A "direct correlation" would mean a correlation of 1. A correlation of 1 is as high as it gets. So I highly doubt the correlation between porn and WHATEVER is 1. A correlation of .7 is HIGH in terms of correlation (apparently). So high that Jordan Peterson cites the correlation when he's talking about the relationship between wealth and sexual selection success. But don't feel bad. You're not the only one using correlation wrong!
Hym "They need to retitle that video 'feminine woman DOESN'T DEBUNK FUCKING ANYTHING.' Oh shit... Have I been using correlation wrong? Oh shit! That means the correlation between fat cocks and sexual selection success can be HIGHER than .3! HOLY SHIT! I've google that word live 12 different times! How am I just now getting that!? Shit, it could even be higher than .7! What's more, there can be an inverse correlation between 2 things. You could have a correlation between fat cocks and reproductive success that it like 1 AND a correlation between baby dicks and reproductive success that is like -1. What do the studies say? Is there a study? What's the correlation between fat cock and success? It's high. I bet you 1 million dollars it's higher than .7! WE'RE BACK IN HERE! CRITICAL FAT-COCK THEORY! I look like an idiot for using it wrong but WHAT IT ACTUALLY MEANS is that I COULD BE MORE RIGHT THAN I THOUGHT I WAS! I could be MORE RIGHT THAN JORDAN!"
by Hym Iam August 14, 2023