3 ms·
The critique amounts to essentially: well Gould is observably incompetent or a liar, but Morton was a racist so Gould is somehow still right. As for the triarc
by User23 3y ago
The critique amounts to essentially: well Gould is observably incompetent or a liar, but Morton was a racist so Gould is somehow still right.
As for the triarchic theory, it’s not even wrong. I’m completely uninterested a non-empirical “theory” of intelligence.
- rramadass 3y agoYou are in full-blown denial mode of every evidence/theory contrary to your cherished "g factor"/single general intelligence/psychometrics "belief system". I will end this with the following observation; In this modern day and age anybody who believes; a Bedouin from the Sahara, a Aborigine from the Australian Outback, a Chukchi from the Northern Arctic, a tribal hunter from the Amazon Rainforest, a nomadic herder from the Mongolian Steppe, a Sherpa from the Himalayas, a Xhosa from Africa and a Techie from Silicon Valley can all be ranked on a single scale using a single metric of "General Intelligence" is ... manifestly wrong and unscientific! The absurdity is self-evident.
- User23 3y agoNow you’re just falling back on bluster. You’re not even making claims anymore. You may as well argue that height isn’t a scientific metric because some people have longer legs and others have longer torsos so clearly any single height metric is meaningless. It’s pure flimflammery. In any event it’s pretty clear that your beliefs on the subject of intelligence are not evidence based, so I don’t think further discussion will be intellectually satiating for either of us.