to "multiple intelligences"

So I can't contend that your reasoning is flawed?

based Jew

I mean, I've already laid out the specifics

It's

>Statistically insignificant, if existent at all

>Largely accounted for by other factors

within the topic of "2 IQ points dont mean anything", I'm correct

with sufficiently large sample size

>And, presuming it exists, is incredibly minor - not even a standard deviation. At that level, it would have no effect

Also, uh

it is statistically significant

cultural bias exists

within the test

'n' shit

even if it's 2 points

so

cultural bias

all the search for cultural bias

has found next to nothing

Plus it just arbitrarily... was created

Like

Pattern recognition isn't the be all end all of intelligence, y'know?

give me a psychometric that is taken more objectively by psychologists

But like

even the...

Vocabulary may be biased

umm... what?

everything you're saying amount to "this test isn't perfect"

we already know that

More

we're arguing that it's the best test we have, even if ti's not that great

"The test is complete garbage and fails to account for a large number of things"

Just look at gardner's multiple intelligences

or... any number of other proposed metrics

IQ is only around because it was the first and enjoyed brief popularity among eugenics movements

is the test complete garbage when I consider differences of 20 points? or population differences?

Basically, what you're saying amounts to

"No, the test is completely okay and reasonable, any issues don't matter because it exists"

no, my agument is that if IQ tests go, so does all of psychometrics

So...