3 ms·
Wow your replies are disappointing. Initially you gave me the impression that you had a direct counterpoint to ggm's statement on intelligence testing. But now
by zero-sharp 2y ago
Wow your replies are disappointing. Initially you gave me the impression that you had a direct counterpoint to ggm's statement on intelligence testing. But now you're bringing the conversation down to "what is intelligence?"? Sure, there is a point to make about scientific rigor. But when you have 10-20 different, highly desirable, cognitive traits that all correlate positively with IQ, then the evidence is definitely saying something.
>if we want to learn about a given phenomenon x, we don't do that by studying things that are about x but not x.
But if we want to learn about x, we often have to consider the real life implications of x.
- noch 2y ago> But if we want to learn about x, we often have to consider the real life implications of x. You want to argue against a point no one is making so … go nuts.
- zero-sharp 2y agoGuy. Look at your replies. You're talking down to people while at the same time adding next to nothing of substance to the conversation at hand. It's borderline not even worth responding to.
- noch 2y ago> You're talking down to people while at the same time adding next to nothing of substance to the conversation at hand. Cool. Thanks for contributing much of substance. Or is your only contribution tone policing according to your weird standard of what constitutes discourse?