Lurker > COVxy

How it is you listen to Jordan Peterson addressing anything is beyond me.
---

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

Lord_Shadow posted...

Letron_James posted...

I hope you skip the filler

JOSGABRIEL posted...

Watch until episode 132 and then jump to Shippuden.

I haven't decided if I'm gonna skip anything yet

Trust me, skip the filler. It's...not good.
---

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

HylianFox posted...

Also, once again people treating science as though it were religion. ugh

Naw, the assumption is mostly that scientists would be unresponsive to the reward structure within their own environment, which too is a silly assumption.
---

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

On the topic: here's a group that published a flashy finding, collected more data, and then refuted their own flashy finding.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2018/07/08/self-correction-small-talk-happiness/

Good on them.
---

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

SpinKirby posted...

COVxy posted...

What are your issues with peer review?

The only thing it does is help with some errors, assuming the reviewer catches or even understands what's going on.

Everything else is just really bad for publication, and causes people to publish or present information in a form that stops them from getting buttblasted by reviewers. Peer review is really good for suppressing a shit ton of information, at the same time, the quality of what gets through can also be unaffected.

So basically it does nothing, but it's fun to have around.

Right, I'm all for open reviews (and preprints) for this purpose. Encourages people to give proper reviews.
---

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

What are your issues with peer review?
---

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

cavalierking posted...

i could still read that post, and if i can still read it, then nothing else matters, right?

If it takes you 5x as long to read, that's interferring with my ability to get that information.

For the most part, a typo like I had in my previous sentence is going to go unnoticed and to the extent to which it is noticed, have very little to no impact on readability.

But you can continue to argue with my like a 5 year old, like you did in the rest of your post.
---

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

cavalierking posted...

so you'd be okay with articles being written up like in post #31

No, only because it makes it harder to read, hence interferes with the goal of the article.

Let's be honest, the main reason of focusing on typos like this is to pretend like you are superior to the authors.
---

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

Right, if we incorporate silly folks like you who judge an article on its most surface level, you're right, that is incentive for the journalists to care. But that's quite circular, donchya think?
---

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

cavalierking posted...

and yours is that it doesn't matter because it doesn't (see, i can do this kindergarten bs too)

No, my argument is that doesn't matter because it doesn't affect the purpose of the articles.

cavalierking posted...

don't try to bs your way out of this by claiming that you wouldn't personally judge a doctor by how they presented themselves either

No, no I wouldn't.
---

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

cavalierking posted...

COVxy posted...

cavalierking posted...

anybody can get a point across, but merely doing just that isn't the point

For most news, that is exactly the point. Unless it's a large scope op-ed. And those tend to be much more written like short stories than news articles, and tend to have much less of this issue (because they are deliberately artistic).

so you're just gonna cherry-pick and ignore the rest of the post that explains why it isn't "exactly the point"

ok

your first post itt was tantamount to "why do you care about this thing that i don't?" so idk why i even bothered

Your argument is that it matters because it matters (which is exactly what "professionalism" is). In reality, if the goal is to transmit information, as long as the typos and mistakes don't affect interpretation, then it doesn't matter. It's like judging your doctor on the basis of the way he puts on his tie.
---

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

Hexenherz posted...

If they couldn't take the time to literally just run spell check

I mean, most typos and grammar mistakes that pass also pass automated spell and grammar checks. I find them all the time in my writing.
---

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

cavalierking posted...

anybody can get a point across, but merely doing just that isn't the point

For most news, that is exactly the point. Unless it's a large scope op-ed. And those tend to be much more written like short stories than news articles, and tend to have much less of this issue (because they are deliberately artistic).
---

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

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

It's still very useful and accurate

By virtue of not being scientifically valid, this sentence is false. lol.
---

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

HypnoCoosh posted...

COVxy posted...

In the end, the most appropriate question here is: "why do you really care so much?"

Because if your career is journalism grammar is part of your integrity.

How do I even need to explain this.

Really? When you read a news article, your critique is usually "how lovely the flow of this article was"?

And mostly we're not talking about grammar here, just typos.
---

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

cavalierking posted...

COVxy posted...

In the end, the most appropriate question here is: "why do you really care so much?"

uh, because it looks unprofessional and tarnishes reputation and it just bothers me?

quit being a smartass

-

anyway, i'm not really talking grammar as much as i am legit typos

like, words that were clearly auto-corrected or whatever (is everybody writing their shit up on their phones or something these days?)

It takes exhaustive effort to find and fix all typos, and in the end 90% of readers will not notice them and of the 10% that do, it won't effect their understanding of what is being written. For the most part, it seems to be moreover a "I think this is lower quality because I noticed a typo" type of thing, but it's kinda irrational.
---

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

In the end, the most appropriate question here is: "why do you really care so much?"
---

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

iHuman posted...

I haven't seen any credible predictions in psychology

They must not exist, then?

iHuman posted...

And lower levels precisely predict higher levels. Prove it doesn't.

Reductionism wouldn't have been so effective if it doesn't.

They do, but not in any simple or linear way in complex systems. You've never heard of "the sum is greater than the whole?" Interactions between many smaller elements makes prediction from small to large hard.
---

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

iHuman posted...

Waiting for covxy to explain his supposed hidden message. You should find smarter people to piggyback off of.

Nothing is "hidden". Your response just made it clear that you didn't understand what I meant.

Credible predictions can and are made in psychology, though theory is relatively weak (as it is in biology).

Crossing levels of analysis in complex systems is hard. Lower level systems don't simply predict higher level systems.
---

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

Idk if you understood what I was saying.
---

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

iHuman posted...

Because it's impossible to make credible predictions without knowing more about neurology, biology, and chemistry.

It'd be like trying to do astronomy without gravity. You can come up with many logical incorrect explanations.

That's not true at all, and bridging levels of analysis is actually harder, especially in complex systems.
---

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

BlameAnesthesia posted...

Freud isn't really the "founder" of Psychology, except to laymen. He was a neurologist who armchair analyzed behavior. His psychodynamics aren't falsifiable, so they're not amenable to scientific examination. The real founders of modern psychology were the behaviorists like Skinner, Watson, and Pavlov.

Tbh, I'd trace it back to Wundt, Weber, and the other psychophysics people, and then psychoanalysis was just a psychology as a science deadzone, picked back up with behaviorists lol.
---

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

masticatingman posted...

Psychology isnt that good of an example when its literal founder - Freud - has had a number of his theories proven as faulty over time.

Otherwise, meh, it doesnt really matter imo if a scientist like a physicist or biologist admits they were wrong - their theories are just later disproven and theyre debunked.

Thinking this is restricted to psychology is a big mistake. Cancer bio has a reported replication of like 30%, a recent genomic imaging replication attempt only had a 8% replication rate. Cultural incentives in science and the file drawer effect prevent science to truly be self correcting. At least at any reasonable rate.
---

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

REMercsChamp posted...

We know. This isn't news to people who have been outside of academia at some point in their life.

Deliberately missing the point doesn't make you look more informed.
---

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

https://undark.org/article/loss-of-confidence-project-replication-crisis/

...
The aim is to simplify how such statements are reported as opposed to the current process, in which researchers bicker in back-and-forth commentaries and rebuttals, says Julia Rohrer, who studies personality psychology at the International Max Planck Research School on the Life Course in Berlin, Germany, and is one of three researchers working on the project. People will defend their scientific claims until their death, Rohrer said. As scientists, we should be aware that people are often wrong. Carneys move, for example, was generally well-received by psychologists who welcomed her transparency, she noted.

Rohrer and her colleagues, Tal Yarkoni of the University of Texas at Austin and Christopher Chabris, at the Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania, are currently accepting submissions of loss-of-confidence statements, focusing on psychology studies and with some ground rules: Authors submitting a loss-of-confidence statement, for example, are expected take primary responsibility for methodological or theoretical problems with their paper otherwise, the entry goes into whistleblowing territory and is not eligible for publication. The researchers eventually plan to publish the statements in an academic paper, Rohrer said.
...

---

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

I felt the miniseries was a better representation of the book.
---

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

SpiralDrift posted...

Imagine being triggered by a shitpost.

You spend your free time facetiously acting stupid on the internet because you don't think being yourself is interesting enough for anyone to care. Idk if you're winning here.
---

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

Rimmer_Dall posted...

COVxy posted...

This is the silliest thing I've read all day.

We already taught a gorilla sign language and managed to have full conversations with it. This isn't that crazy.

This is not about teaching dolphins language (not that this was particularly successful in gorillas), but "translating dolphin language". First, this assumes that dolphins communicate using something akin to language, and then on top of that assumes we have the labels for that language! You can't do supervised learning without labels.

It's just one of these really out there claims. It doesn't make much sense.
---

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

P4wn4g3 posted...

Let's not cater to the average individual in every single situation please.

That's not what's happening here to begin with.
---

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

TaZa92 posted...

But my entire argument is that it should be an income based affirmative action policy instead of race which would make more sense, no? We're both kind of saying the same thing in that regard.

In fact, you just argued my exact point in that last post.

It's not that I disagree, just that I find use in race as a proxy variable to sort through applications. It also does, to be clear, encode other potential issues such as experienced racism/societal expectations that could lead to differences in performance. So not only does it encode income based inequality (which, likely is a major proportion of the important variance), but also biases in society that are often encoded by race as well. At the social services office the social worker told me that my kind of person wasn't the kind that should go to college. I can only imagine what it's like for a PoC in that circumstance.

I think you are being intentionally dense here, along with the other poster, and simply pretending like race isn't actually an important factor that predicts circumstance and life outcomes (probably above and beyond income too due to cultural factors).
---

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

darkjedilink posted...

COVxy posted...

darkjedilink posted...

60 people, dude.

Harping on sample size without any argumentation isn't actually a valid criticism.

Are you really going to claim that a study involving 60 people is representative of the entire country?

Because unless you are, it proves nothing other than the race-bait biases of the publisher of the study.

Yes, a sample size of 60 can indeed produce reliable estimates of a population value.
---

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

P4wn4g3 posted...

Not entirely, but for simplicity's sake let's go with yes.

But they aren't independent. They are literally dependent. You can predict one from the other at the population level...
---

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

P4wn4g3 posted...

COVxy posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Bacon_Pancakes posted...

Wait, shouldn't college just look at things like grades, standardized test scores, and after school activities?

No, life circumstances are important, arguably more so than any of those metrics. Race though can be argued to be fairly independent of those things.

Lol, really?

In what world?

This one.

Are you going to make a topic next about how neanderthal DNA is absent in Africans?

You think race is independent of life circumstances?

I mean, they are literally statistically dependent.
---

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

P4wn4g3 posted...

Bacon_Pancakes posted...

Wait, shouldn't college just look at things like grades, standardized test scores, and after school activities?

No, life circumstances are important, arguably more so than any of those metrics. Race though can be argued to be fairly independent of those things.

Lol, really?

In what world?
---

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

Flockaveli posted...

COVxy posted...

iHuman posted...

Bad professors exists

Certainly, but not on the scale of:
"this professor is waaay too hard, just take it with [other professor], their tests don't even require you to read the text!"

Thats why level of difficulty is its own separate thing.

But to pretend like these aren't all correlated in the subjective sense is silly. If you have a professor teaching a class at a high level and you don't follow because you don't put in enough time (because you usually don't have to), you are going to perceive your grade as dependent on the professor, not yourself. Since other classes didn't require that time, and yet when you did the same thing for this class you got a bad grade! The professor must have just been bad at teaching.

ratemyprofessor ratings are almost all guiding other students how to have the easiest time to pass their required courses, in my experience.
---

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

iHuman posted...

Bad professors exists

Certainly, but not on the scale of:
"this professor is waaay too hard, just take it with [other professor], their tests don't even require you to read the text!"
---

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

scar the 1 posted...

I'm not particularly fond of ratemyprofessor to begin with

Same. It kills me a little on the inside every time I look at it, because it just shows how many people are enrolled in college but have absolutely no desire to learn.
---

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

foreveraIone posted...

the problem with this argument is that you are generalizing people who come from half the worlds population with one word.

there are different ethnic groups with various levels of income and its not fair to say hmong refugees that they fall under "asian"

Right, but is there any evidence of this actually fucking anyone over, other than assumptions based on quota systems?

In reality, any application process is extremely random, and what makes it even possible to get through is sorting heuristics to make initial order. I would bet money on the fact that people aren't coming up with different criteria for different races. Or generating quota systems. Neither of these would make the process any easier.

In the end, in any application process, some small number of people are going to get screwed because of the lack of precision and the inherent randomness to the process. Demonstrate that this is along racial lines, and then we've got something more to talk about.
---

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

MedeaLysistrata posted...

COVxy posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

chilli image that was supposed to express "dynamic, exciting class", or "hot" in the non-sexual sense. But a lot of people used it as a way of saying the professor is physically attractive.

This was just some really silly backtracking on the company's side. They themselves have advertised in such a way to suggest the hotness was literal, or metaphorically literal. Well, you know what I mean.

i saw some people on twitter explaining what the chilli was 'supposed' to mean and idk why they would defend it on that grounds if there was not something that led them to that conclusion, given that, it doesn't seem like the site decided it had that meaning /after/ the controversy, but yes i don't doubt there might have been some intentional misleading on their part.

---

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

TaZa92 posted...

But you literally didn't show any evidence at all while I can bring up countless amounts of evidence to show actual discrimination against Asian Americans.

You want me to show you that Asian Americans are on average more well off than black people, etc?

It's so easy to see that population levels of disparity here are correlated with the disparity in credentials. Why don't you google population statistics on household income?
---

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

TaZa92 posted...

COVxy posted...

As a disadvantaged white person, I got into a college that was above my credentials, and got a full ride for underrepresented individuals in science. I think you over estimate the issues.

It's not overestimated at all though. I did pretty well for myself too but that doesn't mean there isn't a massive issue here.

There are countless studies of Asian Americans being discriminated at universities and when searching for employment (more recently Harvard and Google aka the cream of the crop in their respective domains) where every single tiny disadvantage against you is major and shouldn't exist if it's unfair.

You're practically just rolling your eyes at this while essentially saying "who cares" in every single one of your responses and you don't see why that's not right? Just because Asian Americans face discrimination it's all of a sudden not a big deal?

They don't face "discrimination", not in the systematic sense in which you are supposing they do.

Again, these metrics of disparity in entrance credentials follow along with metrics of disadvantageness. You are saying "well, some Asians are poor and are getting screwed!" but you have absolutely no evidence of that.
---

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

MedeaLysistrata posted...

chilli image that was supposed to express "dynamic, exciting class", or "hot" in the non-sexual sense. But a lot of people used it as a way of saying the professor is physically attractive.

This was just some really silly backtracking on the company's side. They themselves have advertised in such a way to suggest the hotness was literal, or metaphorically literal. Well, you know what I mean.
---

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

CruelBuffalo posted...

Did you have one?

No, never taught my own course.
---

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

ClunkerSlim posted...

Timohtep posted...

What

They used to have a system that allowed you to also rate the 'hotness' of the professor, and if a professor rated above some value, they got a red chili pepper. Recently removed after a female professor tweeted that it was problematic.
---

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

I don't necessarily think it was sexist to begin with. But it was probably inappropriate given the current climate on power dynamics and relationships lol.
---

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

Naw, censoring misinformation is good.
---

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

foreveraIone posted...

COVxy posted...

As a disadvantaged white person, I got into a college that was above my credentials, and got a full ride for underrepresented individuals in science. I think you over estimate the issues.

but u r scientist.

u r supposed to use empirical data over anecdotes

Yeah, and the empirical evidence suggest disparities in entrance credentials fall along the lines of circumstantial disadvantage. When that didn't convince him, I used my own anecdote to parallel his.
---

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

As a disadvantaged white person, I got into a college that was above my credentials, and got a full ride for underrepresented individuals in science. I think you over estimate the issues.
---

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