Message from @SilverLining
Discord ID: 488242845472260106
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
^
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
IQ is *currently* the best we have
not really
it neglects so many factors and other forms of intelligence
Also, to your credit, from what I read while it did find on average that their incomes were higher, the difference was certainly noticeable but non substantial since they pursued normal occupations @SilverLining
Those other forms of intelligence have lower predictive power than IQ