> You're aware the vectors in a PCA are just linear combinations of the observed features, right?
Yes, I am. Do you have a reason to think that means PCA is bad at representing similarity and kinship because of this?
As for the Slate Star Codex source - that wasn't to prove anything, just to define the "weak man" term. I would have used "straw man", but then you'd dig up some idiot that genuinely believes whatever it is you're debunking as proof that it's not a straw man.
>Do you have a reason to think that means PCA is bad at representing similarity and kinship because of this?
I suggest you read up on the definition of "distance" and "similarity" before drinking the PCA kool-aid. You don't get to define an ad hoc distance just because it fits your ideas about ethnicity. But then, I only have the popgen community to back me up on this. What do you have?
>As for the Slate Star Codex source - that wasn't to prove anything, just to define the "weak man" term.
SSC, providing ammunition to online HBD proponents since 2013.
There's nothing ad hoc about it - PCA is an extremely fundamental statistical tool, and commonly used in genetics, especially to evaluate population structure. A few random examples:
And I know what intrinsic means, but I don't know what an "intrinsic point" is supposed to be, or what makes my point "intrinsic", as opposed to just a regular point.
A what point?
> You're aware the vectors in a PCA are just linear combinations of the observed features, right?
Yes, I am. Do you have a reason to think that means PCA is bad at representing similarity and kinship because of this?
As for the Slate Star Codex source - that wasn't to prove anything, just to define the "weak man" term. I would have used "straw man", but then you'd dig up some idiot that genuinely believes whatever it is you're debunking as proof that it's not a straw man.