/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8913865
the argument is lynn is a fraud that cherry picked studies

he excluded studies not based on whether they were representative, but whether the result fit his paradigm

>>8906530
>>8906524
Lynn is biased because he excluded samples not based on whether they were elite but whether their scores were high.
Just look at this picture.

A systematic review of the studies "budges" the average by about 10 points.

Look at this post >>8904121

Anyways, I wouldn't trust Lynn to tell me what time it is.

Just accept defeat and move on.

>>8901383
rushton is a fraud
>>8901378
>>8901374
on lynn
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121155220.htm

https://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/09/more-massaged-data-from-richard-lynn.html

pic rel

lynn's cherrypicking
There's many more instances of lynn being shown to be either a fraud or simply bad at his job

like with the "northern-southern italian IQ gap"

>>8896044
They have actually, but those studies are overwhelmingly deemed "not representative"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289609001470
Pic related

>>8896082
It comes up literally every time you compare white and asian IQ, I could make a thread right this moment and >b-but creativity will be first post