Population data

“You’re not being replaced!”

https://countrydigest.org/uk-population/

The rate of population growth in the UK has increased in recent years. In 2015 the population increased by 513,000 people (0.8%).

Population increases come from immigration and natural growth (the number of births minus the number of deaths. The total number of immigrants coming into the UK is offset by the number of people who emigrate from the United Kingdom each year (see British people abroad below) to reach a final population growth total for the year.

No, total immigration doesn’t minus, net is minus. Why not report total?

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

2018: net immigration 258

TOTAL 2018: 602

Boomers should be exit taxed heavily for escaping the mess they created.

back to top

About one third of the UK population increase in recent years is a result of natural population growth – where the number of people being born in the UK is higher than the number of people dying every year. The remaining two thirds of the population increase is the result of net immigration into the United Kingdom.

About half of the people coming to the UK in 2015 were from the European Union. Recent data indicates that there are approximately 3 million EU citizens living and working in the UK. This equates to 5% of the UK population. The other half came from non-EU countries.

That’s …6 million.

+10%-ish.

If you have another country’s passport, you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

And that’s just official, not illegal.

And new, not second+ generations in the multicultural colonies.

Immigration is a contentious topic in the UK, with many people believing that it is too high.

Natives.

Because of this immigration was one of the most important topics during the recent referendum about whether the UK should remain in or leave the European Union (often referred to as the Brexit referendum.

8 years ago:

The office for National statistics records data on ethnicity in each census. In 2011 it reported that the largest ethnic group in the UK was White (87.17%), followed by Asian or Asian British (6.92%) and Black (3.01%).

There’s no such thing as “Asian British”, like there’s no such thing as a hyphenated American. You’re either American or not. Asia is not in Britain. Race/ethnicity is not citizenship.

2.0% Mixed

0.9% Other

Most white people in Britain are descended from a number of different ethnic groups, not all of which are indigenous to the British Isles.

non sequitur but nice way of saying ‘invaders’

and they’re not from different forensic groups at all, same race, same subrace/s

They were all THE SAME RACE.

This heritage reflects the history of the British Isles, which has been invaded on a number of occasions.

The black population in Britain has roots going back to the 15th and 16th centuries.

No, it doesn’t. That isn’t a root. Africa is a root.

Phylogenetic tree root of blacks is Africa.

The British Asian population also has a long history which began in the 17th century.

No. It began in Asia, where they belong.

Plus, that isn’t a long history, that’s a blip.

Diversity + Proximity = War

The 2011 census showed that Christianity remains the dominant religion in the UK. The number of people who reported that they were Christians in the UK was 37,583,962, which is 59.49% of the total population. The number of people who report that they are Christian fell by more than 12% between 2001 and 2011, from 71.58% in 2001.

Shame.

The next most common responses were either no religion (25.67%) or religion not stated (7.17%). The number of people who gave one of these answers increased from 23.18% in 2001 to 32.84% in 2011.

92.33% combined.

Jews 0.43%

Muslim 4.41%

Well, guess it was nice knowing them.

And this is outdated.

Islam is the second most commonly reported religion in the UK with 4.41% of the population.

49,808,000 English 1st language speakers.

546,000 Polish locusts.

273,000 Punjabi 3rd place.

Arab 7, French 8, Chinese 9.

Note: Indigenous languages such as Welsh and Scots do not feature on this list as they were more commonly reported as second languages.

As this chart from the ONS shows, the proportion of people in London whose first language is not English is far higher (around 20%) in London than it is in the rest of the country.

According to the 2011 census, the most commonly spoken non-indigenous language in the UK was Polish, with 546,000 native speakers in England and Wales – approximately 1% of the population.

From one nation, the locusts of Europe. The chavvy breeder scum of the white race.

And that’s just speakers, not other Poles. Because they’re all such nationalists and Poland is so great, right?

They hate immigrant invasion the MOST.

source: Americans who never lived with them.

If they’re so proud of Poland, could they fuck off back there?

If they’re defending the West, can they do it from Poland?

But diversity is our strength! At least low IQ places like Poland aren’t fucking over the country permanently…

A recent study by the OECD reported that the UK had the lowest literacy rate of any developed nation. It reported that around 20% of English 16-19 year olds have low literacy skills.

This is backed up by a report from the UK’s Literacy Trust, which explains that 16% of adults in England are “functionally illiterate”. This means that their literacy is below what is expected of the average 11 year old.

And they can vote. 1 in 6 illiterates.

Millions of them.

We call them Labour voters, the name is ironic.

They should be forced into a school for adults until up to speed. As long as it takes.

87 billion per year down the shitter. Because education works on genetic IQ…. right?

According to Eurostat, the United Kingdom is the fourth most densely populated country in the EU

At the time of the last census, in 2011, the population of Greater London was 8,173,941.

By 2015, Greater London’s population had increased to 8,673,713.

An extra half a million on record, (probably including emigrants, which it shouldn’t).

The UK’s ageing population puts increasing pressure on the country’s public services and economy.

MYTH Dead people don’t strain services.

Fertility rate in the UK has also fallen over the past 50 years, from 2.95 children per woman in 1965 to 1.82 children per woman in 2014.

Good, pre-WW levels. Sustainable, among ourselves.

This is below the replacement rate (2.33 children per woman across the world, but 2.0 children per woman in industrialised countries) but higher than the EU average fertility rate which in 2014 was just 1.58 children per woman.

If you don’t force men to marry, no kids.

We live in the marriage-free world.

But yes, EU and other socialism is literally dying.

And, finally, at the bottom of the pyramid we can see the effects of a dip in the UK’s birth rate during the early 21st century, followed by an boost in recent years.

Non-native births, discounted.

Race is not citizenship. A passport entitles you to nothing from the outgroup.

IQ results between the sexes – the problem

I never got around to explaining this scientifically.

TLDR this picture. Understand this picture and you’ve pretty much got the gist.


Aside from sampling bias that it’s mostly men taking the tests.
Ideally, there’d be a vast study controlling for factors of class, education, mental health, anything that affects IQ and THEN, from that data (cross-cultural obviously) a comparison between the sexes.
Historical comparisons don’t work because women couldn’t attend full schooling, and were legally blocked from college.
https://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/measerr.php
Random error would be like what you had for breakfast that morning or a bird outside distracting you from the test. Those are confounds. Systemic error is the bias. Bias is a mathematical concept and it’s baked into the method design. That’s why me and everyone else who knows their stuff will read the methodology and critique that in light of the data results.
IQ also rejects many valuable parts of intelligence like grit or EQ (that women score well on), as well as the fact you can be taught it or improve your score, which flies in the face of the premise of IQ as a construct of ‘g’, as natural intellect. While very valuable and predictive of life outcomes, it is only a piece of paper and its greatest value is for academia.
The ‘Muh Male IQ’ crowd never suggest a corroborating test.

What confirmation bias?

“Finally, one of the best things you can do to deal with measurement errors, especially systematic errors, is to use multiple measures of the same construct. Especially if the different measures don’t share the same systematic errors, you will be able to triangulate across the multiple measures and get a more accurate sense of what’s going on.”

Those measures would include crime rates between the sexes, psychiatric suicidality and biological longevity.
On all those metrics, men lose. So much for ‘superior sex’ arguments.

Repost but good:
If you take the evolutionary biologist approach and control for the size of the body, women are actually more intelligent.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/40999617_The_role_of_height_in_the_sex_difference_in_intelligence
If you look at what’s more valuable to the brain, it’s white matter. Women have greater wm volume.
The Gender War is SJW propaganda because it’s anti-natal.
http://thisiseuropa.net/overcome-men-vs-women-attitude/
If the men saying ‘no brother wars’ don’t cooperate with women and have no one to breed with, they might as well be Milo.
If men don’t want to cooperate with women, they’re not men. They’re boys rebelling against Mommy. This applies vice versa, there’s a serious issue with someone who can’t grow up and mature into their duties. That’s not to say every man must be drafted or every woman needs to breed, but the sexes must support one another’s efforts while respecting civil liberties because those liberties make civilization.
The sexes are different, neither is superior. We’re supposed to be dimorphic, not androgynous, holding one sex to the standard of another is silly. Limiting them to that standard is also backward. Men can go into the arts, women into the sciences, it doesn’t make them lesser men/women. A pair of twins, one male and one female, are more alike than they ever could be different. The sexes are more alike than the races and if you look at the antagonists on the Gender War, they’re doing it to avoid the topic of a Race War by open competition.

The common ‘difference’ found between the sexes is approximately 3-4 IQ points in the averages. That’s it. That’s also tiny and well within chance based on factors like the aforementioned sampling bias. They’re clutching at straws. The data from meta-analysis (not single studies, which mean nothing in social science) is abused in bad faith too. They use it to claim something no data has ever nor will ever show to avoid their Burden of Proof i.e. they claim women are stupid. If you look at the data on retardation, a totally different question from 100-point moving averages, it’s clearly men that take the gold, especially the ones who claim their own mother, by their own logic, is stupid. Yes. Too stupid to abort.

When it comes to geniuses, these guys are trying to claim they’re Einstein by association.
That is retarded. Claim to be Hercules at least, he was male too. Aim high in your delusion.
They tend to ignore the fact there are also female geniuses, historically and currently. This is too much for their tiny
downstairs brain.
I could apply the sampling bias of the high-IQ tests but it’s common sense at this point, I won’t insult you. If you look at the only use for high-IQ tests, it’s to show off. Men take more of those by default and the types of intelligence included in IQ have a heavy maths bias, which girls excel at before puberty hits us over the head (earlier than boys nowadays) and we lose ground forever since academics are competitive.
Then go on to look at the way and reason these high-IQ studies are conducted – by men in academia, for men in academia. As in, these dicks are testing themselves. I’m sure there’s no way that could possibly be dodgy. Men are over-represented in the STEM tenures of academia, this would suggest they do better in academia. But is someone who needs the state teat truly intelligent?
They never study private sector workers. There’s also a heavy class bias, upper-middle only. Again, is this externally valid?
Does it have external validity?
Look at the front page of Google for this topic.

This comes up. This level is the best they can do.
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/sexdifferences.aspx
“By just looking at those figures, it seems to corroborate the conventional wisdom that has been known for decades: the average IQs are about the same and males are a bit more variable.”
Remember variable in stats doesn’t mean wrong, necessarily.


A grand total of two points. Don’t build your spaceships to escape the cooties just yet.
At most, this biased page can find a single paper that claims what?
“In this paper, which looked at adult IQs, a five point higher IQ was found for males over females and the standard
deviations were found to be equal.”
Five. 5% as 5/100 average. 1/20. Mountains out of molehills.
But WAIT! There’s more!
This is intellectually dishonest. It misses out the basic reason for p-values – statistical significance.
Just because you have a number, doesn’t make it relevant.

http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/sommerb/sommerdemo/stat_inf/intro.htm

But girls can’t do maths, right?


Most IQxgender findings are ‘statistically insignificant’, literally. They rarely report this.

As in, they are not scientific and to claim their hypothesis as they claim them is also unscientific.
“Inferential statistics are used to make generalizations from a sample to a population.”
OK, what is the sig. value in psychology, since it’s IQ? Always .05 or 5%. P-hacking to scrape this level is common but results cannot be replicated (called the replicability crisis – or fraud if you’re normal).
“In the behavioral and social and sciences, a general pattern is to use either .05 or .01 as the cutoff. The one chosen is
called the level of significance. If the probability associated with an inferential statistic is equal to or less than .05,
then the result is said to be significant at the .05 level.”

1% is for medical disciplines like neuroscience. They don’t use it in studies for brain differences between the sexes because they can’t meet that standard. Dwell on this fact. They typically have to lower the standard of proof to publish.
Type 1 and 2 errors also come in but that’s why we have meta-analysis (that these so-called high-IQ twerps don’t use, single studies only).
The common anecdotal Muh MENSA is also disingenuous, since, aside from who takes the test (and results should be controlled for that, they aren’t because that reduces the male score) they don’t bother to find out that just because you qualify for MENSA, doesn’t mean you have to join. Mind-boggling, I know. Women don’t signal on this, we don’t go round citing an IQ number.
The iq page with only two studies (please) concludes “Male and female mean IQs are about equal below the age of 15” – so age is an unrecognised factor? Another confound! If it’s endogenous to sex i.e. nature, it would apply at all ages!
Look up as many bell curves as you can find.

Notice which is literally higher along the Y, by volume?
Now the typical ‘curve’ they use has super-old data, e.g.

Racially Scottish 11yos in the 1930s. Yes, that is totally relevant to the 21st century and all of time and culture. How will women ever recover?
It doesn’t control for race either, which would further splinter the results.
As a final note on this section, comparisons are silly because the data is normalized i.e. what happens when you grade on a curve.
The raw data is compressed to fit the Gaussian distribution and make 100 still mean 100.

Most of the Flynn effect is scoring modern test-takers too high and comparing them to old test-takers as if the tests were equally difficult. Neither do the tests really compare to one another, even their boundary labels differ. Anything outside the total bell is ~wrong~…

Look at enough curves and you become good at spotting this.

It’s deceitful to claim that just because two lines are not exactly overlapping, that the representative groups are totally distinct. A conflation, a non sequitur and false equivalence, logically.

This type of curve, very common among the intellectually dishonest, is the standard form of representing differences as a hypothetical example in textbooks. Note there is no legend, there is no X-Y bar and not even a title or a dataset given. It’s a hypothetical example to demonstrate statistical differences between demographics in a population. It isn’t serious, note the extreme gradient that no known dataset would imply.

To the men who claim Muh Superior Male IQ

Sorry, no, you can’t sit on your ass playing video games and watching porn and pretend to be better than us.
THAT is a real difference:

But men famously object to being judged off their height – oh, like IQ is nicer???
Looking at the age confound, various known metrics of intelligence (many not included in IQ) DO vary by life stage.

They never look at vice and virtue in reality. Men represent many of the worst attributes of humanity, along with the best, and I think we know which group outnumbers which.

Then again I would say that.

The atheist men linking this stuff never link to anything that makes them look bad.

You can also compare the metric of testosterone balance, 2D:4D, since they mistakenly attribute it to that hormone the ovaries also make (they don’t know this).

I should also point out that the further you go from average, the more impossible it is to measure accurately (so there are no negative IQs even though logically there should be, and the tests tend to peter out around 145-175, anything beyond 180 and especially 200 cannot be measured in IQ).

Immeasurable genius – because it isn’t genius. Those are polymaths and IQ is inapplicable as a norm test.
0.000000021% of the global population. Many people claim to be polymaths but cannot prove it with their actions. Even on current population numbers, it’s unlikely there is a single polymath living in the world today.
http://polymatharchives.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/the-inappropriately-excluded.html

7000000000*0.000000021  = 147, assuming all races have equal potential to polymathy, excluding class, education etc etc.

An increasing number of genes are shown to affect IQ and vary by race. I’ve yet to see ONE re the sexes.
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?5679-Three-genetic-variants-linked-to-IQ-and-they-vary-by-race

Taleb, a certifiable genius, objects to Gaussian distributions.
They’re only designed to handle simple, normative datasets.
http://rocketscienceofwallstreet.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/nassim-nicholas-taleb-against-gaussian.html

Note: Henri Poincare was better than Einstein.


If we’re treating the less-intelligent like second-class citizens, that’d be mostly male.


Just because it looks scientific doesn’t mean someone, somewhere isn’t fucking with you.


Don’t make your reputation worse with bad statistics.


It isn’t any more scientific than a Venn diagram of people who like cake versus pie.

It’s ironic the dumbasses of the male population are trying to explain their superiority using maths they don’t understand. Further, in all their wisdom, believe women won’t notice, despite higher EQ…

Women’s suffrage is a feminist frame, actually universal

Trigger warning: maths. Stat-heavy post.

As far as England and the wider UK are concerned, suffrage was universal. Women’s suffrage is a category error.

Women were not explicitly banned from voting in Great Britain until the 1832 Reform Act and the 1835 Municipal Corporations Act.

Ah. Can you hear Orwell laughing?

READ A HISTORY BOOK. Property (class) and location (class) were factors. …Class.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/history/democracy/changes/revision/1/

They’re trying to make it about sex when it was really based on societal contribution aka merit.

The suffragettes protested that they had no decision-making ability over how their taxes were spent, yet they still had to pay taxes like a man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Tax_Resistance_League

Plenty of men couldn’t vote either. Including many of those who died in WW1.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11509811/Why-has-everyone-forgotten-about-male-suffrage.html

1918: The rotten repressive male Establishment voted 7-1 in favour of votes for some women (restricted at that point by age and property qualifications) and all men over the age of 21. In the 1928 Act, the franchise was extended to women on equal terms with men.

It really was a simple case of balancing out what was newly handed to men (no qualification).
Sometimes qualification was quite literal. “From 1918–1928, women could vote at 30 with property qualifications or as graduates of UK universities, while men could vote at 21 with no qualification.”

Hence all the petty squabbles over land law and inheritance for centuries, including male assertions of the rights of youngest sons. Suck on that, MRAs.

Why am I going into this? Isn’t it obvious?

You’d think so, wouldn’t you?

Sample comments I have seen;

It’s not as much fun to place the blame where it belongs..on those men who allowed women’s suffrage.

Actually we were on strike until we got it. That’s why we got it. Same as the men.

Suffrage doomed us. We’re just coasting now, on fire, crankshaft broken, heading over the cliff.

A lot of the new MGTOW are trying to conceal their misogyny very poorly by blaming all women the way neo-Nazis with nothing going for them blame all Jews. They’re saying unironically that women’s suffrage was the reason everything about the West is ruined, all the PC dogma and Marxism (invented by a man) was the fault of women, ignorant of knowledge of ancient societies (which allowed female political power and leaders, golden eras led by Queens) and basically most things beyond America. As if men aren’t at the top of this degenerate pyramid, from Soros to the founder of FEMEN. Men are in political power, men are the sex responsible for PC politics.

For lolz, let’s look at the voting statistics anyway, eh? Since women are so bad at maths according to these dimwits (unless you have the intellectual curiosity to look up the data and see boys perform worse).

Historically, the widely held view is that males outperform females in tests of mathematical ability (Halpern, 1986; Hill, Corbett, & St Rose, 2010; Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon, 1990). Early reviews of empirical research in this field concluded this was a “robust” finding (Halpern, 1986, p. 57) or, at least, it was one of several “fairly well-established” gender differences (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974, p. 352). Although subsequent formal analyses of these data indicated that gender differences in mathematical ability were often small in size (Hyde et al., 1990), recent research continues to show some differences but they vary according to certain factors, including level of mathematical ability, type of mathematical ability and examination format.

Those are called extraneous variables as non-sex factors so no, they don’t count in support of the original, disproven finding.

There is little evidence of a male advantage in high school mathematics tests in either the US or the UK. In the US, “trivial differences” between boys’ and girls’ mathematics results have been found in all school years between Grade 2 (7–8 year olds) and Grade 11 (16–17 year olds) (Hyde, Lindberg, Linn, Ellis, & Williams, 2008).

But sure, women are bad at maths… BRING ON THE STATS.

Evidence exists of women voting when it was on the law books during that brief window of British history, which isn’t the basis for anything since it was more of a trial period that failed the test.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9933592/Women-voted-75-years-before-they-were-legally-allowed-to-in-1918.html

But, at a stroke, it provided me with tangible proof that Victorian women were not only eligible to vote, but actually exercised that right, some 75 years before they received the parliamentary franchise in 1918.

Although I knew that in theory women retained the right to vote for some local officials in the nineteenth century, I had never seen any evidence of them doing so in practice. This lack of evidence had led me, and many other historians, to assume that voting was entirely a male prerogative before the twentieth century.

eyeroll jessica jones omg wtf shut up

Yet, it has prompted a need to re-write the history books by providing the first substantial proof that women were able to vote long before they received the parliamentary or municipal franchise.

There are as many conservative women as men in the general population, I reject your specious argument that women must vote red.

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3575/How-Britain-voted-in-2015.aspx?view=wide

It’s Left vs. Right, that’s the only division and anyone claiming otherwise is an identity politics shill.

Where population demographics are concerned, race, age group (life phase) and class (including property ownership) are more predictive than sex. Shall we restrict suffrage based on those things? No? Oh, you wouldn’t like somebody questioning your right to vote based on something beyond your control? How about more stats?

In America alone, more women turn up to the polls than men. Whose fault is that?
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womencensus1.html

63.7% Percentage of female citizens 18 and older who reported voting in the 2012 presidential election. By comparison, 59.7 percent of their male counterparts reported voting.

There is a famous Gender Gap in voting, true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_gender_gap

Recently in Europe it closed but prior to this (pre-1990s), women were more likely to vote conservative.

http://ips.sagepub.com/content/21/4/441.abstract

Suck on that.
Back to America:
https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0028/twps0028.html

Leighley and Nagler (1992) tested whether demographic factors, like race and gender, are more important than socioeconomic factors like education in predicting voter turnout, and found that while it is important to include measures of demographic factors, education is a much stronger predictor of voter turnout. Likewise, Wolfinger and Rosenstone (1980) document the lower voter turnout among Blacks and Hispanics, but attribute this lower rate of voter turnout to lower educational levels and higher proportions of young and poor among minorities. Other results suggest that women are also more likely to register and vote (Jennings 1985, 1989, 1993).

Education = IQ.
I have covered previously why IQ testing to qualify voting ability would hurt men and help women (women have higher average intelligence that the test is normalized by, men have more retards). Sure, advocate for it, see if I’m wrong.

In the UK, voter turnout has dropped among both sexes, but especially women, either failing to register or turn up at the booths.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/11333915/British-women-general-election-voters-shun-the-polling-booths.html

Turnout has declined across both genders. But the drop is most significant in women. According to statistics compiled for the British Election Study – which were analysed by the Commons Library – the number of ‘missing’ female voters has risen by 79 per cent since 1992.

Aka you can’t blame the Labour Governments on women (1997-early 2010).

Between 1992 and 2010, the number of women voters in general elections fell by 18 per cent.

However, a Telegraph poll in October last year found that just 12 per cent of female voters think the Labour leader would make a good prime minister, compared with 31 per cent who backed Cameron.

2.6:1 in favour of the conservative. Hmm.
I’ve covered previously that political party identification is genetic, especially for liberalism. AKA clean your own house and muck out your own stables of Red Men before crying to us.

Look at how stable voting preferences are in light of demographics (in support of the genetic hypothesis). If sex for example were so important, you’d see a sharp divide, yet all differences are accountable by rounding error.


Source: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/

OH LOOK SUCH A MASSIVE DIFFERENCE.

Think of the stereotype of trolling - white straight male aka Patriarchy. Did they appropriate the term?

 

Why is scientism a problem? The ‘Appeal to Data’

I lurk on comment threads to get a feel for what is trending in the noosphere and I find some gems. Sometimes I get a bit stalkerish in my fervor for curating opinions.
I was reading a science article and I was way, way down, losing hope and I saw this.
I’ve been wanting to cover this topic for a while, I didn’t know what to call it but I felt I needed an example to mock first, since it’s easier to pull that apart than a possible strawman.

Thank you, Hobbesian________, I have a new name for this: “The Appeal to Data

He hasn’t read much of his namesake, why am I not surprised?

A man’s conscience and his judgment is the same thing; and as the judgment, so also the conscience, may be erroneous. ~ Hobbes

I was serious about the mocking part.

scientism appeal to data

You could say that about anything: What would be the point in interviewing Richard Dawkins, the Bible speaks for itself? What would be the point in interviewing climate skeptics, the UN papers speak for themselves? Why trust the Government on vaccines, the ingredients list speaks for itself?

Muh “speaks for itself” is the new “isn’t it obvious?” No, dipshit, or there wouldn’t be a discussion. That’s kinda the point when it comes to any scientific question, the debate never ends, nobody will pack up their bags and go home. We’ll just sort of come to a point of consensus naturally and lose momentum, like an emergent phenomena as the evidence comes in (from both sides). Until the paradigm shift, anon!
Humanities isn’t social science. Liberal arts isn’t a science. Social science is a science because it follows the Scientific Method. Merely, it applies the method to humans (social animal hence society). There are textbooks on this written for children. This is basic.

It’s a combination of appeal to popularity, and a subtle ad hominem that’s intended to outgroup you as inferior and thus, not worth listening to. It’s a rabbit trick. Look! A hat! 

The atheistkult and other redditfags seem to rely on this IFLS-esque appeal to ‘objective’ authority and clarity when describing nature; that the numbers can’t be faked, or wrong, or that various biases and errors (inc. the huge measurement error) do not exist.

Data isn’t objective because data is a tool used by people. You can flip a coin 100 times, get 100 heads and it doesn’t disprove the other findings. It’s added to them. We call those people using the data in their possession ‘scientists’ and they aren’t using the data, really. They are collecting the data (possession) and interpret the data (moving on to a claim), that is their training and their job, to make claims based on the data (the data is just there to show their workings for replication, like maths classes). We have a label for people who make claims not based on data, but opinion formed prior, a beautiful category is…..;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Biased_interpretation

Oh look, it’s another bias. SI: You can use totally legitimate data to lie. Anita Sarkeesian does it all the time. She takes a legit study and makes those unsupported claims. You say X, but data says X-1. This is what they mean when they appeal to data, that it’s supposed to be free of false interpretation. Except – all data is interpreted. It’s a human impulse.

You can’t do shit with data itself anyway. Those 100 heads results aren’t going to go anywhere. They’ll stay in a drawer, unpublished. For the researcher: They don’t change the data (unless crooked or naive with poor method design, a priori) and they aren’t meant to influence the data (so many ways under researcher bias), but they are human.

In social science

After the data are collected, bias may be introduced during data interpretation and analysis. For example, in deciding which variables to control in analysis, social scientists often face a trade-off between omitted-variable bias and post-treatment bias.[10]

This is why we need philosophy of science taught in schools.
We learn biology, chemistry and physics but we don’t learn what science is or why all those things are science, let alone how science is actually done. But sure, photosynthesis…..

Identities protected but putting the name of a philosopher in your screen name doesn’t make you smart. They keep doing that (redditfag signature) when it’s a clear appeal to authority, again.

Here is the first result on google for “scientist stock photo”

Sure, I’d trust that guy, who doesn’t even wear goggles. They buy into this, like the memes. Oh Christ, the memes…. 

It’s very Aspie to think all scientists are perfect, morally virtuous men in white lab coats, pristine as their soul, and they’ll never do anything like lie, or cheat for a promotion, or steal grant money, or… I dunno…. fake most of a subject….
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/science-nature/scientists-replicated-100-psychology-studies-and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/

Statistically, most of a subject. Literally. (Me being topical)

They have some wonderful cognitive dissonance here because they believe experts are liars (I blame Gen X), but the data the experts gather is pure as the Virgin Mary.
The data is sacred! bc Humans are flawed!
Who do you think made the data? ET?
What we see are the actions of a narcissist (they wouldn’t dare lie to me!) who cannot conceive of systemic deception that would persevere against their imagined intellect. Con artists find these people easiest to fool because they have no guard. There is no guard to let down.

As much as I dislike this website, for example the name (isn’t debunking something also a denial? and why is denial/dissent wrong, given Burden of Proof?), there are many statistical fallacies in the public arena, from people who are meant to be defending science like it’s a lady’s virtue:

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/11/17/the-top-five-most-annoying-statistical-fallacies/

TLDR: This thing is like that thing because I said so.

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2014/11/10/why-p-values-and-statistical-significance-are-worthless-in-science/

TLDR: p-value fraud is rife.

You could find many things which are statistically significant, for example — and false. This is where correlation/causation truly comes in, the claim is beyond the data e.g. if I find murders spike with ice cream sales, ice cream doesn’t cause murder. The third hidden variable is the heat and the frustration it produces. A good method design will eliminate extraneous variables, and in most social science, they don’t do this. That’s why it can’t be replicated – shitty design. Copying the shitty design just doubles the number of shitty experiments in the world. 

Method design is mostly intuition. Redditfags deny this. They should pick up a book on it, seriously – the first thing you’re told is Make Stuff Up and the rest is just refinement.

The appeal to data is treating a chart of values like the Bible. Yes, I went there.

Torture numbers, and they’ll confess to anything.” – Gregg Easterbrook

Working example: http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/2012/06/12/torturing-the-data-long-enough-will-make-them-confess-anything/

Conclusion: Let’s go with the Appeal to Data. If I ask 100 people whether you are worse than Hitler, and 51 say yes, the data is there. The data is sacrosanct.
It’s an appeal to popularity dressed up in a Halloween lab coat.

btw I appreciate the turtles reference at the end

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

it made me laugh

oh you dean winchester

Video: The ONE anti-immigration video to show everyone crying over Africa

no do not want go away displeased

Every r-type you will ever meet upon seeing this video;

shock horror wtf omg no denial signs

Take your bleeding heart to the emergency room.

FYI, they don’t want us there. “For God’s sake, please stop the aid!”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/spiegel-interview-with-african-economics-expert-for-god-s-sake-please-stop-the-aid-a-363663.html

The Smart Fraction theory of IQ and the wealth of nations

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm

I was hoping that we could continue our discussion of human biodiversity. I brought some fascinating data from the Summer 2001 Mankind Quarterly. In the article, National IQ and Economic Development: A study of Eighty-One Developing Nations, Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen expose a relationship between national wealth and IQ. I brought a table of their data, but you can see the relationship best in a graph (Figure 1).

It has sexy graphs.

Dat mass.

Notice how GDP is positively correlated to average IQ. The correlation coefficient is 0.733, IQ explaining 54 percent of the GDP variance. Values this large are rare in social science. ….

Prodigy.  That’s because the relationship between per capita GDP and mean IQ is not linear. The fit is the best that can be obtained with a line.

Estraneo.  Is nonlinearity important?

Prodigy.  Correlation indicates the degree of linear association between variables. Because, the relationship is nonlinear, the value 0.73 actually underestimates the strength of the relationship. …

Thus, for a technologically sophisticated society, SFT asserts that a nation’s per capita GDP is determined by the population fraction with IQ greater than or equal to some threshold IQ. Consistent with the data of Lynn and Vanhanen, that threshold IQ is 108, a bit less than the minimum required for what used to be a bachelor’s degree. Figure 3 illustrates the fit of (3) to the data of Lynn and Vanhanen.

Saturation is probable, dwindling marginal utility of sorts.

World IQs have been increasing at the rate of 3 IQ points per decade (the Flynn effect). If that trend continues [DS: and is valid], countries now in the mean-IQ neighborhood of 100, will near smart fraction saturation in about a century.

Directionality is considered.

Estraneo.  There has been something gnawing at me for a while now. Just because national wealth and IQ correlate across different countries, we cannot infer which causes what. Smart Fraction Theory would fit the data just as well if national wealth led to high IQ rather than the other way round.

Prodigy.  You are correct, Estraneo. We need to look elsewhere for evidence that fixes the direction of causation. Independent studies of monozygotic twins reared apart provide some help. At least four major studies have been conducted with remarkably consistent results. They find about 70% of the variance in IQ is associated with genetic variation. Bouchard et al, Science, Oct 12, 1990, present an excellent review of these studies. Closer to the present context, we can look to the clever experiment of Charles Murray (Income Inequality and IQ, AEI Press, 1998). Murray studied biological sibling pairs selected such that the siblings in each pair differed significantly in IQ, but were reared in the same home by the same parents. Controlling thus for environmental factors, Murray found earnings stratified conspicuously by IQ.

There is much more, Estraneo, but two nails are sufficient to fix the direction of a one-way sign. The arrow of cause points mostly from IQ to income, and not the other way round.

Report: EU immigrants likelier to be employed than native Brits

article here

British-born workers are less likely to be employed in the UK than European Union immigrants, according to new figures from the Eurostat agency in Brussels.

The figures, according to the Telegraph, show that as a proportion of those employed, EU migrants are more likely to have jobs over British workers. The Telegraph notes that the new statistics may prompt “new concerns about the number of jobs going to the immigrant workforce.”

Eurostat found that 75.4 percent of British citizens aged between 20 and 64 were in work in 2013, compared with 79.2 percent of EU nationals living in the UK – a fact that has drawn the ire of representatives of the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

UKIP’s Economic Spokesperson Steve Woolfe is quoted as having said: “These stats show the unequal nature of our current migration policy which puts Europeans before Britons, and Europeans before the rest of the world. 

“The million Britons currently unemployed must surely be asking why the UK is a member of the EU, when the employment rate of EU nationals in the UK is higher than it is for British nationals.”

Analysts suggested earlier this month that there is now evidence towards the notion that immigration is causing a decline in wages – contrary to the claims made by pro-immigration advocates on the Left, and on the libertarian Right.

The Telegraph quotes Sir Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatch UK: “These new figures confirm those from the Office for National Statistics which show that as the UK economy has recovered from the recession, the employment rate of British workers is increasing much more slowly than for EU workers.

“This raises the question of whether British workers are losing out to immigrant workers.