Lurker > COVxy

Last bump.
---

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

LordRazziel posted...

Maybe cause they like the quote?

Idk, I find inspirational quotes silly. Though, markedly less silly when they aren't misattributed.
---

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

Up.
---

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

That sucks. Here's hoping the biopsy proves him wrong.
---

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

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

Seems to be the biggest offender, probably because it seems humble enough to come from a scientist, so people don't check.

But there's an irony in that lol
---

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

Turbam posted...

Because it seems like every time you lay our the syankest shit in your life your crush walks in the bathroom and shes gonna find out it was you

---

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

Heh.
---

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

C7D posted...

Finally, I like their thinking for trying to do something outside the box, bad pun I realize. Too bad they suck at math.

I'm all for thinking outside the box, but when your rational for modeling seems to be entirely metaphorical ("conversations need to be fluid, let's look at fluid dynamics; this system does funky things in between two bounds, it would be cool to show the same with conversations"), you're not so much thinking outside the box as much as sticking your box inside another box.

The point of modeling is to model the underlying phenomenon even when you can't directly measure it. Their modeling went in the opposite direction lol.
---

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

The inner rectum.
---

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

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/meet-data-thugs-out-expose-shoddy-and-questionable-research

When it comes to correcting scientific literature, styles vary. Some scientists prefer to go through proper channels, such as private conversations or letters to the editor. Others leave anonymous comments on online forums where papers are discussed, such as PubPeer. Then there is the more public approach Nick Brown and James Heathers are taking. The two watchdogs have been remarkably effective at uncovering problematic publications. So far, Brown estimates that the analyses he and Heathers have done have led to the full retraction of roughly 10 papers and triggered corrections to dozens more.

Led me to the most entertaining reads I've had in a while:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7006
Which features this:

Which is the first time I think a scientific argument can be reasonably summarized by a gif:

---

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

Had my L4 and L5 vertebrae fused with pseudobone and a plate and 4 screws.
---

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

Doom_Art posted...

I burned my foot on one while getting out of bed once

This is all I think about when someone brings up George Foreman grills lol
---

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

Sativa_Rose posted...

Seems like academia is full of people willing to cheat their way to the top

Full is an exaggeration at best. Really, the issue is low funding creating an extremely cut throat environment. It's extremely hard to be in academia, and people have worked their entire lives to be there, so it can push people beyond their threshold.
---

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

Darkman124 posted...

he didnt even inform me

That's pretty shitty. All authors should be informed before submission.
---

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

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Howl posted...

Lmfao, this type of thinking is exactly what lead to a generation of teenagers eating tide pods. They literally have never suffered any consequences for their actions and now they cannot determine what they should and shouldnot do.

How is spanking a consequence? "Oh no geez how horrible. A little bit of trivial surface pain. I never want to experience another 30 seconds of that again so I'll be good now."

That's why I, personally, prefer to brand my children. The marks remind them forever what it is to be a man.
---

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

Distant_Rainbow posted...

Ah, that. It's slightly old news over here.

Seemingly old around here too, but I hadn't seen it until now.
---

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

scar the 1 posted...

What are those guidelines?

https://oir.nih.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/sourcebook/documents/ethical_conduct/guidelines-authorship_contributions.pdf

I'm pretty sure there's an actual written out version of this somewhere, but I can't seem to find it. The graphic is generally accurate though. If you are a trained cog in a wheel, no authorship, essentially.
---

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

scar the 1 posted...

COVxy posted...

Hexagon posted...

That's some bullcrap they're pulling. I hope they enjoy the tarnished reputation they got for themselves and their family.

I mean, to be fair, it's not outside of the realm of other authorship misconduct, especially in biomedical sciences, but just kinda really funny on top of it.

The institutions they represent should be reprimanded. And the funding they get should be reevaluated.

Oh, I don't disagree. Just saying that the only reason these cases are particularly salient is that they are ridiculous. If an undergrad is given authorship in biomedical sciences, it's very likely that they didn't meet NIH authorship guidelines.
---

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

Hexagon posted...

That's some bullcrap they're pulling. I hope they enjoy the tarnished reputation they got for themselves and their family.

I mean, to be fair, it's not outside of the realm of other authorship misconduct, especially in biomedical sciences, but just kinda really funny on top of it.
---

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

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01512-5

Lol. What admissions committee would even fall for this? I feel like if I were on an admissions committee for a college and I saw the kid on a paper with their parents, I would automatically discount it.
---

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

That's gross, hope you don't have aids.
---

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

Patchwork posted...

COVxy posted...

There's not, iirc they just removed it from the budget of the CDC, which was kinda a questionable agency to be tasked with it.

Though, I may be behind and mistaken.

CDC should be studying it.

Or you know, other federal agencies which employ people with the proper expertise, like the NIMH.
---

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

There's not, iirc they just removed it from the budget of the CDC, which was kinda a questionable agency to be tasked with it.

Though, I may be behind and mistaken.
---

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

MacadamianNut3 posted...

Besides that, it would still be hard to replicate results exactly given the inherent stochastic properties of pretty much all machine learning methods which is why they've been pushing to try to make AI/ML less of a blackbox but I'm not experienced enough to have an idea about how they would do that. There was an interesting talk this past week at work where some signal processing dude talked about his new method that did straight up transforms that were relatively easy to invert instead of the usual "create a neural network with some arbitrary amount of nodes and connections, and then backprop" process. He compared his approach to convolutional neural networks, whose creation is already less random than traditional neural networks since it uses sub-sampling stages before feeding that input into a smaller neural network.

This is an interesting point. I asked a question about this to a group of cognitive scientists that were training these CNNs to replicate serial processing in the visual system. They suggested that these systems are pretty stable as you increase the number of training stimuli, like with regards to the properties of the layers and "cell tuning" properties.
---

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

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/missing-data-hinder-replication-artificial-intelligence-studies

I also wonder if industry involvement is also a factor here.
---

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

frozenshock posted...

BLM started out as a very legitimate complaint. But it looks like the group has basically just been hijacked by extremists... as it often happens sadly

I mean, a lot of shit floating around right wing areas of the internet regarding BLM is literally russian propaganda, meant to drive people like you against an issue that would otherwise be unifying.
---

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

I hope people who are just 'trolling for the lulz' see that these communities allow people like this to fester and grow.
---

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

Romulox28 posted...

the elephant in the room that ardent leftists dont want to talk about is that Jordan Peterson is what pretty much all liberal arts professors sound like, which is a lot of inane theoretical rambling, a conclusion that the professor is obsessed with and everything is connected to, and discussions that seem like they exist on a plane other than the real world.

So are you admitting that you only pretend to follow him because you think he's somehow the perfect weapon? How ridiculous is that?
---

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

nicklebro posted...

But really, even if this doesn't fit with Godel's work perfectly, you can still quite clearly understand the point he was making right? So really this does yet again seem to be more nitpicking while completely ignoring the actual point.

This goes back to the point that Balrog elegantly laid out:

Balrog0 posted...

as @COVxy has pointed out, for instance, his idea that we can learn things about hierarchy and such from lobster physiology is basically not true in any scientific sense whatsoever, but he and his followers don't actually care about that from what I can tell. The overall message he is trying to present is more meaningful to he and they than the factual accuracy of his supporting statements. He uses particular pieces of scientific information, but he does not employ them in a scientific way. His thinking has more in common with Joseph Campbell style mysticism (which is systematic, like Peterson is, but not at all scientific) than with philosophy or science.

You don't care that he bullshits academic sounding information into his points because you find meaning, or hope, in the underlying philosophy.
---

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

Romes187 posted...

Ok...how about all of his other content? How about all of his cited work

He's almost never talking about his actual cited work. If he were to make actual academic arguments based on any of his actual published science, that would be an entirely different story. At best, he gets closest when he talks about his bullshit Freudian/Jungian books, which aren't actually peer reviewed scientific literature, as if psychoanalytic theory ever would be.
---

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

Mal_Fet posted...

Are you serious

Study B showed that they couldn't recreate the results of Study A using their methodology. Study C used an entirely different methodology. So no, a study that says "x,y,z don't prove w" does not disprove a study that says "j,k,l prove w"

Do you understand this yet?

ITP: scientific studies don't relate or generalize, they are just one off experiments generating specific results to their exact parameters, the only time an idea is refuted is with a direct refutation of each independent paper.
---

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

Mal_Fet posted...

You keep saying that and yet you were never able to find a source that disproved his source.

Except I did, but you like to be intellectually dishonest.
---

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

Resiliency might be important to think about.
---

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

Mal_Fet posted...

Oh hey, remember when you tried to discredit one of Peterson's 220 sources in his book by citing a study that wasn't at all related to the source you were trying to discredit?

No, i remember you providing the only two studies he cited for his 'stand up straight and you'll be flooded with serotonin' rule, one of which is a debunked effect, and had nothing to do with the serotonin or posture, and the other having nothing to do with serotonin or the causal direction.
---

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

Oh Mal.

It worries me that you may be a real person.
---

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

I mean, you can't just handwave the entire literature suggesting that stereotype threat is a real phenomenon.

Sex differences in drives and motivations are certainly possible, but so is it that some proportion of these sex differences are driven by things like stereotype threat. Seems to be overly driven by politics to suggest that we can just handwave these things off as 'oppression narrative'.
---

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

Darkman124 posted...

their overall actual command of the information presented to them does not seem to be significantly less, however.

Potentially, though we could just be shit at measuring it. Boys may adapt different strategies to compensate, eliminating any stark obvious differences.

The difference in brain development, however, is pretty stark. Seems like something we have to consider.

This isn't to wave away your points, I think differential treatment is almost certainly more important. But the development aspect of things is just rarely carefully considered.
---

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

Boys also develop slower than girls. Hard to compare two groups through grade school when they are at different points in their developmental trajectory.
---

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

clearaflagrantj posted...

This is fake news, he was responding to an article someone wrote about him, and the author put screenshots together to make it look like he was arguing with unrelated quotes from the bot.

1/10 effort TC.

Don't worry, just lobster it out bro.
---

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

UT1999 posted...

deny that it does correlate with iq

I don't think many people do. IQ and intelligence are two separate things, and most people rightfully question the relationship between intelligence and standardized tests.
---

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

Deny what exactly?
---

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

It should be obvious that both mental health and gun control are issues that need to be addressed. All this either or bullshit is just partisan rambling.
---

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

UT1999 posted...

COVxy posted...

IQ does correlate to these scores, but who knows what proportion of that correlation is actually due to a relationship between them and intelligence.

i kinda agree with this, but a lot of people will just completely say this is false, probably most

I don't think many people who have actually studied psychology would.
---

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

IQ does correlate to these scores, but who knows what proportion of that correlation is actually due to a relationship between them and intelligence.
---

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