People who don't believe in free will are silly. Imagine thinking that it would be possible for someone to tell you exactly what you were going to do tomorrow based on the position of all atoms in the universe, etc. and that you would be forced to watch as it all unfolded exactly as they said while being powerless to change course. It can't happen like that and we all know it. We are not machines who just happen to be conscious on the side.
But the problem with that analogy is you're adding a new scenario to the equation. It is self determined how you would react to knowing what will happen tomorrow. Some people will react and go against what is being told will happen tomorrow and others will say fuck it and go along on that path. You argument doesn't debunk the concept of free will not existing. If anything it helps to prove it
Seems a very weak argument which begs the question. You have an intuition against determinism and an intuition that it's silly. Your argument is that in imagining that determinism is true, you find it silly. Well we already knew that. You understand that people who find free will silly can use the exact same argument?
Sackett et al was actually a pretty bad study because of incorrect assumptions for range restriction correction; overestimation of criterion reliability correction; misapplication of standard deviations in validity estimates; inadequate adjustment for adverse impact, uniform application of range restriction corrections that lead to inflated validity estimates; overestimation of corrected validity by using consistent criterion reliability across different job complexities; improper pooling of standard deviations underestimates variability; significant adverse impact is not properly addressed, misestimation of construct validity by using uniform reliability corrections; inappropriate use of meta-analytic techniques without considering study differences; ignoring DIF which lead to biased outcomes; over-reliance on single-point estimates without considering confidence intervals; inadequate consideration of the multidimensional nature of constructs, incorrect application of statistical corrections across diverse datasets; ignoring statistical independence among combined studies; misestimation of variability due to inappropriate pooling methods; over-reliance on point estimates without considering variability (again); ignoring the impact of sample size on statistical power and robustness
I notice the article doesn't mention the possibility that callback studies themselves are potentially contaminated by publication bias. I'm aware this was a concern a few years ago, so I'm curious about the omission.
Interesting defense of stereotypes. I am guessing you want "accurate" stereotypes to be used rather than the current inaccurate anti-White stereotypes. But as Steve Sailer says, in our current socio-economic-political Western world the anti-White male coalition of the fringes is the winning Schelling point.
Hey Sean, L. J. Zigerell had written a critique of the Quillian et al. meta-analysis in the same year it was published.
https://www.ljzigerell.com/?p=4698
People who don't believe in free will are silly. Imagine thinking that it would be possible for someone to tell you exactly what you were going to do tomorrow based on the position of all atoms in the universe, etc. and that you would be forced to watch as it all unfolded exactly as they said while being powerless to change course. It can't happen like that and we all know it. We are not machines who just happen to be conscious on the side.
But the problem with that analogy is you're adding a new scenario to the equation. It is self determined how you would react to knowing what will happen tomorrow. Some people will react and go against what is being told will happen tomorrow and others will say fuck it and go along on that path. You argument doesn't debunk the concept of free will not existing. If anything it helps to prove it
Seems a very weak argument which begs the question. You have an intuition against determinism and an intuition that it's silly. Your argument is that in imagining that determinism is true, you find it silly. Well we already knew that. You understand that people who find free will silly can use the exact same argument?
Sackett et al was actually a pretty bad study because of incorrect assumptions for range restriction correction; overestimation of criterion reliability correction; misapplication of standard deviations in validity estimates; inadequate adjustment for adverse impact, uniform application of range restriction corrections that lead to inflated validity estimates; overestimation of corrected validity by using consistent criterion reliability across different job complexities; improper pooling of standard deviations underestimates variability; significant adverse impact is not properly addressed, misestimation of construct validity by using uniform reliability corrections; inappropriate use of meta-analytic techniques without considering study differences; ignoring DIF which lead to biased outcomes; over-reliance on single-point estimates without considering confidence intervals; inadequate consideration of the multidimensional nature of constructs, incorrect application of statistical corrections across diverse datasets; ignoring statistical independence among combined studies; misestimation of variability due to inappropriate pooling methods; over-reliance on point estimates without considering variability (again); ignoring the impact of sample size on statistical power and robustness
I notice the article doesn't mention the possibility that callback studies themselves are potentially contaminated by publication bias. I'm aware this was a concern a few years ago, so I'm curious about the omission.
Interesting defense of stereotypes. I am guessing you want "accurate" stereotypes to be used rather than the current inaccurate anti-White stereotypes. But as Steve Sailer says, in our current socio-economic-political Western world the anti-White male coalition of the fringes is the winning Schelling point.
Is sub-race a real thing?
see of low ability => sea of low ability
great to see you posting after long absence, your content is really one of the only few which are both smart and honest