it was in wikipedia, too, but it doesn't matter

I'm not attacking the use of wikipedia

I was going through the tabs holding control f

trying to find that

also

on wikipedia

"However, the majority of study participants' lives were more mundane. By the 4th volume of Genetic Studies of Genius, Terman had noted that as adults, his subjects pursued common occupations "as humble as those of policeman, seaman, typist and filing clerk""

also

"Moreover, Terman meddled in his subject's lives, giving them letters of recommendation for jobs and college and pulling strings at Stanford to help them get admitted."

So they did have innate advantages

and terman's writings, in which he admitted there wasn't a strong correlation, were still biased

Okay, again

as he desperately wanted this study to prove something

What is being argued is not that this study means anything

I already said it would be dumb on my part to cite a study I've never even looked in to

The point is that it does not reach the conclusions you claimed it did

" terman's writings, in which he admitted there wasn't a strong correlation, were still biased"

He didn't say that, I just read the quote you sent me

Why would he reference his study anyway if he thought it disproved himself?

"we have seen that intellect and achievement"

From what I understand he was proud of it

how does that not admit that there isn't a strong correlation?

From everything I just saw looking it up the study doesn't contradict the idea that IQ is correlated to success.

At most it is inconclusive

^

eh

fine, whatever

right

this isn't an important point anyway

it doesn't matter what the findings of his study were

That's a VERY big difference when it comes to science

so it shouldn't be used as a source

we spent way too much time arguing something minor that can be seen from both points, depending on how you wish to construe it

Tainted or inconclusive <:unequal:473954748517842954> no correlation

if he meddled in their lives it sort of is a bad source

the context in which I read said source presented it in an entirely different way

Anyhow

Well it's easy for agenda pushers on either side to twist the findings around

Beyond that, there's still a myriad of issues with IQ itself

Most of the objections are trivial or political

Many critics argue for even worse things than IQ