Okay, just wanted to confirm this is what you consider science. The "important contribution" is what I meant by endorse, so that answers that question too.
-
-
Replying to @rasmansa @KirkegaardEmil and
Well, that’s fair. Just to be clear, that different from saying it’s definitely correct. That’s not how science works. In general, I find the argument that Jewish populations have higher IQs because of a combination of genes and environment persuasive. Always open to evidence tho
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @EPoe187 @KirkegaardEmil and
It's cool, I just wanted to be fair. I don't like when people take a fringe social justice take as representative, so I held back on this one in case it was such a case for EvoPsych.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @rasmansa @KirkegaardEmil and
I don’t think this *should* be fringe
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @EPoe187 @KirkegaardEmil and
Yeah, that's the problem from my perspective, though it may not be from yours. I get mixed messages from my EvoPsych circle. Some say it's wrong to see folks like this as representative. Some say their work is important. My default was the latter.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The simplest explanation for what we see is that the world actually is what it looks like it is, and that is that different human groups have different mixes of cognitive and behavioral traits.
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @JayMan471 @rasmansa and
Here's the Jewish results in context of the other groups in the dataset. They don't deviate that much from regression line, suggesting lack of predictive bias in the PGS.pic.twitter.com/qJpFjt1v1L
1 reply 2 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil @JayMan471 and
What are the error bars here? (A case of not shown, or too small to see?)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SimonDeDeo @JayMan471 and
I don't understand the question. The range in the top is the 95% confidence interval (analytic, frequentist).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil @JayMan471 and
:) Each dot is a point estimate of a quantity. (eg, the “Baptist” point gives an estimate of two numbers associated with that group). What is the error on those estimates?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You could calculate it from the sample sizes if you like. I think it would clutter the image too much to insert vertical and horizontal error bars.
-
-
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil @JayMan471 and
When you do calculate it, what are they? (Roughly?)
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.