psymon100's forum posts

#1 Posted by psymon100 (6138 posts) -


#2 Posted by psymon100 (6138 posts) -

Cool. I could be on the first page of this thread. Seems important.

#3 Posted by psymon100 (6138 posts) -
#4 Posted by psymon100 (6138 posts) -
#5 Edited by psymon100 (6138 posts) -


It was over rated. 8/10 at best.

#6 Posted by psymon100 (6138 posts) -

That sounds ridiculous. Let's hope you get a sane judge. 

#7 Posted by psymon100 (6138 posts) -

Oh good another angsty atheist trying to confirm his beliefs.:roll:LJS9502_basic


#8 Posted by psymon100 (6138 posts) -

Great, now if only I could access the article.

The fact that the metric they report is correlation makes me doubt they did anything too legitimate. Psychology isn't known for being good at statistics.


I was unaware it was an issue, this should work:

I've heard statisticians claim that no academics other than statisticians have a comprehensive grip on statistics. A typical strategy in our larger studies is to simply collaborate with a statistician and give them an author credit on the paper. In the acknowledgements they mention the stats was done by a Satoshi Kanazawa - however I'm not sure which Satoshi Kanazawa. 

It's all there in the results section for you dude. Such colourful things as 'heterogeniety of chi squared' and what not. I've had a glance but need a more critical read through myself. 


But all in all, I just want to say that yes - one certainly couldn't make any predictions from this data.

#9 Posted by psymon100 (6138 posts) -

Of course, any actual interpretation of this number assumes no sample bias, no omitted variable biases, no endogenous relationships, etc., and honestly I'm highly skeptical that psychology studies actually did a decent job of addressing these.chessmaster1989

Their methods section explains how bias was assessed, exclusion criteria, etc. These Meta-Analysis can be tough to follow though...

Personally I wouldn't make any assumption about one academic discipline. I would give them all equal weight if they're rigorous with their science. 

Ah, my apologies to you and Lostrib. It slipped my mind completely that it is R² which is used that way, not r. 

#10 Posted by psymon100 (6138 posts) -

Wait, didn't the abstract give the number .24 and .25 for the correlation which mean it is positively related? Or is it past my bed time?


I'm afraid I have made a mistake - my apologies. For some reason when copying and pasting - the negative signs disappeared. I have fixed the OP, the abstract should now be identical to the published paper.