Biden Administration misc. activities

[3rdside]

Anyway, AIG is right - if you don't want to see past the Peterson one liner and sound bite headlines (you should hear his analysis on lobsters and how their dominance hierarchy is similar to homo sapiens - outstanding insight imo, but he gets so often labelled a crank for it because "LOBSTERS"), then there is no point me carrying on defending the guy .. I shall choose a different reference point going forward.

[AmareIsGod]

Funny, I found this article today from one of my favorite sites I frequent daily.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02 ... ig-brains/

[Superbone]

Shaq must be one of the smartest guys ever!

(Sorry to mix sports with politics.)

[In2ition]

Shaq must be one of the smartest guys ever!

(Sorry to mix sports with politics.)

He does have a Doctorate in education and I think some other degrees.

[Superbone]

Shaq must be one of the smartest guys ever!

(Sorry to mix sports with politics.)

He does have a Doctorate in education and I think some other degrees.

Sure. How many are honorary and how many did he go to school for?

[Mori Chu]

He experienced his academia
in upper Mesopotamia

[In2ition]

Shaq must be one of the smartest guys ever!

(Sorry to mix sports with politics.)

He does have a Doctorate in education and I think some other degrees.

Sure. How many are honorary and how many did he go to school for?

Not sure, but supposedly the doctorate is legit and not honorary.

[Superbone]

Shaq must be one of the smartest guys ever!

(Sorry to mix sports with politics.)

He does have a Doctorate in education and I think some other degrees.

Sure. How many are honorary and how many did he go to school for?

Not sure, but supposedly the doctorate is legit and not honorary.

That's cool if true. I never was interested in more school after getting my bachelor of science and engineering. But I have learned that a doctorate is much different than a PhD.

[Indy]

There are things you could discredit Peterson with - maybe his views on being unable to model accurately the effects of climate change, or his solution to solving the gender pay gap (women need to become more disagreeable), but head size and intelligence does bear a correlation (about 0.3 - 0.4):

- https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... e-matter1/
- https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/sep ... rch.health

Interesting that neither of those articles actually reference a study. Since they don't reference it, we don't know if it was 20 people from the same town in France, or a million random people from all over the world.

And just for comparison, here is a 0.0 correlations and a 0.4 correlation assuming a 1:1 ratio. 0.0 is completely random and 0.4 is not much better. If I turned in work showing a correlation in two variables with a 0.3-0.4 correlation, it wouldn't be taken seriously.

[Indy]

I think it's tricky to discredit every topic someone speaks to because there is a chunk (large or small) of their other ideas that you don't align with. Especially when those topics can be so nuanced that there isn't a core foundational belief that spills over into every segment of thought. While I haven't given Peterson a listen or looked into him at all, if he makes good points about a specific topic of conversation that you're both having a vested debate around, it's only fair to give it a go and speak or debate around that.

Every person that's existed is flawed. Some of the people I enjoy reading or listening to have made mistakes or had thoughts that were counter those that I have. It didn't discredit how I felt about some of the things I'd read or listened to from a given medium. As someone that has worked in IT most of his adult life, I always had admiration and looked up to Bill Gates, not just for what he did at Microsoft but his efforts in philanthropy. Does that all go out the window because he wasn't a faithful and loyal husband with some very unsavory things that became known during his divorce? I'd hope not because that has nothing to do with philanthropic efforts and contributions to the technology I use today.

If Indy and Mori carry this much disdain for Peterson and the conversation continues to go towards "I haven't listened to this. I won't listen to this. And here are some very flawed ideas of Peterson: x, y, and z.", I think you're all wasting your time and should either find a different author or speaker to lean on and debate about or move on from the topic. It's no longer about the point and instead has moved towards the talking head.

This is a great post. I agree with almost all of it.


The only thing I would add is, if we are talking about how to be a great point guard in the NBA, I would listen to Jason Kidd and Kevin Johnson. But if we are talking about how to treat women, there is no way I would listen to anything either had to say on the subject.

If we are having a talk about how standardized testing is flawed especially on varied background/races/genders, I am not going to listen to the white guy that says non-white people and non-guys are dumber.

[3rdside]

There are things you could discredit Peterson with - maybe his views on being unable to model accurately the effects of climate change, or his solution to solving the gender pay gap (women need to become more disagreeable), but head size and intelligence does bear a correlation (about 0.3 - 0.4):

- https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... e-matter1/
- https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/sep ... rch.health

Interesting that neither of those articles actually reference a study. Since they don't reference it, we don't know if it was 20 people from the same town in France, or a million random people from all over the world.

And just for comparison, here is a 0.0 correlations and a 0.4 correlation assuming a 1:1 ratio. 0.0 is completely random and 0.4 is not much better. If I turned in work showing a correlation in two variables with a 0.3-0.4 correlation, it wouldn't be taken seriously.

You don’t understand correlation, apparently just like a lot of things the bubble you reside in doesn’t let you understand either.

[virtual9mm]

Oh -- a 0.4 or even a 0.3 correlation with enough cases is statistically significant. It's not a great predictor but nevertheless there is a relationship there.

That being said...head size and intelligence? You have to control for the size of the body in animals, I'm not sure how it works in humans. But this is an old trope in traditional cultural anthropology and why it has been discredited by reputable scientists.

Bivariate correlations aren't really that useful, in all honesty. This is why you need multivariate regression, which is far more powerful.

[3rdside]

I agree on multivariates (Peterson - sorry, last time - goes into it in his IQ video) but are you sure on head size? A quick google search is bringing up a lot of positive hits.

[Indy]

Again, if they aren't pointing to an actual study that you can review and see how many samples and how they controlled the variables, it doesn't mean anything.

And I should have been more direct with my statement. It isn't meaningful for two variables if you don't know how many samples and how other variables were controlled. Were they measuring head circumference or head volume? Were they measuring head size relative to body size, or just overall regardless of body size? Were they measuring people from all ethnicities and cultures and ages and genders?

[Indy]

You don’t understand correlation, apparently just like a lot of things the bubble you reside in doesn’t let you understand either.

lol stay classy

[Mori Chu]

You don’t understand correlation, apparently just like a lot of things the bubble you reside in doesn’t let you understand either.

Hey Indy, what do you do for a living, again?

[Nodack]

This discussion is way above my pay grade. My IQ is too low.

[AmareIsGod]

This discussion is way above my pay grade. My IQ is too low.

Yeah. My tiny head can't wrap my tiny arms around all of this. I should ask my fathead brother to make sense of it for me.

[In2ition]

This discussion is way above my pay grade. My IQ is too low.

Yeah. My tiny head can't wrap my tiny arms around all of this. I should ask my fathead brother to make sense of it for me.

LOL. I wanted to say that I've known a few guys with huge heads, but clearly was made with a very thick skull and little brains. I always thought that the correlation of big heads and high IQ was more of a joke than anything. I guess I never took it seriously.

[Indy]

You don’t understand correlation, apparently just like a lot of things the bubble you reside in doesn’t let you understand either.

Hey Indy, what do you do for a living, again?

I am a biomedical engineer by education and training, and spent the first 10 years or so doing statistical studies like gage R&Rs and DOEs.