Lurker > COVxy

Slayerblade11 posted...

IQ correlates really well with life success. Not the end all be all obviously, but saying IQ doesn't matter is foolish.

If IQ predicts any more than 10% of the variance of any life success outcome variables, I'd be shocked.

5% after accounting for family wealth would shock me.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

VaniIIa Coke posted...

How does the scientific community agree on accepted theories then? Is it not by popular agreement?

...lol.

I wonder how you envision this? Do people gather and all vote once a year, or once every 4 like the presidential election?

In reality, people within the field judge theories based on the available evidence within the literature.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Sephiroth1288 posted...

IQ is the best indicator we have for how successful you will be in life.

...lol.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

This would be stupid as fuck.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Idk, science communication is a tricky subject tbh.

People are just very resistant to changing their mind about anything, really (edit: well that's not fully accurate, certain information seems harder to correct than other information). And while the second is certainly more rational, the advice from the basic psychological literature would be not to appeal to rationalism and empiricism but to appeal to their biases.

I agree, however, that issues presented as confrontational to stir up "attention" are largely counter productive.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Silly goose.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

MJ_Max posted...

Actually nvm I don't feel like continuing this discussion I'd rather play dark souls

You made some good points though and I'mma definitely keep thinking about them

Fair enough, probably a better use of time, tbh.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

If consciousness is fully determined by another set of parameters, how is it not necessary to define it by those parameters? Why would you ever say "No no no, but that doesn't fully explain it, because it doesn't feel right, you need to explain consciousness!"

Like, if I had a model that fully determined you conscious perception and it was composed of mechanistic neuroscientific elements, you would still say that we don't really understand consciousness. But what is it exactly we aren't understanding?

We've had a pretty good understanding on how the brain computes visual objects for decades now.

I can stick you in a giant magnet and with a simple set of linear equations I can determine what spatial position you are holding in your mind currently, I can decode that representation, from a very basic neuroscientifically based model.

Idk what would actually suffice as an explanation for subjective experience other than a metaphysical one for you. Think carefully and consider what would actually satisfy you.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

MJ_Max posted...

I have a hard time understanding how you could call the processes which dictate our consciousness consciousness itself.

How? Doing otherwise would be self contradiction lol
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

When they correlate pretty directly with subjective experience, it's weird to suggest that they aren't.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I've never denied the existence of subjective experience, only that it can be explained more appropriately without invoking an additional construct like consciousness. That "consciousness" is, in fact, well on its way to being understood under such other more valid cognitive neuroscience constructs such as "visual processing", "attention", "working memory".
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I'm not too sure you are understanding what I'm saying.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Again, without any proper definition, you're just elevating subjective sense because it feels profound, not because it is. "Consciousness" can be fully explained in reference to other better defined neuroscience constructs, but you don't feel like it answers the question of consciousness only because they are mechanistic, physical and not metaphysical.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Consciousness does nothing. So immediately if you think about it for any amount of time, you already get the idea that it's a silly idea.

Working memory holds information temporarily after the physical information is gone. Provide me a definition like that.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

If you can explain any unique contribution of the concept consciousness to brain function, I'll revoke my statement. However, as it currently stands, consciousness is just a poorly defined unfalsifiable construct that lays vestigial on top of actually well defined constructs within cognitive neuroscience.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

orcus_snake posted...

that is an overly verbose way of saying that dudes with egos seem to glorify thought.

Thought is profound, subjective experience of thought is not.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Consciousness is a bunk construct, only used to reinforce metaphysical interpretations of the mind, to elevate subjective experience to a supernatural realm. Probably due to a weird combination of narcicism and nonreligious spirituality that seems endemic amongst those who discuss it.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

wohole cover.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

A 2TB drive for $36 dollars seems like a steal.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

The Deadpool posted...

Covfefe wasn't a typo for coffee. The context simply doesn't make sense.

What made it funny was that Trump lies about it and pretends it was an inside joke.

I mean, it was pretty obvious to everyone that it was a typo/narcolepsy of "coverage".
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Pitlord_Special posted...

pedagogy

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Every single one of these topics can learn a thing or two from xkcd:
https://xkcd.com/169/
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

CNN doesn't exist anymore because it was crushed under the sheer power of anonymous, didn't you know?
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

iPhone_7 posted...

The left loves McCain now

The right is infuriated at him.

Give it a year and it will switch again

If someone starts to support policy you like, it's actually rational to adjust your opinion of them.

Seems like a silly criticism.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Well, I guess it'll be relatively explicit. From my memory, you have particular tendencies that you did a good job resisting, is all.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

This is kinda hilariously melodramatic.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

One of my favorites.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I don't know why I should need to make it explicit. You know, and that's all that matters.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Duncanwii posted...

Have you ever heard of a term called precousious crush?

Don't, uh, egg him on.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Good self control.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Some people don't have any idea what it's actually like to be poor, and so they examine the world through their privileged lenses.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

HiddenLurker posted...

Hahahhahaha you can't be that dense can you?
Even her own husband told her to stop ignoring the "flyover" states. Which she told him to take his advice and shove it.

I didn't say she ran a great campaign. Her campaign was part of the reason, but that is not the only reason.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

The Admiral posted...

It implies there are more reasons than "she was a terrible candidate" and "she ran one of the worst campaigns in history."

...there were. Smear campaigns from both sides of the aisle and a hostile foreign country probably had something to do with it.

On paper, by the way, she was great candidate. She just didn't have the charisma necessary to combat the rhetoric. Well, that's putting it lightly. She kinda has anti-charisma.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Sativa_Rose posted...

I don't have a whole lot of knowledge on this subject, but from my perspective, it seems like different fields would want to use different p value thresholds. It doesn't make sense to have a universal threshold that applies across all fields.

Meh, it's more like a careful consideration of an argument in the context of the totality of the evidence is more important than an arbitrary cut off on any one of the tests.

I'd be completely fine accepting a paper with no statistically significant results if all of the data pointed towards a single conclusion, if there were enough convergent evidence.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

literal_garbage posted...

Transcendentia posted...

you guys mad?

Oh man, you are not good at this

Must be meta-trolling from the great Clad.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Up.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Darkman124 posted...

it's not 'too low to be practical' so much as 'unnecessary and likely to suppress useful data'

This is pretty much the primary issue. The false negative rate in a lot of fields is a much larger issue than the false positive issue.

We really shouldn't be paying too much attention to arbitrary cut offs, tbh.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Transcendentia posted...

This is fantastic news and I hope it happens.

You're, uh, really bad at this.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I guess it's less laughable than the time someone published, in a pretty highly reputable (but not well regarded) journal, a suggestion to switch from p-values to confidence intervals, even though they are literally mathematically equivalent.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

SageHarpuia posted...

Literally why would you care?

Cuz I science often.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

http://www.nature.com/news/big-names-in-statistics-want-to-shake-up-much-maligned-p-value-1.22375

Full preprint:
https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/mky9j

Shifting alpha to a new arbitrary value is literally pointless, especially in the way they recommend.

If you are a scientist, you need to understand statistics and data analysis, that's really all. And I don't think that this is largely the issue (I think most do understand the statistics deeply), but it's a good scapegoat for the culture of pushing positive results and the journaling system, which are much more difficult to fix.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

averagejoel posted...

I know - that's what horseshoe theory is. fishhook theory is a leftist response to that

Both are stupid generalizations but at least horseshoe theory gets across the valid point that extremism can lead to similar issues on both sides of the spectrum.

This fishhook nonsense is a graphical illustration of the ridiculous Bernie or bust mentality, parading bullshit like "incremental progress isn't progress at all and only serves to placate the masses".

averagejoel posted...

basic human rights - such as healthcare - shouldn't be compromised

and I'm pretty sure the Democrats' attempts to compromise with moderate republicans and simultaneous unwillingness to compromise with the left was both a much larger contributor to Trump's victory, and the reason for the existence of fishhook theory

Compromise leads to incremental progress towards a better society. The far right are trying your tactic right now, how is it working for them? Doesn't seem like much policy is moving...
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

JagerBomberz posted...

Who gets a PHd in Philosophy? Lmfao

Can't be a serious post.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

averagejoel posted...

@DrizztLink posted...

@averagejoel posted...

I don't fully understand this picture.

there's a somewhat common idea among Centrists called Horseshoe Theory - the idea that the political spectrum is a circle, meaning that, at some point, the extreme right and the extreme left are the same, or are equally bad.

they're not, and the dishonest Centrist attitude of compromising between the perceived equally bad extremes, actually favours the extreme right. this is, in no small part, due to Centrist willingness to give a platform to the extreme right under the guise of "hearing all the points of view" while not giving a platform to those who are hurt by the extreme right (e.g. transgender people, people of colour, etc.)

"fishhook theory" - the idea that centrists actually resemble the far right, is a response to this attitude

That's pretty fuckin' inane lmao. Literally just trying to push others into the out group to blame so that you can feel like your political affiliation is the solution.

The far left resistance to the idea of compromise and incremental progress is pretty toxic, politically. It certainly helped put Trump in office.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

People love making themselves feel better by shitting all over fat people and pretending it's "just science brah".
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

SSJ-JohnLennon posted...

Mandasnake posted...

COVxy posted...

I can be condescending because I think your gender limits your understanding of what I'm talking about.

I don't think anyone actually does this.

They don't.

I mean, the one time I've seen this was two graduate students co-presenting a poster at a conference. I was sitting there reading the poster silently (I usually just read through and ask questions as I need to), when an older PI walks up to the poster and treats one of the presenters condescendingly but the other not. Now, it could have been a complete coincidence that that one presenter that he second guessed every time was female, deferring to the male each time, but I doubt it. When you are explaining exactly what's written on the poster to the person presenting the poster, it's pretty fucking obvious you don't think the person understands what they are presenting.

Now, this is the only time I've actually seen it. But I've heard stories of others experiencing it first hand and I have no reason to doubt them. I don't know why you find this so unbelievable, that people can be sexists and that their sexism can be expressed through a condescending attitude.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Mal_Fet posted...

What's the difference between mansplaining and just being condescending?

The difference is one is being condescending for a very particular reason. I can be condescending because I think you're dumb, or I can be condescending because I think your gender limits your understanding of what I'm talking about.

If there's a pattern of interaction someone has with only one gender and it is to assume very low knowledge, even in the face of contradicting evidence, it seems one should be able to label that situation, especially if it's common enough to need to be discussed.

Mal_Fet posted...

And if there is no relevant difference other than the genders of the people involved, is it ok to call a car crash "womandriving"?

I don't know why you thought this was an appropriate comparison.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

The first episode is by far the worst in the entire series.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]