The study referenced in the link shows a very clear trend line showing the relationship between IQ level and income.
The study doesn't show the actual scatter plot of data that the trend line is derived from. (Second picture) Nor does it show an R-Sqr for the regression (probably because it would be ludicrous).
It was nevertheless published and has been cited repeatedly.
Link: https://twitter.com/EmersonSpartz/status/1297944261896204289?t=O-WbvYV5dw7ezd8-_aI-Jg&s=19
Or are you just announcing that you don’t understand scatter plots?
I know which one I think it is.
With an R squared of around 0.4 or so. Do you understand what that means, you arrogant horse's ass?
And I am the one who suggests that it’s probably right on. And that the people who did it - and the reviewers who read it - understand elementary regression analysis.
Guess that makes me a horse’s ass.
(no message)
(no message)
That gives enough confidence to write an entire paper about. It's ridiculous.
None of the actual data was included in the original paper. 30% of the data had to be derived because they didn't have actual IQ data for 300,000 data points. There was no statistical analysis presented. No r-sqr, no nothing.
Natural science is organized into physical science and life science, i.e. physics, chemistry, biology..... Social science tried to copy this way by developing economics, political science, sociology... But what works in nature world doesn't work in society. Human is more complicated. For example, It is hard to understand politics without understanding economics. It's hard to understand economics without understand animal spirit (psychology).
Social science should use issue-oriented approach to organize its knowledge. Target the social issues, not the discipline. Just like Hayek did, for example. It is hard to classify Hayek as an economist or a philosopher/thinker or a political scientist. He certainly made contributions to all of them. But actually he spent whole of his life only on one issue - freedom. All knowledge he developed, economics, political philosophy, is around this issue. Social science should follow Hayek, change their current disciplines to issue-specific departments, e.g. department of freedom, department of equality, department of poverty....that is, targeting the real issue.
it completely disregards individual human psychology.
Unlike actual science, social science starts with a commitment to a political belief and then designs its "research" to find facts to support a desired resukt.
Ha! Suck it losers!!!
Have a good weekend boys....
2 pillars of real science: math and experimentation. Your results or theories have to pass both of them, not one of them. In the case of chocolate and baldness, you have to do lab (real science) to find mechanism that chocolate leads baldness, not just play numbers.
(no message)
Link: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/p-hacking/