|
Cingulate posted:Don't know what this is supposed to mean - the typical measures people use here, e.g. correlation or regression R^2, are inherently standardized. Plotting a scatterplot in a roughly rectangular form is roughly equivalent to standardizing it. (If at all, people should apply other transformations, such as log transforms, more.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardized_coefficient Some idiot who wrote for NRO didn't know what it even meant. quote:The main thing is that he actually bothered to think about his dependent and independent variables for a second, and considered controlling for confounds regardless of if he liked the results or not. Yeah, because how can facts be racist? We're just race realists here. We thus have great reason for controlling for confounds like the Black population, and not SES, education quality, or what not. Of course this proves that Blacks have a culture of violence. Witness Scott talking about this in the comments as if he's proved an inextricable connection between minority population and violence. quote:He makes mistakes - often grave ones. But he does not stand out in making mistakes. He stands out in trying not to make them, and then, like any non-professional, fails a lot. Or more like he makes mistakes despite making a big show of seemingly knowing how not to make mistakes because that's what everyone in his milieu does. I also like how he gets a major dataset from HBD bloggers. This is the best non-academic analysis you've seen? Merdifex has a new favorite as of 23:56 on Jan 8, 2016 |
# ? Jan 8, 2016 23:49 |
|
|
# ? May 31, 2024 23:46 |
|
Merdifex posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardized_coefficient That's what I was talking about. I can elaborate, but the basic point is that standardization is not at all the issue here. Like, not only is it of lesser importance, bringing it up is completely missing the point. If at all, 1. raw betas (or rather, any actually applicable measure of effect size, such as, I don't know, odds ratios) are much more interesting because they'd actually tell us what we want to know (how many murders are caused by an abundance of guns), 2. everyone is already somehow standardizing, by, as I said, showing scatterplots in a roughly quadratic shape (just think of what this implies) and focusing on r and R^2. I can explain all of this in more detail if I'm too careless or confusing here. Or feel free to restate why you think standardization, of all things, is helpful or at least missing in the debate. Merdifex posted:Yeah, because how can facts be racist? We're just race realists here. We thus have great reason for controlling for confounds like the Black population, and not SES, education quality, or what not. Of course this proves that Blacks have a culture of violence. Witness Scott talking about this in the comments as if he's proved an inextricable connection between minority population and violence. Scott seems to have roughly the same perspective as Bill Cosby or John McWhorter here - that is, centrists/moderates who do their best to be hated by the left and the right. Now see, Scott plotting the raw correlation between the percentage of Blacks and murder is not bad. It is, in fact, good. One of the first things I do when running a multiple regression is correlating everything with everything, and if I saw anything correlating at .6, I'd plot it, raw. That's because you want to understand the collinearities in your model. He takes the %Black/murder correlation as suggestive - not proof! - of something; that's at least careless of him, but he's not making a "Blacks are inherently murderous" point. (I'm not going to defend his "Blacks are not inherently, but culturally murderous" point - I know nothing about the topic, but it does seem like an overconfident position.) The failure to control for obvious confounds like SES is one part of why almost every other piece on this is idiotic. On the other hand, Scott does control for, quoting, "non-gun crime rate, Gini coefficient, income". That's good. Merdifex posted:Or more like he makes mistakes despite making a big show of seemingly knowing how not to make mistakes because that's what everyone in his milieu does. Merdifex posted:I also like how he gets a major dataset from HBD bloggers. This is the best non-academic analysis you've seen? And what does that even mean, guilt by association? Do you know who developed the regression coefficient, and what for? I assume you know you do, I'm just reminding you. By this measure, we might as well stop doing quantitative science.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 00:44 |
For a guy who doesn't read DE blogs, you sure have a lot of complex praise for a DE blogger
|
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 01:02 |
|
Jesus poo poo Yud is loving everywhere I go right now. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/bayes-s-theorem-what-s-the-big-deal/ quote:Given all this hoopla, I’ve tried to get to the bottom of Bayes, once and for all. Of the countless explanations on the web, ones I’ve found especially helpful include Yudkowsky’s essay, Wikipedia’s entry and shorter pieces by philosopher Curtis Brown and computers scientists Oscar Bonilla and Kalid Azad. In this post, I’ll try to explain—primarily for my own benefit—what Bayes is all about. I trust kind readers will, as usual, point out any errors.* Right now, the first comment is a long and on-the-money attack on LessWrong. http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2014/05/02/ep93-strawson-free-will/ First comment: quote:I am sure you guys are familiar with Dennett’s exposition of compatibilism. But has anyone read Gary Drescher “Good and Real” (and more on the fringes, Eliezer Yudkowsky http://intelligence.org/files/TDT.pdf pages 100-114)? I want other interests. Surely Yud isn't on cooking shows? [Joke about Yud being fat here] Nessus posted:For a guy who doesn't read DE blogs, you sure have a lot of complex praise for a DE blogger
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 01:05 |
|
Cingulate posted:If you reread what I wrote, you will understand that 1. I know what a standardized regression coefficient is, and possibly 2. why I think this is an utter non-issue. I think this misunderstanding is due to me not providing the proper context. This is not about Scott, but about some (right-wing) NRO journalist who tried to refute one article or another, but the coefficients of his data weren't standardized at all, and the scale factor was hosed. And he was working off of a model he made in R, not scatterplots. The only other thing I know about this guy is that he really likes The Bell Curve, so there's that. quote:That's actually an interesting component - Scott observes the proportion of Blacks is well correlated with the murder rate, and immediately says "this is support for the culture of violence thing". What you hear is "he's racist; he thinks black culture is violent", what I hear is "funny - he must really annoy all of his extreme 'race realist' friends, who zealously assume it's not so much culture but unchangeable genes". Are you saying that Scott's argument of there being a Black "culture of violence" is not racist? It's hilarious to me because in Scott's circle, this is somehow the PC viewpoint. But of course, there are no other factors involved, it must all go back to Blackness being the explanation, as proven by 0.54 linear correlation. This is quantitative race realism! This is the point where I'm less confident in the possibility that there's a misunderstanding between us, which I'm still hoping is the case. I'm just going to assume that you're not supportive of reductive racism but just want to defend Scott because he, for once, did some statistics that you like for some reason, (which doesn't explain all those other times you've leapt to his defence, but what the hell) and leave the matter to rest.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 01:15 |
|
Milo is freaking out on twitter because they took his verified badge for harassing people. His followers have gotten "#JeSuisMilo" up to 47k mentions, and it's trending at the top of the US... uh... charts right now. Also earlier when I was thinking of a particular gay who was against gay marriage and only wanted rough manly spartan sex I think I was thinking of Milo, I know he's against gay marriage while also being gay at least. Someone called him a "gay rights activist" on twitter which made me throw up in my mouth a little I think.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 07:00 |
|
I have no real clue who Scott is but he sounds like a complete loving dumbass. [cue seven-paragraph refutation from Cingulate]
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 07:54 |
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Milo is freaking out on twitter because they took his verified badge for harassing people. His followers have gotten "#JeSuisMilo" up to 47k mentions, and it's trending at the top of the US... uh... charts right now. Who took what from him for doing what to whom, exactly? It's not clear to me from a glance at the Twitter. Edit: Ah, I just understood what you meant now: Twitter took his verified-user icon for being obnoxious on Twitter. Sorry for being dense. Silver2195 has a new favorite as of 08:04 on Jan 9, 2016 |
# ? Jan 9, 2016 08:02 |
quote:Aspects of the neo-reactionist political project (which has been linked to Thiel) seem palpably to run along the same lines, to me: a childish vision of liberation denuded of any actual social responsibility, or any ability to think clearly about the welfare of others. Representative democracy has some problems, but to wholly reject it in favor of autocracy seems a little like the perspective of a small child unwilling to share its toys or lose its comforts. And so, we have projects like Seasteading, where you get to live basically in Waterworld and never have to do what your parents tell you to do, or Alcor, where you never have to really say goodbye to anyone you love. http://www.theawl.com/2016/01/the-origin-of-tech-species
|
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 09:03 |
|
Nessus posted:For a guy who doesn't read DE blogs, you sure have a lot of complex praise for a DE blogger You are aware that words mean things, and that Alexander isn't DE right? Parallel Paraplegic posted:Milo is freaking out on twitter because they took his verified badge for harassing people. His followers have gotten "#JeSuisMilo" up to 47k mentions, and it's trending at the top of the US... uh... charts right now. I'm not going to complain about making Milo's life more difficult, but what's the point of this? If he's enough of an rear end in a top hat to ban, just ban him.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 14:48 |
|
Patrick Spens posted:You are aware that words mean things, and that Alexander isn't DE right? as i pointed out to someone, it took them forever to ban Chuckie C Floorshitter, and nobody liked that guy twitter iskinda slow on the uptake sometimes
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 15:09 |
|
Don't worry, he got it back.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 16:06 |
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Milo is freaking out on twitter because they took his verified badge for harassing people. His followers have gotten "#JeSuisMilo" up to 47k mentions, and it's trending at the top of the US... uh... charts right now. "Rough manly Spartan sex", for those who don't already know, is grown men brutally raping underage boys. Spartan pederasty was actually even worse than the regular Greek kind.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 16:56 |
|
God Bless former forums poster Boniface
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 16:59 |
|
Who'da thunk Jeb would make such a name of himself. Milo and Clark and every other pantshitting right-winger on twitter are convinced that this will lead to a purge of them. DE types are certainly obsessed about purges against their oppressed low-status male selves.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 19:22 |
|
Merdifex posted:Who'da thunk Jeb would make such a name of himself. I hate the word "purge" to mean "facing very mild repercussions for things I say in public". I have never purged anyone, and no one will ever purge me.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 19:26 |
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:I hate the word "purge" to mean "facing very mild repercussions for things I say in public". I have never purged anyone, and no one will ever purge me. Decided against that all-bran diet, then?
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 19:32 |
|
Darth Walrus posted:Decided against that all-bran diet, then? The funniest version of this was when I saw a neo-reactionary talking about how one day the overzealous progs would surely purge Randall Munroe of XKCD fame of thoughtcrime any day now, and it would be terrifying, and then a month later I checked back and she was writing blogposts about how Randall Munroe was obviously an evil fascist abuser for writing this comic
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 19:36 |
|
Randall Munroe should be purged just not for any of those reasons. He just sucks bad.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 19:59 |
|
Literally The Worst posted:Randall Munroe should be purged just not for any of those reasons. He just sucks bad. Given the standards for purging previously established, I think you just purged him.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 20:15 |
|
Merdifex posted:I'm just going to assume that you're not supportive of reductive racism but just want to defend Scott because he, for once, did some statistics that you like for some reason, (which doesn't explain all those other times you've leapt to his defence, but what the hell) and leave the matter to rest. Scott seems to have some allergy to correct use of statistics. I remember him using that loving bogus debt graph (if anyone gives you a graph of national debt in absolute dollars rather than as % of GDP, they are an idiot, a crank or a crook trying to sell you BS). Even when he's being fed help from people, he still doesn't seem to know what the gently caress he's doing. So no, I won't accept that Scott is more informed on anything in any useful sense. He's read more stuff but he does not show any signs of understanding it. Silver2195 posted:Edit: Ah, I just understood what you meant now: Twitter took his verified-user icon for being obnoxious on Twitter. Sorry for being dense. The Little Blue Cuck-Mark, as it shall henceforth be known. Patrick Spens posted:You are aware that words mean things, and that Alexander isn't DE right? Scott Alexander is a good example of a totally-not-neoreactionary. He just has them as his friends and his sidebar is full of neoreactionaries up to out-and-out white nationalists and his comment section is literally a neoreactionary salon and recruiting ground and he keeps talking about their horrible ideas like they're just where a sensible centre of political discourse should be, and that would be why he is on-topic for this thread. But he's totally not a neoreactionary himself, 'cos he says he isn't. He also says he's all for feminism and is a liberal.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 20:29 |
Maybe he's like that dude from that old Star Trek episode, who's just steering the natives of this benighted orb into the "highly efficient" form of government exemplified by (as opposed to the far greater efficiency of Gangster Planet).
|
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 20:44 |
|
divabot posted:Scott seems to have some allergy to correct use of statistics. I remember him using that loving bogus debt graph (if anyone gives you a graph of national debt in absolute dollars rather than as % of GDP, they are an idiot, a crank or a crook trying to sell you BS). Even when he's being fed help from people, he still doesn't seem to know what the gently caress he's doing. This is essentially it. The only saving grace of that gun control post is that the object level statistics don't suck poo poo, thanks to su3su2u1's kind help on tumblr. The conclusions Scott draws, however, do suck poo poo as per the usual Scott way. In general he doesn't know the gently caress he's doing, his claim that the "traditional" (read: the one he hears most on his blog) explanation of the Black population correlation with gun crime is a "culture of violence" (Scott even explains it in the most racist way possible) just goes to show that. Even Scott's old livejournal posts about "biodeterminism" are similarly bullshit, and Scott doesn't understand concepts like statistical significance or replication, let alone the topics he's writing about, like genetics.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 22:35 |
|
divabot posted:
Nah. I know this is complicated, but neoreactionaries dont write tens of thousands of words about why neoreaction is stupid. Like, Alexander is more or less a walking tone argument, but him not banning neoreactionaries on sight doesn't make him one.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 22:45 |
|
Patrick Spens posted:Nah. I know this is complicated, but neoreactionaries dont write tens of thousands of words about why neoreaction is stupid. Like, Alexander is more or less a walking tone argument, but him not banning neoreactionaries on sight doesn't make him one. Do you realize how close he is to deleting that anti-reacto FAQ? This is just you not knowing Scott and what he's been up to. Meanwhile, St. Rev says that SJWs, or rather, the entire left in in the West, are actually funded by Saudi Wahhabi dollars. Nydwracu agrees. https://twitter.com/St_Rev/status/685934975888265217 Merdifex has a new favorite as of 22:57 on Jan 9, 2016 |
# ? Jan 9, 2016 22:54 |
|
But wouldn't a brutal traditionalist theocratic monarchy that hates women and gays be their favourite thing?
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 23:15 |
Skellybones posted:But wouldn't a brutal traditionalist theocratic monarchy that hates women and gays be their favourite thing? Which is ridiculous of course, because obviously once we destroy America by not listening to the Dark Enlightenment, Mexico will take over.
|
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 23:19 |
|
Merdifex posted:This is essentially it. The only saving grace of that gun control post is that the object level statistics don't suck poo poo, thanks to su3su2u1's kind help on tumblr. Quite a lot of The Worst of Scott is patiently refuted by su3su2u1 on Tumblr, but for some reason this is never visible or linked back to on SSC. Patrick Spens posted:Nah. I know this is complicated, but neoreactionaries dont write tens of thousands of words about why neoreaction is stupid. Like, Alexander is more or less a walking tone argument, but him not banning neoreactionaries on sight doesn't make him one. Indeed, but that was two years ago and what I described above has been increasingly the focus in the past two years. He doesn't identify as neoreactionary, but he does treat their ridiculous and extremist ideas as normal and reasonable political discourse, and keeps examining them as if they were such, over and over. (In particular, there seems no aspect of I can't find it quickly, but he literally wrote a post on his surprise at how his views were shifting further and further right, actually surprised that he was picking up his views from the people he chose to associate with. As Hallquist noted: quote:And part of what went wrong with LessWrong and the neoreactionaries was that some people who weren’t themselves neoreactionaries felt the need to be nice to them because they were part of the LessWrong in-group. Scott Alexander is exhibit A here. Seriously, you're arguing Scott's views with the people who've actually kept up. Go and read. This thread's getting a bit fat, but there's a lot of goodness covering Scott's evolution in detail.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2016 23:34 |
|
Merdifex posted:Do you realize how close he is to deleting that anti-reacto FAQ? This is just you not knowing Scott and what he's been up to. Actually it's me. I am funding them, personally. I am Cthulhu, the representation of Fear me, for I shall take away all your games and replace them with I dunno compassion porn? Whatever Rev is calling poo poo he doesn't like this week.
|
# ? Jan 10, 2016 00:16 |
|
divabot posted:
Yeah, and if you and Nesses had said, Alexander is a racist who isn't nearly as dismissive of neoreactionaries as he ought to be, I wouldn't be arguing with you. But I don't think being nice to a group means you belong to them, and racism is hardly confined to neoreactionaries.
|
# ? Jan 10, 2016 01:40 |
|
Merdifex posted:I think this misunderstanding is due to me not providing the proper context. This is not about Scott, but about some (right-wing) NRO journalist who tried to refute one article or another, but the coefficients of his data weren't standardized at all, and the scale factor was hosed. And he was working off of a model he made in R, not scatterplots. The only other thing I know about this guy is that he really likes The Bell Curve, so there's that. Merdifex posted:Are you saying that Scott's argument of there being a Black "culture of violence" is not racist? Merdifex posted:It's hilarious to me because in Scott's circle, this is somehow the PC viewpoint. But of course, there are no other factors involved, it must all go back to Blackness being the explanation, as proven by 0.54 linear correlation. This is quantitative race realism! This is the point where I'm less confident in the possibility that there's a misunderstanding between us, which I'm still hoping is the case. I'm just going to assume that you're not supportive of reductive racism but just want to defend Scott because he, for once, did some statistics that you like for some reason, (which doesn't explain all those other times you've leapt to his defence, but what the hell) and leave the matter to rest. E: Merdifex I'm really respecting that you're responding very civil even though I'm being pretty cranky right now. Cingulate has a new favorite as of 01:54 on Jan 10, 2016 |
# ? Jan 10, 2016 01:40 |
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Also earlier when I was thinking of a particular gay who was against gay marriage and only wanted rough manly spartan sex I think I was thinking of Milo, I know he's against gay marriage while also being gay at least. Someone called him a "gay rights activist" on twitter which made me throw up in my mouth a little I think. Patrick Spens posted:Nah. I know this is complicated, but neoreactionaries dont write tens of thousands of words about why neoreaction is stupid. Like, Alexander is more or less a walking tone argument, but him not banning neoreactionaries on sight doesn't make him one. Just hard. (This is v. meta. No, more meta.) Merdifex posted:This is essentially it. The only saving grace of that gun control post is that the object level statistics don't suck poo poo, thanks to su3su2u1's kind help on tumblr. divabot posted:Scott seems to have some allergy to correct use of statistics
|
# ? Jan 10, 2016 01:49 |
I see this and I can only think of quote:The Man2Man Alliance is a coalition of Men -- some of whom self-identify as "gay," others as "straight," and others as "bi" -- but most of whom today have rejected those out-dated labels and now simply identify as Men -- Men who are determined to win recognition from society of the genuineness of their feelings for one another; and of the validity of the expression of that affection through Frot, phallus-on-phallus sex, which is not only life-affirming and masculine but mindful of both participants' shared and mutual enjoyment. which continues on to quote:While "gay male" culture has become obsessed with anal penetration, incessantly asserting that anal is the ultimate expression of erotic contact between males, and that no sexual encounter is complete unless it culminates in an act of anal penetration. Nessus has a new favorite as of 02:11 on Jan 10, 2016 |
|
# ? Jan 10, 2016 02:09 |
|
Nessus posted:I see this and I can only think of Or if you'd rather be serenaded with your cock rub warrioring. assuming you don't have headphones or your boss can recognize the word "frottage" on your screen.
|
# ? Jan 10, 2016 02:14 |
I suspect if the DE would embrace FROT the problem would resolve itself, with only socks as the victims.
|
|
# ? Jan 10, 2016 02:16 |
|
Nessus posted:I see this and I can only think of Say what you will, the man's got a point. (Pretty much the only picture on that website without any dongs.)
|
# ? Jan 10, 2016 02:18 |
According to Sensei Patrick, if you turn a girl's squirrel inside out, you basically have a crank.
|
|
# ? Jan 10, 2016 02:49 |
|
Frottage cheese.
|
# ? Jan 10, 2016 04:01 |
|
PYF Dark Enlightenment Thinker: And more anally-transmitted diseases most certainly await discovery.
|
# ? Jan 10, 2016 04:12 |
|
|
# ? May 31, 2024 23:46 |
|
hyper-traditionalist continues to delight and inspire. I am slightly inspired to write a response blog, cultural-kelvinism. I have two posts of this sort of thing to my main tumblr. But I also have no attention span. Ideas for future posts welcomed.
|
# ? Jan 10, 2016 12:19 |