this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2026
564 points (98.8% liked)

Science Memes

20582 readers
1661 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world 23 points 10 hours ago (1 children)
[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

If you remove the anomaly, which may be due to an accidental additional digit, that correlation coefficient may climb a bit.

[–] ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

IMHO, they plotted an independent variable over random noise. The one gigathad changes nothing.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

I think there's a clear correlation there, but the axes are reversed: testosterone can't be the dependent variable of IQ score. Reversing the axes makes the gradient look incredibly steep, but that's only because of the obviously incorrect anomaly. r=0.435 is very much not a strong correlation, but it's not zero either, especially with a sample size this enormous.