No. Fuck you Snopes. Your site is continually full of bullshit. Anyone who donates to either Snopes or Wikipedia is a god damn fool. The Internet would evolve better tools if both of these pieces of shit went away.
🇳🇱
@djsumdog Wikipedia has high quality good content and is relatively not biased (it is sometimes bias).
Snopes on the other hand is a bias piece of shit.
@freemo @natsock @djsumdog That's not how it works at all lmao. Scientists just setup experiments to confirm their preconceived notions.
@freemo
Perhaps a generation ago that was still true, but now it is an institution whose perceived authority is leveraged to bolster liberal narratives, and everything which cannot serve that purpose is ostracized. Because knowledge generation has always been such a gatekept process, it's apparently been pretty easy to recast the priestly class.
Obviously, some fields are less politically useful than others and are relatively untouched by this, but honestly just give it time.
@djsumdog @Eris
Perhaps a generation ago that was still true, but now it is an institution whose perceived authority is leveraged to bolster liberal narratives, and everything which cannot serve that purpose is ostracized. Because knowledge generation has always been such a gatekept process, it's apparently been pretty easy to recast the priestly class.
Obviously, some fields are less politically useful than others and are relatively untouched by this, but honestly just give it time.
@djsumdog @Eris
@DK_Dharmaraj @freemo @djsumdog @natsock The phrase "settled fact" is antithetical to actual science.
@DK_Dharmaraj
This is a great example of gatekeeping. Anything that directly butts heads with the political motives of the community will be discarded as "bad science" and there no process through that.
@freemo @Eris @djsumdog
This is a great example of gatekeeping. Anything that directly butts heads with the political motives of the community will be discarded as "bad science" and there no process through that.
@freemo @Eris @djsumdog
Do you have an example of after him being labeled a racist journals refusing to take his publicans or peer-review submissions?
@freemo @natsock @djsumdog @Eris @DK_Dharmaraj His wikipedia article references a number of articles saying as much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Comments_on_race
@freemo
Let's stop with that. The AAPA is not going to all smack their foreheads and concede to racism. Their constituents are not interested in research that contravenes their values, which they are allowed to keep because they are entirely in tune with the political zeitgeist.
https://physanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statement-race-and-racism-2019/
@djsumdog @Eris @DK_Dharmaraj
Let's stop with that. The AAPA is not going to all smack their foreheads and concede to racism. Their constituents are not interested in research that contravenes their values, which they are allowed to keep because they are entirely in tune with the political zeitgeist.
https://physanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statement-race-and-racism-2019/
@djsumdog @Eris @DK_Dharmaraj
@freemo
CNN: "James Watson re-endowed with honors after new study revealing niggers are subhuman"
@djsumdog @Eris @DK_Dharmaraj
CNN: "James Watson re-endowed with honors after new study revealing niggers are subhuman"
@djsumdog @Eris @DK_Dharmaraj
@DK_Dharmaraj @freemo @Eris @djsumdog @natsock its a settled fact that IQ is not construct valid. do you accept this settled fact, or are you an ideologue?
seanamcclure.medium.com/intelligence-complexity-and-the-failed-science-of-iq-4fb17ce3f12
seanamcclure.medium.com/intelligence-complexity-and-the-failed-science-of-iq-4fb17ce3f12
@racerealist @DK_Dharmaraj @djsumdog @freemo @natsock
Sir you cited an opinion piece from medium you are embarrassing yourself.
Sir you cited an opinion piece from medium you are embarrassing yourself.
@Eris @DK_Dharmaraj @djsumdog @freemo @natsock you are dismissing an article before having read it. dont be a dumb faggot and learn to read
@racerealist @DK_Dharmaraj @djsumdog @freemo @natsock
>you are dismissing an article before having read it
Yeah, absolutely.
>you are dismissing an article before having read it
Yeah, absolutely.
@Eris @DK_Dharmaraj @djsumdog @freemo @natsock yeah that makes you a dumb illiterate fag
tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10888691.2014.983635
tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10888691.2014.983635
@Eris @DK_Dharmaraj @djsumdog @freemo @natsock yes it does. read Richardson and Norgate's arguments and get back to me.
@racerealist @DK_Dharmaraj @djsumdog @freemo @natsock I neither know nor care who those people are or what their arguments are.
@racerealist @Eris @djsumdog @freemo @natsock
This is the psychometric equivalent of epicycles posited to save geocentrism. You're a midwit faggot
This is the psychometric equivalent of epicycles posited to save geocentrism. You're a midwit faggot
@racerealist @DK_Dharmaraj @djsumdog @freemo @natsock i aint clickin dat shit nigga if you've got an argument make it here yourself like a man
@Eris @DK_Dharmaraj @djsumdog @freemo @natsock IQ is not a construct valid test. i had already argued that. that should be obvious. it has numerous conceptual and methodological problems (there is no theory for IQ test construction nor any theory for why individuals differ in intelligence)
for this reason, psychologists have historically tried to reify IQ thru correlational studies. they believe this provides it predictive validity. for starters theres an issue here as correlations arent the same as predicting unforeseen observations (IQ cannot do that as it has no explanatory theories) but mostly the correlations are either self-fulfilling (no shit it correlates with school achievement, the SAT and IQ are different versions of the same test) or the correlations are very low such as in the IQ/job performance relationship (see richardson and norgate)
for this reason, psychologists have historically tried to reify IQ thru correlational studies. they believe this provides it predictive validity. for starters theres an issue here as correlations arent the same as predicting unforeseen observations (IQ cannot do that as it has no explanatory theories) but mostly the correlations are either self-fulfilling (no shit it correlates with school achievement, the SAT and IQ are different versions of the same test) or the correlations are very low such as in the IQ/job performance relationship (see richardson and norgate)
@racerealist @Eris @djsumdog @freemo @natsock
If your theory were correct then literal retards would have the exact same intelligence as physiologically normal human beings. The fact that they don't is all the refutation this bullshit needs. In reality it's just special pleading and semantic hair splitting over the fact that, being a mental quality, it's inherently trickier to measure intelligence than it is a physical quality like height
If your theory were correct then literal retards would have the exact same intelligence as physiologically normal human beings. The fact that they don't is all the refutation this bullshit needs. In reality it's just special pleading and semantic hair splitting over the fact that, being a mental quality, it's inherently trickier to measure intelligence than it is a physical quality like height
@DK_Dharmaraj @Eris @djsumdog @freemo @natsock this is hardly a defense. no shit retards arent as smart, we dont need a pretentious construct by pencil-pushing academics to tell us that.
what scientific validity does the test have?
what scientific validity does the test have?
@racerealist @DK_Dharmaraj @djsumdog @freemo @natsock
>what scientific validity does the test have?
It gives you a very good idea of how smart they are its not that deep lmao
>what scientific validity does the test have?
It gives you a very good idea of how smart they are its not that deep lmao
@Eris
Just because a metric doesn't meet an arbitrary level of precision doesn't mean it's worthless.
>that gal is short
>"what's short? Define short? If she were taller would she still be short? Huh? How much taller?"
>she short, nigga
IQ is a valid metric in the same way that race realism is a valid metric, it's both a useful heuristic and incredibly upsetting to shitlibs.
@racerealist @DK_Dharmaraj @djsumdog @freemo @natsock
Just because a metric doesn't meet an arbitrary level of precision doesn't mean it's worthless.
>that gal is short
>"what's short? Define short? If she were taller would she still be short? Huh? How much taller?"
>she short, nigga
IQ is a valid metric in the same way that race realism is a valid metric, it's both a useful heuristic and incredibly upsetting to shitlibs.
@racerealist @DK_Dharmaraj @djsumdog @freemo @natsock
@racerealist @Eris @djsumdog @freemo @natsock
Ok so now you've acknowledged the principle, you're just splitting hairs, exactly like I said
Ok so now you've acknowledged the principle, you're just splitting hairs, exactly like I said
@racerealist @Eris @DK_Dharmaraj @djsumdog @freemo @natsock >correlation
"Do you have a source on that?
Source?
A source. I need a source.
Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.
No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.
You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.
Do you have a degree in that field?
A college degree? In that field?
Then your arguments are invalid.
No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.
You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.
Nope, still haven't.
I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a chud."
"Do you have a source on that?
Source?
A source. I need a source.
Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.
No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.
You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.
Do you have a degree in that field?
A college degree? In that field?
Then your arguments are invalid.
No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.
You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.
Nope, still haven't.
I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a chud."
@racerealist @Eris @djsumdog @freemo @natsock
Because they're retarded. "Socio-economic status" isn't "construct valid" either but you retarded niggers use it all the time. "Alexa, what is a heuristic?"
Because they're retarded. "Socio-economic status" isn't "construct valid" either but you retarded niggers use it all the time. "Alexa, what is a heuristic?"
@DK_Dharmaraj @racerealist @djsumdog @freemo @natsock
>testing someone's reasoning skills doesnt actually show you their reasoning skills
am i supposed to actually take this argument seriously
>testing someone's reasoning skills doesnt actually show you their reasoning skills
am i supposed to actually take this argument seriously
@racerealist @DK_Dharmaraj @djsumdog @freemo @natsock That is my non-nerd translation of your argument.
@DK_Dharmaraj @Eris @djsumdog @freemo @natsock when did i or Sean mention SES?
why do you not respond to Sean's arguments?
why do you not respond to Sean's arguments?
@racerealist @DK_Dharmaraj @djsumdog @freemo @natsock
>why do you not respond to Sean's arguments?
Because he's not here to make them. Make your own.
>why do you not respond to Sean's arguments?
Because he's not here to make them. Make your own.
@racerealist @Eris @djsumdog @freemo @natsock
Now I get it, you're literally too retarded to understand analogies
Now I get it, you're literally too retarded to understand analogies
@DK_Dharmaraj @Eris @djsumdog @freemo @natsock see : poa.st/notice/AACYzrYOPcRONoW6wS
also learn to read
also learn to read
@racerealist @Eris @djsumdog @freemo @natsock
Does "Socio-economic status" have predictive validity? Yes or no
Does "Socio-economic status" have predictive validity? Yes or no
@DK_Dharmaraj @Eris @djsumdog @freemo @natsock socio-economic status is not a psychological test. the fuck are you talking about?
IQ does not have predictive validity because its correlation with job performance is lower than every other predictor we have at 0.6
IQ does not have predictive validity because its correlation with job performance is lower than every other predictor we have at 0.6
@racerealist @Eris @djsumdog @freemo @natsock
IQ is not a measure of "job performance"
When yoy stated that retards are "not as smart" as normal people, what did you mean?
IQ is not a measure of "job performance"
When yoy stated that retards are "not as smart" as normal people, what did you mean?
@DK_Dharmaraj @Eris @djsumdog @freemo @natsock
>IQ is not a measure of "job performance"
for starters, its very common for psychologists to point to job performance as proof of its predictive validity, as its one of its highest (alleged) independent correlates. so this dismissal is hilarious
but more importantly, its not a measure of jack shit because it isnt construct valid
>IQ is not a measure of "job performance"
for starters, its very common for psychologists to point to job performance as proof of its predictive validity, as its one of its highest (alleged) independent correlates. so this dismissal is hilarious
but more importantly, its not a measure of jack shit because it isnt construct valid
