because the potential causal link is not as clear with these variables

How are they less valid than your totally non-causal connections?

@Benjamin Henry please find some research if u want to convince June, otherwise ur gonna get nowhere

can you demonstrate a causal link between socioeconomic status and crime in the way that you are asking of me?

(no)

assume the progressive position as the default, and set the burden of proof for the opposing position so high it cannot ever be "proven"

very cliche routine!

Actually, yes. If you or your family has less money, it's just more likely you'll resort to other means to take care of yourself or them. Mazlow's hierarchy of needs

lmao

There's a direct causal relationship there

uh no there's not

you haven't proven this causal relationship exists

If you say so

you've just given me the equivalent of what i've given for the causal link between iq and income

No, I've given you a causal relationship. You only have correlation

but you haven't demonstrated this causal relationship exists

you've given a potential causal explanation

but you haven't proven that it's real

You have two things that could be decades apart

Also the chart that was linked controlled for that, right?

It was, yes

I didn't see IQ on that chart, btw

so all you have is an attempt to establish a causal relationship through reason? the exact same thing i did with iq and income?

No, not the same - because doing well on IQ tests, as I said, doesn't necessarily measure what you're claiming it measures

All it measures is how good you are at taking IQ tests

yes and being good at iq tests involves how well you are able to apply abstract reasoning and pattern recognition

Or, you could just take them over and over and your score can improve

this is irrelevant to iq statistics in general

I think it's quite relevant

Since the taking of tests in general is a skill you can improve

no because the overwhelming majority of people who comprise the iq statistics we have do not do this

Yea IQ has been proven to be a pretty reliable measure.... certainly reliable enough to not just throw it out. I doubt the people in these studies are avid IQ test takers lol

The percentage of them that are taking the test over and over again as you suggest... is not enough to be statistically significant

IQ tests are easily game-able

Asks for evidence... then when given it... You decide its trash evidence... basically... not good enough for whatever reason.

I told you exactly why it's not good evidence

It's actually the exact same argument against state standardized tests, like the ones I took back at home in Pennsylvania

So students are taught to a particular test, rote memorization, instead of actual learning

If kids are taught specifically to take an IQ test, obviously they're going to do better

Which means that the test itself isn't that valuable a measuring tool

you can't apply rote memorization to an iq test