He is pretending it's grey. It's not.

<:thanosdaddy:459545656479055873>

Intersectional Feminism is riddled with the exact same type of statitistical studies that reportantly validate their assertion the gender is a social construct.

Show me

If I take a sample of 100 people living in Europe for a study to find out if exposure to power lines over the long duration causes cancer and I fail to account for the fact that Europeans tend to smoke over 60% more than AMericans, my conclusion showing a high correlation of power line exposure to cases of cancer will be flawed.

Link?

The reason is that both smoking and power line exposure will show a positive correlation, thus my test variable was not controlled properly in my randomization.

I find ...... one sec

That's the tired "cultures aren't accounted for" argument. They already fixed that.

I feel like ur arguments are from 1990

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/9781405132664/9781405132664_4_003.pdf

Lol

That's a lesson

Combinational variance of statistics:

http://reliawiki.org/index.php/RBDs_and_Analytical_System_Reliability

One of the longest, and at times most contentious, debates inWestern intellectual
history concerns the relative influence of genetic and environmental factors
on human behavioral differences, the so-called nature-nurture debate (Degler

http://web.missouri.edu/~segerti/1000H/BouchardRev.pdf

There are many in the soft-sciences that have misapplied statistical technicques which have given rise to very popular and well beleived theories and fields of study. One such example is the multiple worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. But this is an occupational hazard of academics.

Statistics used in such a way only points towards the possibility which is useful and worth examination.

It's so genetic soon it will be a spit test to determine iq....

You're just wrong.


Your constant guessing at potential biases are non-existent in reality regarding general intelligence.

But not evidence.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610339/dna-tests-for-iq-are-coming-but-it-might-not-be-smart-to-take-one/

Indirectly linked to intelligences

You're imagining problems that don't exist.

Lol

No.

Scientists only know about genes; not behaviour

Incorrect

Is behavior magical? It's easy to test.... An IQ test.

No scientist that studies genetics also has the same depth of education in behavioural sciences.

Lol

They are two VERY different fields of study and schooling.

You're not current in your understanding of the field. I encourage you to dig deeper.

You can beleive a phsyciatrist is a valid profession but 90% is not based in science.

It is based on behaviour studies. Not the same.

Your assertions imagined

Ok.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610339/dna-tests-for-iq-are-coming-but-it-might-not-be-smart-to-take-one/

Papers do a good job highlighting to fallacy

Invalid; do the math

The fallacy isn't there.