spoonless: (blueshirt)
Domino Valdano ([personal profile] spoonless) wrote2009-08-02 08:35 pm
Entry tags:

belief poll #2

This time I made sure that the lower end of the range is 0 rather than 1, to make it symmetric with the 10. I don't know why lj defaults to 1-10... I was lazy last time and just left it how they set it up.

I know different people mean different things by choosing different numbers, so to standardize try and do it this way: pick 10 if you are 95%-100% confident that the statement is true. Pick 0 if you are 0-5% confident (in other words, 95%-100% confident it's false). Pick 9 if you are 85%-95% confident it's true. Pick 5 if you are 45-55% confident it's true (in other words, you don't know). I'm going to take [livejournal.com profile] browascension's suggestion this time and say that if you're unfamiliar with the topic, just skip it rather than picking 5.

I tried to pick questions that I was a little more agnostic on this time... last time I had too many extreme responses, both from myself and from everyone, so hopefully this one will be more mixed.

[Poll #1438874]
(deleted comment)

[identity profile] perspectivism.livejournal.com 2009-08-03 11:38 pm (UTC)(link)

"CLEARLY"?!

I'm unaware of any standardized-ish MATH tests that don't cut off (fail to meaningfully test) the left X% of population...where X is larger than we like to believe. Every math test has signif selection effects.

But that doesn't even matter. Because what's INTERESTING re: math and verbal and musical and cooking and military intelligence w/r/t natural-born gender...isn't whether the MEANs or MEDIANs or MODEs differ by a couple points between the hormonal sexes. So what I take you to be REALLY polling about is the fact that men dominate near the visible top of essentially ALL fields (and, the more g-loaded or obsessive, the more dominant). (Nobody cares to compare the biggest losers at the bottom -- who are mostly men -- and mostly homeless, imprisoned or dead.) This interesting hegemony is explained ~entirely by the sexes' different standard deviations and skews in intelligences + the big personality dimensions. Which, in turn, is "CLEARLY" ;) nature playing at XY/XX asymmetric reproductive game theory...which you can practically prove from your armchair and then can confirm via various observations!