yet another POLITICAL TEST

[Aldaris]

You still haven't presented an example and even if you did it wouldn't matter because:

While graphs, tables, and correlation analysis suggest a
relationship, these methods do not hold other important
factors constant and also do not determine the precise
connection. To determine the specific impact, two sets of
regressions and four different techniques were used.
Numerous regressions are reported to show that the results
are robust to both changes in explanatory factors and
statistical technique.

Are you aware that this quote you found doesn't help the point you are trying to make? You want to prove there is no significant correlation between intelligence, yet you show us that despite it not being cleared of other factors, the correlation still persists and would actually be even higher if we factored the other aspects out.

By the way, considering 0.3 coefficient as significant is very subjective.

I completely agree, and I have been emphasizing this point since you previously suggested the existence of a canon for classifying correlation values as high, moderate, or low. So, yes, it is indeed subjective, depending on the context of the research. Plus, authors are free to devise their own classifications.

From a purely mathematical perspective, In terms of absolute distance from 0, a correlation coefficient of 0.3 is closer to 0.

You don't say. The fact that 0.3 is closer to zero than to one doesn't render it insignificant. Again, its significance depends on the context. In particle physics, you might as well discard research showing a correlation of 0.3, but that doesn't hold for many other fields.

[CosmoLady]

To what extent is conscientiousness genetically heritable?

I don't know if genetic heredity or environment is more important, and I know that you were not asking me,
but I suspect that personality traits are partially genetic. We are not completely blank slates.

For example, my twin sister and I were separated at birth. We grew up separately and reunited 5 years later,
and we had almost the same personalities and habits, strengths and weaknesses, without ever meeting each other.

So this opened my eyes to look beyond what can be known and proven scientifically.

Knowledge and truth are so much more than what can be proven scientifically.

And there are many clues everywhere, including but not limited to statistically significant correlations.

Our instincts, intuition, common sense, and pattern recognition abilities are meant to help us with survival,
and can be faster and more accurate than conventional logic in many cases.

[Kess]

Are you aware that this quote you found doesn't help the point you are trying to make? You want to prove there is no significant correlation between intelligence, yet you show us that despite it not being cleared of other factors, the correlation still persists and would actually be even higher if we factored the other aspects out.

While income and IQ test scores are related, results
do not suggest a link between IQ scores and wealth.
Regression results range from a negative to a small
positive relationship depending on the specific analysis
done. Moreover, since most of the statistical results are
not distinguishable from zero, this suggests IQ test
scores and net worth are not connected.

.

Zagorsky, J. L. (2007). Do you have to be smart to be rich? The impact of IQ on wealth, income and financial distress. Intelligence, 35(5), 489-501.

You don't say. The fact that 0.3 is closer to zero than to one doesn't render it insignificant. Again, its significance depends on the context. In particle physics, you might as well discard research showing a correlation of 0.3, but that doesn't hold for many other fields.

I don't even bother to respond to you at this point because I don't want to run circles.

You are just in denial.

If a PHD mathematician and a clinical associate professor at Questrom School of Business can't get through you, nothing will.

[Kess]

To what extent is conscientiousness genetically heritable?

You've got homework to do because I don't know.

[Aldaris]

.
While income and IQ test scores are related, results
do not suggest a link between IQ scores and wealth.
Regression results range from a negative to a small
positive relationship depending on the specific analysis
done. Moreover, since most of the statistical results are
not distinguishable from zero, this suggests IQ test
scores and net worth are not connected. Zagorsky, J. L. (2007). Do you have to be smart to be rich? The impact of IQ on wealth, income and financial distress. Intelligence, 35(5), 489-501.

Ok, I will just repost this older post:

The author seems to think the connection between IQ and income is weak and not worth much attention, which is a subjective opinion. Here's the thing though: the correlation coefficient for IQ and income is just below 0.3. Now, that might not sound super high, but it's actually quite notable, especially when you consider all the other factors that could influence income, which we were discussing earlier. While perfection shouldn't be expected in the figure, a discernible pattern persists, with most data points clustering relatively close to the hypothetical perfect line.

Last time, you highlighted the part about the other factors, claiming that the other aspects were factored out. Now, you claim the opposite.

I don't even bother to respond to you at this point because I don't want to run circles.

You are just in denial.

If a PHD mathematician and a clinical associate professor at Questrom School of Business can't get through you, nothing will.

I happen to have a PhD in mathematics as well, albeit in algebra. This is not about mathematical facts anyway, this is about labels. No canonical classification exists.

[Kess]

No one said it was

You are projecting or putting words in our mouths.


No one said that there was a cause-and-effect rule

We are only looking at the relationship between two variables, either it exists, or it does not.
We are not presuming to infer causation.

⁤The cause-effect relationship is more desirable than correlation for creating effective, reliable, and long-lasting rules. ⁤That's why I'm emphasizing cause and effect relationship.

Most importantly, rules based on cause-and-effect relationships are more reliable in predicting outcomes in new situations. Understanding the underlying causes allows for better predictions on how changes in one factor will influence another. In a similar sense to accurately predicting outcomes in new situations, rules based on cause-and-effect relationships are more likely to be applicable across different contexts and settings due to the fact that they allow for the identification of key factors that drive outcomes, making the rule more generalizable. Cause-and-effect relationships also enable the manipulation and control of variables to achieve desired outcomes. This is very important in fields like science, engineering, and medicine, where interventions often rely on causal understanding. ⁤⁤ In many cases, establishing cause-and-effect is essential for assigning accountability and responsibility. Knowing the root causes of events or outcomes is important. ⁤

⁤The causal revolution caused a shift from correlation to causation. ⁤

⁤I suggest you read "The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect." ⁤

⁤You don't need to read the whole book; just read this part: "Introduction: Mind over Data." ⁤

Let's get the nitty gritty part of the low correlation. In this research's context.

Especially a low correlation between two variables does suggest that other factors haven't necessarily been held constant.

While graphs, tables, and correlation analysis suggest a
relationship, these methods do not hold other important
factors constant and also do not determine the precise
connection. To determine the specific impact, two sets of
regressions and four different techniques were used.
Numerous regressions are reported to show that the results
are robust to both changes in explanatory factors and
statistical technique.

Zagorsky, J. L. (2007). Do you have to be smart to be rich? The impact of IQ on wealth, income and financial distress. Intelligence, 35(5), 489-501.

A "weak" correlation can still be statistically significant and thus a general rule can be established about the relationship.

This sentence is quite different from what you said previously.

In this sentence, you are proposing that a general rule can be established about the relationship based on the notion that a "weak" correlation can still be statistically significant.

Thus "weak" correlations can be sufficient to establish a general rule. Including for intelligence and wealth.

Here you are proposing that it may be appropriate to establish a general rule based on even if there is a weak correlation.

The differences between two sentences are like day and night.

AI can successfully predict who is a potential criminal (90% accuracy), and who is not, based on facial appearance (and so can I).

And yet AI successfully predicts who is a Republican or Democrat based on facial appearance (and so can I).

Source trust me bro.

[Tooting Carmen]

https://www.theguardian.com/business...research-finds

[CosmoLady]

⁤The cause-effect relationship is more desirable than correlation for creating effective, reliable, and long-lasting rules. ⁤That's why I'm emphasizing cause and effect relationship.

Well I am emphasising a correlation, NOT a cause-and-effect relationship. Got it bro?

I am NOT debating causation nor is anyone else.

No one here believes that intelligence CAUSES wealth or vice-versa. Trust me bro.

⁤This sentence is quite different from what you said previously.
In this sentence, you are proposing that a general rule can be established about the relationship based on the notion that a "weak" correlation can still be statistically significant.
Here you are proposing that it may be appropriate to establish a general rule based on even if there is a weak correlation.
The differences between two sentences are like day and night.

In any case, "weak" correlations may still be statistically significant and thus mostly (not entirely) true.

A "weak" correlation can still be statistically significant and thus a general rule can be established about the relationship.

No, the meaning of both sentences is the same. If you cannot comprehend written English, then that is your problem bro.

Indeed the first part is exactly the same, and mostly true = general rule, for any normal person.
A general rule does NOT mean 100% true. There are always exceptions.

Single parenting does not always lead to poor outcomes for the child, but usually does, this is mostly true, this is a general rule.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ful...31342231179017

If you cannot appreciate "social sciences", then please stay in engineering, bro.

Here are examples of the phrase "general rule" in a sentence relating to "social science":
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22g...t=gws-wiz-serp

Here are examples of the phrase "general rule" and "exceptions":
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22g...-wiz-serp#ip=1

The phrase "exception to the general rule" is a perfectly correct and usable phrase in written English.
https://ludwig.guru/s/exception+to+the+general+rule

Stop debating in English if you do not speak or comprehend English, bro.

Source trust me bro.

I listed sources earlier bro. You seem to be selectively illiterate, bro.

For AI identification of likely criminals from facial features: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.04135v2.pdf

And in case you believe that you are smarter than the researchers from Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
and you try to deboonk their research, they are already ahead of you bro: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.04135.pdf

[MBVC]

[Tooting Carmen]

Very authoritarian by the look of it?