3 ms·

1. I wasn’t making any claim to the distribution of IQ test results across the population. 2. You can have different categories and still have correlations bet

• astrange 2y ago
  > Presence of outliers (savants) doesn’t discredit the general correlation You're now claiming a "correlation", but a correlation is meaningless so we don't need to credit it in the first place - since, you know, correlation is not causation. It is evidence against a useful causation. (If the causation is "low IQ causes poor skills except when it doesn't" this isn't useful since it's a tautology.) > No one is claiming skills cannot be learned You were claiming that smart people are better at everything before this, but it's well known that they're not better at this even though it's a purely mental skill. Strictly speaking you were claiming that people better at some test are better at every test, but presumably you meant to generalize there, since if they just had high "test taking skills" nobody would care. Also a likely circularity lurking in the definition of "test"…
  • llamaimperative 2y ago
    I didn’t claim anything other than a correlation, and no, I don’t see why causation is important but correlation is not. What decision hinges on this? You’re speaking as if there’s no correlation between IQ and performance in chess. This is not true. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160913124722.htm?t https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160913124722.h... “Strictly speaking,” no, I didn’t say people better at some test are better at every test.