3 ms·
> you either have something to channel or don't Again, any evidence? What exactly is 'cognitive ability'? A hallmark of the lack of substantive argument is vag
by mmooss 11mo ago
> you either have something to channel or don't
Again, any evidence? What exactly is 'cognitive ability'? A hallmark of the lack of substantive argument is vague terms that can mean anything the speaker likes, and by not defining the term they prevent any substantive critique - nobody really knows what they're talking about (and usually, not the speaker either).
I highly doubt it's all or nothing. While there are likely variations in anything, they can be quite insignificant. For example, everyone, with tiny exceptions, can learn to speak & understand language, and write & read - highly sophisticated cognitive abilities. And they can improve those abilities through education.
These baseless generalities don't show much 'cognitive ability'.
- literalAardvark 11mo agoThere's plenty of evidence for those who want to learn instead of split hairs. I'd start with a search on "general intelligence factor".
- zapzupnz 11mo agoAre you really lmgtfy-ing on Hacker News?
- mmooss 11mo agoSo you've got nothing to offer?
- literalAardvark 11mo agoI answered your question clearly and in good faith. The rest of your diatribe is US styled epistemic theatre I don't feel the need to engage with, so I didn't. What exactly did your posts contribute?
- mmooss 11mo agoYou provided nothing but unsupported claims. Nobody else is doing your research for you.
- foxglacier 11mo agoIt's the scientific consensus not somebody's pet theory. So you don't need to get answers from here, you can get them from Google.
- tptacek 11mo agoIt's the consensus among g-theorists. "The scientific consensus" on cogntive function is Not A Thing.
- paulryanrogers 11mo agoIs this the 'g' factor? What studies do you find compelling? Any done after the early 1900s or on adults?