>> When one seen someone assume a correlation has a meaning not proven in the evidence, it's not condescension, it's charity. > Where did I assume a meaning?

>> When one seen someone assume a correlation has a meaning not proven in the evidence, it's not condescension, it's charity. > Where did I assume a meaning? Apart from the correlation, when you began speaking as though an I.Q. test measures intelligence. Even the current test's designer denies that. > you were trying to pretend the data doesn't exist ... Citation needed. You're using words I never used to assert a claim I never made. I never claimed that data don't exist, I made the point that without evidence for a connection, the correlation has no meaning. And I proved it with multiple examples. > Denying your fallacious original overreadings ... I see that you still need to learn the role of evidence.