Message from @Benjamin Henry
Discord ID: 631729973786443776
(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
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
That's an example
You can be taught how to be good at taking IQ tests, too
Id say that you certainly have failed to demonstrate that culture is separate from race. And that Death in June has used evidence to demonstrate that failure. Also taking IQ tests regularly is not apart of any schools regimen... once again the amount of people that are doing what you suggest is not statistically significant
@UnScottable I don't know what you read back there, but culture is actually significantly different from race