4 ms·
There's plenty of evidence for those who want to learn instead of split hairs. I'd start with a search on "general intelligence factor".
by literalAardvark 11mo ago
There'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?