/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12531907
Yes, they're real hard in the same way that astrology or economics are real hard. Nobody is able to do it properly, that's why they're having a replication crisis :)

>>12531907
NO
Destiny is trying to protect his orthodox, politically correct positions in the "soft sciences" by pretending that they are the "hard sciences"

>>12531907
Hard means the results are well defined and exact, math being the hardest of sciences. Its not about the level of difficulties.
Social sciences are soft because they are innacurate. But they are also easy to learn and thats not something you need to be ashamed of.

>>12531907
i swear i made a bait post on here yesterday just like that, didnt get any replies desu

>>12531907
>Is [Destiny] right?
No.
>>12531910
Yeah, could you imagine if there was a replication crisis in the hard sciences? :)

sounds about right

>>12531907
how can this guy have 623000 followers?

>>12531964
by preaching truth

>>12531907
>refutes tribalism with "humans are sociable creatures"
>e-celeb brain
Destiny can discuss anything but science.

>>12531964
He realized that spending 10 mins on reading on a topic can make one look like an intellectual to someone who has spend 0 mins on reading on that topic. That's the entire premise behind his content.

>>12531927
Replication crisis certainly makes research harder.

>>12531964
He's what you get when you cross /v/ and /leftypol/. He was a proto-troll, just like Sargoy of Akkad

>>12532108
>leftypol
lmao Destiny is not left wing

He has a point but at face value the statement is misleading or useless because the word "hard" is used in various ways.

>The subject X is hard because out of 100 people learning it, only 5 people will pass the test
The quantum mechanics is much harder than psychology

>The subject X is hard because to come up with something genuinely innovative is difficult
The quantum mechanics is harder than psychology

>The subject X is hard because to come up with something novel and useful is difficult
This is similar to the above, except in a field like quantum mechanics where experiments itself is difficult to obtain, and where only view people make progress, it becomes very fuzzy to compare it with a field where there's in-principle-simple studies that might still get hard to get by.

It's conceptually trivial to come up with a routine and questionaire of 100,000 people on a subject and do the statistical evaluation - but if you look at e.g. nutrition papers, it's evident that even those researchers usually only ever manage to run their study on 50 people.

Is it "hard" to do a nutrition experiment with 100,000 people?
It's BOTH basically trivial as well as basically impossible to do.

>The subject X is hard because it's hard to make a case for something that will not be overhauled in a decade
This is where he tries to make a point - if the ontology of a subject is variable and dependencies of results are highly multi-dimensional, it's basically impossible to make universal cases. So the subject is "hard" in the sense of coming up with the perfect theory (in the sense that Newton's theory is perfectly effective on its scale) is not feasible.

>>12532141
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

>>12532141

>>12531907
he's more-or-less correct
there's certainly difficult problems in hard sciences, but at hard sciences have ways to definitively verify if a proposed answer to said problems is true.
In mathematics, statements are actually provable, and proofs checkable, which makes it easier in this respect than any other science.
In physics, theories that make predictions that do not agree with experiment can be eliminated (to some extent, this isn't as absolute as some might suggest. for example, the Copernican model of the solar system made less accurate predictions than the highly refined ptolemaic model with multiple levels of epicycles, yet is clearly a more accurate description of the universe, and it provided the basis for Kepler's laws).
In something like psychology or economics, no theory can ever really be verified, and theories rarely make any consistently testable predictions, because the systems studied are too complex and chaotic to treat as deterministic.
This makes it much harder to make progress in softer sciences. When we examine how far we've come, we might be tempted to say that we have made much more progress in hard sciences than in many softer sciences. After all, we have discovered where all life on earth came from, we have discovered how the universe came to be and all the laws that govern its evolution and we have determined the molecular structure of millions of chemicals, but we are still unable to predict financial crises, we are unable to predict human behaviour and we don't really know how the mind works.

>>12532170
Not a single theory can ever be 100% verified retard. At least read Popper before posting on a science board. Or even better, Kuhn, that btfos this "scientific method" completely

>>12532160
he's a liberal, not a leftist He's pro-capitalist and anti-worker. literally just listen to any of his debates with a leftist and you'll hear him trot out tiresome neoliberal arguments.

>>12532174
I literally didn't say it could, and I've actually read Kuhn, and Feyerabend for that matter.

>>12531907
he's just mad because he knows that everything in those garbage soft science fields is going to change when a new political shift occurs and a new set of biases dictates who gets hired and published. see you in a few decades when yet a new set of theories conflicting with most of the ones that came before it gets introduced to explain data in a way that conforms to the new political reality

>>12532170
>but at hard sciences have ways to definitively verify if a proposed answer to said problems is true.
That's a bit vague but with a bit of rewording this post works
Just as mathematics doesn't give capital T truth, but if we agree to a logic and formal symbol manipulation rules, we can get to a situation where all participants agree

>>12532178
>he's a liberal, not a leftist He's pro-capitalist and anti-worker. literally just listen to any of his debates with a leftist and you'll hear him trot out tiresome neoliberal arguments
Except you can't be pretend to be a "liberal" from the 1980s anymore. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

>>12531907
No.

Who btfo cuckstiny worse, Ryan Dawson or Martin Shkreli?
I'd say Ryan because he (rightly) shit talked him in the comments after whereas shkreli was much friendlier, although more condescending

>>12532219
I think he's more of a neoliberal
I suppose you might see him as a leftist if you only care about idpol, but he's very firmly on the centre-right economically

>>12531907
lmao social sciences are literally convincing yourself of your own bullshit and then convince other people of said bullshit so they turn it into bullshit they can convince others of
there are ZERO improvements to society that ever came from social sciences, if anything they're responsible for damage and literal deaths of said societies (see: political science)

>>12531907
hard to do work that is able to be replicated and be useful? sure. hard to find some bullshit you can publish? no

>>12532244
This
While it is more difficult to come up with something that works, it is also way easier to become an expert in soft sciences. This means you end up with a constant stream of bullshit studies from dumbass researchers

Social science is hard because most of the conclusions it comes up with are wrong, since the scientific methods for them are fucking retarded and based on not real science like psychology and statistics.

>>12531907
The hardest social science is about debunking modern myths and beliefs. You can go to jail for that.
Just ask anyone who dared to challenge the Holocaust narrative.

>>12531966
You don't get followers for the truth, you get followers for telling people what they want to hear. Which is exactly what Destiny does. Even when he questions his own positions it's done in such a half assed way only to convince midwits he's objective. Actually meta af, good on him for doing that so well.

>>12532715
before watching him i had a pretty much 180 on most positions - so definitely not what i wanted to hear, but after hearing a different position i spent time objectively evaluating my positions and changed them to the more logical ones (often not his opinions, but his opinions made me sit down and develop my own thru sitting in the notepad and GROUNDING MY AXIOMS kek)

and yeah, you do get followers for what you said, but you also get them for hundreds of different variables
if getting followers is as easy as speaking what people want to hear, why wont you do it and over a year long period grow a six figure income from just streaming/yt?

>>12532228
martin actually was super friendly towards steven by the end of the debate and super grateful for speaking to him, even implying that destiny's time is worth more than his

you should watch it before spewing random bullshit lol

>>12531907
this guy is a manlet pedo apologist
he does not have any right to opinion or right to exist
fuck manlet destiny the prissy fag

>>12531907
>There are no laws in the social sciences
Wrong. Funny he brought up economics specifically, the law of supply and demand came to me right away. here are several more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Economics_laws
>In math, nobody will argue over whether an equation doesn't work properly. Nobody will get a new dataset and discover something new
Wrong again, the theory of relativity resulted in a new equation and a slight reworking of our understanding of gravity. Sure, old equations are likely to stick but new equations are still out there waiting to be found. In fact, this is what happens in science often. A new phenomenon can't be described by old equations, so you have to formulate a new one.
>Quantum mechanics is easier than social policy
Quantum mechanics isn't hard because the equations are "settled," same with most science. It's hard because conceptually it is difficult to grasp and put into practice.

This guy is just insecure about his own intelligence, typical for a midwit.

>>12531907
>There are no laws in the social sciences
Economics, though a social science, is still essentially just calculation, competition, structure, and information transfers which can all be described mathematically unlike "happiness", therefor economics have laws that can't be otherwise like "no free lunch" and the classic "supply and demand".
This guy is a complete pseud.

>>12531986
this is the truth. i did watch him way way back and this is what he does; get surface idea of something and then preach about it like hes an expert on it ,when he gets corrected he either bans those chatters or if it is in a debate/skype call he pretends like that isn't true or he acts all surprised.

>>12531907
I get what he's saying, but he's not right. His idea is that the "exact" sciences are afforded precision so their experiments have clear results, but this is a very grade school look into science. There are oftentimes no clear ways to proceed, the results you get have implications that are far more general than what your hypothesis can predict, etc etc.. And this is double true for when you do *theory* research.
This isn't to put down social / soft science. I don't think they're quite the same, but they're valuable - the only problem is that a lot of practitioners in that field don't follow rigor as closely as they should.

>>12532178
He pushes the same social policy as lefties do in practice: globo-homo.
He pushes the same economic policy as lefties do in practice: pro-establishment-corporate power.

Just because lefties LARP about "overthrowing capitalism" - despite in practice not doing a fucking thing that isn't directly helpful to global capital - doesn't make them any different than libs in practice.

>>12531907
He is wrong. It’s kind of funny. The is example he brings up just proves how retarded it is. People create these retarded adhoc basically Freud models for things in soft sciences. Guess what that are wrong 99% because they are adhoc garbage and you have to adhoc a new model. Complexity doesn’t depend on how fast something changes like he said. It’s actually really retarded that he brings up “social social sciences change a lot” as a defense that it’s harder. Overall he is retarded

>>12532229
Nobody cares about economic positions anymore. Idpol is all that matters now.

>>12532170
If it is easy to progress a field it just means that field gets more and more and more complicated thus physics is more difficult. You can easily turn around what you said. Also I would also argue physics has a much harder barrier to pass for something to be accurate then social sciences since it’s a lot easier to prove something thus it is more difficult. Or it could be the case hard sciences are conceptually difficult to understand. It’s be hard to quantify this but I’m sure you can. You are looking at one small aspect and expanding it out like a retard.

>>12532229
This is 4chan, anyone not advocating for a white ethnostate is considered left.

I think he means that the social sciences might have to use larger samples when doing statistical analyses.

Also, the woke-style researchers have to infer an incoherent ideology from the data.

>>12533038
>globo homo
>muh lefties and liberals want and do the same things in practice
you're fucking retarded. get out of the US and you'll see what a leftie is actually like

>>12533077
>this is what /pol/ asserts so they can lazily import all their arguments against muh shitlibs against anybody who doesn't use their lingo like globohomo unironically
kill yourself.

>>12531927
>Yeah, could you imagine if there was a replication crisis in the hard sciences? :)
There really isn't: it most affects social sciences and medicine.

>>12532170
>This makes it much harder to make progress in softer sciences
Because they're not real sciences.

>>12533038
damn I didn't know trump is left wing, the more you know.

>>12533114
Yeah, and the reason is hard sciences are so easy and predictable you mostly don’t even need to calculate p-values to show convincing results.

>>12533038
>globo-homo
yeah, you're retarded

>>12532747
not him, but maybe he doesnt care about having followers or making a "six figure income". People find happiness in other things etc etc...

>>12532154
This

>>12531907
Literally just ask yourself if it easier for a sociologist to transfer to physics or a physicist to transfer to sociology. The reason why physics comes off as "easy" because that's literally the fucking point of science, to simply things. Physicists have their job done, sociologist haven't.

>>12533165
Experimentalist need to calculate p-values all the time.

>>12533241
sure man
sure

>>12533110
>get out of the US and you'll see what a leftie is actually like
If you mean "Communist" then I'll tell you the leftie looks extinct to me. The leftist ideas of Adorno and the like dominate the liberal dogma. Just because these people opposed the Soviet Union doesn't make them right wing, in fact they're even more left wing than the Soviets were.

>>12533229
>stop talking about globalism!

>>12533125
Trump practiced economic nationalism, which actually helps the working class. But since spite rules your emotions you'll gladly weaken your own position in the workforce and lick corporate boots because the guy in the White House is blue rather than red. In truth you don't really believe in anything other than "self bad, other good."

>>12533330
>"Trump practixed economic nationalism"
>he literally has all of his campaign merch produced in China
kek

>>12531964
Consider the population of the Earth and that by definition half of those people are at or below average IQ.

>>12533362
Still peddling 2015 lies I see. Get some new material already.

The "soft" sciences are hard, harder than the "hard" sciences, but that doesn't mean the people working on the soft sciences are smarter -- the reverse is true, actually.

>>12533378
...and let me add, that the hard problems of soft science will not be solved by humans, but by superintelligence.

>>12532829
he is not insecure
he has attachment to social sciences
this is probably just what he believes
I think his highest level of education is high school
and then he became a house cleaner before making it big in streaming

>>12533582
meant to say no attachment to social sciences

IM SORRY I CHOSE TO STUDY ECONOMICS OK IM SORRY IM SO FUCKING STUPID I HATE MYSELF

>>12531964
Surrogate friends is a HUGE market now that technology has destroyed the need for people to create bonds in real life.

>>12533165
>t. retard

>>12531913
this

>>12533704
I accept your concession.

>>12531907
Social science = niggers are the problem.

No, he's wrong.

>>12533732
My concession? My concession of what? The couple of I.Q. points I lost reading your retarded sentence? Please don't I would like those back (I don't want to become a mid-wit).

>>12531907
it's not really true, there are plenty of things that could be soft, but are actually quite rigorous (take a look at comparative linguistics, for example, or paleoanthropology, or behavorial economics, shit even behavorial biology). the problem with doing good sociology isn't that it's harder than usual (otherwise you'd see higher IQs gravitate toward it, right?), it's that the current paradigms are garbage, and encourages the generation of garbage. it's beyond possible to approach such dynamic subjects in a rigorous manner (as is the case in the topics i listed).

social sciences ARE harder, in the sense that the field is 95% garbage, and requires a large degree of effort to figure out what is useful and valid, and what isn't. (and no, transgender people are not valid, no matter how much you screech).

>>12533114
>and medicine
as if medicine isn't hard science.
Replication crisis is a universal phenomenon (mostly because crooks and retards work in every department)

>>12531907
>My field of 'science' is harder than hard sciences because the hard sciences prove things and we don't
Congrats to all the retards ITT proudly celebrating this.

>>12533790
It's not medfag.
Most of the "science" of medicine is still stuck in the middle-ages because it has to deal with systems which aren't clearly understood, and not only that, systems which are inherently chaotic. Often times the cure is worse than the disease because of this and certain treatments which might work for certain individuals just aren't generalizable to everyone. The worst example of this is probably the science around mental health medication. Anyway, just remember this: if it suffers from the reproduciblity crisis, it's not a hard-science.
>t. mathematician

>>12533872
Medicine as science has almost nothing to do with medicine as a product you're offered.
Nevertheless: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5dvUVuwcxg
keep on tiling chessboard with dominos or whatever extremely useful problem you're solving.

>>12533970
Continue to seethe.
I don't have to justify myself because pretty much every thing a mathematician does is highly applicable and true. All the knowledge I accumulate is also always going to be useful to the coming generations I might teach even if I can't contribute to research. I litterally can't be useless to society if I do my job correctly.
Plebeians will never know how that feels.

>>12534016
>pretty much every thing a mathematician does is highly applicable and true
and useless

>>12534016
>I don't have to justify myself because pretty much every thing a mathematician does is highly applicable and true
lmao good joke

>Guessing without measuring tools is harder than doing calculations with measuring tools you do have

I suppose. It's also harder to cut through a rock with only your dick but that doesn't make it commendable, it just makes it retarded.

>>12531907
>videogame streamer
Opinion discarded.

>>12534019
>highly applicable
>useless
How about you go back to researching the modern day equivalent to humourism for 12 years just so you can publish some irreproducible nonsense that's probably false anyway?
(I guess we should be glad you're autistically playing around with models though, it could be worse, you could be poisoning people like your quack friends who actually make scientific "contributions")

>>12533368
Uhh, that would be the median by definition though...

>>12532994
economics doesn't have "laws" in the sense of physics, and mathematical models in economics are extremely simplified. even "supply and demand" is a simplified model for some perfect free market scenario

>>12534100
> applicable in theory
> never used in reality

>>12534108
When tf is supply and demand not applicable? I understand that completely retarded and baseless ideas in economics tend to stick around because of how political everything is (e.g. the Labour theory of value) but this seems pretty fundemental (and even axiomatic in how obvious yet foundational it is).

Also do any anons know if things like the fundamental theorems of welfare economics and Henry George Theorem are LARPs?
Wtf does an economic theorem even look like?
More "theorems":
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Economics_theorems
I'm pretty interested in Econ as a mathematician but only as a side project like pic rel.

>>12534283
I also want to know...

>>12533368
but 68 % are within one standard deviation from the mean.
Only like 16 % are painfully dumb, or mentally handicapped.

Is that manlet still alive

>>12534283
retard, the Labour theory value is correct

>>12531907
He's 100% right about that, if you watch the clip. It's of course a lot harder to accurately and fully analyze a very complex, chaotic system like an economy or society than it is to analyze a simpler system like a chemical reaction.

One exception I can think of would be neuroscience, where an individual brain alone is also extremely dynamic and complex, let alone trying to extrapolate to all brains

Of course we all know why in actual practice it's easier to major in or be employed as a sociologist than as a physicist, but he knows that too and that's not the point he was making

>>12531986
>He realized that spending 10 mins on reading on a topic can make one look like an intellectual to someone who has spend 0 mins on reading on that topic. That's the entire premise behind his content.
Yeah pretty much. It's easy to appear smart and wise if you're mostly debating idiots. There are a lot of idiots out there, so he can make a career out of it

Also, I know the intention of the thread was obviously to bait, but it'd be more reasonable if OP just wrote the full quote instead of only linking the clip (which probably 1% of respondents watched)

>>12531907
Social science is not science in real way. Science is about nature. Society is not nature.

>>12533113
I don't know what this schizo nonsense was supposed to demonstrate but in real life, people give zero fucks about economic positions when placing people on political spectrum. Social view is all that matters.

>>12531907
This is cute. Destiny acts as if he was the first person alive to think of that. Yes, human behavior is more difficult to model which leaves the social science field with low correlations and failed replications.
Is this what his gullible fans consider a great insight?

>>12535470
do you see the irony in posting a pretty good example of an anecdotal display of huge bias and prejudice possibly stemming from years of indoctrination in a no education environment and then imply that its reasonable to extrapolate said anecdote to the entire population by posting it alongside your in defense of hard sciences post?

>>12535528
Are you referring to my pic? That was just random image I have saved. The case for lower intelligence of brown people is much stronger than this meme, unfortunately for you.

>>12535713
>12535713
oh i have acknowledged in my post
but offered scientific explanation for the human development index in countires that have majority darker skin population such as poor education environment (while being more difficult to survive in), no access to medical care and education, currency inflation exploitation by globalist speculators in the thru 70/90's and many more

your opinion (which is again - anti hard science) is that they're just born different

you are indeed what i would call an ignorant and uneducated teenager (even if only at heart)

>>12535819
>ut offered scientific explanation for the human development index in countires that have majority darker skin population such as poor education environment (while being more difficult to survive in), no access to medical care and education, currency inflation exploitation by globalist speculators in the thru 70/90's and many more
Problem with this great theory is that brown people living in first world countries with same education as white majorities still have IQs as low as their counterparts in their homelands.

>>12534650
>t. retarded commie
lol keep digging that hole in the dirt bro, I'm sure the deeper you go the more your work will be worth.
Fucking retard, lol.

>>12531907
How did he ever land the swedish goddess that is Melina? I'm filled with complete envy. He gets to stick his flabby belly between her super toned legs.
This + the STPeach story has me so confused about what grills want

>>12536076
>he doesn't know
https://youtu.be/BJB9Z6Q2CsE

>>12535338
>Social science is not science in real way. Science is about nature. Society is not nature.
Yes it is. Just a higher abstraction

>>12536084
science approves cuckoldry

>>12535088

There's a lot of "research" in the social sciences that is done for the sake of intellectual masturbation and has no predictable or measurable outcome. Worse its used as a penis measuring contest when it gets published.

Funny enough there's fields in the hard sciences like theories of quantum gravity in physics that are stuck in the same rut. Have theories of quantum gravity generated any predictions that can be measured? Uhh no but the maths are beautiful roight?

>>12535338
lmao how can you be this stupid

>>12531907
true

>>12536076
his gf is the ultimate blackpill. she becomes a bigger streamer than him in less than a year by just sitting in front of the camera with skimpy clothes on

>>12532752
He literally said Martin was much more friendly. You can't even read what you're replying before spewing random shit.

>>12531927
>Yeah, could you imagine if there was a replication crisis in the hard sciences?
is there?

>>12536864
No.
>inb4 some medfag, ec*nomist, or worst of all, some social "scientist" says otherwise

>>12531915
>Social sciences are soft because they are innacurate.
"Imprecise", to be precise. To clarify:
"Variation in human height is mostly genetic" -- accurate, but imprecise.
"Variation in human height is 99.999% environmental" -- precise, but inaccurate.

>>12535819
>your opinion (which is again - anti hard science) is that they're just born different
>you are indeed what i would call an ignorant and uneducated teenager (even if only at heart)
You know, this debate has been going on since the 19th century, and systematic attempts to make comparisons have been going on since the early 20th century? And you know something else? The evidence from the mass of studies that have accumulated since then is consistently that the differences are largely genetic. The only way to reach the opposite conclusion is to ignore the accumulated evidence, or shout it down.

>>12531907
I have to understand his point tho. Would say the same if i was a retard

>>12537046
>The evidence from the mass of studies that have accumulated since then is consistently that the differences are largely genetic.
source?

>>12531907
>>12531910
>>12531913
>>12531915
>>12531921
>>12531927
>>12531939
>>12531964
>>12531966
No idea what this fag thinks, but it's true, but NOT for the reasons most people think. The subject matter that falls under the "social science" such as human psychology, both at the individual and higher level, is definitely harder than the "hard sciences" simply because it's so complicated that we can't study it with neat little equations and assumptions like we do in the "hard sciences". But at the same time, the social sciences as they exist right now are a joke compared to the hard sciences. We are too dumb at this point to study social sciences with rigor.

Serious question: does Steven get pegged?
If it was by Melina, I wouldn't even mind

>>12537093
https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

>>12537121
yeah i can agree with that, but we have to try

>>12534434
People can intuitively detect a one standard deviation IQ difference, just from conversation.
Kids select their friends partly by this.

>>12532174
I don't think Kuhn, or Popper, or for that matter Feyerabend, "BTFO" the scientific method. Indeed, I would go further, and say that, far to the contrary, I'm more inclined to the view that David Stove BTFOs all three of those guys. I think that, at best, Kuhn, Popper and Feyerabend make people who already don't like science feel good about not liking science, but they have spectacularly failed to inflict any real damage on science's reputation in the world at large, or on its practical effectiveness.

>>12537139
I grew up poor and around poor dumb people, I can mimic how to be around dumb people, so if a smart person was next to me, watching while invisible, they would assume I'm dumb.

>>12531907
Using your feelsies will always feel like difficult work, but the moment you realize any old retard can do it (which is why women and minorities are so prevalent within those fields), you realize it is fundamentally no different from deciding which brand of detergent to use based on the smell. It requires no meaningful levels of intelligence, only verbosity.

>>12532747
Nobody likes fascists or extreme racists. Therefore said media is unpopular. The vast majority of any political figure's following is due to them preaching to the crowd. Any figure that makes you feel like you're intelligent, while at the same time confirming your views, will get incredibly popular.
Examples: Hassan, TYT, Sargon, etc etc

>>12537127
That's cool but even that (highly controversial paper) only claims that the racial IQ gap is "at least 50% genetic" which is a huge difference from your claim of
>THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED
Especially considering there's mountains of research which basically finds the opposite. I'm not saying IQ is 100% environmental, but your
>LE SCIENCE IS SETTLED
claim is asinine

>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886909002475?via%3Dihub
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289609000634?via%3Dihub
>https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-24435-003

>>12537282
Few things, I am not the person you responded to, I just linked that paper.
Neither him nor I have said that THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED. No idea where you got that from. And even if we did say that, % of genetic effects is irrelevant to whether the science is settle or not. Do you know what "settled" means?

>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886909002475?via%3Dihub
>https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-24435-003
Apart from being the same paper posted twice, it has nothing to do with IQ being environmental. It's not even response to the paper I linked.

>>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289609000634?via%3Dihub
You probably haven't thought this one through. If average African IQ indeed was 82 then it would make the case for hereditarians even stronger. Because it's very close to average black IQ in the US (85), and that would mean that environment has very minimal effect on intelligence. So what were you trying to demonstrate with that?

>>12537226
>I can mimic how to be around dumb people, so if a smart person was next to me, watching while invisible, they would assume I'm dumb.
Yeah, so? How long could you keep that up in front of your class-mates in school -- long enough that the bright ones would shun you as a dimwit? And even if you could do that, how likely is it that you would want to? Also, could a dumb kid mimic a smart kid well enough to play the opposite trick?

>>12533038
I'm a communist and I want to close the borders, kill all the gays, and kill all high profile international capitalists.

>>12537282
>Neither him nor I have said that THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED.
>The evidence from the mass of studies that have accumulated since then is consistently that the differences are largely genetic. The only way to reach the opposite conclusion is to ignore the accumulated evidence, or shout it down.
pretty clear to me what he's saying
>Apart from being the same paper posted twice, it has nothing to do with IQ being environmental. It's not even response to the paper I linked.
>Why national IQs do not support evolutionary theories of intelligence
literally the title of the paper, can you not read?
>So what were you trying to demonstrate with that?
if you could actually read you wouldn't be asking this.
>There can be little doubt that Africans average lower IQs than do westerners. Several factors may cause this. Lynn (2006), Rushton (2000), and Kanazawa (2004) have proposed evolutionary theories to explain the relatively low scores of Africans on IQ tests. However, the fact is that African countries are developing countries, and we view this as highly relevant in the explanation of the low IQ test performance of Africans. Specifically, Flynn, 1987, Flynn, 2007 has shown that IQ levels have increased considerably in the developed world over the course of the twentieth century. African countries below the Sahara have not experienced the improvements in the variables that have been proposed to have caused the Flynn Effect in the developed world. These include improvements in nutrition and health (care), increases educational attainment, improvements in educational practices, urbanization, large-scale dissemination of visual–spatial toys, etc. Although it cannot be precluded that genetic effects play a role in the low IQ performance of Africans, we view environmental circumstances as potentially more relevant to the present-day difference in mean.

>>12537480
>>Why national IQs do not support evolutionary theories of intelligence
>literally the title of the paper, can you not read?
Oh, silly me, must have missed it. Now reading that title for the first time, it really is good argument for environmentalism.

>>So what were you trying to demonstrate with that?
if you could actually read you wouldn't be asking this.
So you were trying to demonstrate that after Flynn effect takes place in Africa, their IQ will increase from current 82 to...what? Around 100? The same as in the West I assume.
Quick question, how is it possible that after Flynn effect took place among black americans, their IQs are only 85? Why is current black american IQ virtually the same as IQ in Africa? In before the Flynn took place there?

>>12537609
I really don't have a horse in this race, I don't know or care about the answers to your questions, if you want to know there's no shortage of papers to read on the topic. All I care about is pointing out how utterly stupid >>12537046 the notion that
>THE SOICENCE IS SETTLED!!!!!!!
is

>>12532229
Great, the sales tax on my prison cigarettes will be one percent lower while I'm jailed permanently for not conforming to the identity politics of the day. Wonderful trade off.

>>12538169
when you have to resort to such an idiotic straw man this quickly it's usually a good indicator you're completely wrong.
Something for you to think about.

>>12532174
>kike pseudoscientific bullshit
get the fuck out of here

>>12534093
>4chan poster
Opinion discarded.

>>12532279

hence a twitch streamer like destiny can talk about soft dumb sciences without remotely being intelligent.

>>12531907
Making a complete mechanistic model for soft sciences would be harder. But we don't have that at all, just a bunch of idiots spreading their baseless ideological bile.

>>12531907
lel, double digit europoid sociology student

hard sciences are "knowable" enough (aka "easy") that your knowledge and skill can actually accomplish something.
soft sciences are so "unknowable", so completely fucking bratty and context-dependent, and multifacorial, that any attempt to quantify shit is basically fucking useless.

So yes, hard sciences are technically easier.

But it's like saying that cooking is easier than being a rocket scientist.
Or that the bum who won the lottery is more skilled than Lionel Messi.

>>12531907
The reason why sociology is hard is because they discard IQ, big 5 Personality, and Heredity. Even cultural factors is taboo now. Everything has to be explained by policy, ses, and racism. That's why nothing replicates.

>>12537268
I dont think you've ever watched Destiny, he does the opposite of preaching to a crowd.

Chat flames him daily on retarded positions, then he opens up a notepad and thinks it out in real time while chat is question marking him.
He's often the only one to speak out against the crowd on scuffed podcasts/when the crowd is preaching some stupid shit (check his 1v10 debates lol).

- Sargon is a retard that cant even logically think so yeah, all he does is preach his confirmation bias.
- Hasan was fine at first, but then went full mask on as a dipshit socialist with no real thought out postions, pure preachlord socialist while cant even go to a protest without being forced and acompanied by pornstars + doesnt pay his youtube editors cause.. his youtube is not making money HAHHAHA while his twitch is making him a millionaire, what a waste of air.

>>12531907
isn't this guy in an open relationship

>>12539509
Destiny is verified sub <135IQ, he admitted it. Intelligent? I guess. Verbal mostly, no real perceptual.

>>12531907
>Social science is HARDER than engineering or computing!!!!
Playing bloodborne on the highest difficulty is harder than being a janitor, but guess which one is more fucking valuable to society. I don’t get this mentality that just because something is difficult that it deserves an applause in and of itself even if it provides no value to anyone but the guy doing it and isn’t even entertaining. Fucking dumbass is just trying to make stem students spicy when the only real reason they’d be spicy is that a twitch streamer makes insane amounts of money from playing Minecraft while squeakily taunting their chosen profession as “easy”. As though “public Minecraft masturbator” isn’t the easiest job in the world. Eliminating ringworm did more to raise the intelligence and quality of life of “marginalized communities” than social pseudoscience circle jerking ever could or ever will.
>astrology is harder than astronomy u guyzzzz!!!!
Big deal, playing top difficulty Mario maker is harder than landscaping, what’s your point?
Didn’t he get a dildo shoved up his ass by twitch for some wrongthink he committed a few months ago? I don’t understand twitch enough to understand how he was punished but not banned.
TL;DR: please stop with the e celebs, regardless of their particular edgey political fetish. Be they left or right stop posting them.

>>12532170
>hey why don't you read some non scientist philosopher jews on how to do your science correctly.
Yeah no, I think I'll pass.

>>12532174
>>12532170
was meant as reply to:

>>12539571
Yeah, she even has a video out where she talks about her hook-ups including recently being gaped by a co-workers elephant cock.

>>12540527
Sauce on the elephant cock vid?

>>12531907
Scientist =/= statistical robot.
Doing statistics doesn't mean doing science.

Doing pattern is science and those people only do statistics. And most can "member" of population of size 1 statistics, which is intristicly dumbfuckery.