Bogus007

Don’t need. You?

Ah, great idea for progress in English, they have. Not only 'the' for all sexes, but 'they' for all, now they say. Great idea they have, yes. 🤣

Please, correct it you want to say, then 'it' say, you must 😂

Ah, ByteJunk, one person it is not, many, it is. Got it. But how they decide what to comment, hmm? Take much time, it must 😂

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

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

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.

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

Absolutely right. Sorry.