Searching "comments":
| # | Comment | Survey |
|---|---|---|
| 21 | Just to remind you what the scientific basis of your argument is, in case you had forgotten... "But that's also because successful people are usually better educated, and research has also shown that good education will improve a person's ability to do IQ tests. So it's more likely that high-IQ scorers are those who have been taught, or who have taught themselves, the necessary skills to do well in the tests, and that these skills also happen to be the ones that tend to be most helpful in the academic and business worlds." You said, "It's more likely." and now you are attacking me? No, it's not more likely, it's impossible because infant IQ tests correlate at a rate of about .33 with later on IQ tests. The reason they don't correlate better is because it's difficult for obvious reason to measure an infants IQ, and because IQ, being related to age, is prone to being affected by developmental differences so there is more variation at a young age than there would be later on. So the idea that people have "taught themselves" these skills is not a primary factor in the situation. There are also strong correlations between seperated at birth identical twins, and, like I said before, there are no personality characteristics that are as heritable as IQ so therefore your intermediary personality step doesn't work. | Do you think IQ tests are a true measure of intelligence? |
| 22 | Three years of classes, many psychology courses, 1/2 year at a major research institution in the field. 4.0 Psychology GPA. 20 credits in directly relevant psychological fields. My current research which is on the same level as what graduate students at most universities are carrying out focuses around the Stroop Effect (I'll admit that grad students at THIS University are doing even more promising research, but I'm comparing this to typical school). I am attacking some conclusions drawn by researcher Ardi Roelofs at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. He recently published a 100 page paper in the Psychological Review on the subject of attentional control during Stroop Task. By complete coincidence I had read an obscure paper that contained information that 0contradicts the Roelof's Theory. Roelofs had said that the reason that the Stroop Effect fairs to reverse under stimulus onset asynchrony circumstances is due to the "verbal" part of the Glasser and Glasser (1989) model actually being composed of two seperate pieces... the Lemma and the Word-Form. He argued that information cannot pass from the lemma to the Word-Form without being flagged by the anterior cingulate. This was a plausible theory but had a major flaw... but not so obvious. In a task paralell to the Stroop Task, the Durgin Reverse Stroop (2001), the effects ALSO fail to reverse under SOA conditions. However, you cannot break down the concept-oriented area of the brain that the Durgin effects are occuring in under the set of rules which Roelofs is suggesting for the Verbal area. The Roelofs rules for the Verbal area seperation into lemma and word form are entirely based on linguistic principals which have no paralells in the color-concept center where Durgin's obscure research focused. Needless to say, this brings into question whether the Roelofs idea works. My work in the area specifically is to reproduce the Roelofs and Durgin experiments (which I've written a program for and tested), and then later on I have two other paths... The first is to find out if the reversals show some influence in subjects where there may be problem breaking down the lemma (whole words) into word forms (syllables and letters). Assuming Roelofs is right there should be noteworthy differences in reversals between dyslexics and controls on this reversal. Later, I intend to do the experiment with graphemic based languages like Korean and Japanese, on Korean and Japanese subjects, because again, you can't break down the verbal area into lemma and word-form in these languages. When that's not keeping me busy, I've got what is currently a half-baked set of theories that one day will change the way we look at complex systems... especially complex cognitive systems. For now there needs to be some work done to refine them. The truth is that it is all kind of obvious-- It turns out that any system that displays a certain noise in the results it produces tends to aggregate at the extremes (as opposed to regress to the means, which is the current theory for everything). This idea that there are all these different systems that tend to aggregate at the extremes allows us a new way to look at such issues as evolution and decision making. WHY are decisions made? Because it is the basic nature of the cognitive system which makes the decision, due to it's meeting certain criteria, to have attractor basins at the extremes... and therefore decisions will be made as opposed to the null hypothesis of minds that don't stay stable over time. This explains why the "low-ball" technique works... the system falls into a stable "yes" decision state, and it takes quite a POP to get it out of there. So even after the seller comes back and changes the arrangement... the system's already made the decision. For the first time in history, I've explained a social reality in detail at the *systemic* level. We always knew this happened, but for the first time, I am saying WHY it happened. In the past there have been Biological, Social, Psychological (internal), Chemical, Medical, etc. etc. etc. explanations for human behavior. People got locked into this early and current researchers are not able to view it in the way I am viewing it... as an entire system. I can describe what is happening based on the characteristics of the entire system. It should be as promising as the biological theories once were. There are other people looking at these types of things (obviously it's a huge field known as cognitive science), but everyone else is focusing on learning, as a tool for writing programs, but I am focusing on the simpler and more unviersal aspects of these systems. Why, for instance, if you drum your index fingers on the table such that one is going up as the other is going down, can you do it easily at low speeds but not at all at high speeds? Well, I didn't answer THIS particular question, but someone at MIT did and I'm on board for using similar logic elsewhere. Systems theory is the closest to an "ultimate theory of everything" that the world has ever seen. For the past few centuries, science has focused on breaking large complex systems down into their components. My research, and the research of many others, will usher in the time where we FINALLY put it all back together! Gestalt!!!!!!! I think in the past people did look at whole systems, but they were wrong about a lot (I mean way back millenia ago). Now we have broken them down and we can put them back together again and see them correctly. Huge finds will come from this. For now the theory needs complex cognitive modeling to be demonstrated, and that entails computer skills I am only now working on developing. Additionally I need to do more research because it is possible that someone has thought of something relevant to these types of ideas before (though I haven't seen anything in many books I've read and articles). It will be several years before anything comes of it. The theory also explains why HUMAN evolution has been able to occur so quickly. Normally you'd expect regression to the mean in terms of IQ, etc, but my theory demonstrates that because the human evolutionary system overall displays certain characteristics, there is a tendency for it to move towards the extremes. Generally, I'm just saying that there are "subsets" of the population... people mate with people who are similar to them (similiarity), and therefore the reality is that characteristics are more on "Brownian Walk" patterns than random patterns, and therefore instead of regression to the mean over successive generations we'd expect a slow move away from the mean towards the two extremes. At each extreme is an absorbing barrier for the system where, if the characteristic becomes any more pronounced, the organism will die. On a normal Brownian walk these absorbers would act as reflectors. Because the absorbers represent death of the organism, they don't have the potential to reflect in future generations. So what happens with people and other socially developed animals is that even without "natural selection" there is a tendency for the population to drift significantly over time towards extremes. Even without selection, I'm saying, the population will slowly segregate itself into camps where there are characteristics in opposition to one another, and they will display the extremes of these characteristics. I've got a class now but I'd love to tell you more later. Now, how much of that did you understand? Most of it? MSG, again, you have absolutely no relevant experience to the particular field that is being addressed? I KNOW MORE ABOUT PSYCHOLOGY THAN YOU EVER WILL, MSG! Just accept it and move on. Whatever your area(S) of expertise happens to be, which you are being elusive about, I'm sure you know much much more about it than I do. This area is one in which you know absolutely nothing, and that is clear. The scientific theory you presented for IQ's had been addressed by existing research and therefore is not correct. When you posted it, my mind immediately went to the research disproving it. If you had the background in THIS PARTICULAR FIELD that I do, you would have realized that and posted something more plausible... | Do you think IQ tests are a true measure of intelligence? |
| 23 | Sorry Kristal, I don't have time to address everything, but... When you do a multiple regression on Education Vs. IQ Vs. Income (as the dependent), the coefficient for IQ is bigger. This is because any relationship between IQ and Education (as long as IQ was measured BEFORE the education) will have IQ as the independent and education as the dependent. The relationship between the two therefore is one where you have to subtract the fact that education is just another measure of IQ from the Education/income coefficient, and it all becomes clear. This is MSG and I's argument, he's trying to argue that the IQ is dependent or that there is a third variable. IQ can't be dependent because we can measure it from very young ages, hell, even using mechanical/electrical devices. A third variable influencing both is unlikely because of the same reason and because IQ correlates so well in twins reared apart. (Though, children are generally adopted into families that are similar to their birth families so consider that when looking at the R of .85). | Do you think IQ tests are a true measure of intelligence? |
| 24 | MSG, the number of years that someone has worked in a lab inversely correlates with the quality of research they do. The old theory that good ideas come young prior to the "culling" phase turns out to be correct. What happens is that if you don't get the ideas young they are culled during the teenage years when the brain is streamlining operations and you get stuck in the way of thinking that everyone else does and you aren't going to make any major break-throughs. Einstein's Relativity is something he had been thinking about since he was a child. Mozart had been writing music since a very very young age... (it wasn't as good as the later music, but it was based on the same understandings.) I'm 17. I have an extensive knowledge of all fields related to psychology due to many years of study and a reasonably high IQ. I haven't worked in a "scientifically oriented field," but I have been a research assistant (unpaid) in psychological labs which you haven't so that essentially negates that point. My degree WILL be in psychology, which out-does yours... which I'm guessing is in chemistry. What I'm saying isn't anything extraordinary, it is the type of information you'll learn if you have 101 with an honest teacher or if you have read any of the relevant literature. There are some straight-forward conclusions. There are a lot of not-so-intelligent "social theorists" and whoever who try to stir up rhetoric. There are always going to be people who are fighting the truth because they don't like the social implications, it is a lot like the catholic church did on several subjects. You have failed to demonstrate even an understanding of the science you are attacking, and as such, I'm disinterested in continuing the secondary and tertiary aspects of this discussion. I encourage you to address the science that I have hit you over the head with. If you walked into my apartment and looked around this argument would be over. I've got 25 psychologically oriented books scatterred across the floow, and to my right there is a DSM, and to my left there is a stack of studies which I'd estimate at totalling 1000+ pages (many of which on intelligence because our discussion has stirred my interest). Under my sink I've got a cardboard box filled with old studies I'd printed and read... and three card-board boxes filled with journals that I subscribe to. This doesn't even get into all the articles that are only available in print that I've read... fifty or more on this topic alone, well over a hundred on Stroop.... or any of the books I've returned (I wonder if I can "audit" my library account?) on this and related subjects after reading them. This is all I do msg, essentially, is study people. The problem is that you are mistaking this particular issues for one of the more controversial ones. The only place this research is controversial is in the press and in journals without good review processes. In the major journals there is nearly unanimous agreement on a list of 25 points related to IQ, which address everything that is being said here. | Do you think IQ tests are a true measure of intelligence? |
| 25 | Since the publication of "The Bell Curve," many commentators have offered opinions about human intelligence that misstate current scientific evidence. Some conclusions dismissed in the media as discredited are actually firmly supported. This statement outlines conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence, in particular, on the nature, origins, and practical consequences of individual and group differences in intelligence. Its aim is to promote more reasoned discussion of the vexing phenomenon that the research has revealed in recent decades. The following conclusions are fully described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence. The Meaning and Measurement of Intelligence 1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings--"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do. 2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to. 3. While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure the same intelligence. Some use words or numbers and require specific cultural knowledge (like vocabulary). Others do not, and instead use shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple, universal concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down). 4. The spread of people along the IQ continuum, from low to high, can be represented well by the bell curve (in statistical jargon, the "normal curve"). Most people cluster around the average (IQ 100). Few are either very bright or very dull: About 3% of Americans score above IQ 130 (often considered the threshold for "giftedness"), with about the same percentage below IQ 70 (IQ 70-75 often being considered the threshold for mental retardation). 5. Intelligence tests are not culturally biased against American blacks or other native-born, English-speaking peoples in the U.S. Rather, IQ scores predict equally accurately for all such Americans, regardless of race and social class. Individuals who do not understand English well can be given either a nonverbal test or one in their native language. 6. The brain processes underlying intelligence are still little understood. Current research looks, for example, at speed of neural transmission, glucose (energy) uptake, and electrical activity of the brain, uptake, and electrical activity of the brain. Group Differences 7. Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level. The bell curves of different groups overlap considerably, but groups often differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ line. The bell curves for some groups (Jews and East Asians) are centered somewhat higher than for whites in general. Other groups (blacks and Hispanics) ale centered somewhat lower than non-Hispanic whites. 8. The bell curve for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100; the bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and blacks. The evidence is less definitive for exactly where above IQ 100 the bell curves for Jews and Asians are centered. Practical Importance 9. IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and performance of individuals is very strong in some arenas in life (education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abidingness). Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance. 10. A high IQ is an advantage in life because virtually all activities require some reasoning and decision-making. Conversely, a low IQ is often a disadvantage, especially in disorganized environments. Of course, a high IQ no more guarantees success than a low IQ guarantees failure in life. There are many exceptions, but the odds for success in our society greatly favor individuals with higher IQs. 11. The practical advantages of having a higher IQ increase as life settings become more complex (novel, ambiguous, changing, unpredictable, or multifaceted). For example, a high IQ is generally necessary to perform well in highly complex or fluid jobs (the professions, management): it is a considerable advantage in moderately complex jobs (crafts, clerical and police work); but it provides less advantage in settings that require only routine decision making or simple problem solving (unskilled work). 12. Differences in intelligence certainly are not the only factor affecting performance in education, training, and highly complex jobs (no one claims they are), but intelligence is often the most important. When individuals have already been selected for high (or low) intelligence and so do not differ as much in IQ, as in graduate school (or special education), other influences on performance loom larger in comparison. 13. Certain personality traits, special talents, aptitudes, physical capabilities, experience, and the like are important (sometimes essential) for successful performance in many jobs, but they have narrower (or unknown) applicability or "transferability" across tasks and settings compared with general intelligence. Some scholars choose to refer to these other human traits as other "intelligences." Source and Stability of Within-Group Differences 14. Individuals differ in intelligence due to differences in both their environments and genetic heritage. Heritability estimates range from 0.4 to 0.8 (on a scale from 0 to 1), most thereby indicating that genetics plays a bigger role than does environment in creating IQ differences among individuals. (Heritability is the squared correlation of phenotype with genotype.) If all environments were to become equal for everyone, heritability would rise to 100% because all remaining differences in IQ would necessarily be genetic in origin. 15. Members of the same family also tend to differ substantially in intelligence (by an average of about 12 IQ points) for both genetic and environmental reasons. They differ genetically because biological brothers and sisters share exactly half their genes with each parent and, on the average, only half with each other. They also differ in IQ because they experience different environments within the same family. 16. That IQ may be highly heritable does not mean that it is not affected by the environment. Individuals are not born with fixed, unchangeable levels of intelligence (no one claims they are). IQs do gradually stabilize during childhood, however, and generally change little thereafter. 17. Although the environment is important in creating IQ differences, we do not know yet how to manipulate it to raise low IQs permanently. Whether recent attempts show promise is still a matter of considerable scientific debate. 18. Genetically caused differences are not necessarily irremediable (consider diabetes, poor vision, and phenal keton uria), nor are environmentally caused ones necessarily remediable (consider injuries, poisons, severe neglect, and some diseases). Both may be preventable to some extent. Source and Stability of Between-Group Differences 19. There is no persuasive evidence that the IQ bell curves for different racial-ethnic groups are converging. Surveys in some years show that gaps in academic achievement have narrowed a bit for some races, ages, school subjects and skill levels, but this picture seems too mixed to reflect a general shift in IQ levels themselves. 20. Racial-ethnic differences in IQ bell curves are essentially the same when youngsters leave high school as when they enter first grade. However, because bright youngsters learn faster than slow learners, these same IQ differences lead to growing disparities in amount learned as youngsters progress from grades one to 12. As large national surveys continue to show, black 17- year-olds perform, on the average, more like white 13-year-olds in reading, math, and science, with Hispanics in between. 21. The reasons that blacks differ among themselves in intelligence appear to be basically the same as those for why whites (or Asians or Hispanics) differ among themselves. Both environment and genetic heredity are involved. 22. There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups. The reasons for these IQ differences between groups may be markedly different from the reasons for why individuals differ among themselves within any particular group (whites or blacks or Asians). In fact, it is wrong to assume, as many do, that the reason why some individuals in a population have high IQs but others have low IQs must be the same reason why some populations contain more such high (or low) IQ individuals than others. Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too. 23. Racial-ethnic differences are somewhat smaller but still substantial for individuals from the same socioeconomic backgrounds. To illustrate, black students from prosperous families tend to score higher in IQ than blacks from poor families, but they score no higher, on average, than whites from poor families. 24. Almost all Americans who identify themselves as black have white ancestors-the white admixture is about 20%, on average--and many self-designated whites, Hispanics, and others likewise have mixed ancestry. Because research on intelligence relies on self- classification into distinct racial categories, as does most other social-science research, its findings likewise relate to some unclear mixture of social and biological distinctions among groups (no one claims otherwise). Implications for Social Policy 25. The research findings neither dictate nor preclude any particular social policy, because they can never determine our goals. They can, however, help us estimate the likely success and side-effects of pursuing those goals via different means. The following professors-all experts in intelligence an allied fields-have signed this statement: Richard D. Arvey, University of Minnesota Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., University of Minnesota John B. Carroll, U.N.C. at Chapel Hill Raymond B. Cattell, University of Hawaii David B. Cohen, U.T. at Austin Rene W. Dawis, University of Minnesota Douglas K. Detterman, Case Western Reserve U. Marvin Dunnette, University of Minnesota Hans Eysenck, University of London Jack Feldman, Georgia Institute of Technology Edwin A. Fleishman, George Mason University Grover C. Gilmore, Case Western Reserve U. Robert A. Gordon, Johns Hopkins University Linda S. Gottfredsen, University of Delaware Richard J. Haier, U.C. Irvine Garrett Hardin, U.C. Berkeley Robert Hogan, University of Tulsa Joseph M. Horn, U.T. at Austin Lloyd G. Humphreys, U.Ill. at Champaign-Urbana John E. Hunter, Michigan State University Seymour W. Itzkoff, Smith College Douglas N. Jackson, U. of Western Ontario James J. Jenkins, U. of South Florida Arthur R. Jensen, U.C. Berkeley Alan S. Kaufman, University of Alabama Nadeen L. Kaufman, Cal. School of Prof. Pshch., S.D. Timothy Z. Keith, Alfred University Nadine Lambert, U.C. Berkeley John C. Loehlin, U.T. at Austin David Lubinski, Iowa State University David T. Lykken, University of Minnesota Richard Lynn, University of Ulster at Coleraine Paul E. Meehl, University of Minnesota R. Travis Osborne, University of Georgia Robert Perloff, University of Pittsburg Robert Plomin, Institute of Psychiatry, London Cecil R. Reynolds Texas A&M University David C. Rowe University of Arizona J. Philippe Rushton U. of Western Ontario Vincent Sarich, U.C. Berkeley Sandra Scarr, University of Virginia Frank L. Schmidt University of Iowa Lyle F. Schoenfeldt, Texas A&M University James C. Sharf, George Washington University Julian C. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University Del Theissen, U.T. at Austin Lee A. Thompson, Case Western Reserve U. Robert M. Thorndike, Western Washington University Philip Anthony Vernon, U. of Western Ontario Lee Willerman, U.T. at Austin Discussion over. Pay careful attention to 9-14. Any other questions? The document, BTW, is entitled "Mainstream science on intelligence." | Do you think IQ tests are a true measure of intelligence? |
| 26 | Did you read my post MSG? Your IQ must be low or something. I've carried out PLENTY of research. Give me your email and I'll send you a paper. I haven't FINISHED my empirical research yet if that's what you are getting at, though I have run several subjects and I'll send you the data if you'd really like (though, it's over your head, and I fudgeed something up so it's not good for anything.). | Do you think IQ tests are a true measure of intelligence? |
| 27 | Did you read that paper? I am arguing for my points. Part of arguing for points is supplying references. I was happy to argue this with you from a scientific perspective but it became clear that you weren't understanding, at which point I casually inquired as to whether you happened to be involved in the field or whether you had any related knowledge? You dodged these inquiries so it turns out that no, you do not know. The person who looks foolish is you. You have no background in psychology and you argued with me by saying something which was factually incorrect. I have an extensive background in psychology and this argument was won before it began because you said something unbelievably stupid. I explained it to you, and you never again addressed any of the main points. You did not address my twin-studies evidence, you did not address my reference to APA journal articles, and most importantly, you didn't address my logic or my argument. You have no background in this field. You are in over your head. You also don't appear to be very bright, no offense. Remember when we argued about rats? You realize Biggles noted a few weeks ago that I had been right (she majors in biology at oxford?). Stop Ad-Homineming me, and lets argue the points. My understanding of the research is so far beyond yours that you will never catch up. It's that simple. Whatever you do, I'm sure your good at it MSG, but know your limits. Did you, or did you not, read the article I posted from 50+ researchers in the field which addresses your specific points? The reason I posted that is because you were caught up on my being 17, so I figured I'd list off who agrees with me. It's me and them Vs. Little ole you, MSG. | Do you think IQ tests are a true measure of intelligence? |
| 28 | Incidentally, you are officially black-listed from my psychology discussions because you DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. | Do you think IQ tests are a true measure of intelligence? |
| 29 | Let's go back to where this discussion started... You: "research has also shown that good education will improve a person's ability to do IQ tests. So it's more likely that high-IQ scorers are those who have been taught, or who have taught themselves, the necessary skills to do well in the tests, and that these skills also happen to be the ones that tend to be most helpful in the academic and business worlds." Me: The original IQ tests were done when the children were between 8 and 10. They were all public school students. [This specifically addressed your point about education improving scores.] You can never KNOW that there is a causal relationship without doing a controlled study, but you can't exactly randomly assign people to the MIddle and High IQ groups, you know? [I agreed with your premise that you can't be certain, but suggested that you have to take some leaps sometimes.] It's pretty clear to me-- more intellect CAUSES more success. [I was pretty humble in stating what was intuitively obvious.] I think you must know this is true as well. [And you do.] There are other factors playing into it, sure. [Agreeing with your other factors.] The way I see it though, you can spend your life doing what most social scientists do, which is try to itemize these other factors, or you can call a spade a spade and say that even if we could somehow control for all other factors IQ would almost certainly show a significant correlation with most standard measures of success, like "income". [I rather humbly again stated something which is profoundly obvious and has been concluded to the satisfaction of everyone in the science]. You raise a good point though, that's why I told Zang to come to his own conclusions. [I flattered you even though you had made some major logical mistakes and betrayed a misunderstanding of the science in your original post, just because I didn't want this to happen.] You may not realize this, but everything after that has been you trying to defend your original position... and I'll mention it again in case you forgot... "So it's more likely that high-IQ scorers are those who have been taught, or who have taught themselves, the necessary skills to do well in the tests, and that these skills also happen to be the ones that tend to be most helpful in the academic and business worlds." This was your hypothesis, which you made prior to seeing the evidence. It was wrong, and I've demonstrated that. Now please do what a real scientist would od and say, "Okay, I guess my theory was wrong. Thanks for helping me to see the light on this issue. Maybe I can teach you about chemistry some day." | Do you think IQ tests are a true measure of intelligence? |
| 30 | Once more for msg's original position... "You: "research has also shown that good education will improve a person's ability to do IQ tests. So it's more likely that high-IQ scorers are those who have been taught, or who have taught themselves, the necessary skills to do well in the tests, and that these skills also happen to be the ones that tend to be most helpful in the academic and business worlds." All I'd like to hear you say is that you realize the error of your ways, and acknowledge that this is wrong. Your a chemist, right? So let's put this into perspective. What if someone who had won a Nobel Prize for work on Psychology came up to you one day and said... "You realize that Hydrogen atoms have four protons, right?" And then you said, "No they don't." And then THEY said, "I'm a scientist! I won a nobel prize!" blah blah blah. Wouldn't you get a little cocky, msg? I don't know what you really do, (though I'm going to keep calling you a chemist until you admit it), but you are probably good at it, like I said. Psychology is what I do, and my directly relevant knowledge of these subjects should have caused you to either 1) Have the common decency to disagree with me through the median of a sound scientific argument. or 2) Remained silent. It wasn't appropriate for you to come to me and say "You are mistaking correlation and causation." That was an insulting statement which didn't give me credit for the level of understanding of the field that I have. I was still pretty nice to you, but when you continued to disagree with me, and without even providing a sound scientific argument!, I had little choice but to question your background in this field... A background which is still dubious and I suspect amounts to a 101 class. Say it, say it MSG, say, "OKAY! You're right! Intelligence CAUSES success! The evidence is conclusive, overwhelming... strong!" | Do you think IQ tests are a true measure of intelligence? |
