And I'm saying you're wrong.
And you actually are.

That's an awfully circular argument. Care to explain to me using words how I'm wrong?

It's been a while since I took statistics classes, so I'm not willing to exclude the possibility I am wrong, yet.

I wouldn't mind at all...see previous page I did several times.

No serioisly, I haven't coffeed up yet...so this may actually put us back.

I'm saying that, as presented in the synopsis, they have not established the existence and motion of the trend in life success and IQ related to fathers.

It is like saying, the more invisible monkeys you have in your house, the less bananas you eat.

You cannot correlate without first proving that invisible monkeys exist.

They don't need to show IQ is related to fathers to show correlation between the 2. Even if IQ is 100% explained by other factors, they can still be correlated.

Which are invisible monkeys in your analogy? Fathers or IQ points?

Today is Saturday.
Invisible IQ monkeys are the worst.
Invisible dads IQ seems standard.

Bump

Ok, first coffee.

I think I see where I'm losing you. We agree that two REAL values can be correlated without interaction.

What this started on was your response to my list of the surface problems, that, "correlation does not equal causation"

My response was you can't even think intelligently about correlation/causation until you establish the thing actually exists to correlate. For example, what happens with single fathers or in two parent households where both parents identify female?

It is entirely possible that fathers have more/same/less effect.

But until you establish that their presence exists alongside change in ANY direction, or some value at all, you cannot correlate them meaningfully, and this makes moving on to causation, putting the cart in front of the horse.

The study is saying,
An unknown singular or plural butterfly may exist in Japan: it's raining in Minnesota

I'm saying,
Have you actually seen it/them? Did it flap its wings? Was there more than one?

If that's still unclear to you, give me a couple hours to get fully awake.

So drunk and suroubded by bitches by they all dumb as ****! Lol

If they're dumb, shouldn't you have already gamed them into a position in or around your penis?

Pics of the top of her head doing work, or you're the dumb one.

X axis: hours a father spends with his kid in a week

Y axis: kid's IQ

If the average graph moves up & to the right, there's a correlation. Not sure how you can possibly assume that's not what their graphs do without actually, you know, seeing their graphs.

The actual communication problem we're having is that you think correlation means something I don't think it means.

My 1st statement wasn't to disagree with you, it was just saying I was thinking about it in a more simplistic manner, but reaching the same conclusion that there are likely flaws in the study.

Of course, the whole discussion is silly without even knowing what they actually controlled for. It's a 30 year study, so you would hope they put some effort into it.

Also, these analogies are weird & non-analogous.

So you ever just have those days where you say "**** it somethings gotta give". . Might be one of those days

Wisski seems like an appropriate person to weigh in on statistics discussion...

Pretty sure the assumption of a study is you know they actually studied it? If you throw data points at a board and they stick in a pattern, then you can draw conclusions, regardless if they're the right ones.

wisski your house is broke.

I hope this post has been helpful.

Holy ****.

I QUOTE the author stating that it is "two parents" and we're still talking about this?

You're just wrong. Brilliant as you are, you are still utterly and completely wrong. Please stop. If you need to invest more energy, spend brain power trying to see what I'm saying instead of trying to find an angle from which you can convince yourself you're right.

"The data suggest that having a second adult involved during childhood produces benefits in terms of skills and abilities that endure throughout adult life.”

Here, for the second time...it was still my paste from last night.

SO many tl Dr post. But i saw a picture so I'll read them.

Putting a door in the floor of your deck...something is definitely gonna give.

I like the way you approach this process.

I've reviewed your blog many times.
Posting text amid all the pics of Asian females (AFAIK) seemed like a derailing move.

The "she" is ambiguous.
Pic is obviously A dog, but is it the roommate or the roommates dog?

Looks like we'll have access to all of his data from which to draw conclusions.

I'm not sure why that article is getting media coverage now. It looks like it was published in 2008. I guess there was a follow up in 2016 o/s. https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/daniel.n...investment.pdf

That is my child.

& there's another paragraph that says 30 years later, children whose fathers spent more time with them have higher IQs & better jobs.

I have absolutely no clue about what I've said you're arguing so vehemently against.

You've said a few circular things, made a couple odd analogies & I still have no clue what I'm supposed to be wrong about?

imo - Kristy thinks the absent parents are the invisible monkeys and since they're not there (absent) they cannot be measured.

Not sure, only read like half the posts and none of the study.