4 ms·

Dupe of http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2115403 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2115403 (URL differs only in that this one has a random-looking fragment

by gjm11 16y ago

Dupe of http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2115403 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2115403 (URL differs only in that this one has a random-looking fragment ID appended; (1) isn't HN supposed to check for that, and (2) why did you do that, mikecane?). What I said there: Actual article is at http://personal.lse.ac.uk/KANAZAWA/pdfs/I2011.pdf http://personal.lse.ac.uk/KANAZAWA/pdfs/I2011.pdf. They used two populations with different measurements of attractiveness and of intelligence, and analysed them separately. In the first population they got results that suggest on the order of 11-14 IQ points per standard deviation in attractiveness. In the second, 2 IQ points per standard deviation. The first population was of children in the UK. Their measure of "attractiveness": the children were assessed at ages 7 and 11, by their teachers, as one of "attractive", "unattractive", "underfed or undernourished", "abnormal feature", and "scruffy or slovenly & dirty". I kid you not. You may, if your own intelligence happens to be reasonable, be able to think of one or two problems with assessing "attractiveness" in this way when you're looking for correlations with intelligence. (One more detail: attractiveness was treated as a binary variable in Kanazawa's study, with a child being reckoned "attractive" if put into the "attractive" category both at age 7 and at age 11. More than 60% of children were reckoned "attractive" by this criterion. Draw your own conclusions.) The second population was of US high school pupils. They were reassessed about 7-8 years later, at age 18-28. (How were any of them 28 at that point? I don't know.) The NY Daily News story says: > The study indicated attractive men have IQs that are 13.6 points above the average, while beautiful women are 11.4 points higher than average. which is simply rubbish: those figures are from the first population only (and the second gives much, much weaker results), they concern children of age 7 or 11 and not "men" or "women", and they're really measuring all kinds of things other than attractiveness.

mikecane 16y ago
>>>why did you do that, mikecane? It wasn't on purpose! I count on the filter here to save me from posting things already up. The NYDN must take the blame here for giving me the URL that it did.
- sorbus 16y ago
  > The NYDN must take the blame here for giving me the URL that it did. Nope, you get the blame for not editing the junk out of the URL; the filter here isn't especially smart, and merely adding a # to the end of a URL makes it think it's different. Know the limitations of the technology you use, and change your behaviors appropriately (or change the technology). EDIT: I see that at least five people disagree with me. My reasoning is mostly related to the fact that, when I submit articles, I get the URLs from an RSS reader, which invariably means that there's a huge amount of junk at the end. So I edit it down to the smallest URL that works (sometimes stopping several times to make sure that the URL still works), because that's the polite thing to do (both to people opening the article and to the filter). Shifting the blame for not doing so to the entity provide you with the URL isn't, in my mind, the correct thing to do. Others may disagree with me.
  - mikecane 16y ago
    I've seen RSS-extracted URLs like that here. But this was not one of them. The headline came up on a news site and I simply clicked through. I never expected extraneous stuff in the URL because that's never happened before using the news site. I usually get clean URLs.

by gjm11 16y ago

mikecane 16y ago

>>>why did you do that, mikecane? It wasn't on purpose! I count on the filter here to save me from posting things already up. The NYDN must take the blame here for giving me the URL that it did.

sorbus 16y ago
> The NYDN must take the blame here for giving me the URL that it did. Nope, you get the blame for not editing the junk out of the URL; the filter here isn't especially smart, and merely adding a # to the end of a URL makes it think it's different. Know the limitations of the technology you use, and change your behaviors appropriately (or change the technology). EDIT: I see that at least five people disagree with me. My reasoning is mostly related to the fact that, when I submit articles, I get the URLs from an RSS reader, which invariably means that there's a huge amount of junk at the end. So I edit it down to the smallest URL that works (sometimes stopping several times to make sure that the URL still works), because that's the polite thing to do (both to people opening the article and to the filter). Shifting the blame for not doing so to the entity provide you with the URL isn't, in my mind, the correct thing to do. Others may disagree with me.
- mikecane 16y ago
  I've seen RSS-extracted URLs like that here. But this was not one of them. The headline came up on a news site and I simply clicked through. I never expected extraneous stuff in the URL because that's never happened before using the news site. I usually get clean URLs.