Topic: UCSD let anyone in?
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 weeks ago #133,648
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 39 minutes later[^] [v] #1,423,243
I don't know what that is
LiterallyAllBlackPeople joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 25 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,244
I just checked the US News rankings for my major of choice. I didn’t even take the SAT but got into a similarly ranked school lol
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,245
LiterallyAllBlackPeople triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 39 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,246
I thought everybody got the memo on the SAT thing during Covid though. Schools were never meritocratic, now they’re honest about it. They don’t even look at SAT scores anymore.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,247
I see they meant they got into 1 out of 3 schools.
UCSD has a 28% acceptance rate, UCLA has a 9% acceptance rate, and USC has a 10% acceptance rate…
So if they’re shocked by one in three that’s kinda weird. Because if you do the math on it they had a 93% chance of getting into at least one, but the highest acceptance rate is a little less than a 1 in 3 chance, so it sorta makes sense they only got into 1 out of 3 because what else was going to happen with those odds?
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
LiterallyAllBlackPeople quintuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,248
@previous (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
Damn, it’s a 41% chance of getting into at least one.
1-(1-0.28)(1-0.1)(1-0.09)
Like an idiot I did 0.9 instead of 0.09
Damn, it’s a 41% chance of getting into at least one.
1-(1-0.28)(1-0.1)(1-0.09)
Like an idiot I did 0.9 instead of 0.09
LiterallyAllBlackPeople sextuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 28 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,249
So actually 1 out of 3 is lucky because 59% of people who try that will get into 0 out of 3.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople septuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,250
America: anybody can be successful in this country (if you’re lucky). 👍
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,253
College students don't understand how definitions work.
Essays aren't graded on your ability to defend your thesis, but rather on how much of your personal life you share.
Too bad the government doesn't give these large loans to everyone for business instead.
Essays aren't graded on your ability to defend your thesis, but rather on how much of your personal life you share.
Too bad the government doesn't give these large loans to everyone for business instead.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,259
@previous (D)
Defending your thesis something you do to get your PhD. For an undergraduate college application essay, there’s no thesis statement or argument. It’s just to see if you’re a good fit or not. It sounds vague but there’s actually a right way and a wrong way to do that. It doesn’t necessarily need to be overly personal.
Defending your thesis something you do to get your PhD. For an undergraduate college application essay, there’s no thesis statement or argument. It’s just to see if you’re a good fit or not. It sounds vague but there’s actually a right way and a wrong way to do that. It doesn’t necessarily need to be overly personal.
(Edited 26 seconds later.)
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,260
Like say somebody wants to study physics at UCLA. Why do they want to study physics? How much do they know about physics? Are they genuinely interested in physics? Why do they want to go to UCLA for physics? It’s that kinda thing.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,261
Except the University of Chicago decided they were gonna be all quirky and ask cute and different questions for some reason.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,262
"In an ideal world where inter-species telepathic communication exists, which species would you choose to have a conversation with, and what would you want to learn from them? Would you ask beavers for architectural advice? Octopuses about cognition? Pigeons about navigation? Ants about governance? Make your case—both for the species and the question."
LiterallyAllBlackPeople quintuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,263
Just googled whatever their prompt is this year lol
https://www.collegeessayadvisors.com/supplemental-essay/university-of-chicago-supplemental-essay-prompt-guide/
No clue about this website but they do ask questions like that so it’s probably legit lol
https://www.collegeessayadvisors.com/supplemental-essay/university-of-chicago-supplemental-essay-prompt-guide/
No clue about this website but they do ask questions like that so it’s probably legit lol
LiterallyAllBlackPeople sextuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,264
The thing people need to realize about this place called "America" is this is a dreamland. You’re sleeping, this isn’t real.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople septuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 51 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,265
4% acceptance rate btw
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,274
@1,423,253 (D)
> College students don't understand how definitions work.
>
> Essays aren't graded on your ability to defend your thesis, but rather on how much of your personal life you share.
>
> Too bad the government doesn't give these large loans to everyone for business instead.
I had a friend who made up family travails and past experiences, foreign study, you name it. Got a full ride at a decent school.
> College students don't understand how definitions work.
>
> Essays aren't graded on your ability to defend your thesis, but rather on how much of your personal life you share.
>
> Too bad the government doesn't give these large loans to everyone for business instead.
I had a friend who made up family travails and past experiences, foreign study, you name it. Got a full ride at a decent school.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,276
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,278
Tbh part of the reason why I think social Darwinism is dumb, is if you look at who some of the most successful people are in our society, and you look at their actions, and you listen to what they say, they’re complete idiots. The whole thing is fake.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,279
Not saying it’s bad your friend got a full ride, I’m just saying, making stuff up seems to correlate pretty well with success in our society.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,280
@1,423,276 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
There are tests that can accurately predict academic performance, but people dismiss academic work like the National Longitudinal Study of Youth as a mass conspiracy of racists.
Also colleges are getting rid of SAT requirements, many of them stopped requiring those years ago.
There are tests that can accurately predict academic performance, but people dismiss academic work like the National Longitudinal Study of Youth as a mass conspiracy of racists.
Also colleges are getting rid of SAT requirements, many of them stopped requiring those years ago.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,281
@previous (D)
Yeah, we think that the idea that white people are smarter than black people is a mass conspiracy of racists because it is.
Yeah, we think that the idea that white people are smarter than black people is a mass conspiracy of racists because it is.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,282
I mean, you really don’t have to be that smart to see that most people in the United States aren’t very smart.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,283
And all these stupid people that fill the streets, their lives are mostly fine. The system mostly works. You don’t have to be very smart to survive in the modern world. It shouldn’t take any study or any data, it should just be obvious. Just open your eyes, people aren’t smart. We have a lot of technology all around us. I know how some of it works, I don’t know about how all of it works. How many people do you think understand how an iPhone works? What percentage of the population?
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,284
@1,423,281 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
That's a really good conspiracy, because they surveyed over 10 thousand people.
Even if one staffer was editing data to spread racism, that wouldn't budge the numbers. You'd need a lot of people working together on secret, and the staffers would change a lot since the survey happened over decades.
How do you get so many people to edit data, and then never share their secret?
That's a really good conspiracy, because they surveyed over 10 thousand people.
Even if one staffer was editing data to spread racism, that wouldn't budge the numbers. You'd need a lot of people working together on secret, and the staffers would change a lot since the survey happened over decades.
How do you get so many people to edit data, and then never share their secret?
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 45 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,285
And think about it, do you really honest to God believe that the most powerful people are the smartest people? Do you think that Donald Trump is good at math? Do you think he knows any programming languages? Do you think he knows chemistry? Do you think he knows physics? Do you think he knows how a jet engine works?
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 56 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,286
@1,423,284 (D)
It’s not very hard to believe that the results of a study are inaccurate or misleading, that happens all the time in science.
It’s not very hard to believe that the results of a study are inaccurate or misleading, that happens all the time in science.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,287
Sometimes it’s not even that the results are misleading, it can become a game of telephone where the study says one thing, the press release says another, then the media reports on the press release, then somebody writes a book about it, then somebody makes a YouTube video with the book as a source, and then somebody tells somebody else about the video, and by the end of it even though the study was accurate the public believes the study said something it didn’t even say.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,289
It happens all the time actually, for example, if you google why birds have hollow bones, the AI response is what most people if you ask them would tell you, which is that hollow bones make birds lighter and it’s an adaptation for flight. Which is completely false. Hollow bones aren’t lighter than bones that aren’t hollow they’re just bigger and stronger, neither of which have anything to do with flight because hollow bones evolved in saurischian dinosaurs before birds evolved flight. But that didn’t take any massive conspiracy to make the majority of the public to believe something that’s false. Most people believe things that aren’t true. And some false beliefs are incredibly popular.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,290
@1,423,287 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
You looked at the study directly yourself, remember?
You can't pretend it's telephone when you've seen the data.
You looked at the study directly yourself, remember?
You can't pretend it's telephone when you've seen the data.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 46 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,291
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,292
@1,423,289 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
Slop post.
You saw the data, and the you claimed it was a bunch of racists who made it up.
Every time you have to keep changing the argument you use because your last one is so obviously wrong. Then you try and change the subject, or strawman, and then you devolve into name calling because you just can't come up with any reasonable explanation.
Slop post.
You saw the data, and the you claimed it was a bunch of racists who made it up.
Every time you have to keep changing the argument you use because your last one is so obviously wrong. Then you try and change the subject, or strawman, and then you devolve into name calling because you just can't come up with any reasonable explanation.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,293
@1,423,289 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
> It happens all the time actually, for example, if you google why birds have hollow bones, the AI response is what most people if you ask them would tell you, which is that hollow bones make birds lighter and it’s an adaptation for flight. Which is completely false. Hollow bones aren’t lighter than bones that aren’t hollow they’re just bigger and stronger, neither of which have anything to do with flight because hollow bones evolved in saurischian dinosaurs before birds evolved flight. But that didn’t take any massive conspiracy to make the majority of the public to believe something that’s false. Most people believe things that aren’t true. And some false beliefs are incredibly popular.
Which to expand on this, this is also why I thought all your conjecture about evolution was really stupid because often times when people assume something about evolution and then you actually look at the fossil record, I can think of multiple instances where evolution was not intuitive. So I think that’s really bad that you’re basing your racism off of conjecture about how evolution works when it’s obvious you’re uneducated on the subject of evolution.
> It happens all the time actually, for example, if you google why birds have hollow bones, the AI response is what most people if you ask them would tell you, which is that hollow bones make birds lighter and it’s an adaptation for flight. Which is completely false. Hollow bones aren’t lighter than bones that aren’t hollow they’re just bigger and stronger, neither of which have anything to do with flight because hollow bones evolved in saurischian dinosaurs before birds evolved flight. But that didn’t take any massive conspiracy to make the majority of the public to believe something that’s false. Most people believe things that aren’t true. And some false beliefs are incredibly popular.
Which to expand on this, this is also why I thought all your conjecture about evolution was really stupid because often times when people assume something about evolution and then you actually look at the fossil record, I can think of multiple instances where evolution was not intuitive. So I think that’s really bad that you’re basing your racism off of conjecture about how evolution works when it’s obvious you’re uneducated on the subject of evolution.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 21 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,294
@1,423,291 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
No, that's not what you said lol. I'll cite the post if you keep trying that excuse.
You said another study contradicted it, but could never actually find the study, only an article vaguely referencing the study that never even mentioned sample size.
No, that's not what you said lol. I'll cite the post if you keep trying that excuse.
You said another study contradicted it, but could never actually find the study, only an article vaguely referencing the study that never even mentioned sample size.
Anonymous D double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 57 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,295
@1,423,293 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
Here you are with a tangent, hoping no one will notice that you keep changing from "the data was collected by racists" to "the data didn't say that" and back and forth.
Here you are with a tangent, hoping no one will notice that you keep changing from "the data was collected by racists" to "the data didn't say that" and back and forth.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 23 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,296
@1,423,292 (D)
Except the thing is I didn’t change my argument, you lack nuance so you can’t tell that I’m actually being consistent. I’m saying the idea that white people are smarter than black people is a conspiracy made up by racist white people. That’s a separate claim from the study specifically. I didn’t change my position on anything.
Except the thing is I didn’t change my argument, you lack nuance so you can’t tell that I’m actually being consistent. I’m saying the idea that white people are smarter than black people is a conspiracy made up by racist white people. That’s a separate claim from the study specifically. I didn’t change my position on anything.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,297
@1,423,294 (D)
I said the study didn’t say what you claimed it did. You claimed that IQ is the biggest predictor of success and when I looked online I found that parental income was more strongly associated with income than IQ.
I said the study didn’t say what you claimed it did. You claimed that IQ is the biggest predictor of success and when I looked online I found that parental income was more strongly associated with income than IQ.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 18 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,298
@1,423,296 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
> I’m saying the idea that white people are smarter than black people is a conspiracy made up by racist white people.
You have said before the NLSY data isn't evidence because they are racist.
Now you're talking about another claim to hide that fact.
> That’s a separate claim from the study specifically. I didn’t change my position on anything.
So do you accept the NLSY data or not?
> I’m saying the idea that white people are smarter than black people is a conspiracy made up by racist white people.
You have said before the NLSY data isn't evidence because they are racist.
Now you're talking about another claim to hide that fact.
> That’s a separate claim from the study specifically. I didn’t change my position on anything.
So do you accept the NLSY data or not?
Anonymous D double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 50 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,299
@1,423,297 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
No, you found an article, and never found the actual study.
I actually gave a study, with a massive sample size, collected over the subject's lives.
Those two are not, in any way equivalent.
No, you found an article, and never found the actual study.
I actually gave a study, with a massive sample size, collected over the subject's lives.
Those two are not, in any way equivalent.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 55 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,300
@1,423,298 (D)
How can I know if I should accept the data from one study in isolation as completely true or completely false? The truth is probably more nuanced than that, so I can neither say that I fully accept it or reject it. However, what I can say is that I fully reject your interpretation of the study because it is inconsistent with my prior knowledge of the world and I find your explanations lacking.
How can I know if I should accept the data from one study in isolation as completely true or completely false? The truth is probably more nuanced than that, so I can neither say that I fully accept it or reject it. However, what I can say is that I fully reject your interpretation of the study because it is inconsistent with my prior knowledge of the world and I find your explanations lacking.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,301
@1,423,299 (D)
You said I looked at the data myself, so I assume that means you thought I looked at the data. But now you’re saying I didn’t look at the study, but the data is in the study, so how do you think I saw the data if you think I didn’t look at the study?
You said I looked at the data myself, so I assume that means you thought I looked at the data. But now you’re saying I didn’t look at the study, but the data is in the study, so how do you think I saw the data if you think I didn’t look at the study?
LiterallyAllBlackPeople triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,303
@1,423,290 (D)
> You looked at the study directly yourself, remember?
>
> You can't pretend it's telephone when you've seen the data.
@1,423,299 (D)
> No, you found an article, and never found the actual study.
>
> I actually gave a study, with a massive sample size, collected over the subject's lives.
>
> Those two are not, in any way equivalent.
Either you thought I read the study or you thought I didn’t read the study. Since only one can be true and you suggested both when it was advantageous to you, I don’t know which half of that was the lie, but I know one of those two statements you said had to have been a lie.
> You looked at the study directly yourself, remember?
>
> You can't pretend it's telephone when you've seen the data.
@1,423,299 (D)
> No, you found an article, and never found the actual study.
>
> I actually gave a study, with a massive sample size, collected over the subject's lives.
>
> Those two are not, in any way equivalent.
Either you thought I read the study or you thought I didn’t read the study. Since only one can be true and you suggested both when it was advantageous to you, I don’t know which half of that was the lie, but I know one of those two statements you said had to have been a lie.
(Edited 26 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,304
@1,423,301 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
> You said I looked at the data myself, so I assume that means you thought I looked at the data.
No assumed, you said so, and you even gave a figure from the data.
> But now you’re saying I didn’t look at the study,
You didn't find the study backing up your position. You did find the study backing up mine.
> You said I looked at the data myself, so I assume that means you thought I looked at the data.
No assumed, you said so, and you even gave a figure from the data.
> But now you’re saying I didn’t look at the study,
You didn't find the study backing up your position. You did find the study backing up mine.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,305
@previous (D)
It didn’t back up your position though, your position was that IQ was the strongest predictor of income, so I looked for data on how strongly parental income is correlated with income from multiple sources and they all showed a stronger correlation than the correlation between IQ and income from the study you keep yapping about.
It didn’t back up your position though, your position was that IQ was the strongest predictor of income, so I looked for data on how strongly parental income is correlated with income from multiple sources and they all showed a stronger correlation than the correlation between IQ and income from the study you keep yapping about.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,306
Fundamentally, this is kind of a stupid debate to be having because obviously there are an uncountable number of factors that alter the course of someone’s life. So to say that one factor is the strongest factor in one study doesn’t prove that that factor is necessarily the strongest factor, it only proves it’s the strongest factor out of the factors that that study measured.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,307
@1,423,303 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
If you can't win the argument just devolve into shit tier trolling I guess?
If you can't win the argument just devolve into shit tier trolling I guess?
Anonymous D double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 18 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,308
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 26 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,309
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 10 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,310
@1,423,306 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
They literally measured many different factors like parents income, race, gender, and other factors to compare!
They literally measured many different factors like parents income, race, gender, and other factors to compare!
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 35 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,311
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,312
@1,423,309 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
You looked at the NLSY, you never found the study that you say backed up your position.
You can't be this dumb.
You looked at the NLSY, you never found the study that you say backed up your position.
You can't be this dumb.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 47 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,313
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 10 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,314
@1,423,311 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
This is the largest study of its kind, and jt shows IQ being the best predictor.
Making up a hyopothetical study saying otherwise is not equivalent to a real study.
This is the largest study of its kind, and jt shows IQ being the best predictor.
Making up a hyopothetical study saying otherwise is not equivalent to a real study.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 54 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,315
@previous (D)
So what is your goal of talking to me actually? You already know what I think about you and you already know what I think about your ideas.
So what is your goal of talking to me actually? You already know what I think about you and you already know what I think about your ideas.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,316
Are you trying to convince me that black people are less intelligent than white people or are you trying to convince yourself? Because I already think I’m smarter than you by a long shot, and nothing you’re saying is really changing my view on that. So I don’t see how you would ever successfully convince me of your position.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,317
I mean, I have my reasons why I don’t believe in what you’re saying, and they’re not strongly related to the study, and I told you those reasons in detail but you never listened to them or engaged with them or addressed them in any meaningful way. I don’t really care about the findings of one particular study. The results of one study aren’t going to change my worldview in a radical way, because I’m not an ideologically driven person who gets obsessive over one study.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,318
I mean, this entire thing is stupid. Do you really expect every random person in the world to have heard of some random study from decades ago and expect everyone to have an opinion about the efficacy of the data in that one particular study? That’s the only reason why you even keep arguing about this, because you know most people don’t know or care about that study.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,319
@1,423,313 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
Why is your strategy always to lie? You just look worse when you get caught.
https://minichan.net/topic/132470#reply_1414343
@1,423,315 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
I know you won't change, but fence sitters can see that one side is scientific and one side is disingenuous and needs to use cheap tricks to try and convince people of lies.
Why is your strategy always to lie? You just look worse when you get caught.
https://minichan.net/topic/132470#reply_1414343
@1,423,315 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
I know you won't change, but fence sitters can see that one side is scientific and one side is disingenuous and needs to use cheap tricks to try and convince people of lies.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,320
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 36 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,321
@previous (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
You found an article, without citing the study in the article, and giving no clues to sample size.
So just like I said? Yes.
You found an article, without citing the study in the article, and giving no clues to sample size.
So just like I said? Yes.
(Edited 8 seconds later.)
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,322
TheDarkestBlack (OP), 1 month ago[^] [v] #1,414,343
"The data show that AFQT scores explain 21% of the variation in income between survey respondents. That translates to a correlation coefficient of .46."
https://ifstudies.org/blog/can-intelligence-predict-income
ReportQuoteCite
Anonymous B, 1 month ago[^] [v] #1,414,344
@previous (TheDarkestBlack)
Alright, and that is higher than the predictive ability of using race or family income.
ReportQuoteCite
TheDarkestBlack (OP), 1 month ago[^] [v] #1,414,345
@previous (B)
That’s the opposite of what I found when I googled it.
"Approximately half of parental income advantages are passed on to children. The IGE, when averaged across all levels of parental income, is estimated at 0.52 for men and 0.47 for women. These estimates are at the high end of previous estimates and imply that the United States is very immobile."
https://www.pew.org/en/about/news-room/press-releases-and-statements/2015/07/23/parental-income-has-outsized-influence-on-childrens-economic-future
"The data show that AFQT scores explain 21% of the variation in income between survey respondents. That translates to a correlation coefficient of .46."
https://ifstudies.org/blog/can-intelligence-predict-income
ReportQuoteCite
Anonymous B, 1 month ago[^] [v] #1,414,344
@previous (TheDarkestBlack)
Alright, and that is higher than the predictive ability of using race or family income.
ReportQuoteCite
TheDarkestBlack (OP), 1 month ago[^] [v] #1,414,345
@previous (B)
That’s the opposite of what I found when I googled it.
"Approximately half of parental income advantages are passed on to children. The IGE, when averaged across all levels of parental income, is estimated at 0.52 for men and 0.47 for women. These estimates are at the high end of previous estimates and imply that the United States is very immobile."
https://www.pew.org/en/about/news-room/press-releases-and-statements/2015/07/23/parental-income-has-outsized-influence-on-childrens-economic-future
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 59 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,323
@previous (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
An article about a study, that doesn't cite the study, or give any essential data a scientific publication would have like sample size.
Which is exactly what I said earlier in this thread just a few minutes ago.
An article about a study, that doesn't cite the study, or give any essential data a scientific publication would have like sample size.
Which is exactly what I said earlier in this thread just a few minutes ago.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 50 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,324
@1,423,321 (D)
The data says that income is more strongly correlated with parental income than it is with IQ scores…
The data says that income is more strongly correlated with parental income than it is with IQ scores…
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,325
@1,423,323 (D)
It’s an article about a report.
This is the report:
https://www.pew.org/-/media/assets/2015/07/fsm-irs-report_artfinal.pdf
It’s an article about a report.
This is the report:
https://www.pew.org/-/media/assets/2015/07/fsm-irs-report_artfinal.pdf
LiterallyAllBlackPeople triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,326
From just a simple control F search, there are 6 dois.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 43 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,327
There are also some links in the end notes.
It’s not a study it’s a report on the findings of multiple studies.
It’s not a study it’s a report on the findings of multiple studies.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,328
@1,423,326 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
@previous (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
Then which study backs you up?
The NLSY had a sample size of 12k+
If there's 1 of these 6 that says IQ is less than family background, and their sample size is 10 then that's not really a counterpoint.
You can get a study that says anything if you keep the sample size low and redo it a few times.
You can't game the results of a big study like the NLSY because of the regression to the mean.
@previous (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
Then which study backs you up?
The NLSY had a sample size of 12k+
If there's 1 of these 6 that says IQ is less than family background, and their sample size is 10 then that's not really a counterpoint.
You can get a study that says anything if you keep the sample size low and redo it a few times.
You can't game the results of a big study like the NLSY because of the regression to the mean.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,329
It took a second but the statistic on the correlation between parental income and income came from end note #6
All analyses presented here are drawn from Pablo A. Mitnik et al., “New Estimates of Intergenerational Mobility Using Administrative
Data,” SOI working paper, Statistics of Income Division, Internal Revenue Service (2015). See the Appendix for additional information on
data sources.
All analyses presented here are drawn from Pablo A. Mitnik et al., “New Estimates of Intergenerational Mobility Using Administrative
Data,” SOI working paper, Statistics of Income Division, Internal Revenue Service (2015). See the Appendix for additional information on
data sources.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,330
The data is from the IRS.
https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-soi-working-papers
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/15rpintergenmobility.pdf
https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-soi-working-papers
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/15rpintergenmobility.pdf
LiterallyAllBlackPeople triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,331
I did a control F for the correlation coefficients in the second link, 0.52 and 0.47 both come up in that link a lot
LiterallyAllBlackPeople quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,332
Page 16 talks about the sample. The sample is all United States tax returns.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople quintuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,333
So anyway, thanks for that, you just made me even more confident that I’m right lol
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,334
@1,423,329 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
@1,423,331 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
@1,423,332 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
@previous (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
The IRS doesn't gather IQ scores, so how can study #6 compare the two?
Most people have never taken an actual proctored IQ test, so the sample size can not be the entire US.
@1,423,331 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
@1,423,332 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
@previous (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
The IRS doesn't gather IQ scores, so how can study #6 compare the two?
Most people have never taken an actual proctored IQ test, so the sample size can not be the entire US.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,335
@previous (D)
I already told you, it has a stronger correlation coefficient than the correlation coefficient from the study you cited.
I already told you, it has a stronger correlation coefficient than the correlation coefficient from the study you cited.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,336
What a correlation coefficient can tell you is how much of the change in one variable is correlated with another variable. The IRS doesn’t need to study IQ to be able to say how much parental income is correlated with income. And the number the IRS gave for that is greater than the number your study gave for the correlation between IQ and income. So it follows that your claim that IQ is the greatest predictor of income is false. The study that you cited actually doesn’t say that income is mostly predicted by IQ if you just go based off of the correlation coefficient by itself.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 53 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,337
So your belief that income is mostly caused by IQ is wrong on two levels actually. Income is mostly determined by factors other than IQ, and the largest factor in income is not IQ.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 14 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,338
@1,423,335 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
You can't measure that unless you have data on both.
The max the sample size can be is the number of people that have had an IQ score and filed a tax return.
So the sample size for that correlation coefficient is not all US taxpayers.
You can't measure that unless you have data on both.
The max the sample size can be is the number of people that have had an IQ score and filed a tax return.
So the sample size for that correlation coefficient is not all US taxpayers.
Anonymous D double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,339
@1,423,336 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
It's confounding variables. IQ is also correlated to parental IQ, so this could all be an indirect measure of IQ.
To rule out IQ, you'd need to measure and control for that variable, which isn't possible for all (or even most) US taxpayers.
It's confounding variables. IQ is also correlated to parental IQ, so this could all be an indirect measure of IQ.
To rule out IQ, you'd need to measure and control for that variable, which isn't possible for all (or even most) US taxpayers.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 29 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,340
@1,423,338 (D)
> You can't measure that unless you have data on both.
https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat501/lesson/1/1.6
I googled the formula for correlation coefficients and it seems like you only need two dimensions to calculate a correlation coefficient.
> You can't measure that unless you have data on both.
https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat501/lesson/1/1.6
I googled the formula for correlation coefficients and it seems like you only need two dimensions to calculate a correlation coefficient.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 42 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,341
I really think you’re just wrong on this…
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 27 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,342
@1,423,337 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
The report doesn't even claim to have measured that group's IQ, so you can't rule it out.
The NLSY recorded *both* for all participants to control for confounding variables.
The report doesn't even claim to have measured that group's IQ, so you can't rule it out.
The NLSY recorded *both* for all participants to control for confounding variables.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 16 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,343
@1,423,339 (D)
> It's confounding variables. IQ is also correlated to parental IQ, so this could all be an indirect measure of IQ.
Or it could be the other way around, IQ could be caused by income.
> It's confounding variables. IQ is also correlated to parental IQ, so this could all be an indirect measure of IQ.
Or it could be the other way around, IQ could be caused by income.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,344
@1,423,340 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
In isolation, but if you want an accurate comparison of both variables you need to measure both in the same group.
Otherwise we have no idea what the correlation is between IQ and income among that specific group.
When you mix and match you can easily find any, and contradicting results.
In isolation, but if you want an accurate comparison of both variables you need to measure both in the same group.
Otherwise we have no idea what the correlation is between IQ and income among that specific group.
When you mix and match you can easily find any, and contradicting results.
Anonymous D double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 44 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,345
@1,423,343 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
Yes, and there is some evidence that it's a factor (but not the primary factor).
Yes, and there is some evidence that it's a factor (but not the primary factor).
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,346
The correlation coefficient for what percentage of men’s income is correlated with parental income is about 27% from the study I cited while the percentage of income that is correlated with IQ from the study you cited is 21%. So male income is more strongly correlated with how wealthy their parents are than what their IQ is.
So I guess my question is how would it be possible for the correlation between parental income and income to be stronger than the correlation between IQ and income if income was caused by IQ rather than the other way around? That part seems like a flaw in your reasoning.
So I guess my question is how would it be possible for the correlation between parental income and income to be stronger than the correlation between IQ and income if income was caused by IQ rather than the other way around? That part seems like a flaw in your reasoning.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 41 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,347
Stop waving your cocks around. It's embarrassing.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,348
@1,423,346 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
That's mixing and matching.
Even if we accept that method, we have contradictory conclusions about which factor is more important.
The proper way to do it is to only look at studies that measured both in the same group. Do that, and the difference in results will narrow or disappear and you'll have one factor that always wins out (if the sample sizes are always large enough for the regression to the mean).
That's mixing and matching.
Even if we accept that method, we have contradictory conclusions about which factor is more important.
The proper way to do it is to only look at studies that measured both in the same group. Do that, and the difference in results will narrow or disappear and you'll have one factor that always wins out (if the sample sizes are always large enough for the regression to the mean).
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 22 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,349
@1,423,346 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
> The correlation coefficient for what percentage of men’s income is correlated with parental income is about 27% from the study I cited while the percentage of income that is correlated with IQ from the study you cited is 21%. So male income is more strongly correlated with how wealthy their parents are than what their IQ is.
>
> So I guess my question is how would it be possible for the correlation between parental income and income to be stronger than the correlation between IQ and income if income was caused by IQ rather than the other way around? That part seems like a flaw in your reasoning.
I’m not really sure if you’re grasping this, but there are two possibilities:
This is what you think: IQ causes income
This is what I think: parental income causes income which then causes IQ
If IQ causes income directly, then why would the correlation between parental income and income be stronger? I’m not sure if you understand why that doesn’t really make sense.
> The correlation coefficient for what percentage of men’s income is correlated with parental income is about 27% from the study I cited while the percentage of income that is correlated with IQ from the study you cited is 21%. So male income is more strongly correlated with how wealthy their parents are than what their IQ is.
>
> So I guess my question is how would it be possible for the correlation between parental income and income to be stronger than the correlation between IQ and income if income was caused by IQ rather than the other way around? That part seems like a flaw in your reasoning.
I’m not really sure if you’re grasping this, but there are two possibilities:
This is what you think: IQ causes income
This is what I think: parental income causes income which then causes IQ
If IQ causes income directly, then why would the correlation between parental income and income be stronger? I’m not sure if you understand why that doesn’t really make sense.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 33 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,350
Like it’s clear to me but I feel like you’re not understanding this for some reason.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,351
I also don’t get the thing where, when I googled this I saw a lot of sources saying that parental income is more strongly correlated with income. So why would you ignore a bunch of studies saying the opposite of what you think in favor of one that you think says what you believe? That doesn’t seem intellectually honest.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 41 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,352
@1,423,349 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
> I’m not really sure if you’re grasping this, but there are two possibilities:
And measuring the properly is important. You can't cherry pick one variable coefficient from one study and match it with another variable from another study, because they are two groups.
> if IQ causes income directly, then why would the correlation between parental income and income be stronger? I’m not sure if you understand why that doesn’t really make sense.
The NLSY shows IQ is a stronger factor.
Your frankenstein method show parental income is stronger.
even if we accept your method, that's two contradictory answers. You do see that, right?
@1,423,350 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
Do you see the contradiction or not? It's pointless for me to explain how I think you resolve that if you ignore the contradiction and only awknowledge one of the answers from the data.
> I’m not really sure if you’re grasping this, but there are two possibilities:
And measuring the properly is important. You can't cherry pick one variable coefficient from one study and match it with another variable from another study, because they are two groups.
> if IQ causes income directly, then why would the correlation between parental income and income be stronger? I’m not sure if you understand why that doesn’t really make sense.
The NLSY shows IQ is a stronger factor.
Your frankenstein method show parental income is stronger.
even if we accept your method, that's two contradictory answers. You do see that, right?
@1,423,350 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
Do you see the contradiction or not? It's pointless for me to explain how I think you resolve that if you ignore the contradiction and only awknowledge one of the answers from the data.
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,353
@previous (D)
It’s not two contradictory answers, I already explained to you that if the NLSY shows that IQ is the strongest factor out of all the factors that they studied, they didn’t study every single factor, so that doesn’t mean the factor that they found is the strongest factor is really the strongest factor in real life.
It’s not two contradictory answers, I already explained to you that if the NLSY shows that IQ is the strongest factor out of all the factors that they studied, they didn’t study every single factor, so that doesn’t mean the factor that they found is the strongest factor is really the strongest factor in real life.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,354
It’s like, if I took a random sample of 10 people, and I said out of those 10 people Jack is the tallest person, and then you sampled every person in the entire world and found somebody else who’s taller, that’s not a contradiction. The IRS data included all digital tax returns so it would have been a larger data set so your study would be less reliable than the IRS because it would be (more or less) a subset of the IRS data.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 5 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,355
@1,423,351 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
A proper study would need to measure both in the same group.
And the study also needs to be of a proper size (this part seems fine in your IRS study)
A proper study would need to measure both in the same group.
And the study also needs to be of a proper size (this part seems fine in your IRS study)
Anonymous D double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 28 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,356
@1,423,353 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
...what? They measured IQ AND parental income. What are you talking about?
...what? They measured IQ AND parental income. What are you talking about?
Anonymous D triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 49 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,357
@1,423,354 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
If they measured measured that same group for IQ and found a sinilar coefficient for IQ as NLSY I'd day you have a strong point.
But you can't just mix and match.
If they measured measured that same group for IQ and found a sinilar coefficient for IQ as NLSY I'd day you have a strong point.
But you can't just mix and match.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 10 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,358
@1,423,355 (D)
Well it actually doesn’t need to measure both things because the mathematical formula for a correlation coefficient only relies upon a two dimensional dataset. So the correlation coefficients would be the same no matter how many different factors they tested for.
Well it actually doesn’t need to measure both things because the mathematical formula for a correlation coefficient only relies upon a two dimensional dataset. So the correlation coefficients would be the same no matter how many different factors they tested for.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,359
@previous (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
We aren't talking about one correlation coefficient in isolation, though.
We're comparing two correlation coefficients to see which is a stronger factor.
And for those two to be comparable to begin with, they need to be on the same group.
We aren't talking about one correlation coefficient in isolation, though.
We're comparing two correlation coefficients to see which is a stronger factor.
And for those two to be comparable to begin with, they need to be on the same group.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 49 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,360
@previous (D)
> And for those two to be comparable to begin with, they need to be on the same group.
If that’s the case then you can’t apply the findings of your study to society because society is a different group.
> And for those two to be comparable to begin with, they need to be on the same group.
If that’s the case then you can’t apply the findings of your study to society because society is a different group.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,361
Because essentially if you think about what you’re saying, you’re suggesting that you’d find significantly different correlation coefficients in the data based on the random sample that the dataset is made from. So if that’s the case, you can’t apply your findings from the random dataset to the real world because essentially what you’re saying is the findings of your study must be unreliable and you don’t expect other studies to find the same results.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 34 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,362
Which, sort of implies that you don’t really believe in what you’re saying actually.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,363
This does come back to the other thing you argued with me about which is my view that true and false as binaries are abstract concepts. They are, and your belief in binaries is holding you back from understanding the world as it really is.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 59 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,365
AI thread
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 40 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,366
Most things aren’t true or false, they’re somewhere in the middle. And you desperately want it to be absolutely true that black people are biologically less intelligent than white people and IQ is the perfect metric of intelligence and income is completely determined by IQ. But the real world isn’t simple, and I really think you’re just wrong.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 30 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,368
Anonymous H replied with this 3 weeks ago, 33 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,369
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,371
@1,423,366 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
> Most things aren’t true or false, they’re somewhere in the middle. And you desperately want it to be absolutely true that black people are biologically less intelligent than white people and IQ is the perfect metric of intelligence and income is completely determined by IQ. But the real world isn’t simple, and I really think you’re just wrong.
The real problem is there’s no moral reason why you should want that to be the truth in the first place. Wanting to be better than other people for being born and nothing else has never been a sign of good character. Just list off people who had that mindset, half of them are Nazis, the other half are despots.
> Most things aren’t true or false, they’re somewhere in the middle. And you desperately want it to be absolutely true that black people are biologically less intelligent than white people and IQ is the perfect metric of intelligence and income is completely determined by IQ. But the real world isn’t simple, and I really think you’re just wrong.
The real problem is there’s no moral reason why you should want that to be the truth in the first place. Wanting to be better than other people for being born and nothing else has never been a sign of good character. Just list off people who had that mindset, half of them are Nazis, the other half are despots.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,372
I mean, literally the 100% most charitable way I could take this is the study you presented me suggests 21% of the variation in income is explained by IQ, which means that 79% of the variation of income is not caused by IQ according to the study you cited. So why the fuck should I listen to you?
LiterallyAllBlackPeople joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 24 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,374
Fundamentally, if your worldview is that IQ is biological and IQ determines income and that’s the basis of all hierarchies in society but you base that off of a study that says that 79% of the variation in income is not caused by IQ, then that really screws up the whole biological determinist argument for inequality. Because if essentially 80% of variation in income is not caused by IQ, then it doesn’t really matter whether IQ is caused by biology or economic factors, you can say that at least 80% of income is definitely not biologically determined, possibly even more than 80% if IQ is also not biologically determined. Which inherently invalidates your entire worldview.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,375
Which intuitively makes sense though, because why would your income be determined by intelligence exactly? Someone dumber than me could have made the same decisions I made, someone smarter than me could have made worse decisions. Not all people want to become as wealthy as possible. Or someone could be smarter than I am and have worse luck than I do. These things are freaking obvious.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 20 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,376
"WASHINGTON—New analysis by researchers at Stanford University, funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Russell Sage Foundation"
Source: Analysis by Stanford University funded by Pew Charitable Trusts which is a subsidiary of Pew Research which is a non-partisan think tank based in Washington DC on a study by the IRS where the sample size is all digitally recorded American tax returns.
Anon D: BuT It’S uNReLiAblE dAtA!
Source: Analysis by Stanford University funded by Pew Charitable Trusts which is a subsidiary of Pew Research which is a non-partisan think tank based in Washington DC on a study by the IRS where the sample size is all digitally recorded American tax returns.
Anon D: BuT It’S uNReLiAblE dAtA!
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,398
@1,423,366 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
Strawman, strawman, strawman.
You can keep slopposting your paragraphs of rants, but when you distort everything I say it just becomes pointless.
Strawman, strawman, strawman.
You can keep slopposting your paragraphs of rants, but when you distort everything I say it just becomes pointless.
Anonymous H replied with this 3 weeks ago, 20 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,402
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 8 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,430
@1,423,247 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
>It’s kinda dumb though, if you get 30% on an exam, just drop the course and tell everybody you got sick and almost died for the rest of your life and nobody will ever know it happened. People these days don’t know how to deal with problems.
>
> I see they meant they got into 1 out of 3 schools.
>
> UCSD has a 28% acceptance rate, UCLA has a 9% acceptance rate, and USC has a 10% acceptance rate…
>
> So if they’re shocked by one in three that’s kinda weird. Because if you do the math on it they had a 93% chance of getting into at least one, but the highest acceptance rate is a little less than a 1 in 3 chance, so it sorta makes sense they only got into 1 out of 3 because what else was going to happen with those odds?
Consider the fringe benefits. Not only are you close to the Ocean, SD is far more of a party town then LA. Add how close you're to the border for lots of cheep entertainment and no California city has as much Mexican food as SD.
Best Colleges rankings. UC San Diego also held steady at No. 29 among more than 400 national universities overall.
“UC San Diego’s consistent standing as one of the nation’s top public universities in U.S. News & World Report’s Best Colleges rankings reflects our commitment to student success, academic excellence and societal impact.
both UCLA and UCSD are excellent choices, but they have different academic focuses and campus vibes. Reflect on your preferences in terms of campus life and the type of environment you'd like to experience during your college years.
https://www.niche.com/colleges/search/best-colleges/m/san-diego-metro-area/
You do have three choices. One is probably better for Christians.
>
>
> I see they meant they got into 1 out of 3 schools.
>
> UCSD has a 28% acceptance rate, UCLA has a 9% acceptance rate, and USC has a 10% acceptance rate…
>
> So if they’re shocked by one in three that’s kinda weird. Because if you do the math on it they had a 93% chance of getting into at least one, but the highest acceptance rate is a little less than a 1 in 3 chance, so it sorta makes sense they only got into 1 out of 3 because what else was going to happen with those odds?
Consider the fringe benefits. Not only are you close to the Ocean, SD is far more of a party town then LA. Add how close you're to the border for lots of cheep entertainment and no California city has as much Mexican food as SD.
Best Colleges rankings. UC San Diego also held steady at No. 29 among more than 400 national universities overall.
“UC San Diego’s consistent standing as one of the nation’s top public universities in U.S. News & World Report’s Best Colleges rankings reflects our commitment to student success, academic excellence and societal impact.
both UCLA and UCSD are excellent choices, but they have different academic focuses and campus vibes. Reflect on your preferences in terms of campus life and the type of environment you'd like to experience during your college years.
https://www.niche.com/colleges/search/best-colleges/m/san-diego-metro-area/
You do have three choices. One is probably better for Christians.
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 3 weeks ago, 17 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,431
Can anyone summarise this topic? I gather that there are strong feelings about UCSD, but I don't want to read all of this.
Meta joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 18 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,437
@1,423,244 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
> I just checked the US News rankings for my major of choice. I didn’t even take the SAT but got into a similarly ranked school lol
That's because of affirmative action.
> I just checked the US News rankings for my major of choice. I didn’t even take the SAT but got into a similarly ranked school lol
That's because of affirmative action.
Anonymous K replied with this 3 weeks ago, 13 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,440
@1,423,431 (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
OP is hung up on this fact
AI Overview
The
University of California San Diego (UCSD) acceptance rate for Fall 2025 is approximately 28.4% for first-year students, with over 136,000 applications received. It remains a very competitive and selective campus, with the middle 50% GPA range for admitted first-year students being around 4.11–4.28
There is that and this: UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UC San Diego consistently rank among the top and have the most selective admissions.
Location wise UCSD is probably the #1 on planet earth. Just down below there is a Nude Beach. Or this "LA JOLLA – La Jolla Cove is number one. The tiny beach has been ranked the No. 1 beach in the United States in TripAdvisor's 2026 Traveler's Choice Awards, according to the travel site"
My degree is from UCLA with classes at University of Southern California private and very expensive albeit all were paid by employer and just one class over two years at MIT again paid by employer.
Most recent full time as employee was by a Professor of UCSD who founded the company, as well as MIT (The reason I went to MIT and frankly hated the class.
OP is hung up on how many of lower skills end up as accepted by a Public institution - Few end up with degrees from UCSD of that er class. Easy to get in but Near impossible to exit with a degree.
OP is hung up on this fact
AI Overview
The
University of California San Diego (UCSD) acceptance rate for Fall 2025 is approximately 28.4% for first-year students, with over 136,000 applications received. It remains a very competitive and selective campus, with the middle 50% GPA range for admitted first-year students being around 4.11–4.28
There is that and this: UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UC San Diego consistently rank among the top and have the most selective admissions.
Location wise UCSD is probably the #1 on planet earth. Just down below there is a Nude Beach. Or this "LA JOLLA – La Jolla Cove is number one. The tiny beach has been ranked the No. 1 beach in the United States in TripAdvisor's 2026 Traveler's Choice Awards, according to the travel site"
My degree is from UCLA with classes at University of Southern California private and very expensive albeit all were paid by employer and just one class over two years at MIT again paid by employer.
Most recent full time as employee was by a Professor of UCSD who founded the company, as well as MIT (The reason I went to MIT and frankly hated the class.
OP is hung up on how many of lower skills end up as accepted by a Public institution - Few end up with degrees from UCSD of that er class. Easy to get in but Near impossible to exit with a degree.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,459
@previous (K)
Some schools are better in some subjects than others, UCSD is really good in computer science, and California has a lot of tech companies. As a school overall, it’s not ranked very highly, but it’s a top 15 school for CS.
https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-schools/computer-science-rankings
Some schools are better in some subjects than others, UCSD is really good in computer science, and California has a lot of tech companies. As a school overall, it’s not ranked very highly, but it’s a top 15 school for CS.
https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-schools/computer-science-rankings
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,460
Although, one of the problems with college admission is that since most schools are holistic, it really is more of a probability game. For example, I didn’t take the SAT, but I got into a top school for CS, but the person in the post above got a top 1% SAT score and still got rejected from some places. So they really shouldn’t be surprised that they got rejected because there’s essentially nothing you can do to guarantee you get accepted to a university with a low acceptance rate.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,461
The problem with guaranteed admissions is that schools don’t do that because it causes problems. Like say, a school says "we will accept everyone with a 1350 SAT score or higher." Then everybody tries to get a 1350 SAT score, then they can’t accept everybody who applies, then someone notices their friend who’s a different race got the same score as them but don’t get in, and before you know it people are suing the university for being racist when the problem was they literally couldn’t accept everybody in the first place.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,462
So the solution all the universities came up with is they’re being "holistic" the criteria for who gets in and who doesn’t are either secret or non-existent, and they go off of a combination of vibes and arbitrary decisions.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople quintuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,463
Which is also why they don’t care so much about the SAT anymore since the SAT is a test of how well you prepared for the SAT, not necessarily how smart you are. So there are arguments that it’s biased against people from poorer backgrounds, and poverty correlates with race because of history. So now some schools have a policy where you can send in your SAT score if you want to make you feel better but they won’t even look at it.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople sextuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 16 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,464
So for example UCSD has a 28% acceptance rate, but if you apply as a CS major it has a 12% acceptance rate.
+Syntax !AT4qCO/n0Y replied with this 3 weeks ago, 17 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,468
@1,423,459 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
https://www.aronfrishberg.com/projects/university-nobel-prizes
I don't think the long list will fit in one reply. You can see UCSD does better re Nobel Prize than... Take a look and see. My former employer founded by a Prof from UCSD donates a HUGE mass of $$$ back to UCSD and the company hires a Huge number of Grads. Former employer is currently a HUGE element as a consultant and I still maintain an office because the Lab privileges beat any attempt to have my own home based Electronics laboratory. My main client my soon FOLD as in out of biz. It has an Asset that is far more $$$$ worth than the product. I end up with a ton of money I have no need for at this point in my life and frankly it will break my heart if the company is dissolved. The son of the founder of Qualcomm now runs the company and I have no inside info which is good giving I can profit - IF I had inside info I could end up in Prison so best they keep me clueless. Apple has pumped in a Mass of $$$$ and soon will own it's own bird albeit one needs a min of 24 to make any sense re ownership - They have one on loan to play with currently and that fills my wallet $$$
I got into this re Hobby and even a Marriage as result of Hobby - Technology has grown beyond hobby and time maybe to get back to Hobby Only.
https://www.aronfrishberg.com/projects/university-nobel-prizes
I don't think the long list will fit in one reply. You can see UCSD does better re Nobel Prize than... Take a look and see. My former employer founded by a Prof from UCSD donates a HUGE mass of $$$ back to UCSD and the company hires a Huge number of Grads. Former employer is currently a HUGE element as a consultant and I still maintain an office because the Lab privileges beat any attempt to have my own home based Electronics laboratory. My main client my soon FOLD as in out of biz. It has an Asset that is far more $$$$ worth than the product. I end up with a ton of money I have no need for at this point in my life and frankly it will break my heart if the company is dissolved. The son of the founder of Qualcomm now runs the company and I have no inside info which is good giving I can profit - IF I had inside info I could end up in Prison so best they keep me clueless. Apple has pumped in a Mass of $$$$ and soon will own it's own bird albeit one needs a min of 24 to make any sense re ownership - They have one on loan to play with currently and that fills my wallet $$$
I got into this re Hobby and even a Marriage as result of Hobby - Technology has grown beyond hobby and time maybe to get back to Hobby Only.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 33 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,469
That Reddit post is just doing a roundabout schizoposting. They’re upset because they have competition with people who have the same skills but whose background credentials are from a CC. it’s the same usual dogwhistle for anti-DEI and anti-Affirmative action. Now that everyone can get in, they’re mad that they have to work harder to stay ahead of the curve. Oh well.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 18 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,470
@1,423,468 (+Syntax !AT4qCO/n0Y)
Interestingly, there’s actually no Nobel prize for computer science.
Interestingly, there’s actually no Nobel prize for computer science.
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,471
@1,423,469 (N)
Honestly, I don’t think it was necessary an anti affirmative action or anti DEI post. Because of the common app, people are applying to more universities than they used to and because of the internet everybody knows what the best universities are. So good public schools these day have the same admissions rates Ivy League colleges used to have decades ago. It actually is more difficult to get into universities, and it is frustrating for some people especially if they don’t get into schools that were easy for their parents to get into. I think it’s part of what fuels the populist rhetoric on the right that you don’t need college. However, people that go to college on average earn about a million dollars more over their lifetime than people who don’t go to college. So it is worth it long-term.
However, given the acceptance rates for those three schools, nobody should think a 9% or a 10% probability of getting into a school is a good chance of getting in. The only way to really deal with the odds is you just have to apply to a lot of places. If you want to get into a top 20 school, you need to basically apply to 10 to 20 schools. Otherwise you’re just wasting your time given the probabilities involved.
Honestly, I don’t think it was necessary an anti affirmative action or anti DEI post. Because of the common app, people are applying to more universities than they used to and because of the internet everybody knows what the best universities are. So good public schools these day have the same admissions rates Ivy League colleges used to have decades ago. It actually is more difficult to get into universities, and it is frustrating for some people especially if they don’t get into schools that were easy for their parents to get into. I think it’s part of what fuels the populist rhetoric on the right that you don’t need college. However, people that go to college on average earn about a million dollars more over their lifetime than people who don’t go to college. So it is worth it long-term.
However, given the acceptance rates for those three schools, nobody should think a 9% or a 10% probability of getting into a school is a good chance of getting in. The only way to really deal with the odds is you just have to apply to a lot of places. If you want to get into a top 20 school, you need to basically apply to 10 to 20 schools. Otherwise you’re just wasting your time given the probabilities involved.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,472
In order to have a 50% chance of getting into an Ivy League university, you need to apply to every single ivy twice. The whole idea that this is a meritocracy or that I can be one is kinda dumb. It’s just rolling the dice. I think it’s better if we’re just honest and say that it’s a dice roll.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,473
But the whole anti affirmative action thing is just thinly veiled anti black racism. I know there are hardly any black students at my university but I see people on the internet whining about how it’s too easy for blacks to get into university. People just like blaming others instead of taking personal responsibility. Which ironically they know that and project that onto black people also. American society is just filled with stupid people.
Anonymous K replied with this 3 weeks ago, 16 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,476
@1,423,470 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
There is no official Nobel Prize for computer science because the field did not exist when Alfred Nobel wrote his will in 1895
, which defined the prize categories. Instead, the highest distinction in the field is the ACM A.M. Turing Award, often called the "Nobel Prize of Computing," which comes with a $1 million prize.
There is no official Nobel Prize for computer science because the field did not exist when Alfred Nobel wrote his will in 1895
, which defined the prize categories. Instead, the highest distinction in the field is the ACM A.M. Turing Award, often called the "Nobel Prize of Computing," which comes with a $1 million prize.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,498
@1,423,469 (N)
DEI and Affirmative Action don't mean "anyone is allowed in" it means they gove preference to "minority" candidates (for race, the 93% of the global population is the minority, and for gender the 51% is the minority)
Harvard's medical program, for example, was admitting black students with significantly lower MCAT scores, while denying white/asian students who scored better.
Democratic politicians continually lie about how it works, and strawman the Republican plan as banning minorities.
In reality the plan on from the Republicans has always been race-blind admissions.
For some reason very few people seem to understand the situation with the "antiracists" demanding race be considered, and the "nazis" demanding a race blind admission program.
DEI and Affirmative Action don't mean "anyone is allowed in" it means they gove preference to "minority" candidates (for race, the 93% of the global population is the minority, and for gender the 51% is the minority)
Harvard's medical program, for example, was admitting black students with significantly lower MCAT scores, while denying white/asian students who scored better.
Democratic politicians continually lie about how it works, and strawman the Republican plan as banning minorities.
In reality the plan on from the Republicans has always been race-blind admissions.
For some reason very few people seem to understand the situation with the "antiracists" demanding race be considered, and the "nazis" demanding a race blind admission program.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
LiterallyAllBlackPeople replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,502
@previous (D)
Just curious how are you categorizing global minority race? Because Asians are the majority race if you consider them to be a race since they’re 60% of the population. So I’d think 40% is minority technically.
Just curious how are you categorizing global minority race? Because Asians are the majority race if you consider them to be a race since they’re 60% of the population. So I’d think 40% is minority technically.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,503
I also feel like diversity is sort of a subjective thing. Like for example, most people would say Nigeria is much more diverse than Japan. But then if you ask people if Nigeria or the United States is more diverse, there’s something paradoxical about that. Nigeria is more diverse than Japan because Nigerians have more unique cultures and languages and religions than Japanese people do. But America is more diverse than Japan because America has more different races of people than Japan does. But Nigeria is just one race, but it’s more linguistically and religiously diverse than America is.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,504
So it creates this paradox where you can say that a country that’s 100% black is diverse but if a country is 100% white or 100% Asian then it’s not diverse. But something about that doesn’t really make sense.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 14 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,507
To be honest though, on the asians vs. black people think, I’ve had professors who were Chinese and Korean and I’ve met a lot of Chinese international students, it doesn’t really feel like they care / have a problem with me to be honest. I think that’s more of a divide and conquer strategy by republicans to pit blacks and asians against each other. It’s not really a question of whether it should be black people or asians in universities, that’s sort of a false dichotomy. You can admit black people and asians. There’s no reason why you can’t do that. Race blind admission is blind to the fact that schools in black neighborhoods and white neighborhoods don’t receive equal funding so black Americans are given on average a worse education than white Americans. That’s not true in every country in the world, some countries fund all their schools equally. Affirmative action is only an attempt to compensate for what the American government is incapable of doing do to a lack of willpower.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople quintuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 50 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,508
Anonymous D replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,509
@1,423,502 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
Officially asians are getting preference, in practice they are treated like whites at many institutions.
Corporations have asian affinity groups, and "equal opportunity" disclosures typically state they give preferential hiring to "asian american and pacific islanders".
Officially asians are getting preference, in practice they are treated like whites at many institutions.
Corporations have asian affinity groups, and "equal opportunity" disclosures typically state they give preferential hiring to "asian american and pacific islanders".
Anonymous H replied with this 3 weeks ago, 17 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,514
@previous (D)
9 nigguhs out of ten agree, that chink penis is moar effective at meating their needs.
9 nigguhs out of ten agree, that chink penis is moar effective at meating their needs.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 21 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,516
@1,423,509 (D)
> Officially asians are getting preference, in practice they are treated like whites at many institutions.
So you’re admitting that whites get preferential treatment but you want to complain about everybody else instead. Okay, I see how it is.
> Officially asians are getting preference, in practice they are treated like whites at many institutions.
So you’re admitting that whites get preferential treatment but you want to complain about everybody else instead. Okay, I see how it is.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 29 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,517
The whining white man is not a fun archetype.
LiterallyAllBlackPeople triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,518
Said the damn quiet part out loud
"Gets treated like whites" = "preferential treatment"
So whites get preferential treatment and you think it’s not fair if non-whites are treated equally with whites.
The dumbest part is you think black people don’t realize that white people think this way.
"Gets treated like whites" = "preferential treatment"
So whites get preferential treatment and you think it’s not fair if non-whites are treated equally with whites.
The dumbest part is you think black people don’t realize that white people think this way.
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
LiterallyAllBlackPeople quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,519
Like obviously, yes I think Asians should be treated the same way as white people. I have no issue with that at all on any level. I also think that black people should be treated the same way as white people. I think we should all be treated with the same level of common respect. If I have any complaint with how Asian Americans are treated it’s that they’re not treated well enough, I have nothing against them whatsoever.
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,520
@1,423,517 (LiterallyAllBlackPeople)
> The whining white man is not a fun archetype.
The whining white man
> The whining white man is not a fun archetype.
The whining white man
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
LiterallyAllBlackPeople double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,423,522
It also just shows the mental gymnastics white people will do when the subject is Asians. When you’re talking about black people, black people are bad because you think we get an unfair advantage in college admissions, but then when the subject is Asians, all of the sudden their success isn’t because they’re smart or hardworking, it’s because they get preferential treatment. The whole thing is bullshit, you just want white men to control everything.