Why does Charles Murray's book on human accomplishment have so many models that are wrong?It's like he didn't take a basic course in statistics and tried to use statistics to jerk off the british, french, dutch and danish. He can't even understand that human development is logarithmic not linear. Doesn't even know basic mathematics.
New seethe thread just dropped
>>25363455This. Calling it. 150 replies max.
I'm not denying that it has, but can you be more specific. In terms of what models are wrong, how is he wrong with data collecting etc.
>>25363435You’re jewish. We exist and excel in spite of you. You wouldn’t exist without us. You had to become greater than 50% of us genetically, while also losing your matriarchal lineage, before you could get your country back. I can’t image how much unrelenting butthurt these facts must cause you every moment of your parasitic existence.
>>25364078Charles Murray's R2 value is only 0.35 which means there's barely any correlation between the data and Murray's conclusion of europeans being the only ones who do things.If you use a log chart which matches the data correctly you can get an r squared value of 0.61 which is much closer to 0.99 that we want. Murray's poor data collection is probably to blame for the remaining 0.38 gap in r squared values.
Anon you're fighting an uphill battle. You're talking about someone who "measures" things as arbitrarily vague as "notable people" or "notable inventions". Accuracy or intellectual honesty was never the point.
>>25364189Ah, that makes sense.
>>25364207I think it's doable, you can also work back to see where that leads you, for example the blue banana had the highest trade density iirc.
>>25364189>human progress isn't a straight lineok, so what? he didn't argue that. now fit it with polynomial regression instead. btw even with log scale europe outperforms. extremely lame "debunking". not saying it's a good book, haven't read it, but this inforgraphic shows nothing of value.
>>25364501>Double the predictive capability of the model with the correct transformation >Nothing of value
>>25364510>the modelwhat does this "model" have to do with anything? did murray himself say human progress is linear?
>>25364515He showed the data linearly, and drew conclusions based on that.
>>25364519what's interesting about that, i suppose, is that it shows human progress is not "accelerating". it just carries on linearly. sooo, you're arguing that human progress always occurs at the same rate? i just want to make sure i understand your position
>>25364189now disaggregate the data and fit it. also post the original data set.
>>25364524I mean why present raw data when a log transform explains more variance
>>25364189>Murray's conclusion of europeans being the only ones who do things.Lmfao. Does he really draw that conclusion? Haven't read this book obviously but if this is what it is about then that's embarrassing af. Now that I think about it Murray isn't ridiculed hard enough
>>25364189>Europeans being the only ones who do thingsIs that Murray's actual claim, or your characterization of it?
>>25364585yes i'm sure some communist's one line summary was totally in good faith
>>25364084Murray loves jews. He says they're the best in his book.Also >We
