this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2025

600 points (97.9% liked)

Funny

8857 readers

1367 users here now

General rules:

Be kind.
All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TheDude@sh.itjust.works

kersploosh@sh.itjust.works

example@reddthat.com

VicksVaporBBQrub@sh.itjust.works

600

What must his life be like? (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 days ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world to c/funny@sh.itjust.works

150 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago

Probably bald and sad

[–] DicJacobus@lemmy.world 9 points 4 hours ago

roid raging chess club president

[–] phlegmy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 hours ago

Kaze Emanuar

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 3 points 5 hours ago

Presidential. /s

[–] perestroika@lemm.ee 28 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Hypothesis A:

his name is J. Random Error

Hypothesis B:

he's real, has a brain anomaly, and is taking androgen antagonists (e.g. 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors) for breakfast, lunch and dinner. It's not testosterone which has most biological effect, but dihydrotestosterone. T is just the guidance signal from the brain. DHT does the heavy lifting in tissue. If you don't want to operate on the brain, you can block the result and leave the guidance signal going wrong.

[–] eepydeeby@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 hours ago

Dihydrotestosterone Georg

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 21 points 11 hours ago

Smart Hulk.

There's probably severe health complications with that level of testosterone though.

[–] biggerbogboy@sh.itjust.works 33 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (4 children)

Styropyro? Is that you?

[–] reka@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

hope he's doing ok, he truly is unlike any other internet personality

[–] TheOakTree@lemm.ee 8 points 10 hours ago

Glad to see you and others beat me to it :)

[–] EatMyPixelDust@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 11 hours ago

He was my first thought too 😆

[–] polle@feddit.org 4 points 11 hours ago

LOL

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 6 points 11 hours ago

Yessir, that's the saucer what took muh cousin Darryl.

[–] ThePyroPython@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago

I know that guy, he's sound.

[–] Garyu@lemm.ee 4 points 10 hours ago

Maybe this guy? https://youtu.be/bLHL75H_VEM

[–] Aeri@lemmy.world 8 points 16 hours ago (4 children)

So I'm not a data scientist but doesn't this basically say that your testosterone and IQ are pretty independent of each other?

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 6 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I am a scientist and it pisses me off that the independent variable is on the y axis

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Yes thank you!

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 4 points 9 hours ago

The depiction does not tell you anything since you cannot see structure in the black blob. It shows that outliers do exist which is expected since biology is messy.

There is the slightest anti correlation for measured testosterone levels and IQ, but on the individual level this is meaningless. There are people with testosterone resistance to various levels which would require diligent treatment to destill a more useful graph, but that's infeasible.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 17 points 16 hours ago

No, the big cloud of data points says they are pretty dependent and the little outlier says outliers can exist.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee 7 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Dr. Mike Isratel?

[–] WaitThisIsntReddit@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

Chart is lifetime natural. Isratel piss can't be tested because it eats through any cup you put it in.

[–] Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 16 hours ago

Captain Steven Rodgers.

[+] Bogus007@lemm.ee -8 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

So, because women have a much lower content of Testosterone, we can conclude that there are much more stupid than men or what does this silly correlation wants to tell us???

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

women have a much lower content of Testosterone, we can conclude that there are much more stupid than men

This poster is High T. Ask me how I can tell.

[–] Bogus007@lemm.ee -2 points 5 hours ago

Understand the meaning of question marks, you do not? Much to learn, little Padawan, you still have.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 12 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

It’s about men but your takeaway would be that women are smarter because as IQ goes up, Testosterone goes down

[–] drascus@sh.itjust.works 7 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

this graph very clearly states it's only related to men and has nothing to do with women at all. the only thing it shows is that the majority of men have average intelligence and average testosterone levels. R2=0.19 value means only 19% of the variation in testosterone levels can be explained by IQ, leaving 81% unexplained. This is a very weak relationship, bordering on statistical noise.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I wonder why they chose IQ as the independent variable? Surely it would be the other way around.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

The thing about very superficial analysis like this is you can just go fishing for correlations and come back with something meaningless but publishable.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

That exploitation of the scientific system is not what's happening here. This is naive maybe, but not malicious, and it seems valid and without unwanted motives.

[–] Bogus007@lemm.ee 3 points 8 hours ago

Absolutely right. Sorry.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

His takeaway is that women are as smart as men (as in the IQ is the same) but because men have higher testosterone holding them back men are actually smarter than women. What I think he's actually trying to say is that he's a high testosterone misogynist.

[–] drascus@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

If that is someones takeaway they are wrong. This chart essentially shows that these things are not actually correlated.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 1 points 5 hours ago

Look. I don't make the rules of misogyny. You want things to make sense, you need to look elsewhere.

[–] Bogus007@lemm.ee 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Your conclusion is based on deduction which in many occasions - like this one - leads to false conclusions. Try again.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Wait? So the other person isn't being misogynistic? I'm lost.

[–] Bogus007@lemm.ee 1 points 5 hours ago

All in your head, it is. The answer to your question, by you, lies.

[–] drascus@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

The only thing this graph shows is that average people are average. This graph essentially shows no -> very weak correlation between testosterone levels and IQ. in fact I would say this graph argues that correlating testosterone levels with IQ is essentially flawed. However because of the way the data is represented it makes it look as though there might be a correlation.

[–] Bogus007@lemm.ee 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

AFAIR the R2 is (almost) equal to rho in the Pearson correlation. I just see two variables, a linear fit from - possibly - an OLS. The small R2 is likely due to the outlier (though a single outlier by this mass of points raises my eyebrows as the MSE (or take the RSME) won’t be affected as such by a single point when there are 15’000 points centered closely around an estimate, but CCV would tell) and R2 says nothing about the p-value, which is determined by the amount of information in a system/about variables, and hence likely way below 0.05.

This relationship aka in this case correlation says pretty much nothing about real world, because IQ is (possibly) not only determined by IQ, but way many other factors. The picture is utterly simplified. It is similar to the relationship between the number of babies and the number of storks.

load more comments