She is so clueless and stressed out you need to take it easy on her.https://twitter.com/Monsantobuster/status/1156232905192026112 …
That's not what she's saying. She's saying certain correlations are mere matters of fact not the sorts of things that can be refuted with mathematical legerdemain. If rain correlates with the ground being wet, this is a mere matter of fact. Not the sort of thing math can refute.
-
-
There is no matter of fact here. The data is noisy.
-
At risk of oversimplifying: N: there's no signal above 80 C: give us a better way to find the signal N: unscientific request C: handwaving Noise often doesn't contain signal. In these cases there's no "better" way to find signal. Charlatans "find" signal in signal-less noise.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Dude. Calculating the very correlation coefficient is mathematics. Further predictive analyses from that are DONE with mathematics. Mathematic legerdemain is the very thing you need to know before you can assess that it's a fact that correlation exists.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A linear correlation coefficient is only suitable when there are linear relationships between variables. Taleb's point is that the relationship between IQ and income/performance is nonlinear at higher levels of IQ. That's not "legerdemain".
-
Taleb happens to be wrong about that. Lubinski and Benbow have shown in prospective studies with a large sample that IQ is still predictive at the very highest levels, and keeps working at each higher band.
- 3 more replies
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.