Of course, @akarlin88 and @Steve_Sailer are happy. :)
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That’s well deserved for
@Steve_Sailer >>@washingtonpost,@TheEconomist,@nytimes. Any sociologists listed,@NickWolfinger?
pic.twitter.com/Kgp6Q2CHyE
-
I can make up unsourced rankings too!
-
These aren't unsourced?
-
I meant the list of influential media sources that had Mr. Sailer at the top.
-
What list of influential media sources? These rankings are based on ratings by IQ researchers.
-
Aha. I was never informed of this.
-
I guess you didn't read the link then.
-
Still confused. Didn’t see a link in the initial tweet. But that was so long ago in twitter time that I’m not sure of anything at this point.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Why is Steve Sailer doing significantly better than Anatoly Karlin on here?
-
Why are you saying it is "significantly"? There's no error bars.
-
I meant that Sailer's score here is noticeably higher than Karlin's.
-
Yes, and I ask, indirectly, what makes you think this isn't just chance variation? There are no error bars.
-
Oh, you mean there's the possibility that Steve Sailer might have simply gotten more lucky in regards to this by talking less about IQ than Anatoly Karlin has?
-
Oh; OK. So, basically, it's very similar to the margin of error which is used in pre-election polls, correct?
-
Statistical uncertainty, standard error, margin of error, etc. call it what you will. If you see a party go up 2% in a poll, do you offer explanations? No, you check whether it's likely just a random fluke first. Same with these data.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Hey Emil, I've seen some criticize Rinderman's 2013 survey as having too low a response rate, and that respondents were probably more hereditarian and non-representative of field. Have you written/blogged about this? If not, quick thoughts?
-
Citation needed? I haven't seen anything by anyone serious. Expert surveys almost always have low response rate, so that's a pretty generic criticism of many surveys.
-
really? a generic criticism of surveys is that theyre methodologically flawed? interesting.
-
Low response rate is normal for expert surveys. E.g. this one on climate science had 29%.https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e …
-
if you dont have a differential response rate, sure it might not matter. Where's the evidence that their sample was not biased ?(beyond expecting to take at face value their claim that 'lefties and righties' both refused equally?
-
What's the evidence it is? zzz This is boring.
-
The assumption should be it might be biased when you have a 10-18% response rate, when the survey youre replicating had 65%, and when people responded saying the questions werent good/doubt the experts you were canvassing, no?
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.