you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Higher IQ, take into account more variables, better at math etc.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I question whether that's the case compared to the peer reviewed literature.

Can you convince me of that?

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I am not interested in convincing you of anything and I am not your teacher. If you want lessons, they cost money.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Okay. Can you link me to this paper with all the higher IQ, and better variables for describing confounders, and (believe it or not) "better" math?

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You'll have to look up their works, blogposts and videos.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Okay.

So the peer reviewed science is better than blogposts and videos.

Because the scientific community judge it.

Thinking some crackpots blogposts and videos is better in any way, especially claiming that their math is better is fucking stupid.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hehe :)