--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 9:57 AM, T. Lavon Lawrence
<dynamicmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most of the stupidest people I've ever encountered - and I do say MOST -
> have been above average in looks. The ridiculous idea that the best and
> brightest come from couplings of so-called 'attractive' duos because of
> superior genetics is flat disprovable in daily life by the glaring example
> of dumb-shallow-but-tasty-morsel types hitching a ride up the socioeconomic
> ladder merely by virtue of their looks and not their brains.
If you guys cannot make an intelligent comment, please have the
courtesy to remain silent.
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.
No, your points are not valid, any more than a 'your mom' is valid;
such a reaction is not even wrong. Someone offers a weak statistical
correlation in the .1 to .3 range and your point is... you remember
meeting stupid attractive people?
Give me a break. Even at face value, discounting confabulation, lying,
confirmation bias, and anything else one might want to consider, your
'point' is not refuting of the study. In fact, no anecdote will be
unless the claimed correlation is -1 or 1! Statistics isn't the weak
syllogism where a universal claim is refuted by a single
counter-example. A statistical argument is not met with anecdotes, it
is met with statistics.
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.
I can't debate. You have offered nothing that is not innumerate and
irrelevant; you are 'not even wrong', to quote Pauli.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 12:09 PM, T. Lavon Lawrence
<dynamicmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The great news is that all the top scientists, economists, engineers,
> philosophers, and captains of industry on the planet have side jobs as
> supermodels.
And I rest whatever case I have. Because obviously that is exactly
what Kanazawa is claiming...
(Sad thing is, there is serious criticism of Kanazawa's work, and
instead we're doing this stupid line of thought 'do anecdotes say
anything about weak correlational results'.)
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.