DoomPosting
I've seen tons of posts showing hypothetical male and female IQ bell curves that show women having extremely small variances relative to men. Men are reliably more variable, but the empirical difference is not that extreme. The ACT results from 2024 are…
Some big problems with claiming the ACT is an IQ test, using just summary statistics instead of the full data
But ok fine, let’s do this
Mr ChatGPT, pls own these libs
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
But ok fine, let’s do this
Mr ChatGPT, pls own these libs
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
😁2👀1
"The Scottish mental survey of 1932 recorded mental ability test scores for nearly all children born in 1921 and at school in Scotland on 1 June 1932." (Hart+03)
Here is the distribution of IQ scores they measured, separated by gender. We see here no significant difference in mean but significant difference in scatter.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
Here is the distribution of IQ scores they measured, separated by gender. We see here no significant difference in mean but significant difference in scatter.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
💯3
When viewed as a log plot, the difference in counts at the tail ends becomes more apparent: In this survey, males were far more common at the extremes
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
💯1
If you then look at the fractional count of males vs females at a given IQ score, you see this trend even more clearly: Males are significantly more common at the extremes.
Note: Uncertainty bands here are from Poisson estimates, giving the rough counting error. The outermost extremes of the bands in the plots above are thus ~95% certainty bands.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
Note: Uncertainty bands here are from Poisson estimates, giving the rough counting error. The outermost extremes of the bands in the plots above are thus ~95% certainty bands.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
💯1
DoomPosting
Well well well Notice anything? Never forget that 3rd line 🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
So the guy outright lied,
as shown in the chart above,
But the real strange thing?
— Whole comments section is filled with hundreds of people who just blindly accepted his BS false presupposition, that the chart shows nothing,
Nearly all instead just skipping over to more minor, secondary issues,
instead of confronting the core lie that the chart shows nothing
Humans are INCREDIBLY vulnerable to being manipulated by false presuppositions
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
as shown in the chart above,
But the real strange thing?
— Whole comments section is filled with hundreds of people who just blindly accepted his BS false presupposition, that the chart shows nothing,
Nearly all instead just skipping over to more minor, secondary issues,
instead of confronting the core lie that the chart shows nothing
Humans are INCREDIBLY vulnerable to being manipulated by false presuppositions
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
💯4
Today's high $114,472, with the latest ATH at $124,517.
It has been 6 days since the last ATH.
ATHs per year: 2010: 11, 2011: 28, 2013: 35, 2017: 67, 2020: 11, 2021: 23, 2024: 21, 2025: 10. $BTC
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
It has been 6 days since the last ATH.
ATHs per year: 2010: 11, 2011: 28, 2013: 35, 2017: 67, 2020: 11, 2021: 23, 2024: 21, 2025: 10. $BTC
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
❤🔥2
DoomPosting
So the guy outright lied, as shown in the chart above, But the real strange thing? — Whole comments section is filled with hundreds of people who just blindly accepted his BS false presupposition, that the chart shows nothing, Nearly all instead just skipping…
Ok, I’ll spell it out
Dude brings charts on ACT scores,
uses those charts to say that the male curve doesn’t look fatter than the female curve enough to show sex differences
— But he refused to actually show that sex difference line
So plug in his own summary statistics and get AI to actually plot that sex differences line, and we see that his claim was BS
— Men hugely overrepresented at the the top and bottom of those curves
Just like the greater male variability hypothesis predicted
I.e. dude’s own numbers showing he was BSing
— And plotting the curves as he did is classic lying with statistics, because it hides away the parts of the data that show the most important parts of the data
There are several better ways to plot this data that are far less misleading, as we’ve shown
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
Dude brings charts on ACT scores,
uses those charts to say that the male curve doesn’t look fatter than the female curve enough to show sex differences
— But he refused to actually show that sex difference line
So plug in his own summary statistics and get AI to actually plot that sex differences line, and we see that his claim was BS
— Men hugely overrepresented at the the top and bottom of those curves
Just like the greater male variability hypothesis predicted
I.e. dude’s own numbers showing he was BSing
— And plotting the curves as he did is classic lying with statistics, because it hides away the parts of the data that show the most important parts of the data
There are several better ways to plot this data that are far less misleading, as we’ve shown
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
💯2
DoomPosting
Ok, I’ll spell it out Dude brings charts on ACT scores, uses those charts to say that the male curve doesn’t look fatter than the female curve enough to show sex differences — But he refused to actually show that sex difference line So plug in his own…
Why just plotting the probability density curves, as he has, misleading lying with statistics?
For one, when plotted this way,
it moves the biggest gap to the MIDDLE (red)
and then it spreads out the rest of the mass in the opposite direction along the sides (blue), to make it less noticeable
— when truthfully the sides are where the hugest differences are, as shown by the U-shaped line on the second chart
Classic lying with statistics
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
For one, when plotted this way,
it moves the biggest gap to the MIDDLE (red)
and then it spreads out the rest of the mass in the opposite direction along the sides (blue), to make it less noticeable
— when truthfully the sides are where the hugest differences are, as shown by the U-shaped line on the second chart
Classic lying with statistics
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🔥2💯1
More on Strategy $MSTR.
This chart shows how MSTR's price has moved up and down relative to Bitcoin's price. The black line indicates the deviation from the trend. The red line converts that deviation into a percentile.
How to read this chart:
This chart is best read as an indicator of sentiment for MSTR.
If the black line is at -30%, then assuming things revert to the mean, MSTR:Bitcoin would increase 30%.
Because this is a ratio, this could mean that MSTR goes up 30% or BTC goes down 30%, or some combination of the two.
The red line converts to a probability. If the red line is at 10%, there is a 90% chance the ratio will move up.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
This chart shows how MSTR's price has moved up and down relative to Bitcoin's price. The black line indicates the deviation from the trend. The red line converts that deviation into a percentile.
How to read this chart:
This chart is best read as an indicator of sentiment for MSTR.
If the black line is at -30%, then assuming things revert to the mean, MSTR:Bitcoin would increase 30%.
Because this is a ratio, this could mean that MSTR goes up 30% or BTC goes down 30%, or some combination of the two.
The red line converts to a probability. If the red line is at 10%, there is a 90% chance the ratio will move up.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
👀1
DoomPosting
Ok, I’ll spell it out Dude brings charts on ACT scores, uses those charts to say that the male curve doesn’t look fatter than the female curve enough to show sex differences — But he refused to actually show that sex difference line So plug in his own…
And would add that using normal distribution summary statistics, as that guy did, further distorts how extremely ~100% male the edges often become
— because, as you can see, the normal distribution approximations cause the Male/Female ratios to attenuate as you near the edges
— but that’s an error of the normal approximations
Really, the real empirical the female rates often go straight off a cliff, and the curves themselves are more pointy triangle things that hardly look like the normal approximation at all
(Except when there’s large
measurement error — which blurs things to look more like normal distributions. But again, that’s a problem with the measurement, not reflecting the underlying reality)
Basically numerous completely separate reasons why the reality is far more extreme even than thus guy’s charts show
— Though even with his numerous methods to hide the truth, he still couldn’t fully hide it
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
— because, as you can see, the normal distribution approximations cause the Male/Female ratios to attenuate as you near the edges
— but that’s an error of the normal approximations
Really, the real empirical the female rates often go straight off a cliff, and the curves themselves are more pointy triangle things that hardly look like the normal approximation at all
(Except when there’s large
measurement error — which blurs things to look more like normal distributions. But again, that’s a problem with the measurement, not reflecting the underlying reality)
Basically numerous completely separate reasons why the reality is far more extreme even than thus guy’s charts show
— Though even with his numerous methods to hide the truth, he still couldn’t fully hide it
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
💯1