Lurker > COVxy

Asherlee10 posted...

raw data may not include actual people with actual beliefs.

Why does that matter if you are just trying to track the flow of propaganda?
---

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

Asherlee10 posted...

The problem, as I see it, is the aggregated data is worthless from the start. Social media sites, especially Twitter, will include bots, trolls, etc.

I mean, even if it includes bots and trolls, it still means that this type of media is preferentially flowing through these communities, meaning those who are not bots and trolls are still being exposed to it at an abnormally high rates.

It's a very descriptive study, they don't really infer much from the observations. Important to note that it's not really peer reviewed though.
---

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

Asherlee10 posted...

Without digging into it fully, I'm suspect of a study using Twitter users.

I mean, aside from the misleading media coverage and topic title, the study itself doesn't make any claims beyond the data. It describes social media aggregate data, that's all.
---

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

Annihilated posted...

These are both fair points. But it's still something that seems to happen universally on this subject, and it just reminds me of back in the days when inconvenient science was shut down, silenced, or actively punished. Data in itself is not good or bad, only what you do with it.

High school students universally don't do real research. It's an irrelevant point.
---

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

averagejoel posted...

i assume that by "touchy" you mean there was one book written by a white supremacist that pushed this link, which has since been debunked

Well, I mean, IQ definitely covaries with race, but the result is much more complicated than "one race is less likely to be intelligent than another race", but actually providing a proper in depth argument to reach a fully fleshed out conclusion regarding this topic is far outside the realm of a HS student.
---

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

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

I say continue to do the research regardless of what the babies cry about.

HS science fair, serious research business.
---

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

The Admiral posted...

Now that this deflection is out of the way, let's get back to discussing this issue.

Lol, idk what's worse the fact that you brushed the obvious bias aside, or the fact that you actually think this is something worth discussing.
---

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

Why is Fox News reporting on a random high school's science fair?

---

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

For conservatism, only the appearance of education and intellectualism matter. That way you can say things like "facts over fee fees", unironically.
---

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

Yeah, but if you have 3 R01s and the university is getting 1.5mil in indirect costs, you might think you have the safety of value.
---

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

I could see this as providing more incentive to universities to cover up sexual harassment, though.

Hopefully it deters more effectively, preventing that.
---

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

Monolith1676 posted...

For viewers like you.

Eh?
---

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

On a side note, it's incredibly surprising to me that Jaeger was found not guilty again.
---

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

Presumably to cut funding from those found guilty.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01744-5

Interesting. Makes the abuse of power more risky.
---

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

I read an interesting piece regarding this the other day:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/27/opinion/sunday/surgery-germany-vicodin.html
---

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

Romes187 posted...

I really wanna see pics of Covxy.

Just post one. I have a feeling he's never had any responsibility in his own life except maybe that bio test next Monday he has to study for

Lots of assumptions you're making there big guy.

Stop going around asking for a picture of me, this isn't the first time and it's pretty fucking creepy.
---

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

FLUFFYGERM posted...

There are literally CEmen here who believe that the moment you start getting 6k a month you're rich.

I believe that you think there are, at least.
---

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

KingCrabCake posted...

You were just talking yday how 100k is wealthy and gets you a fancy apartment and a wait staff in Manhattan...wtf bro

I'm pretty sure I explicitly said the opposite.

Lol.

COVxy posted...

When you have a 100k salary, cost of living is pretty much negligible. You can live where ever you want comfortably.

No, you cannot buy a gigantic apartment in Manhattan in NYC and have your own wait staff. But that's deliberately missing the point.

---

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

FLUFFYGERM posted...

If you can sustain 100k for 10-15 years or more, you're definitely going to be well off.

It's because it gives you some bandwidth to develop a cushion, but it is not in itself the cushion. This nuance is extremely crucial because there are CEmen who literally think that landing a 100k job makes you rich. It does not, in any sense of the word "rich"

You can certainly thrive on 100k per year, even within the first year. But you'll likely have credit card debt or student loans to pay off, and you'll have some investing you'll need to do in order to have an emergency fund and any retirement fund. Maybe after the first three or four years is when you'll feel like you've made it.

At least that's how it is for me.

I mean, yes, that's how these things work. As we all learned from Monopoly.

Do you really think other people think that landing a 100k job means that you are instantly rich with no worries in the world, hopping on private plane flights to Fiji?
---

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

For reference, in the united states, apparently there are only 8 counties where the median household income breaks 100k, that makes it 8/3143, or about a quarter of a percent of US counties where this type of income would be considered a central tendency.

Or, to put it another way, you are above the median household income in 99.75% of counties in the US, with that salary alone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_counties_by_per_capita_income

With 100k, you have to admit you are in a really well off, comparatively within the US, no matter where you are. Even if we don't break down the validity of the argument regarding looking at particular areas to pretend like the salary is low.
---

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

andel posted...

it's like you don't understand nuance at all and you haven't proven they do, how about you substantiate your claim?

The point was that you weren't making a claim with nuance...
---

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

andel posted...

they either live outside the city or have help from parents/relatives or live in poverty.

But you said it's not possible.

But they do it.
---

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

FLUFFYGERM posted...

meestermj posted...

Privilege is thinking that isn't a lot....

Or more like making that much and seeing how expensive life is.

Or seeing how expensive life can be if you want it to be, is more accurate.

100k is a lot. If you are "struggling" on 100k, perhaps it's time to re-evaluate the baseline in which you are comparing yourself to.
---

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

Antifar posted...

Real glass houses situation here, but they're not exactly wrong

Kinda a lose-lose situation here. Provide a platform for more open debate and you get criticism for letting certain people have a platform, don't and you get criticism for being biased.

CNN really gets the brunt of it all in recent years lol.
---

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

andel posted...

in mississippi it is possible, somewhere like nyc no

I mean, NYU grad students with 20k-30k stipends are surviving. How so?
---

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

Given home ownership, and employment in Manhattan, what is the probability of your home being in Manhattan?

My guess is pretty low, and that's the only point I was trying to make. It's the reason why "median salary within this city is high, therefore this salary is actually low" isn't a reasonable argument, because there's been a selection. People don't just end up living in a city. They decide to. And the only one's who can are those who have a high salary.

The whole discussion of boroughs and shit kinda just muddies the water. Yes, it was inaccurate to frame in the way that I did. But that's besides the point, really.
---

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

DoctorVader posted...

It doesn't. I was just clearing up that your ignorant view of NYC was wrong.

Meh, not ignorant, neglectful really. There's a reason there's been an extremely large growth of communities and housing on Long Island and along the outskirts of NJ. There's a reason suburbs naturally grow along the outer limits of metropolitan areas.

This doesn't discount the fact that many people decide to go into Queens or the Bronx, but again, it's besides the point. I was really just trying to make the point most clearly without getting into all the minutia that doesn't matter too much.
---

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

Idk why people are pretending like action rpg's are just the technological advance of turn based rpg's. Both have existed since like the nes days lmao.
---

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

DoctorVader posted...

COVxy posted...

chrono625 posted...

For the argument of NYC...No, they don't.

Strange how suburbs naturally sprout around cities.

Like, you rent an apartment in the city if you want to stay in the city. If you work in NYC and decide you want property, you go to NJ or Long Island.

Property taxes can be almost triple outside the city. Most people own and work in NYC because the other 4 boroughs are considered the "suburbs" of Manhattan. People pour into "the city" from the other 4, and the workforce of the other 4 is primarily comprised of people owning and working there.

I mean, this is likely true but it doesn't change the underlying point.
---

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

chrono625 posted...

For the argument of NYC...No, they don't.

Strange how suburbs naturally sprout around cities.

Like, you rent an apartment in the city if you want to stay in the city. If you work in NYC and decide you want property, you go to NJ or Long Island.
---

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

chrono625 posted...

"You can't assume my job where I am will have the same pay or demand if I move. I also have family where I am."

I mean, most people who work in cities live outside the city lol.
---

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

Kazi1212 posted...

Come now, surely not all forms of modern psychoanalysis is utter bullshit? What about cognitive behavioral therapy?

Psychoanalysis is the term for Freudian psych, which Peterson is a big fan of.
---

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

MrPeppers posted...

I would be way more inclined to listen to a former Harvard professor with decades of clinical experience when it comes to psychoanalysis.

Why would you be inclined to listen to anyone who would even be willing to touch psychoanalysis with a 10 ft poll?
---

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

Kazi1212 posted...

Is evolutionary psychology even falsifiable?

No, that's the primary obvious criticism.

Obviously, like I've alluded to before, it's not as if there aren't conserved neural mechanisms across species, but this is very much outside the realm of evolutionary psych.

Kazi1212 posted...

How do they label t as a science if it isnt?

People don't lol.
---

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

AdviceMan posted...

As someone who is not a psychologist, I have no real reason to believe that their research and field is bunk

I mean, there literally is no research for these things. It's literally just sitting in a chair and postulating about what might have been advantageous and therefore evolved. You are literally just generating evolutionary narratives around modern behavior. I talked about pretty much the only attempt to test an evolutionary psych idea earlier.
---

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

If fundamentals include being able to discriminate between science and pseudoscience, it makes them bad at what they do, if they are supposedly scientists.

If you've gone through decades of training and cannot tell what is scientifically valid, then you have some limitations. Though, my guess is he just doesn't give a shit about evidence based reasoning, given he is a fond Freudian.
---

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

Kazi1212 posted...

I wouldnt call being misinformed as being dumb but thats just me.

I mean, supposedly he's educated in this stuff, so...
---

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

Antifar posted...

COVxy posted...

Antifar posted...

median household income is 103k

Median is much lower, that's the mean.

No, that's median for SF

Google says that's average, but I haven't really felt the need to investigate any further.
---

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

Consciousness, in the scope in which philosophers talk about it, isn't really a scientific concept.
---

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

AdviceMan posted...

Oh, and when I say stupid, I don't mean "objectionable". I mean actually dumb.

I mean, we just spent the better half of 100 posts talking about how the evolutionary psych stuff he peddles is bullshit. So either he's deliberately peddling bullshit or is dumb enough to believe it.
---

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

A stupid person being interviewed by an even stupider person only makes them look smart by comparison.
---

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

chrono625 posted...

The housing market is becoming out of control in queens and Brooklyn and even Staten island.

1800sqft homes are going for 700k and 7k a year in taxes in Staten island. Single family homes in Brooklyn are over a million in most desirable areas.

Do you know many people with 140k-200k to put down on a home?

Do you actually know of many people who own a home in Brooklyn? Or why anyone would need to? Like, it's literally a selection factor. The city selects for rich. You are not locked into living in the city and buying a home in the city, most people who work in the city commute into the city.

Like, how does this conversation unironically go to "I cannot buy things that are pretty much reserved for the ultra rich, therefore I'm lower middle class at best,"?
---

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

Antifar posted...

median household income is 103k

Median is much lower, that's the mean.
---

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

Axiom posted...

The more I see of this guy the more I wonder why anyone holds him up as someone people should listen to

It's primarily because he "fights the ultra-PC alt-left", though no one will admit it.
---

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

I mean, I've never seen anyone claim that gender neutral pronouns were better because a scientific study suggested we should use them, no.
(analogical to: you should stand up straight because lobsters!)

This is entirely beside the original point, which is that the evolutionary psychology bullshit that he peddles is primarily just there as a garnish to make his positions seem scientific.
---

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

s0nicfan posted...

Statistical analysis is science.

Also, it's hard for me to resist pointing out how silly this statement is.
---

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

s0nicfan posted...

Are you also saying that nobody arguing for enforcement of personal pronouns is attempting to use science to justify its need?

The Great Muta 22 posted...

No, he's saying what you cited isn't people citing science as the rationale to use gender neutral pronouns.

---

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

None of that post addressed his question.
---

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

s0nicfan posted...

The only evidence used in these cases is historical evidence, because it would be unethical to screw around with people just to test a hypothesis.

I mean, not really. That's literally what psychology is. People just don't really know what modern psychology looks like and assume it's more-or-less cigars and victorian daybeds.

and this:
Anteaterking posted...

But the people who push for gender neutral pronouns don't pretend like they are giving a scientific argument for it.

That is certainly not an argument I see coming from a scientific viewpoint. And to the extent to which it does, I'm just as likely to shoot it down as well.
---

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