Why the scientific consensus says that women and men have the same iq if imperial data contradicts this statement?
>>16845334IQ tests don't measure intelligence. They measure how good you are at taking IQ tests. Furthermore, you are making an ASSUMPTION that your sample represents the population. Try again, loser.
>>16845344>The thread about iq not intelligence>The fact that 90% of studies show that men have higher iqSo low intelligent
>>16845348>Men are better at an arbitrary testSo what? I can construct a test that women are better at. You are obviously implying that IQ measures intelligence, otherwise your data is meaningless.
>>16845351Reread the original thread, honey
>>16845356>Concedes that IQ doesn't measure intelligence therefore making the test meaningless >Thinks there is a "scientific consensus" on a meaningless testOh dear, that is rather embarrassing
>>16845360Your logic is broken.If something doesn't exactly measures all of intelligence, it doesn't mean it's useless. IQ is the metric that correlates with many important things, therefore isn't useless.Educate yourself, take some logic classes
>>16845334>>16845348you can't even shitpost with graphs that agree with each other.
>>16845370>Concedes that IQ tests only measure a subset of intelligence, making them just as irrelevant as any other arbitrary test>Assumes correlation = causationOh dear, that is rather ironic!
>>16845375In this case causation is real. Not just assumption, it measures some aspect of intelligence >>16845373First is among college students, the second is among the general population from 50+ studies
>>16845344Imagine having such a low IQ and inferiority complex that any mere mention of IQ even without referring to intelligence triggers you this much. Lol
>>16845376>In this case causation is real.That's called an assumption>It measures some aspect of intelligenceSo does any test
>>16845384You didn't give answer to the original question. I don't care what you think of the test.Let's start again:Preposition 1= consensus says something is the same Preposition 2= actual data from different sources says otherwise What you get honey?P2 ¬P1
>>16845370You're overstating its importance.
>>16845387>Preposition 1= consensus says something is the sameThe "something" here is intelligence >Preposition 2= actual data from different sources says otherwiseThe "something" (implicitly) here is IQ. Since IQ ≠ intelligence there is no contradiction.
>>16845392>That postNo comments
>>16845395To twist the knife even more. Your OP claims (without evidence) that the scientific consensus is that there are no IQ differences between men and women. This is not the scientific consensus. You made that up. Feel free to quote, in full, any sentence from any study you found and I'll explain to you how you misread it. I'll accept continuation of no comments as a formal concession. Your move, chief.
>>16845344>woman is hysterically unable to stomach realityhe's something worse, whose essential spirit we all know is righthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdV63cggmBwbut you're probably one of the smart ones if you are stubbornly arguing with men on /sci/
>>16845392>>16845396And afrter that women want same rights
>>16845392Ok, so on what basis does """the consensus""" assert that women are as intelligent as men? How did they measure this? :^)
>>16845433By grades in gender studies
>>16845389I said no shit about importance
>>16845344Shut the fuck up you dumb nigger faggot Iq tests are the epitome of science and measuring your raw ability to make a discovery
G--_---n aborted _ew
>>16849050Was ist das
>>16845830Yes you did. Imagine being so unintelligent you don't understand your own argument
>>16845433By not finding conclusive evidence of statistically significant differences in intelligence between sexes. Attempts to find differences are consistently null.
>>16845888cope
>>16845344>IQ tests don't measure intelligence. They measure how good you are at taking IQ tests.Why are some people better at taking tests?
>>16850255because they retake it
>>16850262Wrong
>>16845334You would be correct in a vacuum where cows are perfectly spherical
>>16850666citation needed
>>16849491sybau
>>16845334>imperial dataESL retard
>>16851017>t. ESL cuck who cares about this stupid language more than his own
>>16845888trips of truthand the way you worded it was based as fuck lol
>>16845392The consensus also says that IQ and intelligence are the same otherwise everyone wouldn't be using IQ as a measure of intelligence.
>>16845334The sex difference in IQ also varies between race.I think whites have the biggest gap
>if you can't undermine the data undermine the methodology>if you can't undermine the methodology undermine the concept>if you can't undermine the concept undermine the definition>in the end create a rival unfalsifiable theory, pretend its true trough consensus and demand the opposition falsifies itthe modern left 'science' in a nutshell
>>16851364>The consensus also says that IQ and intelligence are the sameNo. Unless you mean /pol/consensus, which nobody but /pol/tards take as true.
>>16851409Example no.1>intelligence quotient doesn't measure intelligenceNo doubt this person will pretend intelligence can not be measured. This is obviously false, you can easily discern an intelligent man from a retard which means you can measure it. He will in turn follow this by undermining the definition of intelligence. "What is even intelligence?". Perhaps even an appeal to a different kind of 'intelligence' such as 'emotional' intelligence.
>>16851413You don't even know what g-loading means, or how IQ is relevant. Stop embarrassing yourself.
>>16851414Why would I be emberrased when you have no counter argument and immidietly resort to a feeble attempt at mockery?
>>16851417>Why would I be emberrasedKek. This shit writes itself.
>>16851200Lolmad
>>16851438Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, or the horse laugh) is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration.
>>16851440You are esl cuck
>>16849459How was the intelligence tested?
>>16851451PCA.
>>16851460On what data?
>>16850255>Why are some people better at taking tests?They follow orders. They study more. This isnt general intelligence, it measures qualities you want in employees.Intelligence isnt being good at following orders and reading manuals
>>16851547That anon you replied to was obviously talking about IQ tests specifically, not typical classroom regurgitation tests.
>>16851513Test batteries.
>>16850666Why?
