Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 12:03:16 UTC No. 16288308

if a study is real then the statistical methodology should check out, the converse doesnt hold unfortunately

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 12:21:03 UTC No. 16288317

>>16288308
How does it check out?
I know there is a replication problem in academia where most of the studies can't get the same results if made again.

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 12:26:50 UTC No. 16288323

>>16288317
you can check it checks out with regards to basic things like are they using they using an appropriate model, do they have a large enough sample size, are they using an appropriate significance level etc (the answer to this last question is usually "no" and is one of the reasons for the replication crisis)

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 12:32:55 UTC No. 16288326

I simply look at the writing style and instantly know whether the paper is written by a team of nervous students, an obvious crank, or a weary researcher documenting their unexciting results.

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 12:57:46 UTC No. 16288341

>>16288323
>you can check it checks out with regards to basic things like are they using they using an appropriate model, do they have a large enough sample size, are they using an appropriate significance level etc (the answer to this last question is usually "no" and is one of the reasons for the replication crisis)
How is an appropriate model?
What n is a good sample size?
What is an appropriate significance level?

Can you give me some examples please?
Where do you learn this stuff, in statistics class?

>>16288326
Yeah but that isn't enough for normies.

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 13:09:17 UTC No. 16288351

>>16288341
>Can you give me some examples please?
>Where do you learn this stuff, in statistics class?
No I will not spoonfeed you critical thinking skills
Go develop your brain

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 13:23:24 UTC No. 16288369

>>16288351
I just want to know what you consider a good process

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 13:34:29 UTC No. 16288377

>>16288341
>what is an appropriate model
does the model sensibly capture the data? for example if I fit a straight line to the height a ball falls over time I know that this will give me something retarded because its quadratic (in absence of air resistance)
>what n is a good sample size
it depends on how powerful you want the test to be, but no matter what it should usually be greater than a few dozen for clt to kick in (most statistical procedures assume normality)
>what is appropriate significance level?
it depends on the utility associated with H0 and the utility of H1
for example in physics you need 5-sigma of confidence (i.e. the p-value associated with being at least 5 standard deviations from the mean of a normal distribution) before claiming to have discovered a new particle because of the utility associated with discovering a new particle/falsely claiming to discover a new particle whereas for sociology or psychology or some shit things dont really matter that much which is why they use 5% p-value
>do you learn this in statistics class
obviously

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 14:10:03 UTC No. 16288401

>>16288257
Stop it. Literally EVERYONE knows race is real. Every normie, every professor and every one of their students knows it. It’s not even remotely a debate, it’s just an artifact of current power relations within our society, ie, it’s necessary for you to hold a certain fetish or totem within your social power dynamic, like how it’s necessary to wear a pin of the great leader in North Korea. The reason for holding the fetish is supplied, of course, so you can repeat it when promoted and re-enforce it. Posting evidence of race being real is just as useless as posting evidence why wearing Kim badges is useless in North Korea —everyone already fully understands, logically, that it’s just a fetish.

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 14:12:13 UTC No. 16288405

>>16288257
Althou the message is true this chart is bullshit

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 16:44:28 UTC No. 16288542

>>16288401
Not everyone knows.
>>16288405
Why?

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 17:36:20 UTC No. 16288595

>>16288257
I'm replying to your image. Whoever created it needs to understand how to draw the line between "the reality of race" and "the reality of intelligence differences between races" when they are presenting information. Whether or not the latter is true, it causes a knee-jerk reaction in most people and causes them to discount the other info on the reality of race itself, which after all constitutes 6 out of 8 of your "myths." Wait until these more fundamental myths are debunked before you start shifting the discussion in a more controversial direction.

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 20:27:32 UTC No. 16288805

>>16288595
You don't think there are differences in intelligence between races?

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 21:17:51 UTC No. 16288874

>>16288805
I think it's more questionable (and certainly more harmful) than the idea that race is something real which can be determined from genetics. Right now progressives are not even accepting the genetic reality of race at all (which is manifestly absurd), and they are winning in the sense that the top of all the related Wikipedia articles support their view. Even if you want people to eventually accept intelligence differences between races, focus on this easier target first.

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 22:15:07 UTC No. 16288935

"Most people with wisdom and intelligence can separate narrative from reality regarding race and thosands of other things. Most of these things don't have much significance in their successful lives.
/sci/ is relatively good at using psychology to trigger readers. The topics are science, but the thread-starters are less Scientists than they are Behavioral Psychologists... In spite of that, they are afflicted w/ manw/hammer syndrome. Limited toolbox. They are fixated onusing IQ, or race, and the combination of both.

To pretend this thread is genuine; answer is that producing scientific proof against the narrative of a regime is fruitless, and even dangerous."
-Dehairiest 'glockswitch' Jackson

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:03:58 UTC No. 16289462

>>16288874
So what you are saying is that we should focus on proving that race is real, then prove that there are differences between races, instead of all at the same time?
That's how the image is wrong then?
>>16288935
K

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 15:29:24 UTC No. 16289691

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 17:11:49 UTC No. 16289795

>>16288257
>taking a statistics course just to see whether or not a partially sourced (most studies in this jpeg do not actually have the graphs presented in the jpeg) is accurate
I think you should take a statistics course to become more aware of cognitive biases that affect data collection and analysis. It's very uncommon for outright lies to be published in scientific literature, it mostly comes down to methodology and interpretation of data that makes studies dubious, which would be an extremely easy pitfall to fall into considering that these IQ studies use a system of ordinal measurement rather than cardinal (the difference between an 85 IQ and 90 IQ individual is not necessarily equal or even proportional to the difference between a 100 IQ and 105 IQ individual), requires a deep understanding of genetics, psychology and sociology to even be able to make a meaningful contribution, and requires an incentive for funding for research for a topic that doesn't appear to have much of a profit motive.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 17:42:50 UTC No. 16289842

Race is basically just segregating people with specific melanin content.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 17:44:45 UTC No. 16289844

>>16288257
Read the methodology section to see if it’s sounds

bodhi at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 22:24:59 UTC No. 16290170

>>16289842
skin color is not your race you mouth breathing dipshit. Aussie abbos have zero generic relation to sub saharans

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 00:29:34 UTC No. 16290289

>>16290170
Except the 99.9% they share in common naturally
If you only count the differences, yeah they have 0 in common

bodhi at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 00:37:12 UTC No. 16290292

>>16290289
you are fucking retarded, kys

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 01:01:41 UTC No. 16290303

>>16289691
Imagine what is coming;

umm... *motor neurons revving up* More of the same propaganda, with the some advanced propaganda into social norms and culture?
Higher incentives for "we're all the same"... Non-existent incentives for "innapropiate differences"... Dis-incentives for "trouble makers"??