/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9526805
>>the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

>...does not understand Bayes's Theorem

>>8941340
>he burned a cross on a hilltop in his teens

OMG Murray did any edgy thing in his teens. Like no other teenager ever.

What convinces me, and I have read Murray's book and many more including lots of studies, is the accumulation of evidence against blacks on average having high IQ potential.

> In every country they are the underclass
> since forever (ancient Greeks knew blacks were not smart)
> countries run by blacks are shit (except Botswana which has immense mineral wealth and small population)
> adoption studies
> blacks test for low IQ everywhere
> skin colour correlated with IQ (more black = less IQ)
> IQ predicts success in life for blacks just as well as for whites

And yes Murray's book was not mostly about race. It was mostly about the white underclass.

Murray predicted that unless we do something low IQ people are going to have to be all locked up. Of course that's what has happened - look at incarceration rates in the US.

>>8426636
OP sorry to tell you this, but black people like yourself using calculus is cultural appropriation of white culture.

>>7899317
>correlation!=causation.
Correlation, if real and statistically significant, does actually point to a logical or causative relationship.

But it does not establish the direction or nature of the relationship. In this case, blackness is associated with having evolved in a part of the world and a society that did not have a large premium for high IQ.

A study of Kalahari Bushmen found that IQ was not linked to hunting success, a key success factor for males in that society.

It is not that there is a magic 'black' gene that causes dumassedness. There is nothing inherent about blackness that makes people stupid; it is an association based on historical and evolutionary circumstances.

The bigger issue though is that a lot of the supposed correlations, eg between butter production in Bangladesh and US GDP, are a result of data mining and are not statistically significant. So they are not real and do not continue into the future for that reason.

When you correct for the data mining bias (many hypothesis tested for) the effect is not statistically significant and therefore does not actually exist.

I am getting sick of people reading a few memes about statistics and quoting them without having any actual insight into the topic.

Recommended texts ET Jaynes "Probability the logic of science" or Gelman "Bayesian Data Analysis".

Pic refers (I have verified the quote and it is indeed genuine). Cost me a trip to the library.