Emil O. W. Kirkegaard blog
In Making sense of Heritability (2005), Sesardić wrote: On the less obvious side, a nasty campaign against H could have the unintended effect of strengthening H [hereditarianism] epistemically, and making the criticism of H look less convincing. Simply, if you happen to believe that H is true and if you also know that opponents of…
Continue ReadingNow that the video is up, here’s some other studies I came across. Falkenberg, L. (1990). Improving the accuracy of stereotypes within the workplace. Journal of Management, 16(1), 107-118. Has a pretty straightforward summary of stereotypes and stereotyping: Organizations experience high levels of inefficiency when decisions are based on inaccurate stereotypes. As humans are dependent…
Continue ReadingSome time ago, I made a plot of this that Steve Hsu ended up posting. However, here’s a newer one. The public datafile is here. Latest published report is here, which reports data for 2014. They publish a paper every year, or so, which report on ~5 year old data. I see no report for…
Continue ReadingPublished a new video summarizing the stereotype accuracy and bias evidence. Well, some of it! Also then discuss various implications for taking accuracy seriously in a Bayesian framework. 75 minutes long!
Continue ReadingCounting significant hits was always a dumb way to measure progress in genomic prediction of a trait. Breeders using animals and plants never bothered with this approach and they used ridge regression for best predictive power (a “two cultures” problem no doubt). Researchers in human genetics are starting to catch up, implementing clever Enet approach…
Continue ReadingEysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity (Vol. 12). Cambridge University Press. The book is on LibGen I continue my Eysenck readings with his popular genius book (prior review The Psychology of Politics (1954)). Having previously read some of Simonton’s work, Eysenck sure is a very different beast! The writing style follows…
Continue ReadingOpen data is a fundamental part of getting science to work well. Primary reasons for this: Redundancy is data archiving. Most data are lost because no backups exist! Easy access to 3rd parties. For new analyses or error checking previous work. Scientists are human and often refuse access to data for hostile outsiders, preventing them…
Continue ReadingStereotype threat is: a situational predicament in which people are or feel themselves to be at risk of conforming to stereotypes about their social group.[1][2] Stereotype threat is purportedly a contributing factor to long-standing racial and gender gaps in academic performance. It may occur whenever an individual’s performance might confirm a negative stereotype because stereotype…
Continue ReadingA much more in depth reply to one of Richardson’s papers was written by Zeke Jeffrey here. Since philosophy blogger RaceRealist is on a mission to promote Ken Richardson, it seems we need to discuss his various claims a bit more. Hence, this post is an FAQ about his claims. Is there agreement on definition…
Continue ReadingKirkegaard, E. O. W., & Lasker, J. (2020). Intelligence and Religiosity among Dating Site Users. Psych, 2(1), 25-33. We sought to assess whether previous findings regarding the relationship between cognitive ability and religiosity could be replicated in a large dataset of online daters (maximum n = 67k). We found that self-declared religious people had lower…
Continue Reading