5 ms·
No, but these [1][2][3] sure do: [1]: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691615609918 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/174569161560
by cljs-js-eval 7y ago
No, but these [1][2][3] sure do:
[1]: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691615609918 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17456916156099...
[2]: https://osf.io/ezcuj/wiki/home/ https://osf.io/ezcuj/wiki/home/
[3]: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716.full?ijkey=1xgFoCnpLswpk&keytype=ref&siteid=sci https://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716.full...
You should have very little confidence in the predictive power of most psychology findings since the founding of the field.
- nshepperd 7y agoThose papers have nothing to do with IQ.
- cljs-js-eval 7y agoThey have everything to do with showing that the primary field that makes use of IQ, psychology, is unreliable. If someone says that IQ is unreliable, they're likely right just given the track record of that field.