Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

See what I mean? This survey got 1/10th the responses that a previous survey of the same cohort of experts did, and a 7% response rate overall. But here we go with a survey cited as "the majority of anonymously surveyed geneticists and behavioral psychologists".

Come on. Try harder. This rebuttal is practically in the abstract you cited.

But this is how it works. It takes virtually no effort to paste a citation to underpowered research studies, but a lot of effort to rebut those citations, which serve as appeals to authority in discussions. This works to create the impression that "HBD" is far more seriously scientific than it actually is.

View on HN

What would you recommend I use to evaluate the topic if not research studies?

Your rhetorical strategy here is to try to shift the burden for your argument back to me?

I'm especially amused by the fact that you tried to deploy this clever switcheroo after having your source shot down, and without acknowledging that fact.

My advice is: just give up on the argument. People are people.

I didn't acknowledge your criticism of the source because it doesn't seem to reflect a look at the paper, let alone an earnest analysis of it. The response rate for the survey was explicitly stated as 20%, well in line with expected response rates for these sort of external surveys. Your figure of 7% seems to be invented whole cloth.

That, along with your characterization of my response as a "rhetorical strategy", makes it quite clear you don't have any interest in engaging in the topic critically.

To anyone reading, I encourage you to open the study, Ctrl-F for tptacek's "7%". Confirm for yourself whether or not he's being honest, and consider what that implies about our respective positions.

You're right. I'm wrong. I had accidentally used the total number of targets from a previous study to calculate that percentage.

A total of 1345 people received emails.

The questions about ethnic differences were answered by 71 respondents.

The actual rate was 5%.

I regret the error.

The abstract itself cites the low response rate. It's a stated problem with the survey. How are you not familiar with the document you brought to the debate?

You got real quiet there. Anything else to add?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com