1. I am checking for their proxy of introversion-extroversion. 2. I guess it has predictive power, so greater than .0. 3. They used three proxies for IQ, including the Raven's matrix. That proxy, according to Dutton and Woodley is pretty good, and Rushton considers it good. 4. 118 is a good enough sample for me. How many do you consider good?

Given that cognition is largely efficiency - that is, it's quantitative rather than qualtitative - this kind of test doesn't seem very reliable or accurate.

It may still be so functionally, but who can say if that's thanks to, or despite, its design.

made a correction to 1..

good would be many thousand over diverse populations

Fundamentally, intelligence is too broad as a concept. Until the predicate stops being vague,there are going to problems with testing for it

Because if you don't know what you're testing for...

at least that would be saying *something*

Coincidentally, this is something you can see if you try to test linguistic IQ.

My claim is that introversion would only be correlated negatively with Europeans and Asian. If you do it over different populations, I predict for a different result.

well 'europeans and asians' is a much more broad category than some female students at one university

Wierzbicka and her Sapir-Worf-derived hypothesis of linguistic primes - basic linguistic concepts that exist in human languages universally - is unknown or ignored in almost any test (all I know of, anyway) that measures linguistic IQ.

This would create an obvious problem across cultures and languages.

Have you heard of the sorites paradox, Hector?

It exists entirely thanks to vague predicates as such.

I really don't know what to say in response other than get more studies.

same

No.

I have not heard of that paradox.

<:hyperbrainlet:641878745631817738>

It is only able to exist because there is no concrete definition of a pile of sand.

get more studies

lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

that's what I'm saying

right now there's no evidence

If you have a clear definition of a "pile of sand", you can't have this paradox.

so its about 99.99% speculation

It is, as a result, just a confirmation of Wittgenstein's critique of philosophy: it's all just linguistic confusion.

A pile of sand is two or more grains. 😎

The question being asked is categorically incorrect.

Paradox solved.

Really, you are telling me in a way that I am interpreting the data in correctly with false premises. I wonder if they even have a study that fulfill your conditions for evidence.

"Does intelligence scale with extraversion?" is incorrect as a *question* unless you have a concrete and workable definition of intelligence.

@Slavic Infidel based and empiricistpilled

And no.

(and of extraversion)

You can interpret all you like out of my argument, but the essence of it is this:

You have to get a clear and reliable definition of the traits being evaluated.

Or you get the "IQ tests only measure your ability to take IQ tests" problem.

If you think I'm just having a dab on you, I haven'teven broken out the epistemology