Why No Science of Nerds?

slatestarcodex.com

2 pointsdavidiach3 comments

Quote: "Of these nine classic characteristics, we can imagine people scoring either “nerdy” or “anti-nerdy” on each. If that were true, there’s only a 1/2^9 = 1/512 chance that any given person has all of these characteristics."

Not if the traits are correlated with each other. The chosen binary math treatment works only if the traits are independent, i.e. mutually orthogonal. They aren't -- nerdy traits are strongly correlated, so much so that if you find any five of the nine traits in an individual, you're most likely already done identifying a nerd.

Also, there's a more efficient way to express a fractional probability: 1/a^b = a^-b.

It was perhaps badly put, but the author is obviously aware of that, as shown by the paragraph immediately thereafter, in which the possible correlation of the variables is discussed.

It is true that there is a certain amount of informality in the wording of the quoted paragraph, however. I agree that the author shouldn't have glossed over it. He does clarify later though, which makes the whole thing not so much of a big deal, especially as it's the very next paragraph.

Yes, true, but the irony here is that the introductory paragraph is itself a nerd litmus test. No nerd deserving the title would accept it as written.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com