But if you are trying to make your kid do good you have to just read to him and challenge him often the younger the better. the brain will build up like a muscle when lifting weights. Works trust me. And make sure he gets good food and lots of sleep. is that what this is about? how to have kids do good at iq tests?
As for the crime, he cited Jensen's work, not the APA study for that.
And Eyferth's study is terrible, low sample sizes, elite sample of african soldiers due to the army's testing iirc as many as half of them were rejected, on top of that the kids were mulatto not fully black and on top of that the results are unsurprising given that the large gaps we see are much smaller in children than they are in adults. I've also heard that blood study was faulty as well but don't know the details of it.
from the study "in one survey of relevant studies (Hunter, 1983), the mean of the corrected correlations was .54. This implies that, across a wide range of occupations, intellegence test performance accounts for some 29% of the variance in job performance" he was not lying, the correlation is r = .54 which gives an r^2 = .2916 which is what they do in statistics.
On that point, you have no basis for saying he didn't read it, or he lied, he accurately reported the correlation as a correlation.
@AarontheCurious That is why it is good having the report right here to quote from. It shows all of you scientific racists are full of bs, cherry picking studies that don't agree with you to mislead the audience.
@AarontheCurious He was also extremely dishonest in ignoring the APA's report findings on the weak correlation for crime and referring to another report instead. Furthermore, .54 is NOT a strong correlation in comparing the similarity of two variables that may have a different cause.
Do you know why people thought TehClockwork is a fringeelements sock account? Because he kisses their behinds when they lie to him. He has no mind of his own.
Learn the difference between causation and correlation, and please read the damn report. Mindless fringeelements fanboy.......
@TehClockwork I say you don't understand how two variables which are mildly or weakly correlated can have very poor predictive ability if they have a different cause. You also don't understand .20 is a weak correlation when comparing similarity between variables. You also don't the important role of total variance in predicting variables. You also ignore the report, clearly stating all of this.
You are mindless fanboy, blindly following dishonest *scientific racists.*
No contradictions from 1:46 - 3:30 either. LM0X didn't cite the 1996 APA report for his statements on crime. LM0X cited Arthur Jensen's 1998 book, The g-Factor. IIRC, the book takes into account latent IQ effects that also contribute to total crime rate variance, such as SES, education, etc.
Regardless, there has been a consistently shown inverse (negative) correlation with IQ and crime. IQ is still a valid predictor of crime, just not the best alone.
@TehClockwork Of course LaughingMan0x didn't cite the APA report for crime. The report said IQ only accounted for 4% of the variance. So he ignored it and quickly referred to a different study. That was also very dishonest of him.
@TehClockwork No, you are the one that does not understand. Correlation means two variables are similar. Causation means one variable determines the changes in another.
According to the APA report, there was a correlation of .20 between crime and IQ, which is actually quite weak in measuring similarity between variables, and negligible predictive effect.
"Correlation means two variables are similar. Causation means one variable determines the changes in another."
So you think a determination of variance means causation? LOL
Do you know the relationship between a correlation and determination variance? It's simple and neither implies causation in and of themselves. I have never said otherwise. God, you're dumb.
@TehClockwork I was emphasizing two variables can have some similarity, but they can be very poor at predicting changes in the other if they are being caused by something else.
I also quoted the APA report. It specifically says .20 is *very low for negatively valued outcomes such as criminality* and is *associated with less than 4% of their total variance*
@TehClockwork The report also states the .50 correlations *predict considerably less than half the variance of jobrelated measures. Other individual characteristics--interpersonal skills, aspects of personality, etc.--are probably of equal or greater importance*
So basically I say you don't understand the relationship between correlation and determination of variance, and therefore I think correlation and causation are the same thing and I'm a mindless FE fanboy (even though I'm not defending FE with any of my comments here).
@TehClockwork I say you don't understand how two variables which are mildly or weakly correlated can have very poor predictive ability if they have a different cause. You also don't understand .20 is a weak correlation when comparing similarity between variables. You also don't the important role of total variance in predicting variables. You also ignore the report, clearly stating all of this.
You are mindless fanboy, blindly following dishonest *scientific racists.*
"I say you don't understand how two variables which are mildly or weakly correlated can have very poor predictive ability if they have a different cause."
No, you just said I think correlation and causation are the same thing.
@TehClockwork I just proved LaughingMan0x used the APA report dishonestly and followers like you will do whatever it takes to defend this. Go fuck yourself.
@TehClockwork The APA report states, The correlations for most "negative outcome" variables are typically smaller than .20, which means that test scores are associated with less than 4% of their total variance.
Correlations are highest for school achievement, where they account for about a quarter of the variance. They are somewhat lower for job performance, and very low for negatively valued outcomes such as criminality.
@TehClockwork The APA report further clarifies this regarding job performance. It states, *the mean of the corrected correlations was .54 ..... It is worth noting, however, that such tests predict considerably less than half the variance of jobrelated measures. Other individual characteristics--interpersonal skills, aspects of personality, etc.--are probably of equal or greater importance,*
Do you understand the difference between a determination of variance and a correlation? If you did you'd understand that you show no contradictions from 0:00 to 1:45.
@TehClockwork LaughingMan0x says at 0:42 IQ tests are *very accurate predictors of academic and career success* of Americans even though the report says other factors are dominant. He selectively used the report to give an impression opposite of what it actually said. LaughingMan0x is extremely dishonest.
what a racist chart...
AEVautomatic 1 week ago
But if you are trying to make your kid do good you have to just read to him and challenge him often the younger the better. the brain will build up like a muscle when lifting weights. Works trust me. And make sure he gets good food and lots of sleep. is that what this is about? how to have kids do good at iq tests?
AEVautomatic 1 week ago
Test scores are not an important issue.
AEVautomatic 1 week ago
Nice. I think most people see LaughingMan0X as intellectually dishonest.
icatchrye 2 months ago
As for the crime, he cited Jensen's work, not the APA study for that.
And Eyferth's study is terrible, low sample sizes, elite sample of african soldiers due to the army's testing iirc as many as half of them were rejected, on top of that the kids were mulatto not fully black and on top of that the results are unsurprising given that the large gaps we see are much smaller in children than they are in adults. I've also heard that blood study was faulty as well but don't know the details of it.
AarontheCurious 2 months ago
from the study "in one survey of relevant studies (Hunter, 1983), the mean of the corrected correlations was .54. This implies that, across a wide range of occupations, intellegence test performance accounts for some 29% of the variance in job performance" he was not lying, the correlation is r = .54 which gives an r^2 = .2916 which is what they do in statistics.
On that point, you have no basis for saying he didn't read it, or he lied, he accurately reported the correlation as a correlation.
AarontheCurious 2 months ago
@AarontheCurious No, LaughingMan0x was extremely dishonest and did not read the report. The report says,
*intelligence test scores are at least weakly related
to job performance in most settings..such tests
predict considerably less than half the variance of job related
measures. Other individual characteristics--interpersonal
skills, aspects of personality, etc.--are probably
of equal or greater importance, but at this point we
do not have equally reliable instruments to measure them.*
DayTimes121 2 months ago
@AarontheCurious That is why it is good having the report right here to quote from. It shows all of you scientific racists are full of bs, cherry picking studies that don't agree with you to mislead the audience.
DayTimes121 2 months ago
@AarontheCurious He was also extremely dishonest in ignoring the APA's report findings on the weak correlation for crime and referring to another report instead. Furthermore, .54 is NOT a strong correlation in comparing the similarity of two variables that may have a different cause.
DayTimes121 2 months ago
Great video, DayTimes.
SteelCityEcologist 2 months ago
Do you know why people thought TehClockwork is a fringeelements sock account? Because he kisses their behinds when they lie to him. He has no mind of his own.
Learn the difference between causation and correlation, and please read the damn report. Mindless fringeelements fanboy.......
DayTimes121 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DayTimes121
"Because he kisses their behinds when they lie to him. He has no mind of his own. "
Yep. I don't agree with you and understand that LM0X' source doesn't contradict him, therefore I have no mind of my own.
TehClockwork 4 months ago
"Learn the difference between causation and correlation
Where have I demonstrated ignorance on the matter? A factor doesn't have to be causal for its existence to be a valid predictor of an outcome.
TehClockwork 4 months ago
@DayTimes121 I am going to repeat this comment to clarify TehClockwork's b#$#$. Please stop kissing scientific racists behinds.
DayTimes121 4 months ago
@TehClockwork I say you don't understand how two variables which are mildly or weakly correlated can have very poor predictive ability if they have a different cause. You also don't understand .20 is a weak correlation when comparing similarity between variables. You also don't the important role of total variance in predicting variables. You also ignore the report, clearly stating all of this.
You are mindless fanboy, blindly following dishonest *scientific racists.*
DayTimes121 4 months ago
No contradictions from 1:46 - 3:30 either. LM0X didn't cite the 1996 APA report for his statements on crime. LM0X cited Arthur Jensen's 1998 book, The g-Factor. IIRC, the book takes into account latent IQ effects that also contribute to total crime rate variance, such as SES, education, etc.
Regardless, there has been a consistently shown inverse (negative) correlation with IQ and crime. IQ is still a valid predictor of crime, just not the best alone.
TehClockwork 4 months ago
@TehClockwork Of course LaughingMan0x didn't cite the APA report for crime. The report said IQ only accounted for 4% of the variance. So he ignored it and quickly referred to a different study. That was also very dishonest of him.
DayTimes121 4 months ago
@DayTimes121
4% of total crime variance = a 0.2 correlation between crime and IQ.
IQ is a valid predictor of crime according to the APA report. You don't understand basic stats.
Regardless, the 1998 book was published *after* the APA report and was written by who is (arguably) the top psychologist in the field of intelligence.
TehClockwork 4 months ago
@TehClockwork No, you are the one that does not understand. Correlation means two variables are similar. Causation means one variable determines the changes in another.
According to the APA report, there was a correlation of .20 between crime and IQ, which is actually quite weak in measuring similarity between variables, and negligible predictive effect.
DayTimes121 4 months ago
@DayTimes121
"Correlation means two variables are similar. Causation means one variable determines the changes in another."
So you think a determination of variance means causation? LOL
Do you know the relationship between a correlation and determination variance? It's simple and neither implies causation in and of themselves. I have never said otherwise. God, you're dumb.
TehClockwork 4 months ago
@TehClockwork I was emphasizing two variables can have some similarity, but they can be very poor at predicting changes in the other if they are being caused by something else.
I also quoted the APA report. It specifically says .20 is *very low for negatively valued outcomes such as criminality* and is *associated with less than 4% of their total variance*
DayTimes121 4 months ago
@TehClockwork The report also states the .50 correlations *predict considerably less than half the variance of jobrelated measures. Other individual characteristics--interpersonal skills, aspects of personality, etc.--are probably of equal or greater importance*
DayTimes121 4 months ago
So basically I say you don't understand the relationship between correlation and determination of variance, and therefore I think correlation and causation are the same thing and I'm a mindless FE fanboy (even though I'm not defending FE with any of my comments here).
Awesome!
TehClockwork 4 months ago
@TehClockwork I say you don't understand how two variables which are mildly or weakly correlated can have very poor predictive ability if they have a different cause. You also don't understand .20 is a weak correlation when comparing similarity between variables. You also don't the important role of total variance in predicting variables. You also ignore the report, clearly stating all of this.
You are mindless fanboy, blindly following dishonest *scientific racists.*
DayTimes121 4 months ago
@DayTimes121
"I say you don't understand how two variables which are mildly or weakly correlated can have very poor predictive ability if they have a different cause."
No, you just said I think correlation and causation are the same thing.
Now you're backtracking and moving the goal post.
Cool.
TehClockwork 4 months ago
If only everyone thought exactly like you, then none of us would be blindly following dishonest racists and everyone would see the light.
TehClockwork 4 months ago
@TehClockwork I just proved LaughingMan0x used the APA report dishonestly and followers like you will do whatever it takes to defend this. Go fuck yourself.
DayTimes121 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DayTimes121
"I just proved LaughingMan0x used the APA report dishonestly "
Keep telling yourself that.
TehClockwork 4 months ago
@TehClockwork The APA report states, The correlations for most "negative outcome" variables are typically smaller than .20, which means that test scores are associated with less than 4% of their total variance.
Correlations are highest for school achievement, where they account for about a quarter of the variance. They are somewhat lower for job performance, and very low for negatively valued outcomes such as criminality.
DayTimes121 4 months ago
@TehClockwork The APA report further clarifies this regarding job performance. It states, *the mean of the corrected correlations was .54 ..... It is worth noting, however, that such tests predict considerably less than half the variance of jobrelated measures. Other individual characteristics--interpersonal skills, aspects of personality, etc.--are probably of equal or greater importance,*
DayTimes121 4 months ago
@DayTimes121
Right, and that doesn't mean IQ isn't an excellent predictor of job performance.
TehClockwork 4 months ago
Do you understand the difference between a determination of variance and a correlation? If you did you'd understand that you show no contradictions from 0:00 to 1:45.
TehClockwork 4 months ago
@TehClockwork LaughingMan0x says at 0:42 IQ tests are *very accurate predictors of academic and career success* of Americans even though the report says other factors are dominant. He selectively used the report to give an impression opposite of what it actually said. LaughingMan0x is extremely dishonest.
DayTimes121 4 months ago
@DayTimes121
No, that wasn't dishonest at all. He cited *exactly* what was in the report.
Again, you don't understand the relationship between a correlation and determination of variance.
TehClockwork 4 months ago
Talk about pwnage of LM0x. He should laugh at himself..
All love and respect
Eopyk 4 months ago