ya they show someone in prison for life a naughty little girl pic and if they get a bonner then they're pedo. kinda silly considering reproducing at a younger age had been normal through most of human history in most of the world. would make more sense to look at convicted pedos since theyve committed the crime.
wondering if it's, pre-puberty, or pre-18yo, or something else entirely.
@fluffy @Terry @p @Dave Here's the titles and more info on them, and here's a link to the MS
https://www.ipce.info/sites/ipce.info/files/biblio_attachments/every_fifth.pdf
> number of men: Only one is over 100
This is a ridiculously small sample size.
@lanodan @Terry @p @Dave @fluffy It really isn't. First, there are 7 of these studies, with a combined sample of 387. But the actual validity of the result you get depends on the values you get. These aren't weak values, so the chances of them being completely wrong is low, but the authors calculate the p value anyway, in Firestone 2000 it's <0.05
> combined sample of 387
Lol, as if you could just add different statistics together like that, in programming this would be a fucking Type Error. Don't be JavaScript.
@lanodan @Terry @p @Dave @fluffy This is a valid thing people do. They take multiple studies and get a value by weighing them by their samples
I remember it here as an example from a really good paper
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4739500/pdf/emss-66004.pdf
As an example, a review of the world’s literature on intelligence, which included 10,000
pairs of twins, showed that identical twins are significantly more similar than fraternal twins,
with twin correlations of about 0.85 and 0.60, respectively, with corroborating results from
family and adoption studies, implying significant genetic influence (Bouchard & McGue,
1981, as modified by Loehlin, 1989)
> This is a valid thing people do. They take multiple studies and get a value by weighing them by their samples
Literally nobody. Unless the methodology is the same, you can't do that.
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4739500/pdf/emss-66004.pdf
This is just a meta-analysis. They are not adding random numbers together.
@p @Terry @lanodan @Dave @fluffy Hint: they're not quoting a single study with 10,000 people, it's 111 of them
>Unless the methodology is the same
It's not, if you looked at it you'd see them talk about correcting for that
https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/1981-bouchard.pdf
This is really the lengths we have to go to, bickering about how you can cite a study, what studies you're allowed to post, what sources it's allowed to be from, you need one single study instead of a bunch, all decided by you
You're really disingenuous and boring
> It's not, if you looked at it you'd see them talk about correcting for that
A random meta-analysis of some genetic study has nothing to do with this. Methodological variables are much easier to control for, but "Here's a photo, did you get a boner?" and "We played them an audio tape with a cuff hooked up to their dicks" are so radically different that it is actually impossible to control for the variables in the methodology. Not just that, but the essay you're citing that cites the studies is not a meta-analysis to begin with: it's an essay written by a pro-pederasty activist. What you are suggesting is stupid.
> https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/1981-bouchard.pdf
This is a meta-analysis of IQ. This has nothing to do with whether you can just add numbers from other studies (where you have not even attempted the impossible task of correcting for methodological differences)
> bickering about how you can cite a study
That's you wanting to bicker about that. I said you haven't read these studies. (You haven't.) I said that you would be able to come up with at least the titles of the papers that you're citing if you had read them. (You linked to an essay that cited them. You haven't read them, you just cite them.)
> what studies you're allowed to post
You have posted only one of the studies you cited. I said if you're going to cite them, you should have at least read them. An essay is not a study.
> what sources it's allowed to be from
I did not bring this up, but I did say an essay written by a pro-pederasty activist is not a study. I said this because an essay written by a pro-pederasty activist is not a study.
> all decided by you
You are making shit up about pedophilia and also making shit up about the conversation.
> You're really disingenuous and boring
This is in the debate script, right after "Try to get them to call you names and then tell them they're triggered." It says you should be incredulous that I didn't accept your "evidence" (an essay written by a pro-pederasty activist is not a study), and then declare that you are unwilling to engage in such a long conversation and bail. So this means you're giving up and bailing, right?
@lanodan @Terry @p @Dave @fluffy When they actually do it they account for any differences, exclude based on criteria, correct for X, Y, and Z, etc, etc, but the point still stands that if a series of studies get numbers significantly higher than people generally think (1-2%), it's very very unlikely it's random chance