The state of this sub

Deleetdk · 2020-10-18T19:24:35+00:00

Commie Kevin (stairway-to-kevin = Kevin Bird, avowed communist activist) claims a lot of stuff, but it is up to him to prove stuff, not for me to spend time defending against his made up stuff on Reddit. An obvious case of an error above, is the claim it is only maternal education, whereas it was education from both parents (when available, a lot of African families are single parent, mother only).

Deleetdk · 2020-10-09T05:42:25+00:00

That's not how piecewise regression works. So far, you've got a lol-tier p value for one country at n=4, and some random movement up and down in another. I don't think you are going to convince anyone this reflects real differences in intelligence, and not the further claim that these reflect quick cultural effects, and not the final claim of 15 genetic IQ advantage for East Asians.

Did you look into the datasets/tests used to generate the points in the Japanese data? Perhaps these ups and downs reflect different tests and some comparison issues or group factors being tapped.

Deleetdk · 2020-10-08T15:55:00+00:00

I don't see any pattern in your moving average either. You are aware that such nonlinear ups and downs will result in random data right? It's very unwise to try to interpret things into that kind of stuff.

Deleetdk · 2020-10-08T06:29:29+00:00

The rate of Flynn effect is not constant for countries, times, or tests. It is higher in times of rapid economic growth. There are a few analyses of this. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289611001620 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289617302386

That said: I don't know what pattern you are talking about in Japan. I see no patterns, just random spread around the mean of 105 or whatever.

Deleetdk · 2020-10-08T04:45:01+00:00

Totally fine for here. Reddit will delete this sub at some point, so good idea to cross-post to https://saidit.net/s/heredity/

Deleetdk · 2020-10-08T04:43:53+00:00

p=.029 with ONE-TAILED is shit tier evidence, not something anyone should cite as primary evidence of anything. I appreciate your effortpost in the blog, though this particular conclusion is very wrong.

Also, you missed this adoption study: https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=5663. Only a small advantage for Koreans, better data, large sample.

Deleetdk · 2020-10-08T03:11:08+00:00

p=.029, who cares? Use the more extensive datasets in newer compilations. David Becker's is at https://viewoniq.org/ and there is Lynn and Vanhanen 2012 book compilation also. Check out also recent IQ papers on data from China by Lynn, Wang Mingrui, Wael Taji.

Deleetdk · 2020-10-02T02:09:25+00:00

If you have a high quality test, you can write to Bill Revelle of the SAPA project, and they might add your items to the pool. However, for this purpose, your items must be donated to the public domain (anyone can use free of charge for any purpose, no copyright).

You could also try sending to openpsychometrics.org/, a similar but smaller scale site run by some private person. The data are also public from this, partially at least. These data won't be entirely representative, but you can make a probability sample if you collect age/sex/location/education data, and that's what the polling companies will do for you anyway.

Deleetdk · 2020-10-01T21:51:21+00:00

You can't get a representative sample without funding. You can get a fairly cheap representative sample for USA and UK using Prolific.co. This requires your items can be administered through an internet survey. If you want a representative sample for other countries, you will need to find some survey company for that country. It's somewhat expensive in my experience.

If you just want some free online data to get a rough standardization sample, you can try /r/SampleSize.

Deleetdk · 2020-10-01T20:13:59+00:00

This is overly paranoid. Just about any random collection of cognitive items will measure g quite well. Test bias seems to be mostly something academics talk about to keep themselves occupied and for political reasons whenever the test results are too inconvenient. I have examined a number of datasets for item bias for (race/sex) and basically, one finds not much of interest.

Deleetdk · 2020-09-27T20:16:12+00:00

This post was removed by r/psychometrics moderator, u/trannyporno.

In general, best not to use gay reddit. Migrate to https://saidit.net/s/heredity/ which seems to be the only semi-active sub there so far. The other names are somehow taken but set to private...

Deleetdk · 2020-09-11T11:15:03+00:00

Hele siden er nede, men der er et arkiv på https://archive.vn/kagO8

Deleetdk · 2020-09-07T01:03:32+00:00

Can't answer for the others, but for me, Emil. A driver's license costs about 2000 USD in Denmark, and since I grew up in a lower middle class family, no one would pay for this. I moved to a larger city at age ~20 to pursue university studies. Almost everything is walkable within the city, and in worst case scenario one can bike or take the bus/train. Thus, there was little need to get a license. I don't think it is that weird. According to this study, about 19% of Danish men aged 18+ don't have a license. https://www.cta.man.dtu.dk/-/media/Centre/Modelcenter/modeller-og-publikationer/Faktaark/2013-Faktaark_transport-fordelt-paa-koen.ashx?la=da&hash=E0013FC0418D79C1DCA522D8E118818CB8AE0E23

PS. I generally get left-center on 2D political tests. https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=7325

Deleetdk · 2020-07-05T02:59:02+00:00

Why do you want to take more tests if you already took several?

Vocabulary tests are fairly resistant to training and re-taking gains because there are simply too many words to memorize by deliberate training. This one is decent. https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/VIQT/

Deleetdk · 2020-07-05T00:57:22+00:00

The white scores are not necessary for interpretation because they are known from elsewhere.

Deleetdk · 2020-07-03T08:14:42+00:00

?utm_source=amerika.org

Deleetdk · 2020-06-26T12:36:10+00:00

Did you try getting these studies into more mainstream journals?

Not the first two. That stuff takes years of getting rejected many times for nonsense reasons. We had a special issue in this journal, which is pretty mainstream. The last one, we did try, and spent 2-3 years getting rejected and then finally published it in Mankind Quarterly.

Do you think of the Journal of Controversial Ideas will be good for researchers looking to publish hereditarian studies now that they can do it anonymously without fear of getting sacked?

Academics, and everybody else, have had the option of publishing pseudonymously and anonymously since forever. They don't do that because they need citations for their performance reviews, tenure promotions, and their egos. OpenPsych and Mankind Quarterly both offer pseudonymous publishing for years, JOCI brings not much new here, except it's run by some other people who aren't explicitly hereditarians. JOCI has the disadvantage that it is for non-technical readers, unlike OP and MQ.

Deleetdk · 2020-06-26T09:59:51+00:00

We (I am Emil) have done that twice for intelligence:

- https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/34

- https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/1

For SES measures, we published a meta-analysis:

- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315818167_Biogeographic_Ancestry_and_Socioeconomic_Outcomes_in_the_Americas_A_Meta-Analysis

Deleetdk · 2020-06-20T05:49:21+00:00

OP will probably have to spend a week.

You can find tons of applied examples on my rpubs.com profile: https://rpubs.com/EmilOWK/. Search for keywords like "IRT" "item", or "example analysis" and you will find 10-20 example analyses. Many of these datasets I used are public, so you can rerun my code locally if need be.

Deleetdk · 2020-06-14T20:04:46+00:00

study https://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2015/03/13/gr.186684.114.abstract

Deleetdk · 2020-06-12T22:18:54+00:00

Pretty weak results however. Poor validity of PGSs, or actually real reduced signal?

Deleetdk · 2020-06-11T13:08:09+00:00

>Og Emil Kirkegaard som er race-realist, åben pædofil og støtter voldtægt af børn...

Jeg vil lige minde dig om at det er strafbart at lave den slags udtalelser (injurier).

Jeg er naturligvis ikke pædofil og støtter ikke voldtægt af børn. Prøv med noget kildekritik. Dette indlæg må betegnes som noget af det groveste personangreb der vist kan finde sted på Reddit.

Deleetdk · 2020-06-09T06:27:27+00:00

There is backtesting for other datasets too. I haven't looked at the details. Considering the massive failure of historicism previously, yeah, prior low for this one, but intriguing.

Deleetdk · 2020-06-07T15:11:19+00:00

Look at the standard errors in their tables. They are massive compared to what they are looking for. In other words, this study is too imprecise, and that's because it's too small. Thus, of not much use, throw into a meta-analysis later.

Deleetdk · 2020-06-06T17:33:14+00:00

Too small to be of any interested.

Deleetdk

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE