3 ms·

Your claim is "a strong genetic correlation". You can look up what that means mathematically.

• fsckboy 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  • tptacek 5mo ago
    I'm really not all that interested in whatever this is. You made an objective claim about the science that is false. That's all I care about.
    • fsckboy 5mo ago
      again you dodge providing citations for your "I wish" fever dreams about science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7RgN9ijwE4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7RgN9ijwE4 -- tptacek
      • tptacek 5mo ago
        Your own citation refutes your original claim. Why would I add another?
      • defrost 5mo ago
        More substance, less cheap shot uTub clips if you please. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    • fsckboy 5mo ago
      [flagged]
      • tptacek 5mo ago
        I don't see where any of these things you're talking about appear on this thread. I see you claiming a "strong genetic correlation" for IQ, and then presenting as your citation Richard Plomin --- look him up --- presenting a not-strong correlation. I point that out, and then you demand a citation for me. My citation is the post you provided. This doesn't seem complicated.
        • fsckboy 5mo ago
          >I don't see where any of these things you're talking about appear on this thread. yes! including you providing citations to your beloved science
          • tptacek 5mo ago
            Why are you talking like the Wicked Witch of the West?