialism should have the end goal of rising everyone up together, not of taking the wealth from one person and giving it to another. However, we do tend towards selfishness, and it is taught to us from day one…and in Americans, it is a cultural identity to be individualistic. So I may very well be completely idealistic and have unattainable goals here, but if you think you can’t…you can’t…and if you think you can…you can. So I guess I will keep my idealistic thoughts alive and see where they lead me. What say you to my incredibly ramble (which for me, is par for the course)?

    • Thank you for the ind depth response, a few issue I see with this is assuming one is capitalistic and the other socialist. One assumes that capitalism is against help and that is not true. Consider the invisible hand theory (which is also not perfect but what system is). Also consider what happens when the money runs out for buying success? The demographics of the area would also have an impact on the study for example Sweden tends to have a more socialistic mentality which very well could have an impact on the study as well. The length of time of the study can impact the results, sure short term this could work but what happens if it is long term?
      To be fair I was surprised the conclusion did not really support my theory I expected some impact but not as much as what had happened.
      You also stated this which I agree with 100% “I have no issues with Capitalism until it is ruled by greed… Socialism (or social contracts) have their place too”
      That is the reason we have a mixed system the key is to keep it in balance, when we go to extremes on either side we tend to have more harm than good.
      I strongly believe in helping others (and I do every day with free education classes and donations). I was one of those in need at one time and I appreciated peoples generosity but without their drive they would not have had the capacity to help me in my time of need. One needs to ask is selfishness a result of a system or is it more of a personal issue? Trust me your post was far from a rant and it is the type of discussion that I love and appreciate!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: