Jordan Peterson BTFO'd by Julia Galef

i refuse to believe this
niggers and commies don't get reported
i remember reading an article years ago now where a dude was pulled from his car and beaten to death by antifa and there wasn't anything beyond that article ever mentioning it
plus you have things like the Paddock shooting
>PressXtoDoubt.png

I've been down this road before. Explaining basic statistics let alone how you could prove/disprove causation with something like regression is beyond 95% of this board and 100% of Jow Forums

>and beaten to death
With a hammer, no less.

>remember reading an article years ago now where a dude was pulled from his car and beaten to death by antifa and there wasn't anything beyond that article ever mentioning it

Did you check occam'srazor.org?

Crime has reduced due to cell phones and technology. People in public know they are being recorded and watched, hence the risk is higher now. Since they are more likely to get caughter, less peop,e are willing to take the risk. Simple social economics.

>Did you check occam'srazor.org?
that they have societal protection, and given all the other examples of such things, it is the easier explanation of the two
so, don't you Occam's razor me, you bundle of sticks

Nice mental gymnastic retard. In the beginning of her diarrhea of a post she says "She's not interested in debating" which means she has no interest in looking at other variables or expanding on the conversation. The fact that she put one variable next to the other is made to make a contrast. One can simply imply she's arguing for the opposite or else she would have added more than just the graphs that validate her ideas.

I don't tell me she's not against what that cuckold Peterson said, when she uses the word offensive

Attached: 1523594195731.png (625x773, 143K)

>from 1990

Don't people feel shame about cherrypicking like this? Any shame at all?

Societal protection from who? The federal government that is run by hardline conservatives? The police that cant get hard unless their boot is on the jaw of a protester?

>many such cases
It must have happened!

No it doesn't. Nothing she's put forth even implies a correlation, nuch less causation.

I'm not either of those posters but do admit to being a brainlet. But assuming you're correct this is what she's saying:

>if the claim that forced monogamy would decrease violence is true:
>(this is a non-negative claim, burden of proof on JBP, and there is no data yet proposed to support this non-negative)
>we should expect to see more violence, but there is no data to support that claim
>until data is pushed forward to back up the hypothesis, the only data we have is the marriage rate and violence rate
>and both are going down, which should not be happening if JBP's hypothesis is true.
>even if these are not causationally linked these rates are still going down, and again there is not yet data provided to support the claim that one changing will affect the other, which is JBP's claim.

Hopefully that helps.

Correlation =/= causation you dumb nigger

>Societal protection from who?
themself, and the average plebs who just want an easy right

And piracy has decreased as global temperature has increased, are they connected too?

I'm not sure time series data actually does much here. A cross-sectional comparison of different demographic groups' marriage rates and their respective crime rates is likely to have fewer variables that interfere with the relationship between marriage and violence, however you choose to define it.

>as the institution of marriage is weakening, people are getting more violent

how is this not in allignment with what he said? fewer people are even bothering to get married at this point because the woman will just divorce 3 years in, take half your shit and jump to the next, bigger boat

So by her own logic, the violence she claims exists, doesn't exist, hence she should shut the fuck up. Great!

correlation does not equal causality retards, she does not even point out reasons why

Yes but those raised by single parent especially single moms are much more likely to commit crime.

But there is a sincere and significant link between polygamy and war.
economist.com/christmas-specials/2017/12/19/the-link-between-polygamy-and-war

This is due, as the researchers say, to disenfranchised young men who have no ways of attaining fulfilling relationships. This isn't even from some bullshit Breitbart article either this is from the Economist, a neoliberal paper that everyone considers reliable. She is mental. Violence worldwide is decreasing due to better policing strategies and technology. Britain has cameras everywhere, the NSA spies on everyone's browsing history, and the US police have more firepower than most European militaries. She needs to be the one to do more research. What about research pointing out the negative effects raising kids in a divorced home has on them? What about an entire generation of the "incel" movement and mgtow that sprung up this decade?

Talk about utterly missing the plot. Lord have mercy.

Attached: Ice_Cream_Vs_Sharks.png (1367x858, 106K)

Not only that, but the monogamy v. violence bit she's pulling here has selectively pruned graphs to make her point (which is that less monogamy means less violent crime).

People who are suggesting she's NOT making that claim are stupid.

Read between the lines a little bit.

>adds control for income
>adds control for education
>adds control for gender
>adds control for regional crime rate
>suddenly marital status is no longer significant.
I mean marital status really just signals a bunch of other stuff nowadays.

The time series is relevant because he is making a claim about an observable phenomenon. Even if his hypothesized relationship exists its so overwhelmed by other factors in real life that it is irrelevant.

See this
JBP is claiming there is a connection, she is saying both are going down, so where's the linkage being proposed?
>people are getting more violent
That's not JBP's claim nor hers. JBP's claim is that it would reduce violence.
Never in this tweet did she claim anything about violence existing, she presented the statistic fact and said nothing of her own thought on it
JBP's claim is of causality or a correlation where violence should go down, but it's already going down, not up as projected
Your image is the equivalent of JBP's claim. He needs to provide proof. She's saying there doesn't appear to be any linkage.
Unfortunately we have to go by words...she never made that claim. She's saying that if you're making JBP's claim, where's the proof? They don't appear to be linked.

You people are proud of being brainlets, huh?

Attached: 4322.png (577x170, 46K)

The more liberal and secular society has begone the less crime, and happier people are overall

The only people who think otherwise are miserable themselves and make the false conclusion that because they are doing badly, everyone else must also be doing worse and they live in historically terrible times.

Peterson has already proven he is willing to lie and obfuscate to push his narrative(bill c-16) so he's doing the same now. He wants traditional society and will twist facts to push that narrative.

Here, watch me do it:
>As abortion has decreased in the US, so has crime, which makes me skeptical that [increasing abortion would help with crime]

What a facile argument..

Attached: lol poop.png (640x904, 75K)

She also posted a study that Peterson thought was supporting his thesis, but doesn't.

People with no sexual partners are the least violent. Completely contradicts Peterson's claims in relations to lonely men.

Attached: 55525525.png (573x622, 158K)

>believing the fake news
baka user

What is this supposed to prove?

That you can run regressions that break the OLS assumptions in excel?

This reeks of people who lie with statistics. Get a grip.

tfw julia disspells with the "incels are violent" myth
now when will normalniggers learn that the rapists are Chad, Brad and Tyrone?

Incels aren't violent.

Young white male incels are violent mainly due to entitlement and mental illness. It's a problem within the white community more than anything.

Honest to god, we are getting an influx of left-wing retards who took prob/stat thinking her tweet demonstrates anything.

I wish I'd become a helicopter pilot.

Video game playing is also up. Does that mean video games lower the amount of violent crime? GDP has been going up, does that mean higher GDP lowers the amount of violent crime?
>economist.com/graphic-detail/2011/09/26/falling-together

Another one: global warming has given us temperature records after one another. Every year is hotter than the last one. Clearly global warming lowers the amount of violent crime.

Correlation != causation. Why is this so fucking difficult for people who have passed 6th grade to understand?

>The more liberal and secular society has begone the less crime, and happier people are overall
>happier people are overall
I am not so sure about that second claim. First is clearly true. Happiness is a retarded thing to measure. Everything else you say is pretty spot on.

>see ironclad fact
>i refuse to believe this

Altright faggotry in a single phrase. Kys.

Why is it so difficult for you to actually understand what people are claiming?

See -->

>THEY ARE INVADING MY SAFE SPACE REEEEEEE

back to Jow Forums you sissy twat

Your "claim" is not an argument. Some selectively pruned graphs with 25 years of trends don't disprove Peterson, and I think he's a dumb kike-lover.

Do we have statistics on how many people have dropped out of society, specifically males? How many are neets in their parent's basement jerking off, eating hot pockets, and playing video games all day? How many work but have no social life, spending their time on vidya and anime instead?
Not that I care about dumbfuck Peterson, I'm trying to make my own conclusions.

You realize this is JBP's claim right? That one going up will affect the other when there is no data to show any connection. I hope that's what you're saying.

This thread is great OP, you perfectly baited low-IQ discussion. A shame, r9k.

Yes, exactly. JBP IS CLAIMING THE CAUSALITY YOU RETARDS. She is saying THERE IS NO DATA TO EVIDENCE THEY ARE LINKED.

apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/09/satisfied-citizens.aspx

>Overall, people living in countries with more liberal policies reported higher life satisfaction than those in countries with less liberal policies, irrespective of their own political views, according to the study.

>Violent crime has been dropping for decades
>Its cellphones guys im so smart and condescending lol

Nope. Thats not it. Its mostly abortion. You stupid motherfucker

Attached: 6314B4E4-13F4-484C-B946-A0C35EB5BA66.jpg (800x450, 47K)

>and I think he's a dumb kike-lover.

Attached: back to pol.jpg (546x700, 136K)

nice argument, tex

Attached: hedi7.jpg (800x468, 56K)

>random graph = ironclad fact
Ok, accept this then

Attached: image.jpg (640x514, 92K)

No she didnt you dumb motherfucker. She said she isnt interested in the debate of whether its OFFENSIVE. Implying she doesnt care if it is and wants to debate the truth or falseness of it.

Work on reading comprehension before trying to talk fown to anyone you literal brainlet. Fuck yoh lot are stupid.

Attached: ED22B3F3-A093-4C63-B3A8-59C789A4543A.png (645x729, 90K)

>She is saying THERE IS NO DATA TO EVIDENCE THEY ARE LINKED

Absence of evidence, evidence of absence, etc..

THE LACK OF CORRELATION IS THE POINT BRAINLET. Fucks sake.

Attached: A830EB1F-3AF5-45E1-B970-F3FD19287878.jpg (670x800, 65K)

But Peterson isn't talking about this from a statistics standpoint. There are many reasons for a change in violent crime. He's talking about it from a psychologist's perspective and reasons about it logically.

His argument is like when an Austrian school economist says that prices reflect the information about the state of the market, which in total is unknowable to an individual. That is, prices will allow you to better allocate resources in a market, because prices themselves carry information. This isn't something you can empirically test for or really see in statistics, but it is something that comes from logical reasoning about what a price is and what happens in the absence of prices.

I know the stats. I just disagree with the measure. I dont trust study data, especially when I cant read the study(its in 40 different languages). I want some biological measure of happiness. And as soon as we agree on that I want to force feed the entire population drugs to maximize happiness.

But I am an autistic idiot dont listent to me.

...Except that clearly is a causal relationship, you cocky brainlet. Who do you think aborts children? Parents who are ready to support and love kids and raise them with sound morals?

Fucking christ this board is the dumbest group Ive ever encountered online, yet the most condescending

Attached: B7D0FC59-D8AB-4E22-B7B1-103BB499607E.jpg (750x1000, 39K)

>His argument is like when an Austrian school economist says that prices reflect the information about the state of the market, which in total is unknowable to an individual. That is, prices will allow you to better allocate resources in a market, because prices themselves carry information. This isn't something you can empirically test for or really see in statistics, but it is something that comes from logical reasoning about what a price is and what happens in the absence of prices.

The fuck you can't. If Its impossible to model the effect of prices or lack of prices, what have I been doing in my econ program for the last 6 years?

Now compare crimes committed by fatherless men to crimes committed by men from monogamous families.
Rly makes u think...

>Young white male incels are violent
read the first sentence of your post again, you fucking brainlet
>Incels aren't violent.
That's right!
now kys you normalnigger

>Implying higher GDP DOESNT lower violent crime

Im so smart you guise i proved em wrong

Attached: C3F0F25F-424C-4219-AF5D-BAA2304C3BC2.png (645x729, 56K)

damn son, really makes you think!

>Peterson isn't talking about this from a statistics standpoint.
>He's talking about it from a psychologist's perspective and reasons about it logically.

Last time I checked psychologists are scientists not philosophers or political economists. You can't just reason your way into shit. You have to prove it.

Modern psychology is very heavy in psycho-metrics and very light on feels.

>psychologists are scientists
>scientists
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>Fucking christ this board is the dumbest group Ive ever encountered online

Cool beans, tourist. Get the fuck outta here. You think you're tough shit because you watched maybe 2 or 4 KhanAcademy videos on stats.

You didnt understand his post. Youre not arguing the same thing. UnKNOWable to an INDIVIDUAL are the key points. You cant factually nail down WHY a price moves up or down with certainty, you can only speculate.

>in b4 muh egon degree

I have one too faggot

>I know nothing about social science
>I like to draw lines together and say HA ITS BULLSHIT
>ur dumb bc you disagree

Its true you fucking mong, im not even that user

This thread is a brainlet's magnet.

Attached: 562.png (1597x1600, 532K)

>coping STEMcel detected

I have a masters in stats

Attached: ms paint comic.png (800x450, 9K)

>the dumbest group Ive ever encountered online, yet the most condescending
Yeah, that's Jow Forums for you. I don't know why I'm still here, there are much better board than this shithole.

And yet you cant understand that the POINT of her original post? Lmfao. Sounds like you burned up a lot of time and money.

>You cant factually nail down WHY a price moves up or down with certainty, you can only speculate.

WHAT. how would that even work? What kind of economics did you study. If an individual doesnt understand how or why a price is moving, then there is no information in prices at all. Its all noise no signal. Which would mean that the decisions based on those prices were the result of a random process.

I really don't get where your even pulling this from.

>And yet you cant understand that the POINT of her original post?

She thinks she's disproving Peterson by being selective w/ data. This shit is so fucking common that if you knew as much as I did, you'd be so fucking tired of it by now.

This is entry level Judaism and you can't even see it.

>If you knew as much as I did, youd be tired of it

>DA JOOOOOOZ

Oh, an actual retard. Carry on buckaroo.

Attached: 7E3EF40E-7DE1-49CE-AE72-BBF728AB3AB9.png (488x463, 28K)

>Its true
no
lemme cope or give me a gf you fucking faggot

PETERSON can NEVER be WRONG if yOU SO MUCH AS QUESTION MY SUBSTITUTE INTERNET FATHER AND HIS GLORIOUS FIGHT IN THE WAR AGAINST THE FAR LEFTIST LIBTARD SOCIALIST POSTMODERN-NEOMARXISM(Tm) THE COMING WAVE OF YOUNG CONSERVATIVE INTELLECTUALS (look up Paul Joseph Watson) WILL IDEOLOGICALLY DESTROY YOU.

Fucking jewish cuck basedboy shills BTFO!

Dumb libturd feminazis

I bet you don't even have a bachelor's degree in anything.

b-but he's le based alt right man

Bro, youre missing out on a lot of nuance here.

Obviously nobody is claiming nobody knows what affect a major policy or change in supply or demand will have on prices. The point is that there are way too many effects moving at one time to say because of Y> in a complex global market.

Example: OBVIOUSLY if Irans oil gets taken off the market, that has the effect of raising the price. But you cant look at a $10 change the next day and say all $10 of that are absolutely the result of that, as opposed to the effects of every other market activity.

Austrians arent saying nothing can ever be said about prices. Theyre arguing that economic stats have too many variables in them to really be nailed down and taken as ironclad fact.

>18 year old
wow, get the fuck off my board you fucking retard niggerfaggot underage cunt

>DA JOOOOOOOOZ
>Ur dumb and i have degrees lololol

Attached: 19E32720-6724-485C-A78F-61E855B52B8F.png (300x300, 9K)

Really boggles those coggles

Lmfao. Exactly. The sperging and deseperate attempts to throw up shit arguments here are off the charts.

Underaged? Last time I checked 18 was of age to post here, so you'd be wrong.

At least my generation isn't cucked millenial like yours; we actually have some sense and patriotism.

your both brainlets for getting into a heated debate about semantics and"""internet personalities"""

>The point is that there are way too many effects moving at one time to say because of Y> in a complex global market.

>Example: OBVIOUSLY if Irans oil gets taken off the market, that has the effect of raising the price. But you cant look at a $10 change the next day and say all $10 of that are absolutely the result of that, as opposed to the effects of every other market activity.

That is literally the entire purpose of econometric. Finding and estimating the magnitude of casual relationships between variables is the whole point.

So yes you can look at a price 10$ change and say with a +-1% condfidence interval that 6.53 dollars of that change were caused by the change in the supply of oil. another 2 dollars was caused by seasonal trends and the remaining 50c was just noise caused by lags in transactions.

>Cucked
>millennial
>libtard

Shut the fuck up and go back to your recliner to lap up your Fox and Friends while posting shitty facebook memes you old brainlet

Attached: 9A814049-08B4-4969-9DD6-B681AF74ADAD.png (467x443, 34K)

Cool bro, so i assume youre a multimillionaire commodity day trader, since you nail everything to fucking 1% confidence? What an absurd claim.

What the fuck bros we need to ban the sale of ice cream

I think it would be pretty hard to make any kind of statement about monogamy given how many other things have changed in the same period of time, which makes me wonder why he'd make any kind of claim about it. For that matter, exactly what claims did he make about monogamy and its relation to violence? He gets misquoted an awful lot by his detractors.

No I am not. Because I would be competing with everyone else who is running the same models...?

And I didnt say predict. I said explain. If it takes 10+ variables to explain what caused the change in price, in order to predict the price tomorrow I would need to predict the values of the same 10+ variables first.

Forecasting is not the same as modeling causation.

How would you even go about gathering those statistics? Add a "are you a no-life incel" question to the census? Pretty sure most of those fuckers are in denial and would answer no.