What am I in for?

What am I in for?

Attached: 275376A6-6B80-4AA7-AD57-4E1E2E7F7D44.jpg (4032x3024, 2.65M)

Other urls found in this thread:

twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1076845397795065856
youtube.com/watch?v=fSXYhnrwjQE
twitter.com/AnonBabble

/pol/

IQ stuff and stuff, you know? It is what it is

Attached: shrug.gif (448x252, 2.39M)

>graphs is raciss

Why do you still have your Christmas tree up?

Dry ass shit. It's a textbook.

Quick run down
>darkies have low IQ
>whites have medium IQ
>gooks have high IQ
>jews have godtier IQ

Theres been an IQ debate, which I'm still skeptical about. About it not being a reliable statistical measure. This is not a lefty argument, look up NNTaleb on IQ. He brings up some interesting fact. And everybody knows the psychology field is bullshit and not real science, so I wouldn't call this book the holy grail or anything. Take it with a grain of salt

Taleb's arguments about the reliability of IQ as a measure are only convincing to people who haven't taken an undergrad probability course or even done cursory research into probability theory. I wrote about 4500 words about it in response and then figured you probably wouldn't care or look into it but the jist is this:

1. Measures don't need to be monotonic and often they aren't
2. His assertion that a measure that is only useful in the negative isn't true, and IQ isn't only useful in the negative. The diminishing returns at the upper bounds seen when compared to things like standardized testing are almost entirely due to the upper bounds of the test they are being compared against, not a fault of IQ.
3. His graph that he generates as a demonstration of how a function only defined in the negative can look useful when noise is added is intentionally deceptive, and doesn't actually demonstrate what he wants mathematically, it just creates a similar shape due to the nature of stochastically distributed noise over a linear signal.
4. Having a .56 replicability rate for IQ studies is actually pretty damn good. That's by far the best of every social science I'm aware of, and is even better than many pure sciences and subfields of mathematics. It's actually within the design that a decent number of papers won't replicate given that it's more or less illegal to publish a paper that exclusively contains information we already can replicate 100% pre-publication.

Yeah, so his incerto series is great food for thought, but his probability theory either needs a little bit of work, or he's being intentionally misleading.

Clip your nails, disgusting mongrel. And slit your fucking throat before your next thread.

HAhahah

>muh everything i dont like is /pol/
End yourself

It is time to take down the Christmas tree.

fpbp

pseudoscience

foot fungus

>wahhh race is pseudoscience
>"what even is race?"

calm down |Y|

Never realised how cute my feet are compared to other guys'

>1. Measures don't need to be monotonic and often they aren't
Why not? Wouldn't that undermine the ability for the measure to make accurate predictions?

answer this guy's question

Hi Ryan.

I like how neither side actually fucking reads it.

Too smart to be Alt Hype lol. Although his videos are comfy.

Crushing loneliness and a life of misplaced anger.

>look up NNTaleb on IQ
Here is the twitter thread started by Taleb, for such a famous intellectual the straws he grasps for are embarrassingly thin. One of them include the claim (paraphrased), that the non-linearity of IQ makes it nonsensical to link any correlation to it. This is absurd, should we all deny climate change now, or electromagnetism?
twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1076845397795065856
Sean Last has a very good response to his twitter thread, Taleb is just acting like a provocateur here.
youtube.com/watch?v=fSXYhnrwjQE

You can also look up Ryan Faulks response, although it is more inflammatory

This feels like copypasta. Should we make it into one?

Sean Last and Ryan Faulk

based and redpilled

IYI detected

It's another "sociologists and psychologists fuck up the stats without realizing and manage to get published" episode!

nice closet apt poorboi

>the stats are fucked up because I don’t like what they entail

You can take any stats and use them to suggest anything if you're a sociologist. That's the job. Stats don't say anything until somebody interprets them.

gay. you think every critique of your fave book must be motivated by hurt feelings irt the thesis of the book. not very charitable, you fucking retard.
weird how your mind bends to maintain your shitty worldview and defend itself from meaningful critique

>herrnstein
No thanks, I don't read books written by (((they))).

>dude truth isn’t real lmao
>*autistic screeching*
>meaningful critique

>So retarded actual logic comes across as incoherent screeching
yeah I know your kind.

>4. Having a .56 replicability rate for IQ studies is actually pretty damn good. That's by far the best of every social science I'm aware of,
this is *the* most important thing for most people to know, Steven Pinker has commented on this several times. Are there measurement problems with IQ? Absolutely and people will be debating that shit until the end of time probably. Should there be any doubt that "g factor" exists? No, this is one of the most reliable findings in all of psychology. Some people just are smarter than others and these differences persist throughout the lifespan.

>Useless test
>But the most replicatable in a useless field
>Therefore useful
?????
I don't wipe my ass with the least urushiolic poison oak strains. I use glorious soft cotton. No anus hives, thanks.

ring-a-ding-ding motherfucker