←back to thread

256 points hirundo | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.643s | source
Show context
rahimnathwani ◴[] No.35514446[source]
This blog post asserts that IQ scores didn't drop for the population as a whole, and that the drop for each individual group is due to changing composition of that group:

https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2023/03/new-study-didnt-really-...

For example, if the % of people who do a postgraduate degree goes doubles, it's no longer such a select group, so you'd expect the average IQ of postgraduate degree holders to go down. This doesn't mean IQ scores are going down for the population as a whole.

One more thing: why do so many papers that present charts that show how a mean or median changes over time, without also presenting charts that show how the distribution has changed over time?

replies(6): >>35514708 #>>35515280 #>>35517739 #>>35518020 #>>35518556 #>>35519141 #
tptacek ◴[] No.35517739[source]
It's worth looking up whose blog this is before trusting any of its analysis.
replies(7): >>35517869 #>>35517966 #>>35518072 #>>35518112 #>>35518249 #>>35518570 #>>35518709 #
ZeroGravitas ◴[] No.35517869[source]
A summary:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard

replies(3): >>35518284 #>>35519092 #>>35523758 #
joenot443 ◴[] No.35519092[source]
This site isn’t really any above EncyclopediaDramatica in its proximity to reality. It’s a meme pit for teenagers, not really somewhere to be taken seriously.
replies(2): >>35520607 #>>35521803 #
KingMachiavelli ◴[] No.35520607[source]
Really? I've checked a range of topics and the Rational Wiki seemed spot on. Do you know of any topics it's completely wrong or unfair on?

It of course takes side on some issues like Atheism, Religion but nothing unexpected for a site to be unapologetically rational/empirical.

replies(2): >>35520869 #>>35525450 #
hatefulmoron ◴[] No.35520869[source]
I don't know how to substantiate this, so I won't try. My impression of the site is that it has a particular left-wing/pro-socialist political bias that creeps into articles, particularly about individuals. It doesn't usually have false information, but the language is often quite unfair. It's not wrong to have an opinion of course, but I assume it's opinions are an emergent property of its users and not the result of unapologetic rationality.

This websites opinion aligns pretty closely with my impression: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rationalwiki/

replies(2): >>35521283 #>>35522349 #
ZeroGravitas ◴[] No.35522349[source]
> Overall, we rate RationalWiki Left-Center biased based on the use of loaded language against conservatives and High for factual reporting due to pro-science reporting coupled with proper sourcing and a clean fact check record.

Vs

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/encyclopedia-dramatica/

> SATIRE

> These sources exclusively use humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. Primarily these sources are clear that they are satire and do not attempt to deceive. See all Satire sources.

> Update: This source is no longer online.

replies(1): >>35523675 #
1. hatefulmoron ◴[] No.35523675[source]
Yes, I wasn't trying to say they're the same, just commenting on RationalWiki by itself. I suppose that wasn't clear.