Sign up  |  Log in

People with lower emotional intelligence are more likely to hold right-wing views

"You want a quote? Haven’t I written enough already???"

RIP

We’re gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. And you’ll say, 'Please, please. It’s too much winning. We can’t take it anymore. Mr. President, it’s too much.' And I’ll say, 'No, it isn’t!' We have to keep winning!

hpracing007 wrote:

Trump.gif

Oh come on. This one really doesn’t seem like a stretch to me. The lower someone’s capacity for empathy, the easier it is to see them holding republican views. Cue South-Park’s “They took our jobs” gifs. I really don’t think the author is getting themselves into trouble with a claim like this.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It be like that sometimes.

i mean, if you’re unable to see how you hurt or disadvantage people, it certainly makes it easier for you to hurt or disadvantage people.

this is akin to “blind people can look at the sun longer than the non-blind”.

congrats to this phd who spent $50k in grant money verifying obvious things.

“people who don’t pay for things have a much easier time spending money”

They’re also more likely to be CEOs, pro athletes, doctors (especially ER and surgeons), futurists, and serial killers. 

most conservatives at least in the us are idiots. cuz a majority of them are poor yet they want lower taxes.

most liberals are idiots too since they worry about **** that doesnt matter, like disadvantaged groups. 

i like to mind my own business. if they arent persecuting me, i tend to not give a ****.

and if they are persecuting me, i tend to avoid the situation. i dont like conflicts!

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

I know it doesn’t matter, but it seems obligatory to mention that if people labeled X are more likely to be labeled as Y, this does not mean that people labeled Y are likely to be labeled X, especially if Y is the larger population. 

“Visit the Water Cooler forum on Analyst Forum. It is the best forum.”
- Everyone

ohai wrote:

I know it doesn’t matter, but it seems obligatory to mention that if people labeled X are more likely to be labeled as Y, this does not mean that people labeled Y are likely to be labeled X, especially if Y is the larger population. 

Yes it does:

“people labeled X are more likely to be labeled as Y”   is equivalent to P(Y|X) > P(Y), i.e. X makes Y more likely. 

Of course by the same logic “people labeled Y are likely to be labeled X” just means P(X|Y) > P(X).

By Bayes rule you have P(Y|X) / P(Y) = P(X|Y) / P(X). So if X makes Y more likely, then Y makes X more likely and vice versa.

i treat my bayes like i treat my gips. 0 ****s given.

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

Nerdyblop wrote:

i treat my bayes like i treat my gips. 0 ****s given.

Cheated on my bae, you can go and ask her, my life like a movie, bull riding and boobies

Ain’t nobody tell me nothing, can’t tell me nothing 

Tell me Pasha, what does this word 'modern' even mean?

Mobius Strip wrote:

ohai wrote:

I know it doesn’t matter, but it seems obligatory to mention that if people labeled X are more likely to be labeled as Y, this does not mean that people labeled Y are likely to be labeled X, especially if Y is the larger population. 

Yes it does:

“people labeled X are more likely to be labeled as Y”   is equivalent to P(Y|X) > P(Y), i.e. X makes Y more likely. 

Of course by the same logic “people labeled Y are likely to be labeled X” just means P(X|Y) > P(X).

By Bayes rule you have P(Y|X) / P(Y) = P(X|Y) / P(X). So if X makes Y more likely, then Y makes X more likely and vice versa.

“this does not mean that people labeled Y are likely to be labeled X, especially if Y is the larger population. “

Likely, not more likely. 

“Visit the Water Cooler forum on Analyst Forum. It is the best forum.”
- Everyone

Quant battle go go!

honestly we fail to reject ho because a i have a wide confidence interval. i must be a conservative. but i am labeled liberal by fb.

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

Probability and semantics dogfight!!! Ohai and Mobius going hard in the wee hoursyes

you basically need to come from a target school pedigree/work at prestigious firm in the US/have a really good connection.

- AF hivemind

definitely worth the 3 hour sleep to give mobius the business!

ohai wrote:

Mobius Strip wrote:

ohai wrote:

I know it doesn’t matter, but it seems obligatory to mention that if people labeled X are more likely to be labeled as Y, this does not mean that people labeled Y are likely to be labeled X, especially if Y is the larger population. 

Yes it does:

“people labeled X are more likely to be labeled as Y”   is equivalent to P(Y|X) > P(Y), i.e. X makes Y more likely. 

Of course by the same logic “people labeled Y are likely to be labeled X” just means P(X|Y) > P(X).

By Bayes rule you have P(Y|X) / P(Y) = P(X|Y) / P(X). So if X makes Y more likely, then Y makes X more likely and vice versa.

“this does not mean that people labeled Y are likely to be labeled X, especially if Y is the larger population. “

Likely, not more likely. 

my bad, looks like I was off by 0.00001% x ln(P)^”more”

Mobius Strip wrote:

So if X makes Y more likely, then Y makes X more likely and vice versa.

 

Can someone please explain this?

If group A has 10 people, group B a 100 people and 8/10 in group A will belong to group B i.e A makes B more likely then why does B make A more likely?

Dhnno wrote:
Mobius Strip wrote:
So if X makes Y more likely, then Y makes X more likely and vice versa.
 

Can someone please explain this?

If group A has 10 people, group B a 100 people and 8/10 in group A will belong to group B i.e A makes B more likely then why does B make A more likely?

Suppose that the entire population is, say, 1,000.

Compute P(B) and P(B|A).  Which is greater?

Compute P(A) and P(A|B).  Which is greater?

Simplify the complicated side; don't complify the simplicated side.

Financial Exam Help 123: The place to get help for the CFA® exams
http://financialexamhelp123.com/

Understood, thank you!

Dhnno wrote:
Understood, thank you!

My pleasure.

Simplify the complicated side; don't complify the simplicated side.

Financial Exam Help 123: The place to get help for the CFA® exams
http://financialexamhelp123.com/

igor555 wrote:

https://www.psypost.org/2019/09/people-with-lower-emotional-intelligence...

makes so much sense. so sad.

I wouldn’t discount the role of the perpetual outrage machines like Fox News and right wing newsites on FB and Twitter.  You may have empathy, but when people who disagree with you are ruthlessly demonized, dehumanized, and portrayed as violent aggressors…that empathy reserve is quickly depleted.

Don't be a tough guy. Don't be a fool. I will call you later.