have you interacted with them?

yes, but tahts cuz i'm above that curve

so you agree that 100 iq is fucking dumb?

like theres a point, when conversation doesnt even feel worth it

ill debate with someone i disagree with

by my standards, yes

but 100 IQ is the average, so its not dumb on world scale, its the exact middle

but like

Why is there no link to the actual study anywhere

someone 100iq i feel like it's whoever talk to them last lol

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/magazine/23wwln_idealab.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

thats the thing its qouting

thats probably a quicker trip to the sources

I know

im about to leave to get breakfast

but theres no link to the actual study, i been readin it

thing is im highly sceptical

well IQ of 100 is the average

If you have 100,000 people with an IQ that matches 80, and you have 2 people with an IQ of 800, you'll still get 100 as an average

Don't quote me on this, the numbers i just pulled out as an example of Shifting means by outliers

well its looking like

eric turkheimer might have done the study

When i see "social scientist, alma mater harvard law school, part of obama transition team, berkley university"

or atleast from skimming

i mean forgive me being skeptical, its just that ive seen these people outright lie about shit too many times

samples were from 1970

iq tests at age 7

1970s

we're still humans

you can be skeptical

ive seen shit where they say something, link the source

and the source says the opposite

so no harm in that, thats why when i get back ill help look

yes or they perform a study with 12 participants

LOL ill never be mad at skepticism

meaning its completely pointless

especially when it comes to studies

this was 50,000 american 7 year olds

so quite a thiccc study, but id like to see the results

might be an issue where its a lot of mass data

that needs to be sorted for this causes though

like 50,000 infants, maybe 1200 were adopted, ect

I'll take "What was the rate of Catholic priests raping 7 year olds?" for 4000

"He found what he needed in a sample from the 1970’s of more than 50,000 American infants, many from poor families, who had taken I.Q. tests at age 7. In a widely-discussed 2003 article, he found that, as anticipated, virtually all the variation in I.Q. scores for twins in the sample with wealthy parents can be attributed to genetics. The big surprise is among the poorest families. Contrary to what you might expect, for those children, the I.Q.’s of identical twins vary just as much as the I.Q.’s of fraternal twins. The impact of growing up impoverished overwhelms these children’s genetic capacities."