Message from @Sq crcl
Discord ID: 654439653642076161
Mind if I nick that?
Go for it
I did that too
<:why:462286147473637407>
Kek.
Cheers m8
Always
Blue coca cola
Now I have even less incentive to drink Coke.
Oh,
But wait,
Shall I
A piece of paper turd-classifiation
Bs
Oof.
None of it makes sense
Are those real letters?
(not high or anything)
🇸 🇸 🇸 👌
^This is a good video despite the dislike ratio, I like when the left give a argument rather than REEEEE!
That was a shit counterargument to Alt-Hype's autism and mental retardation.
@gNightrow Actual arguments would be more like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQ90iSGpJM
Simple @gNightrow
Hahaha
No, it's not simple
But you can simplify it
Ie. I can be shown twice as many researchers and their papers German style, index attached everything neat and full
However
If me you anyone is constantly having
An empirical experience called :
.
Different groups of people tend to be different in the way they act, the types of choices they tend to make
.
All I can say is that the research papers don't match a shared empirical common everyday experience
And so far I haven't even attacked or defended any sides
.
Water is wet
Hold on...
"^This is a good video despite the dislike ratio, I like when the left give a argument rather than REEEEE!"
<:pepelaugh:544857300179877898>
It all makes sense now
I am aware of the differences between judging a person by their group identities/ race and judging people on their individual identities, the "alt right" or the "Anti sjws" claim that on average there is a correlation between race and IQ and what you do with that information is depending whether or not you are a racist. However what Crout is focussing on is a far more nuanced position on the topic and explaining that even the correlation between race and IQ is wrong. there is a difference between the argument of whether or not someone is platformed because of a scientific position (either true or false) and the argument of the credibility of the science.
Kraut doesn't understand anything about anything. He had to go "Academics please respond", to make his video series, and got denounced by some of them for butchering their assistance of topic after publishing them.
1 = full correlation, -1 = full negative correlation, 0 = no correlaction
So based on this Kraut claims 0.41 is no correlation.
Why? Because he just pulled arbitrary ranges where 0.1-0.5 is "less correlation" and 0.5-0.9 is "more correlation". And since it's on the "less" side of positive correlation, it's the same as 0.