🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@NickolasGir No I couldnt care less about the order. You either didnt mention that your numbers were made up, or I had missed it. If its the latter then I apologize, if its the former then I accept your apology for not being clear.

@UpstateVoice Way to loose all credibility by refusing to say who actually voiced that quote. An interenet search comes up with nothing but exact repeats of this same article...

@lucifargundam

Why would anyone bother to watch a cooking show if you cant see someones soul being destroyed in the process...

@2ck @izaya

@NickolasGir Ahh now see **this** statement is very respectable. You have went from "there **is** methodological problems in data that disagrees with me that I havent seen but must be wrong" to "I **suspect** there are...".

Now thats the correct way to approach this.

@NickolasGir No problem, apology accepted for not responding.

See therein is the problem. You made up fictional numbers pulled out of thin air with no data. My response was "hmm I wonder if he is right, let me try to find some data for the numbers". I found the data, the only data I could find, and shared it. You're assumption then was that your made up numbers with no real data must be true and conclusions attempting to draw from actual data must have methodological problems, and must clearly be false. Not simply that the numbers feel high and might be false (and thus you want to do more research) but that it **is** false before ever seeing the data.

It amazes me you cant see the problem with your approach. It doesnt rely on finding better data, it relies on assuming all the data that doesnt agree with your made up numbers must be wrong and that you will work backwards to find the problems in the data that must exist before you even see the data.

To be clear I dont think my data is correct. I am skeptical of it but without better data I wont dismiss it either. What I am concerned about is the mental gymnastics that demonstrate a strong confirmation bias that is almost intentional from the get go.

@NickolasGir I am not chiding you for not responding quick enough. The assumption here is you made up the figures. If you got it from a study I'm happy to wait. But you've been asked 2 or 3 times now and never said you got the numbers from a study or that you'd be providing them. You just continued to discuss the subject while ignoring the request all together.

Thanks for finally responding and I look forward to seeing the study that produced the exact numbers you mentioned.

@matrix I need to get some LGBT lights installed in my car... all the cool kids have them.

@NickolasGir By the way still waiting to hear how you came up with your own IQ numbers... since you apparently have a study you feel doesnt have methodological errors I would love to see it, just as I am happy to share mine this evening when I get home.

Or did you just maket he numbers up? That apparently has no methodological issues, just guessing?

@NickolasGir exactly, you promised/garunteed methodological problems in a study you havent seen yet. Now if your response had been humble and suggests that you thought the numbers were high and **suspected** methological problems but would earnestly consider the data without drawing a conclusion then you wouldnt have confirmation bias.

But your two levels deep on confirmation bias now. Not only did you already conclude you'd find methological problems in a study you havent seen, but you are also certain that assuming a study cant possibly be correct because it disagreed with you is somehow not confirmation bias when it is pretty much the definition quality of it.

@NickolasGir By the way while we are waiting for me to get home, please share your source that would suggest the IQs for scientists you already listed. Unlike you I am more than willing to change my mind when I see how informed your assertion happens to be.

@NickolasGir No that wouldnt be confirmation bias, that would simply be not expressing your confirmation bias.

If you already drew conclusions about data you didnt see and have promised to disagree with it before seeing what it is, that is confirmation bias. Doing it silently doesnt make it any more or less a bias, it just means you keep your bias to yourself.

@pystopheles

I dont recall ever saying it was meaningful. I said that scientists have very high IQ on average. I never claimed IQ as a measure is a meaningful measure.

@NickolasGir

@pystopheles

Sounds like someone with no education would say out of jealousy honestly. Not that I think IQ is all that meaningful mind you, but I felt it useful to play by the OPs game.

@NickolasGir

@NickolasGir Well before you even attempted to counter-prove the point you've already had a major methodological problem of your own. You've admited to extreme confirmation bias and that you will find something wrong with a study you havent even read yet.

I'll find the link when im back behind a computer again.

@NickolasGir Here is the breakdown by verbal, spatial, and mathematical if you are curious.

@NickolasGir Actually your numbers are way off from reality. On average the IQ of scientists is something much higher than 154. In fact 154 is the IQ you get if you exclude the math portion of an IQ test in an attempt to make it "fair". On an ordinary IQ test their IQ would be even higher. In fact a vanishingly small portion of scientists have an IQ below 122.

@abloo So is voluntary metaverse :)

@rchrd

Was that a sketch they did?

@funny