3 ms·
That's 'high IQ'->'higher income'. You are implying 'higher income'->'high IQ', of which there are multitudes of counterexamples.
by michael_h 10y ago
That's 'high IQ'->'higher income'. You are implying 'higher income'->'high IQ', of which there are multitudes of counterexamples.
- blfr 10y agoThere are always lottery winners. It's not a perfect correlation.
- oicisdumb33 10y agoSo it's completely useless then If you are going to make a blanket statement in your thesis then pull back from its correctness then best not to spout the original as hard truth
- xapata 10y agoAh, the No True Scotsman defense.
- ubernostrum 10y agoThis comment should not be downvoted. It's correct in describing what's being asserted. And what's being asserted is the definition of the affirming the consequent. I know this is HN and we love to point and shout the names of informal fallacies, but maybe learning some formal ones would be useful, too.