I guess I’ll just assume what the x axis is…
might be styropyro who has mentioned a clinical testosterone disorder affecting videos recently
That’s just John Testosterone, we don’t talk about him.
Professor John Testosterone.
Hulk. Hulk has a PhD in nuclear physics.
Obviously it’s Brian Boitano
I bet on Dulph Lundgren
He’ll blow your back out and cover you with his string theory.
styropyro
He has some mystery condition where his testosterone is super high… He’s very smart, but maybe not quite there.
That’s literally who I thought about and I’m so glad someone mentioned it. He’s a freakishly smart dude.
How is he now btw? Is he getting treated? Did they find a root cause?
He’s posted very little on it. Last we heard they didn’t find any cancers or anything and he wasn’t really suffering from it. He had some strange symptoms and it it just came up in tests that didn’t like up with what he was there for. But it was really really high.
Well, as long as it isn’t negatively affecting him I guess. But I assume that he’ll have to somewhat regularly monitor it with bloodwork checkups
Yeah, we have to assume he’s in good hands. No good to assume anything else
high five, random internet poster. I came here to make a similar comment :)
It is obviously John Carmack
What happened to his face?
A stressful residency
For your sins of axis-cropping, you shall be redeemed by reciting the periodic table thrice.
The only redemption is re-posting the full, properly cropped picture!
Shift the zone downwards quite a bit to be more accurate. Not many of them are high testosterone.
Well, there are a lot of rednecks with a circular family tree and more brain in their balls as in their head.
Now, I can find where I’d probably project to be.
Is it this guy? I’ve always imagined him as an erudite scholar.
Dolph Lundgren?
If you remove the anomaly, which may be due to an accidental additional digit, that correlation coefficient may climb a bit.
IMHO, they plotted an independent variable over random noise. The one gigathad changes nothing.
I think there’s a clear correlation there, but the axes are reversed: testosterone can’t be the dependent variable of IQ score. Reversing the axes makes the gradient look incredibly steep, but that’s only because of the obviously incorrect anomaly. r=0.435 is very much not a strong correlation, but it’s not zero either, especially with a sample size this enormous.
no, IQ can actually drive testosterone levels! it’s a strange feedback loop where social pleasure can cause testosterone production.
