Categorical gerrymandering

This is when you chain correlations of correlations, like a categorical syllogism, to draw a statistical conclusion. For example:

Height is correlated with IQ.
Men are taller than women.
Men have higher average IQs than women.

The conclusion may or may not be true, but the argument is invalid. The reason this isn’t valid is that correlations aren’t transitive. So if A correlates with B and B correlates with C, it doesn’t follow that A correlates with C. This causes a lot of nonsense because we tend to think of qualities using the shorthand language of categories, like “men are taller than women”. Taken literally, this statement means “height(men) > height(women)”, and statements like this have the property of transitivity. But probabilities are not transitive, which means that this logical fallacy can be used to draw statistical conclusions which are categorically contradictory. For example:

High educational attainment is correlated with liberalism.
Being a conservative pundit is correlated with high educational attainment.
Therefore, conservative pundits are likely to be liberal.

This enthymeme makes use of the human tendency to internally translate statistical descriptions into categorical statements:

Educated people are A.
B are educated.
Therefore B are A.

This syllogism is valid. The error was committed in the process of accepting a statistical statement as categorically true. I call this categorical gerrymandering because, as in political gerrymandering, the rhetorician uses statistical majorities tactically to “claim” categorical territory. Because you can produce a chain of correlations between any two statistical quantities, in this way it’s always possible to justify belief that a variable correlates with its opposite, which is a categorical contradiction. It is therefore a method of choice for conceited people who prefer deception by misleading technical honesty, because they can defend themselves by pointing to a list of correct statistical statements and say “show where I’ve made an incorrect statement”.

It may be because I have more exposure to thinkers on the right than on the left, but this appears to be a weakness more common among rightists. I believe this is because they have a greater local coherence drive (autism, colloquially) so that they feel a need to “justify” their beliefs. I love watching his videos, but Ed Dutton is an example of someone who commits this logical fallacy frequently. For example, in his video on whether people in power are more likely to be pedophiles, he makes the argument that:

Pedophilia is correlated with psychopathy.
Psychopathy is correlated with political success.
Therefore pedophilia is likely to be correlated with political success.

Whether he’s correct or not, this argument is invalid. We could make the argument that following such chains of correlations is just “suggestive for future research”, but this is merely kicking the can down the road to maintain plausible deniability. It’s bad mental hygiene to use heuristics which as often as not produce type 1 errors (false positives) while producing more confidence in their likelihood than stream-of-consciousness free association, which at least has no reassurances that one has relied purely on statements of scientific fact.

The worst example of this I’ve seen is the redefinition of K-selected humans as having all of the traits of fast life history strategists and none of the traits of slow life history strategists, which is the literal opposite of the truth. This is almost certainly because the traits associated with a fast life history strategy (e.g. “Chad” boldness, sexual desirability, and low neuroticism in chaotic environments) are considered prosocial, virtuous, and moral in the modern West while traits associated with a slow life history strategy (e.g. “Virgin” risk-aversion, divestment from sexual competition, and dependence on high-investment nurturing social environments for mental health) are considered antisocial, insecure, and parasitic, and k-selected people place a high value on being prosocial, virtuous, and moral.

Leftists, in my experience, are far more likely to simply ignore apparent contradictions and therefore less likely to reach for justifications. For example, an SJW coworker was arguing one time that Michigan should try to be more progressive like California, to which another coworker responded that California has flesh-eating viruses. The SJW simply said that he didn’t believe it, Michigan has bigger problems than California, therefore California is better, therefore if you really think about it California doesn’t really have any truly big problems like Michigan and has better weather to boot, and we should thus try to be more progressive like California. This is like the Jewish method of selective amnesia where you repeatedly forget anything that’s inconvenient to your preferred narrative frame. (You have to admit, these techniques have the strength of being simpler.)

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Categorical gerrymandering

  1. Fox says:

    “So if A correlates with B and B correlates with C, it doesn’t follow that A correlates with C”
    But it follows that A more of less probably (depending on the strength of the two correlations you mentioned) correlates with C (at least to some degree).

    – Imagine the first quadrant of a three dimensional coordinate system (= a cube in which all points have positive x,y and z values). The x axis runs left to right, the y axis runs from the front to the back (and somewhat rightwards due to the angle at which you’re looking at it), the z axis runs bottom up.
    – x,y, z values denote the strength/degree of A,B,C (resp.).
    – Imagine a high numer of points close to the diagonal of the x-z plane (1), and the same regarding the diagonal of the y-z plane (2).
    Now look at the x-y plane (ie look at the cube from above) – you’ll find points along the y-axis, and points along the x-axis, but few anywhere else (3).
    (1) -> A correlates with C
    (2) -> B correlates with C
    (3) -> A has almost zero correlation with B
    This is entirely possible, but how likely is it?

    Now imagine a graph like this:

    and assume the x-axis means “height” and the y-axis means “IQ” (ie A = height, B = IQ).
    Now you expand this two-dimensional system by adding another variable – “male-female” (ie C = sex). Assuming half the sample was female and half male, you push half the points on the x-y plane backwards onto a parallel plane. How many possibilities to do that are there? MANY. But what you have to take into account is that the result has to suffice the fact that men are taller than women (ie. the “men” points have to be, on average, considerably farther right than the “female” points).
    Now, choose a selection that appears somewhat reasonable, and then compare the average z-value (“IQ”) of the “male” points to that of the “female” points – the former will be somewhat higher than the latter.

    This means: If A corr with B and B corr with C, then it is likely that A also correlates to some degree with C.
    (Maybe we should look into “fuzzy logic”)

    What does “likely” mean here? It means that if NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE, assuming that A correlates to some degree (depending of course on the strengths of the two other correlations) with C is the most reasonable assumptions possible, and thus SHOULD be treated as the new default state, as the basis state.

  2. Schrödinger's Psych Evaluation says:

    >I believe this is because they have a greater local coherence drive (autism, colloquially) so that they feel a need to “justify” their beliefs.

    >Leftists, in my experience, are far more likely to simply ignore apparent contradictions and therefore less likely to reach for justifications.

    >This is like the Jewish method of selective amnesia where you repeatedly forget anything that’s inconvenient to your preferred narrative frame.

    You shouldn’t bother trying to justify your beliefs to those who are arguing dishonestly. Even when you manage not to make any notable mistakes, your opponents won’t appreciate the internal consistency and informational inclusiveness of your narrative enough to allow themselves to see things from your perspective. If they find any errors, they can use them to justify dismissing everything that you’ve said. Chances are that your opponents care more about securing your cooperation (or the cooperation of bystanders) and not so much about understanding the phenomenon itself. So, find out what they really want.

  3. SirHamster says:

    Therefore, conservative pundits are likely to be liberal.

    Which is actually true. Conservatism is slow liberalism.

  4. bicebicebcie says:

    “You shouldn’t bother trying to justify your beliefs to those who are arguing dishonestly.” in the business we call that sapes – not even once. Some “good folks” go so far as trying to include such beings in something called a “civilization”, and they jump the same hoops everyday, bending over backwards to do so. the results of this ongoing effort can be seen all around in the current year western world.
    However one man in the west solved this , the joe biden rule, because “minorities” are right; they can’t live up to the standards of the white western aryan neanderthal anglosaxon aspergerubermensch, so if you apply those standards to sapeoids everybody loses.

    itz really not working and we need a two state solution worldwide, one for the Borgonized and one for the rest

    if you bring one club to fight the sape chief fairly to win, he will bring his own club and three other men with three other clubs.
    if you bring “proofs of righteous conduct”, he will always go around this so he can WINNING instead.

    I would accept being proven wrong by aeolid for example, 99.99999999999999999999999% of the rest of the plant wont ever irregardless of what is being discussed, because if you lose you submit and in the sape-jew mindset that means you might get eaten.

    fight me

  5. Obadiah says:

    >Aeoli acknowledges the JQ at the end of the post

    Based

    There’s just no way around the Jewish question. There’s no way to tunnel under it, climb over it, or chip-block and dash around it–despite your most valiant efforts to do so throughout the course of your blerghing. I think this is probably a feature rather than a bug. The Jews, by imposing their wickedness upon each and every man and woman upon the whole earth, force us, to a man and woman, to confront our own inner darkness and develop as people (or not, in some cases).

  6. aiaslives says:

    ITZ

    https://invidio.us/playlist?list=PLHSoxioQtwZfY2ISsNBzJ-aOZ3APVS8br

    (that website is a youtube reskin. No youtube player required, and you can download the videos directly.)
    (youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHSoxioQtwZfY2ISsNBzJ-aOZ3APVS8br)

  7. Baron Evola says:

    My bro Aeoli Pera,

    I have a big question which I think would make an excellent post. With all of the recent WordPress censorship of sites like Heartiste, do you think something bigger is coming down the tubes. European style speech laws, martial law, a major war, or major economic downturn?

    Your friend,
    Baron

  8. Obadiah says:

    “Muh Jews” –Me

  9. Koanic says:

    Those who worry about statistical reasoning errors are optimists. The roaring torrents of rich text that contextualize any mathematical artifact are where the real cognitive errors occur. And the math-minded are the least able to cope.

  10. Aeoli Pera says:

    >With all of the recent WordPress censorship of sites like Heartiste, do you think something bigger is coming down the tubes. European style speech laws, martial law, a major war, or major economic downturn?

    I don’t have any special insight here. They’ll do what they think they can get away with.

  11. glosoli says:

    >With all of the recent WordPress censorship of sites like Heartiste, do you think something bigger is coming down the tubes. European style speech laws, martial law, a major war, or major economic downturn?

    I read this article a few years ago, and although Trump won, I have a suspicion that the channers have fallen for a giant honeytrap, and will be dealt with in due course:

    https://cultstate.com/2016/08/26/the-planned-destruction-of-the-alt-right/

    Who knows what other ‘alt-right’ or ‘reaction’ sites are honeytraps? Heartiste is taken down, Vox/Jim are still running. The stuff Vox writes about the Jews, in Italy too, it’s amazing he isn’t arrested. I’m no expert on Italian laws though.

    It’s the Sabbath, if you’re a Christian and NOT observing the weekly Saturday Sabbath, please read my latest post and pray for guidance. It’s very important.

    http://watchman-westandwales.blogspot.com/2019/06/judgement-day.html

    Bice, your ‘fight me’ line makes me laugh every time, thanks, not much to laugh at these days.
    Will Aeoli write about the imagined ‘end of these dark times’ I wonder?

  12. glosoli says:

    This video (and part two) show what happens when a true autiste becomes a pro golfer, with a self-taught and unique swing.

    His commentary is frequently hilarious, he speaks from the heart, with no thought for the usual norms of modesty, and he still has the passion in his voice even though he was an old guy when he made the video.

    He’s widely acknowledged by top golfers to have been one of only two golfers ever to really ‘own’ their golf swing. I found him really likeable, I think you will too.

    Oh, and he was ripped off by the golf establishment and his sponsors too, what a surprise.

  13. bicebicebice says:

    Thatz a nice vid, i’ve played so much golf these last days I think I broke my left wrist permanently He reminds me of a weeb swinging his katana, troothal

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s