Why is Letsrun considered toxic?

toxico wrote:

Hmm, I might be misunderstanding your question. In this temperature-market example, there isn’t a need to “prove the absence of correlation” because near-zero correlation coefficient is the very definition of absence of correlation. In this particular example,

absence of (correlation) evidence is the same as evidence of (correlation) absence. If say today’s temperature in Shanghai caused, i.e., predictively correlated with, tomorrow’s market change, one would be able to make money off of that correlation, but we know we can’t through backtesting research.

I'd suggest you pick up any introductory book on statistics, and read the chapter on "null hypothesis." I bet you will learn a lot. Good luck.

To add to that, practically everyone — dems, reps, black, white, yellow, brown — thinks smart parents are more likely to produce smart children. Just like tall parents are more likely to produce tall children. No one thinks that that position is racist. But that universal common sensical position is the same as saying that intelligence is inheritable and that is the same as saying that intelligence has a genetically determinative component. Sure enough, study after study finds confirmatory evidence to that effect.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

toxico wrote:

Hmm, I might be misunderstanding your question. In this temperature-market example, there isn’t a need to “prove the absence of correlation” because near-zero correlation coefficient is the very definition of absence of correlation. In this particular example,

absence of (correlation) evidence is the same as evidence of (correlation) absence. If say today’s temperature in Shanghai caused, i.e., predictively correlated with, tomorrow’s market change, one would be able to make money off of that correlation, but we know we can’t through backtesting research.

I'd suggest you pick up any introductory book on statistics, and read the chapter on "null hypothesis." I bet you will learn a lot. Good luck.

Ha, I suggest you do. Or you are welcome to sit in my stats class. I’ve plentifully used the term “null hypothesis” at various places consistent with its widely accepted meaning. You have not indicated with which usage of that term you disagree or why.

My hypothesis was about Americans and sampling bias in immigration here, so it is unaffected by the IQ by country data.

toxico wrote:

To add to that, practically everyone — dems, reps, black, white, yellow, brown — thinks smart parents are more likely to produce smart children. Just like tall parents are more likely to produce tall children. No one thinks that that position is racist. But that universal common sensical position is the same as saying that intelligence is inheritable and that is the same as saying that intelligence has a genetically determinative component. Sure enough, study after study finds confirmatory evidence to that effect.

Just butting in say that your example does not imply anything genetic. Smart people raising smart kids can have many explanations besides genetics.

It's true that there is strong evidence for a significant genetic heritability of intelligence but "smart parents have smart kids" is not the same as that statement.

Furthermore, implying possible/probably linkage between two things that are genetically (even strongly) influenced is just bad biology - a warning for the future :)

I stand by my claim that most people believe that there is a genetically (congenitally) inherited component to intelligence. That doesn’t rule out the additional role of nurture. The two are not exclusive. Their relative contributions are not easily determinable and have not been determined by science.

lol are you dumb enough to think that an IQ test = intelligence? hahahahahaha.

Why admit that dude.

toxico wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

Just butting in say that your example does not imply anything genetic. Smart people raising smart kids can have many explanations besides genetics.

It's true that there is strong evidence for a significant genetic heritability of intelligence but "smart parents have smart kids" is not the same as that statement.

Furthermore, implying possible/probably linkage between two things that are genetically (even strongly) influenced is just bad biology - a warning for the future :)

I stand by my claim that most people believe that there is a genetically (congenitally) inherited component to intelligence. That doesn’t rule out the additional role of nurture. The two are not exclusive. Their relative contributions are not easily determinable and have not been determined by science.

I was merely complaining about your assertion that "because people see smart parents with smart kids they assume intelligence is genetic" is not a great argument.

Modern work has actually done a pretty good job disentangling nature/nature from many things! Intelligence, personality, etc. a lot of this is genetic (maybe up to 80% for intelligence!)...

2600 bro wrote:

toxico wrote:

I stand by my claim that most people believe that there is a genetically (congenitally) inherited component to intelligence. That doesn’t rule out the additional role of nurture. The two are not exclusive. Their relative contributions are not easily determinable and have not been determined by science.

I was merely complaining about your assertion that "because people see smart parents with smart kids they assume intelligence is genetic" is not a great argument.

Modern work has actually done a pretty good job disentangling nature/nature from many things! Intelligence, personality, etc. a lot of this is genetic (maybe up to 80% for intelligence!)...

Ok, then we might just be in violent agreement. :)

Latinos are not a race.

toxico wrote:

To add to that, practically everyone — dems, reps, black, white, yellow, brown — thinks smart parents are more likely to produce smart children. Just like tall parents are more likely to produce tall children. No one thinks that that position is racist. But that universal common sensical position is the same as saying that intelligence is inheritable and that is the same as saying that intelligence has a genetically determinative component. Sure enough, study after study finds confirmatory evidence to that effect.

Apparently your parents were not very smart, if intelligence is inherited.

What you fail to grasp, in your ineffable ignorance of the subject, is that variations in genetically inherited intelligence within populations are also quite consistent with the same variations occurring in the same way within populations of different races. Hence, no race is inherently more intelligent than any other, and the same general pattern of intelligence distribution applies to all races.

The accepted view of science today is the race does not explain differences in IQ test results, but culture, educational opportunity (or the lack of it), and poverty will. Parents with social advantages will confer these on their children - as well as the converse being true, that social disadvantage will have an affect on the development of individuals from poorer groups in society. It is also the case that in intelligence distribution there is a regression to the mean, which means that highly intelligent parents are less likely to have children as intelligent as they are, otherwise the population would become progressively more intelligent - or more stupid, as very dull or impaired parents would tend to produce children less able than themselves. Mostly, they don't. The Bell curve remains consistent.

Your utter ignorance of this subject is matched only by your insistent arrogance in arguing what you know nothing about, and thereby continuing to propagate a poisonous view that race is a factor in intelligence. Yes - you would have made a good Nazi, since they argued what you do.

toxico wrote:

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

I'd suggest you pick up any introductory book on statistics, and read the chapter on "null hypothesis." I bet you will learn a lot. Good luck.

Ha, I suggest you do. Or you are welcome to sit in my stats class. I’ve plentifully used the term “null hypothesis” at various places consistent with its widely accepted meaning. You have not indicated with which usage of that term you disagree or why.

So you are a mere statistician? That explains much..

"There are lies, damned lies - and statistics." H.L.Menken.

Go home cuckyboy, and get college education, and if you are a good boy, your lady might even bring you some cream pie.

You still haven’t read those papers, you illiterate ignoramus.

So much hot air SJW blather. You’d be better served by completing the simple assignment I gave you, cuckyboy: find a peer reviewed scientific paper that shows no correlation between race and intelligence. You keep returning with papers with over evidence to the opposite and with your cuckyboy excuses.

Agnosticism fired not mean a belief that “race is a factor in intelligence”, you wondrously demented chowderhead, incapable of basic logic. Just blather.

All you've given is blather. You're also using your definition of common sense as a universally accepted premise. Not everyone has to accept your definition as the starting point.

I certainly don't.

Obi Mike Kenobi wrote:

All you've given is blather. You're also using your definition of common sense as a universally accepted premise. Not everyone has to accept your definition as the starting point.

I certainly don't.

Welcome to the debate, Johnny come lately. Read my plentiful posts on scientific data analysis and review of papers on the topic proposed by the idiot Lance fanboy.

Am glad you agree with me that no one needs to accept anyone’s definition of common sense. Scientists have a more systematic method than “common sense”.

wtf happened to this thread?

toxico wrote:

Go home cuckyboy, and get college education, and if you are a good boy, your lady might even bring you some cream pie.

You still haven’t read those papers, you illiterate ignoramus.

You certainly offer proof that intelligence is genetic. An education has been unable to improve yours.

run_INXS wrote:

wtf happened to this thread?

People offered examples of why Letsrun is considered toxic, mods deleted them, and Ward came in wanting to masturbatorially argue an irrelevant tangent, further showing why LRC is considered toxic.