Message from @The Big Oof

Discord ID: 488242871204446219


2018-09-09 06:58:35 UTC  

also

2018-09-09 06:58:36 UTC  

"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."

2018-09-09 06:58:47 UTC  

So they did have innate advantages

2018-09-09 06:59:06 UTC  

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

2018-09-09 06:59:12 UTC  

Okay, again

2018-09-09 06:59:15 UTC  

as he desperately wanted this study to prove something

2018-09-09 06:59:20 UTC  

What is being argued is not that this study means anything

2018-09-09 06:59:33 UTC  

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

2018-09-09 06:59:47 UTC  

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

2018-09-09 07:00:00 UTC  

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

2018-09-09 07:00:10 UTC  

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

2018-09-09 07:00:24 UTC  

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

2018-09-09 07:00:30 UTC  

"we have seen that intellect and achievement"

2018-09-09 07:00:32 UTC  

From what I understand he was proud of it

2018-09-09 07:00:43 UTC  

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

2018-09-09 07:02:10 UTC  

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

2018-09-09 07:02:22 UTC  

At most it is inconclusive

2018-09-09 07:02:25 UTC  

^

2018-09-09 07:02:45 UTC  

eh

2018-09-09 07:02:48 UTC  

fine, whatever

2018-09-09 07:02:51 UTC  

right

2018-09-09 07:02:56 UTC  

this isn't an important point anyway

2018-09-09 07:03:08 UTC  

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

2018-09-09 07:03:08 UTC  

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

2018-09-09 07:03:14 UTC  

so it shouldn't be used as a source

2018-09-09 07:03:18 UTC  

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

2018-09-09 07:04:19 UTC  

Tainted or inconclusive <:unequal:473954748517842954> no correlation

2018-09-09 07:04:56 UTC  

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

2018-09-09 07:05:19 UTC  

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

2018-09-09 07:05:30 UTC  

Anyhow

2018-09-09 07:05:50 UTC  

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

2018-09-09 07:05:52 UTC  

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

2018-09-09 07:06:38 UTC  

Most of the objections are trivial or political

2018-09-09 07:07:19 UTC  

Many critics argue for even worse things than IQ

2018-09-09 07:07:48 UTC  

IQ is *currently* the best we have

2018-09-09 07:07:56 UTC  

not really

2018-09-09 07:08:03 UTC  

it neglects so many factors and other forms of intelligence

2018-09-09 07:08:36 UTC  

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

2018-09-09 07:08:44 UTC  

Those other forms of intelligence have lower predictive power than IQ

2018-09-09 07:08:45 UTC  

in general*

2018-09-09 07:08:58 UTC  

that's what I was trying to point out, more or less