@Plougot
Coming from a non mathematical background, as I am a French dubbing dialog writer, I was appalled by this pseudo science simply because trustworthiness isn't a data by itself. It's the combination of at least two things: a reaction and a context. To deem someone to be trustworthy, you assess if what you see of that person in a specific context is coherent enough to infer what you don't see is alright as well. The process obviously depends on your worldviews and biases. But since trustworthiness isn't an emotion but a quality assessment of potential interactions, it makes no scientific sense whatsoever to remove any notion of context. It's like asking if a price by itself is expensive, without any specific notion of any item to buy.
@ayazpalekar1575
NNT is the statistics professor the world needs.
@amatya.rakshasa
5:52 heyy Dilip Madan was one of my professors. That guy is ultra smart.. genius level. He told us that used to go to bed at 10Pm every night and start working at 4am. By the time he would get to his office at 9am, he’d already have 4 hours of uninterrupted high quality work done before continuing to work all day at the University in a more noisy environment with students and other professors.
@syedaltamash8817
Came here and got glued to your channel ♥️
@RobyRuss
I would have seriously failed my exams if I pulled off this pseudo regression
@themowgli123
What a great library / study.
@PeaceAndDialog
Thanks a lot for this. I was debating with some friends the other day about this study and how come the authors didn't even try to double check with their statistics colleagues, worst I am not event sure how this paper manage to be published. Definitely a video I will be sharing. keep it up and thanks a lot!
@zelllers
Had no idea you had a youtube channel this whole time! subscribed
@johannebertinus5753
Brilliant. Keep on debunking stupidity.....We need this...
@ernestboehm1584
I love the talk I love your library and the chair carpets
@marcusmarcula
Looks like you are in Umberto's Library today Nassim
@lexparsimoniae2107
Thank you Nassim. This is brilliant work.
@Garcwyn
NT: “... particular psychologists” Jordan Peterson: I don’t take this personally Me: you should!
@SapereAude1490
If I tried to do this in analytical chemistry, I would be hanged by the referees. XD
@patrickherb4670
As you said already, millions of social studies papers published and we have learned nothing or even gone back. These people are a waste of money
@neilgerace355
2:07 They are clouds, all right. Clouds of the stink of BS.
@michaela7759
Maestro kicks ass again! 😁
@gustavderkits8433
Very glad you’re attacking this BS. I always teach Anscombe’s quartet.
@where22
Those regression lines can't have R-square more than 0.5. The problem with psychologists is that they consider 0.3 as significant whereas all other fields consider <0.5 as poor correlation (with 100-1000 samples). Whatever happened to the t-test, p-test etc.
@Senecamarcus