Search Results
7/9/2025, 5:30:52 PM
>>212517746
>come up with an objection where you predict cultural-social model will fit the data better than the genetic model
>get shown that the genetic model actually fits the data better
>call it semantics
>can't show any counter argument that a social-cultural model explains the data better than a genetic model
>get more and more impotently angry and resort to desperate, hollow insults
lol, lmao.
>We can equate genes to the connections passed on, to the ideas and religions passed on.
>nepotism you stupid fucking retard holy shit you have to be the most autistic sperg irl
lol, how does this "nepotism" model predict that for example
the correlation in socioeconomic status between a man and his uncle will be the same as the correlation in socioeconomic status between a man and his grandfather? Or that that the correlation in socioeconomic status between a man and his cousin will be the same as the correlation in socioeconoomic status between a man and his great grandfather?
The genetic model of socioeconomic success, first stated by Fischer in 1918, predicts these specific correlation relations exactly , 100 years before the data had been gathered, see page 3 and >>212516439
You just saying "it's nepotism" doesn't make any specific prediction about the correlational structure of the data , does it? You'd probably even predict that cousins would have more of a nepotism effect than great-grandfathers, since great grandfathers are often dead or not actively working and so less able to help a man get a job than their older cousin , and so a man and his cousins ought to be more correlated with socioeconomic success than a man and his grandfather.
Understand which is the better model now? the one which actually predicts the exact results observed rather than the one-word model that doesn't make any specific predictions observed in the results?
lol
>come up with an objection where you predict cultural-social model will fit the data better than the genetic model
>get shown that the genetic model actually fits the data better
>call it semantics
>can't show any counter argument that a social-cultural model explains the data better than a genetic model
>get more and more impotently angry and resort to desperate, hollow insults
lol, lmao.
>We can equate genes to the connections passed on, to the ideas and religions passed on.
>nepotism you stupid fucking retard holy shit you have to be the most autistic sperg irl
lol, how does this "nepotism" model predict that for example
the correlation in socioeconomic status between a man and his uncle will be the same as the correlation in socioeconomic status between a man and his grandfather? Or that that the correlation in socioeconomic status between a man and his cousin will be the same as the correlation in socioeconoomic status between a man and his great grandfather?
The genetic model of socioeconomic success, first stated by Fischer in 1918, predicts these specific correlation relations exactly , 100 years before the data had been gathered, see page 3 and >>212516439
You just saying "it's nepotism" doesn't make any specific prediction about the correlational structure of the data , does it? You'd probably even predict that cousins would have more of a nepotism effect than great-grandfathers, since great grandfathers are often dead or not actively working and so less able to help a man get a job than their older cousin , and so a man and his cousins ought to be more correlated with socioeconomic success than a man and his grandfather.
Understand which is the better model now? the one which actually predicts the exact results observed rather than the one-word model that doesn't make any specific predictions observed in the results?
lol
Page 1