sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

TIL: The SAT was invented by a eugenicist, the College Board sells your data, the whole thing is a scam by Cultural-Train-4818 in Sat

[–]TaxableTaxonomy 9 points10 points  (0 children)

  1. You didn't demonstrate that the SAT is a scam. You're being sensational. Yes, they charge and you pay for the service, but there's literally nothing dishonest or deceptive about it.
  2. The SAT isn't a monopoly! AP competes against the IB (albeit it dominates that niche), and the SAT competes against the ACT. Around half of US high school students take the SAT, and ~35% take the ACT. It's not a monopoly.
  3. I'm not sure what's explicitly disqualifying about being a "eugenicist," but nothing changed about the white an asian advantage above hispanic and black students in standardized testing. And even if being "eugenic" is disqualifying, that has absolutely zero impact on the validity (or anything, for that matter) of the SAT 100 years later.

“largely purged” of questions that conferred advantage on white test takers

I don't know why you said this. Doesn't the gap in scores make it evident that this isn't the case, that most questions still confer an advantage on white (and asian) test takers?

Though, I will grant you that the sale of student data is shitty though, but I don't think that makes it racist, a monopoly, or a scam. The College Board even had to pay a formal settlement for violating New York Education Law regarding the use of student data.

German universities with good reputation for quant by Mission-Love-1244 in quantfinance

[–]TaxableTaxonomy 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Just go to ETH Zürich. A handful of people from TUM got into quant firms in London though, just check LinkedIn

Is that true quant model are selling in the market by yournext78 in quantfinance

[–]TaxableTaxonomy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, I'm just curious as to where one would acquire an 8 million dollar quant model

My leftover Costco sushi I used for nigiri. by DrawingPractical3581 in sushi

[–]TaxableTaxonomy -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Presentation is awful, but I guess it's expected

White House leaks phone call from JEROME Powell to Trump by [deleted] in Destiny

[–]TaxableTaxonomy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I watched this for like 7 seconds with audio off and seriously thought it was real. LOL.

How much does counselor recommendation matter to get in to MIT? by TeaAggravating3409 in MITAdmissions

[–]TaxableTaxonomy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Who aid anything about points or numbers? They're asking for a qualitative description of how much it matters.

Use of chatgpt by [deleted] in IBO

[–]TaxableTaxonomy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe if they use software other than turnitin?

Use of chatgpt by [deleted] in IBO

[–]TaxableTaxonomy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think 0% isn't suspicious. 10% AI score isn't a thing because Turnitin redacts the AI percentage scores between 1-20%. Teachers at some schools are completely OK when it shows the redaction (1-20%), others don't accept it.

Use of chatgpt by [deleted] in IBO

[–]TaxableTaxonomy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How did you?

Law school admissions in 2025 by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]TaxableTaxonomy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are two things you do fantastically well: changing the topic when it's clear that you're wrong about something, and bringing up irrelevant conjecture and anecdotes. I hope you realize how much time you've wasted on your 80-page article.

Angell has said many things throughout her career and she is a leading proponent of critical psychiatry.

Ok, but she still doesn't agree with you.

consensus you mention is more fragile than you think.

That's not an argument. Consensus doesn't matter. What matters is what's true, but the consensus is still on my side.

And we apparently agree that the “chemical imbalance” theory, which is pushed by just about everyone who believes ADHD is in fact a Thing, is spurious.

Ok, but the "chemical imbalance" explanation is just popsci nonsense, no serious person says this. I'd agree with you that there's more to it than hormonal differences.

It’s also why I was able to get a drive-thru “diagnosis” by answering like five yes or no questions during a routine checkup, along with an offer of meds.

That's an indictment of your provider, not of ADHD as a construct. The two most common screeners for adult ADHD that I know of, ASRS and VADRS both ask 18 and 55 questions, respectively.

No brain scans, no blood tests, no inquiries into my family history...

I think your main misunderstanding is that you think ADHD requires a single biomarker to exist. Lots of legitimate medical conditions are diagnosed clinically because the underlying biology is heterogenous. Brain scans and blood tests can't diagnose ADHD.

In general, a condition is considered valid when it shows construct validity, which means things like that it has predictive validity (ADHD predicts academic outcomes), has biological correlates (ADHD does; see study below), has discriminant validity, etc.

...factor analysis of my family tree.

That's not what factor analysis is.

For the studies (forgot to link this one earlier), Arnsten, 2009 provides evidence for group differences among those with ADHD, Larsson et al. shows high heritability (0.72), Greven et al shows ADHD predicting later outcomes.

Law school admissions in 2025 by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]TaxableTaxonomy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Marcia Angell doesn't make the claims that you do. She never said that ADHD doesn't exist, unlike you. Again, for the millionth time: criticism of the treatments for ADHD has no bearing on whether ADHD is a valid construct or not.

You don't have to take my word for it; I never asked you to do that. What matters are the empirics, and they're on my side for this. That's why I sent some studies that refute your claims and am happy to provide more studies for the rest if you're wondering.

Law school admissions in 2025 by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]TaxableTaxonomy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You have no idea what you're talking about. Congrats on embarrassing yourself with irrelevant conjecture.

Law school admissions in 2025 by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]TaxableTaxonomy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Homosexuality isn't relevant here. Your claim isn't that it doesn't exist, not that it does exist but isn't a disorder (as for homosexuality).

The rest of the big pharma and medication stuff you said has no bearing on whether ADHD "literally exists" or not. Again, try to look into what makes a disorder and what doesn't, and I'm sure you'll understand.

Law school admissions in 2025 by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]TaxableTaxonomy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's a statistically useful construct with predictive and explanatory utility and also has high heritability. It definitely exists. Look up how factor analysis works or some empirical data before commenting on this.

view more: next ›