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

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

in general*

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

that there was a negligible impact

I didn't gather that the impact was negligible

just that it wasn't as great as predicted

two different things

relatively minimal, at any rate

which in coordination with the vast number of surpassing outliers

To your arbitrary standard

That wasn't what I gathered, but let's move on

means that one shouldn't base any policies upon IQ

anyhow

beyond the test

and I'm sure you probably read this when reading the study...

IQ correlates heavily to nutrition and education...

or just socioeconomic background in general

Those things have truth to them, but the extent to which they impact it are pretty debatable

to an incredibly large extent

why am I arguing this at 2 am

I'm gonna go to sleep