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

holy, getting a study, might as well one that meets your conditions is hard. I will keep looking.

I have a pretty high verbal IQ but a pretty low typing IQ and a pretty medium smoke signal IQ.

By the way, have you ever heard of a guy named "Biker"? @Slavic Infidel

He used to have a pfp like yours, with the same guy.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222513582_Extraversion_and_intelligence_A_meta-analytic_investigation

I briefly saw someone with the same pfp as me some time ago but didn't interact.

this is what I found

and it says

basically

the effect was a very tiny positive

that turned into a very tiny negative

```Correlations between the date of publication of the study and the observed extraversion–intelligence correlations were generally negative, which suggested a change in the magnitude of the extraversion–intelligence relation over time. Furthermore, the estimated effect size between extraversion and intelligence for studies conducted in the year 2000 and later was (p < .05), indicating that not only has the magnitude of the correlation decreased, but also that the direction of the correlation has changed from positive to slightly negative.```

yeah

which tells me pretty much nothing