This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Typical Saturday evening in the university, the 3 pre-med students have a shootout (in the dorm—shooting through the neighbor's walls) aiming in the direction of the mechanical engineers, who disrespected them about their SAT exam.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🌚12🤯2🫡1
Some UK users on the YouTube subreddit are reporting that their VPNs are being detected and blocked by the platform
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
💯2
Men focus on external, inter-group fighting
Women focus on internal, intra-group fighting
Coalitions and conflict: A longitudinal analysis of men's politics, 2021
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
Women focus on internal, intra-group fighting
Coalitions and conflict: A longitudinal analysis of men's politics, 2021
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🔥3😁2💯2👀2
Ever notice stuff like
“Why are broke guys so good in bed?”
or
“Why are the hottest people so boring?”
It feels like there’s a tradeoff between traits, but that’s often an illusion.
What’s really happening is this -- when you filter for people who score high on the sum of two traits (e.g. total dating appeal), you start to see a negative correlation between those traits within that group, even if no such tradeoff exists in the broader population.
It’s a statistical artifact. You’re looking at people who made the cut overall.
The plot attached shows it --
Looks and coolness are uncorrelated in the population, but once we filter for people with high "total attractiveness" (looks + coolness), a negative correlation emerges.
This doesn’t just apply to dating, it shows up anytime you’re selecting based on the total of two uncorrelated or loosely related traits.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
“Why are broke guys so good in bed?”
or
“Why are the hottest people so boring?”
It feels like there’s a tradeoff between traits, but that’s often an illusion.
What’s really happening is this -- when you filter for people who score high on the sum of two traits (e.g. total dating appeal), you start to see a negative correlation between those traits within that group, even if no such tradeoff exists in the broader population.
It’s a statistical artifact. You’re looking at people who made the cut overall.
The plot attached shows it --
Looks and coolness are uncorrelated in the population, but once we filter for people with high "total attractiveness" (looks + coolness), a negative correlation emerges.
This doesn’t just apply to dating, it shows up anytime you’re selecting based on the total of two uncorrelated or loosely related traits.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
💯3⚡2
DoomPosting
Ever notice stuff like “Why are broke guys so good in bed?” or “Why are the hottest people so boring?” It feels like there’s a tradeoff between traits, but that’s often an illusion. What’s really happening is this -- when you filter for people who score…
Berkson's paradox
= Part of what’s behind the lies about better being worse, even when better clearly is better
E.g. the women who claim smarter men must be worse in some other ways,
Or those who claim that more beautiful women must be worse in some other ways
The most common example of Berkson's paradox is a false observation of a negativecorrelation between two desirable traits, i.e., that members of a population which have some desirable traits tend to lack a second. Berkson's paradox occurs when this observation appears true when in reality the two properties are unrelated—or even positively correlated—because members of the population where both are absent are not equally observed.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
= Part of what’s behind the lies about better being worse, even when better clearly is better
E.g. the women who claim smarter men must be worse in some other ways,
Or those who claim that more beautiful women must be worse in some other ways
The most common example of Berkson's paradox is a false observation of a negativecorrelation between two desirable traits, i.e., that members of a population which have some desirable traits tend to lack a second. Berkson's paradox occurs when this observation appears true when in reality the two properties are unrelated—or even positively correlated—because members of the population where both are absent are not equally observed.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
⚡2💯2
DoomPosting
Berkson's paradox = Part of what’s behind the lies about better being worse, even when better clearly is better E.g. the women who claim smarter men must be worse in some other ways, Or those who claim that more beautiful women must be worse in some other…
Berkson's paradox gives the false impression of positively-correlated things being negatively correlated
E.g. common to hear people say:
He’s smart so must have no street skills, have no real-world knowledge
She’s hot and so must be dumb
He’s smart so he must be boring
She’s hot and so probably is a cunt
— Reality:
Good traits most often do positively correlate in reality, not negatively, opposite of your badly-formed observations
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
E.g. common to hear people say:
He’s smart so must have no street skills, have no real-world knowledge
She’s hot and so must be dumb
He’s smart so he must be boring
She’s hot and so probably is a cunt
— Reality:
Good traits most often do positively correlate in reality, not negatively, opposite of your badly-formed observations
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
💯6
DoomPosting
Gab AI banned from twitter 🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
Gab AI remains banned from twitter
On the other hand, too bad Gab never even tried to make it a true right-wing AI, which derives right-wing judgements itself from first principles, instead of hard-coding all of its beliefs manually and not even trying to come up with first principles themselves, let alone how to derive judgements from those
Is right-wing building dead? Or a new legit AI wave ahead?
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
On the other hand, too bad Gab never even tried to make it a true right-wing AI, which derives right-wing judgements itself from first principles, instead of hard-coding all of its beliefs manually and not even trying to come up with first principles themselves, let alone how to derive judgements from those
Is right-wing building dead? Or a new legit AI wave ahead?
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🙏2🤯1👀1