Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I can explain the failure[s] (Score 1) 169

by phantomfive (#47897697) Attached to: The MOOC Revolution That Wasn't

One grammatical error I always hear goes as follows: "I would have went there..." Another one, "I have already ate..." I am no expert but this doesn't sound right.

To people who grew up in that dialect, it sounds great. To me it makes me want to code switch to the style of speaking that I grew up in. I ain't jokin.

Comment: Re:CDC guilty of correlation == causation (Score 1) 288

by phantomfive (#47889929) Attached to: Link Between Salt and High Blood Pressure 'Overstated'
The flaw is that I didn't quantify how much you should eat? I think that's something you can figure out......

All three nutrients are essential? Great. What is the amount at which they are effective? No one knows.

No, we actually do know. There have been plenty of studies on this topic. It's only controversial to crazy people who follow fad diets.

Comment: Re:CDC guilty of correlation == causation (Score 1) 288

by phantomfive (#47886535) Attached to: Link Between Salt and High Blood Pressure 'Overstated'
My hypothesis is that, people who've been cutting back on an essential nutrient for a while do better if they get more of it.

Thus, if you've been trying the low-fat diet for a while, then your body will appreciate the change when you finally start giving it enough fat.
If you've been on a low-protein diet (yes, it existed for a while), then your body will appreciate the change when you finally start giving it enough protein.
If you've been on a low-carb diet for a while, then your body will appreciate the change when you finally start giving it enough carbohydrates.

I read some scientists a few years back who suggested instead of looking at whether we should cut back on particular nutrients, we should instead look at the quality of the nutrients we are getting. Because all three nutrients are essential.

Comment: Re:peer review is a low bar (Score 1) 35

Well that is something different, then.

So in the end the editors seemed to just want the sensational paper published and let the community sort it out later.

I subscribed to Science for a while, and that more-or-less matches the quality of article I found there.

Comment: Re:Intelligence is highly heritable (Score 1) 265

by phantomfive (#47881981) Attached to: Massive Study Searching For Genes Behind Intelligence Finds Little
If you read more than the summary, you'll see the effect of those genes (while significant) amounted to about half an IQ point.

In other words, other effects are drastically more important in determining a person's IQ (because IQ varies so dramatically). These genes are like a rounding error, and it's not likely that we'll find genes that have a greater effect.

Comment: Re:Article is totally misleading (Score 1) 265

by phantomfive (#47881923) Attached to: Massive Study Searching For Genes Behind Intelligence Finds Little
The reason the summary is like that (apart from summaries always being wrong) is because those were the only genes related to intelligence that could be found anywhere after an exhaustive search. The effect from those genes (though it is significant) is so small, that even if it translated directly into IQ, it would give you exactly half an IQ point. The effects of any other genes is likely to be even smaller.

An effect of half an IQ point is not sufficient to explain the huge variance in IQ among the population, so there is something much more important than genetics in determining IQ.

: is not an identifier

Working...