/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14862490
>I'm assuming this is just a troll post
I can assure you that guy is not trolling. Even not considering race, human beings like to believe everyone else but them is retarded.
Now throw in a notion of presumed racial inferiority and the majority of people will latch on to that. Fundamental attribution bias, etc.

I can share stories of overt racism so aggressive and direct that they will sound bizarre and fabricated. Not just from whites, but from asians and from other blacks. It's really something to behold when it happens and to be frank it's a little bit sad but it is what it is.

>>11216648
>you can get a general idea of your type 2 diabetes by measuring your blood sugar,
but height is inversely correlated with diabetes risk, anon, why do you need to measure your blood sugar? are you a height-denier?

>>11003991
>Categorizing a group based on a characteristic possessed by less than 5% of the group
PhD when?

>>10962220
>>10962303
The problem isn't science, the problem is the way layfaggots and imposters interpret it

>>10962303
>moores law
Oddly enough, still holding true even though it's been pronounced dead 10 times over the last two decades

>>10537556
>You know, your dumb insecurity would have more impact before the NZ thing, but after that?

>unironically referencing a chimpout from one of the biggest brainlets in history
"I had little interest in education during my schooling, barely achieving a passing grade."
"I did not attend University as I had no great interest in anything offered in the Universities to study."
"Subscribe to PewDiePie xD"

>>10494788
I thought pic related made a pretty good point
A fuckton of people will erroneously say the two studies contradict one another
A smaller but still fuckton-level of people will try to say the study with the smaller p-value had a better methodology