Sunday, October 08, 2017

Speculating on data is the spice of the quant life

The previous post generated a lot of "correlation does not equal causation" responses on the ping pong ball forum. Jayman is fond of the mantra, and for good reason, but most of the people chanting it are tedious to deal with.

I understand as much, and that all traits are heritable. I could've as easily written that women experiencing "stress, depression, and problems with emotions" are at high-risk for riding the cock carousel instead of the other way around as I actually did write it.

One may influence the other, they could be mutually reinforcing, or they could have nothing to do with one another. It could conceivably even be the case that, in isolation, sleeping around is beneficial for women but it's something the mentally unstable do more of than balanced women do and so the benefit gets buried under the other problems they suffer.

The color commentary here is my best guess punditry. Its mileage will accordingly vary. This is primarily a quant blog. Data is the focus. That data is suggestive, not conclusive. I'm not interested in posting something fit for scientific journal publication. For one, they contain their share of bullshit. Hell, while there are clear patches, much of the fields of sociology and psychology are covered in bullshit.

It's easy to use selective controls to produce intended results. It's why I prefer to look at simple relationships. If I control for other variables, it's limited to those presenting the most obvious potential confounds, like sex and race.

Steve Sailer has mentioned on multiple occasions that he likes using data not gathered for the purpose of answering the question he's asking because it generally avoids the problem of stacking the deck in favor of a preferred outcome. The GSS is perfect for that. There are several hundreds variables to cross-tab.

For sake of argument, assume all traits are perfectly heritable. No voluntary or even involuntary behaviors are capable of modifying underlying traits and tendencies. Extract philosophy entirely. We're still left with subjective experience, and that's where the punditry comes in. If, every day after work, a man comes home and stares at the wall for six hours before going to bed, he will have the same quantifiable outcomes--lifespan, income, personality, health, etc--of other men who do things regular men do.

I guess we could refrain from evaluating wall man in relation to the others, but it feels anti-human to do so. Life is for living. I go "exploring" in the woods with my son not because it's going to make him more resourceful later in life but because it's fun for him and for me and it creates memories we'll treasure as long as we live.

Go a step further and take free will out of the equation. We may not have any. The corollary of that, of course, is that it shouldn't be expected that people assuming correlation and causation are the same will be swayed by arguments about correlation not equaling causation. The world is simply doing what it's going to do and that is that. There is no agency, but there is no way to convince people who think there is agency that we are devoid of it, so stop wasting your time--if that's what your destined to do, or don't, if it's not. Whatever.

That said, the example of smoking seems a devastating relatively recent illustration of how social pressure can strongly modify behavior. The genetic predisposition to smoking in the US population presumably hasn't changed much in the last 50 years, but smoking rates have declined drastically. Religiosity has reliably correlated with fertility for generations, yet religiosity continues to decline in societies where the religious consistently out-breed the irreligious.

Finally, some interaction with the archetype Heartiste has warned will be the downfall of the Western world. I was unaware of her until today, but she's a blue check mark so I assume she's not a troll (her tweets unrelated to celebrating barrenness and the joys of prostituting for free, she seems pretty sensible):

Totally irrelevant!

Sustainable for exactly one generation!

Income opporunity
She could get more no-strings-attached in her prime than I could. Game, set, match!
The world revolves around more than a woman's immediate personal preferences

26 comments:

Issac said...

Please tell me she doesn't have dual citizenship.

Audacious Epigone said...

Issac,

Self-described "post-Jewish atheist" so it's possible. I'd investigate further but, uh, chores to do!

class A surfacing said...

For me the most positive thing out of this entire post is the fact that she did not reproduce.

The way I see it if we keep attacking them for their poor life's decisions they will keep defending them and the less likely they are to actually reproduce. As long as these cretins no longer have progeny to pass along their bed ideas to there's a little bit of Hope that we can correct the societal mess we are in.

As always and exceptionally well done job.

silly girl said...

Let's look at the correlation / cause issue from an actuarial perspective. Correlation points to a place to look for a cause. For example, if women in higher income households on average have twice as many pairs of shoes as women in lower income high households, that alone is not proof that richer women buy more shoes, it does suggest a cause to investigate further. However, it is not necessary to know the cause for the purpose of insuring shoes. It just needs to be a statistical fact. This kind of reasoning is demonstrably essential to successful living aka staying alive. It is also shamed by those who themselves use it against those they oppress. Life by the numbers just makes more sense. So, don't listen to our "betters" who don't want us to have it better like they do.

silly girl said...

*lower income households

MJM said...

If I read and understand this correctly, having "'stress, depression, and problems with emotions'--in the month prior to being surveyed" is what the "experience poor mental health" implies.

Doesn't "month prior" make this chart essentially meaningless, as the "total number of sexual partners" is over a lifetime?

Desdichado said...

I've come to the inescapable conclusion that most people who chant, "Correlation is not causation" are actually not that bright. While it's true, and it's a a nice reminder that just because you have correlation, you can't jump to too hasty conclusions and believe them to be anything other than hasty conclusions, in reality, correlation usually is correlated (heh) with causation.

It's a little bit like saying "Smoke is not fire." Sure, it's true. But where you see smoke, you usually find fire.

Anonymous said...

Bruce Campbell envies that jaw. Debate "sluts are nuts" vs. "nuts are sluts" all you want, but that jaw tells you all you need to know about that "woman's" testosterone levels.

Days of Broken Arrows said...

Amy Alkon is known as the "Advice Goddess."

One of my rules is that any woman who refers to herself in any way as a "goddess" should be avoided or at least viewed with suspicion. If a man called himself a "God," we'd think he was insanely arrogant or just plain insane. So this should apply to women, at least to some degree.

Same goes for when women call themselves other praiseworthy terms like "queen" or "princess." Do you really want to be involved with a self-styled "queen?" Sounds like a major pain to me.

Heartiste once wrote that the problem with Western Women is that have too much self-esteem, not too little. That's evident in the language they use. Words are often revealing than the speaker (or writer) intends.

dc.sunsets said...

I've learned that few people are predisposed to navigate life on Happiness Path. Given my biological lineage, I doubt such navigation is exclusively heritable.

Unproven theory: For every human attribute, each of us is born to a DNA-determined segment of the total spectrum. Where we exhibit our phenotype on that segment is a matter of free will, assuming we were born to the segment on the herding behavior spectrum that leaves us some non-herding aptitude.

All people herd. Fashion is herding. Politics is herding. All human social behavior has a herding element, so we all do it, only some are near-perfect slaves to it. Today, such people exhibit high-spectrum "being different for the sake of being different (which is the essence of conformity.") To a man/woman, they'll have tattoos, and the further from the mainstream they hew, the clearer are they nothing more than high-spectrum herding animals.

Some of us find some venues where we herd less. That is where we are able to exhibit free will, on an individual basis, the only place it exists. The herd, the masses...is travels a predetermined path, almost like a single multicellular organism. It is the environment that provides the boundaries within we few free-willed persons must operate.

Sex is where most people get it wrong. Nearly everyone gets it wrong. Sex for humans is more than a reproductive act. Among animals, humans are nearly alone in having females of the species be sexually receptive regardless of their estrus cycle. This suggests that sex has social, not just reproductive purposes.

Today's carousel-rider woman is locked in the herding behavior of belief in unlimited resources. She has all the time in the world to have children (should she change her mind), and she will never need to have a "foxhole buddy" level of trust in a man for mutual sustenance, protection and emotional well-being.

What are the two biggest premature killers of people? Obesity and loneliness. More people are getting divorced in their 50's & 60's they tell us. Why? I propose that for 40-50 years the herd embraced the belief that physical intimacy (sex) could be divorced from emotional intimacy from 14 years of age through 25, 30, even 40, and then when the fire of novelty is reduced to embers, men and women find their soulmate, reconnect physical and emotional intimacy and then live happily ever after.

How stupid is that? Habituated to shallow relationships characterized by sex and little more, such people doom themselves to a lifetime of such emptiness. And if some PUA site tells you this doesn't apply to men, check your wallet...they're selling you something. Or else they're miserable cretins and we all know that misery loves company.

Adults once knew this, or believed the traditional rules they were given by their betters. They attempted to protect post-pubescent teens from making irrevocable decisions, decisions those kids were too young to make well (but old enough to succumb to uncontrollable impulses.

Then the adults decided to play Peter Pan and behave like permanent adolescents. We can see how well that's working out already (1/4-1/3 of adults now live alone, immersed in loneliness no matter how they deny it); imagine the suicide rate when this fad of belief in Unlimited Resources finally ends, and people find out that (1) the adventure of life is best tackled with a trusted partner and (2) they made irrevocable decisions in the past that rendered their trustworthiness as partners absolute zero.

dc.sunsets said...

Pity this woman. She has no clue what devotion to another human being feels like. Her soul is as barren as her uterus. If she's exceedingly fortunate, the best she can hope for is that her "relationship" will continue into middle age and old age as roommates. More likely, however, is that she or her "partner" will hit a deal-breaker (a dissatisfaction with the relationship, which, given their very low level of emotional devotion to each other, won't need to be much more than a speed bump) and they'll sail toward Life's Sunset in a boat made for one. And cats.

She cannot imagine what it's like to have shared a life for 4 decades, raised kids from conception through school, college, their own weddings and into raising families of their own. She cannot imagine the mutual devotion of knowing that your spouse will be there to wipe the drool off your chin (or you, off hers) if that's what the Fates decree.

She sees but the first micro of life's depth, and fancies herself an expert. On second thought, don't pity her. Ignore her...the opposite of love is indifference.

Dan said...

Trump circles back around to the MAGA side on immigration.

Geez, Trump is a man of steel. This stuff wears us out and runs us ragged (or me anyway). Meanwhile, Trump, the guy in the eye of the storm, seems to be doing just fine.

Look at how Hillary became an emotional wreck just by entering his orbit, never to recover.

Those who say Trump is emotionally unstable have it all totally backwards. Trump has a sturdier emotional constitution than any pol I've ever seen.

After the brutal 2016 campaign and being the center of ten thousand consecutive 10 minutes of hate, Trump actually starts additional stuff with the NFL for basically no reason at all except that he doesn't have enough drama in his life.

In one sense Trumpism is bigger than Trump, as Roy Moore showed. But in another sense, how rare is the guy who can stroll around in the middle of a blast furnace all day long without getting burned? Even Reagan lived in an age of comparative civility and media fairness.


Sid said...

Dan,

One of Trump's defining qualities is that he gets energized by conflict. The great majority of people are enervated by it - most men considered iron willed are just able to withstand high amounts of tension and chaos without being affected - but Trump thrives off of it. To be honest, I don't know if there was anyone else in America who could've run on a nativist platform in 2016.

On the matter of DACA, however, I am more inclined to believe we have Stephen Miller to thank. Every indicator suggests that he's one of us - when he got in that spat with Acosta, he implicitly but directly bashed the idea of the "Zeroth Amendment," so he's most likely an iSteve reader. Unlike Bannon, Miller also knows how to keep his ego in check and how to work in DC, being able to faithfully serve his boss while quietly injecting his ideology in the paperwork.

Trump is definitely not a details man. When brought to court, a lawyer asked him about net present value (an obscure concept for non-MBAs, but something an Ivy Leaguer working in business should know like the back of his hand), and he BSed out an answer. I never got the sense Trump paid much attention to any particular healthcare bill - he just wanted Obamacare scrubbed out.

My sense is that Stephen Miller is presenting the terms for DACA as a way to either derail the damn thing, or at least extract as much value out of recognizing it as he can. Pelosi got denounced by those illegals just for negotiating on DACA with Trump, so she and Schumer will likely be unwilling to meet Trump on anything less than blanket amnesty for DACA recipients and an eventual recognition of their family members.

But if Pelosi and Schumer accept Miller's terms and Trump goes with it, I won't be thrilled, but Miller will have at least made the most out of it.

Audacious Epigone said...

class A resurfacing,

Thanks.

Heh, reverse psychology. It works.

Silly girl,

Beautifully put. Don't worry about my listening to them. That's what you're for.

MJM,

No, because the expectation is that problems that psychological problems experienced in the last month are probably not one-offs in a person's life. And even if they are, we wouldn't expect it to afflict one group more than another.

Think of a similar question with regards to dead lifts: How many years of your life have you deadlifted regularly in? cross-referenced with Have you experienced lower back pain in the last 30 days? If the people answering high numbers in the first question also say "yes" to the second question more than those who don't deadlift, we can still see this as plausibly suggesting deadlifting is related to lower back pain.

Desdichado,

Exactly. Well put. More precise would be "correlation does not necessarily imply causation". But we all implicitly understand that, so it's boring to say and it requires a little more nuance which isn't something midwits are known for.

Anon,

Ha! I asked for a digit ratio. She evaded with by talking about it being wife talery (which it may well be)--but she never disclosed what the ratio was, because, well, you and I both know.

Days of Broken Arrows,

Lots of time spent crafting pictures of herself, too. In the absence of children, where that instinct is healthily channelled--my wife takes a bazillion pictures of our kids throughout the day--I guess it boomerangs back at the woman herself.

dc.sunsets,

I like the conception of a boat anchored below the water. The position of the boat tethered above is restricted but can move to some degree in different directions at the surface of the water. The depth depends on the trait in question--sometimes its deep, sometimes its shallow.

Wrt to suicides, we're already seeing it via the now infamous white misery deaths of the last several years, largely striking people in the age ranges you imply the reality of emptiness becomes unavoidable.

On second thought, don't pity her. Ignore her...the opposite of love is indifference.

Not only is that sage advice, it's a mortal shivving to her self-styled "goddess" ego.

Dan,

I know all of that, yet I need to be reminded of it because you're absolutely right. Reading Art of the Deal, this doesn't come as any surprise. The man loves creating chaos and loves to always be going, always fighting, always reaching for the stars. He gets energized by things that exhaust others. Their scorn, rather than wearing him down, builds him up. He allegedly sleeps 4 hours a night. He is a machine.

Sid,

Addressing the comments one by one, I wrote the above to Dan before reading yours, so pardon the redundancy (but I'm not erasing it!)

Pelosi is pinned from the illegal invader 'left'. She was asked recently if she would pledge only to pass a "clean DREAM act". She can't accept Miller's compromises. I was always cautiously optimistic about the DACAmnesty being scuttled, and am even more so now.

Sid said...

I believe Trump and Miller can eventually get everything they want on immigration. It's just that Trump is fed up with the cucks and trucons, and hence wants to strike a bipartisan note with Schumer and Pelosi. Miller probably dislikes DACA as much as we all do, but figures that in the worst case, the Democratic leadership will have to consent to immigration restriction and the Wall.

The Democrats' grand strategy is to obstruct Trump until he's out of office, and then open the floodgates and turn American brown. If they sign on to the Wall, they'll have a great win in DACA, but they will have compromised their former position as the anti-white party in the eyes of a lot of SJWs.

I'd ultimately like to see DACA derailed and full on immigration restriction to take place, even with the Democrats kicking and screaming, but there will be a nice silver lining if Schumer and Pelosi have to go back to their town halls and fear for BLM, illegal invaders, and antifa shutting them down. That's ultimately why they won't sign on to this and DACA will likely be scuttled.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Here's the video clip. No way Pelosi will be able to take the heat if she signs onto anything that even looks like it might result in some sort of immigration enforcement.

Parenthetically, yes, that's the house minority leader praising people who knowingly broke the nation's immigration laws on national television.

Anonymous said...

I stumbled upon your blog and this looks to be the most promising thing I have sen since my dear late friend Lawrence Auster passed away 4 1/2 years ago. Lord, did I love Larry's writing.

Sid said...

Talk about a "values-based relationship" means the Dems won't budge. They love "our values" at least as much as cucks love "muh principles."

To be even-handed, however, Pelosi and Schumer are Machiavellian enough to know a good opportunity to "peacuck" and virtue signal. If DACA gets slashed after the six months and the "Dreamers" have to go back, they'll find a way to publicly cry and whine. Just look at Puerto Rico: Trump flooded their ports with supplies but the deranged San Juan mayor went on TV to shed her tears.

Bruce said...

Anonymous,

I was an avid Auster reader too. This blog comes highly recommended by John Derbyshire.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

To be honest, a cosmopolitan Jewish woman deciding not to have babies only benefits society.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Doublepost: The Democrats have become the party of virtue signalers.

In a way, it's even more damaging than the muh principles mentality that cucks and truecons embrace. If Trump said "Okay, open borders for everyone!" the Democrats would still spike it because that means technically that more white people can come into the United States and that is white supremacy because only proud POCs of color should be able to flood into the United States.

It effectively paralyzes them from being able to do anything. Anything the Democrats agree to can't benefit white people in any way possible, even if it were to disproportionately benefit minorities. Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are from bygone eras of the Democrats. Even Fauxcahontas is a relic. Maxine Waters represents the Democrats in the modern era: someone who just wants to bitch but will never try to find a way to do it in a way that benefits the people who vote for her. Its electoral poison, especially for midterms who will always have more white representation.

Sid said...

Spot on, Random Dude.

The main problem cucks have is that they think it's 1980. They think we just need to lower taxes, outgun the Soviets, and give minorities some time and acceptance, and everything will be great.

The problem is that Reagan largely succeeded on taxes and the Soviet Union. The economy did great in the 1980s when we had a combination of strict monetary policy and lower taxes (which stopped inflation but spurred economic growth). Now when we cut taxes, it largely just increases the budget deficit. That's what happened with Dubya's tax cuts.

Similarly, Reagan was so successful with the USSR that we really shouldn't be all that much worried about the rump state called the Russian Federation. Who cares if Russia passed a law that banned "gay propaganda?" Was getting mad about that worth all the trouble our quarrel with Russia has caused?

In 1980, it was still plausible (if you weren't schooled in psychometrics at least) to believe that blacks were doing poorly because the Civil Rights era was a mere 20 years ago. Now it's a whole lot less plausible to think blacks just need a few more gibs and it'll work itself out.

In short, Reagan was great for addressing the problems of the 1980s. But the problems we have now are different. Ultimately, Obama was onto to something when he quipped at Romney that the 1980s wanted their foreign policy back.

The problem with Democrats is that they went into 2016 thinking it was 2040, where white people had been effectively disenfranchised from their own country. And of course, the kind of "New America" the Dems want will be a Third World hellhole. I'd like to prevent that from happening under a successful Trump presidency, but if Trump doesn't succeed, AE has still laid the groundwork for breaking away from that dystopic mess.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

That's very nice of you to say. Without a bit of false modesty, though, I'm nowhere in their league. I just pick a lot of low-hanging fruit that few others try and harvest. The GSS is a goldmine yet almost no one utilizes it.

Sid,

Maybe, though the dynamic is a bit different because Pelosi and Schumer likely assume that if the legislative DACAmnesty dies, most if not all 'dreamers' will be allowed to stay anyway. A draw is really a win for them and a loss for us. That said, an actual win for them and loss for us when be symbolically devastating so it can't be allowed to happen.

Bruce,

It's embarrassing whenever Derb says a kind thing. It's like being complimented by the pope (okay, not the current pope, but you get the point!) on your piety. Do you think he'd appreciate this as a canvas print? I've been considering having it made and sent to him for a Christmas present but he may be too modest to want it. Maybe I'll just have it made for myself...

Random Dude,

You think? I know all human traits are heritable and so much of what we attribute to social/environmental influences are genetically influenced/determined, but I genuinely feel as though having had children of my own has made me a better person, with "better" in this context meaning more civically-minded and future-oriented. There are plenty of things that could be confounding that self-detected change if it's even more than my imagination to begin with (like simply getting older, more financial stable, etc).

At the least I'd hold out hope that it would channel some of the nurturing energies away from pathological altruism expressed in the form of public policy towards the hearth. If nothing else, it distracts them from opening up the gates for the rest of the world to rush in.

Parenthetically, there's a push in Missouri (I'm 10 minutes from the state line) to have Jason Kander run in 2018 instead of Claire McCaskil, one of the state's senators who is up for reelection and is (rightly) seen as extremely vulnerable. It's a perfect opportunity for someone to do a routine like the Idaho Dem chair did when applying for the national position, except do it on Kander in a debate with McCaskil and other primary contestants. Is this young white guy really what the Dems, who represent PoC, should be promoting? Don't we have any Diverse people on the bench?

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

The GOPe thinks it's 1980 and the Democrats think it's 2040.

That's brilliant in its pithy profundity. Definitely a handy lens to view so much of the national political scene through. And it gives *both* parties a reason to hate Russia, albeit for different reasons--the neocons and cucks because they still think the cold war is on, and the Dems because Russia is full of regressives, regressives we are allowed to hate because they're white!

Lance E said...

"I'm not ashamed! I'm so unashamed that I'm going to lecture people I've never met on social media about how unashamed I am!"

The denial is strong in this one. But then again, the data tells us that she has a high probability of being mentally ill.

Audacious Epigone said...

Lance E,

High cock count unmarried atheist jewess living in California--the probability can scarcely go any higher than that!