So are IQ studies psuedoscience?
IQ is too narrowly focused. Everything is aptitude and IQ only presents a sliver of the aptitudes of a person/
>>16958185nobody who mentions iq without cringing is an intelligent person
>>16958185The exact numbers presented seem quite sus, though I'm certain the results are directionally correct.
>>16958185Depends on "who" is presenting it as "science"Its data science which is not the same as natural science, and natural science is the only science there is. Inferring from data isnt a demonstration of causeI dont care how many biologists agree with race realism there simply isnt any science for it. BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN IT ISNT TRUE There have been claims such as "the IQ of X group is higher than Y group thus explains why X outperforms Y" theyre simply inferences from data and not sciences
>>16958185I took a YouTube ad IQ test; after 40 questions, they asked for my email and said they wouldn't give me the crappy results without paying for a sub. I want my time back. I wasn't going to take the chance anyway, just for fun (I probably have an above-average IQ then)
>>16958185Depends on the study. >lehehehehe, so only outcomes you like?No, depends on the methodology of the study, not the outcomes. Using text analysis to determine IQ is little more than voodoo. That someone calls it an IQ test doesn't make it so nor does it invalidate the actual rigorously designed tests that are given under controlled conditions.
>>16958185Correlation is not causation, so it's not really science, more like social-sciences like Economy, Psychology or Sociology.But it's definitely /sci/ related.
>>16958185No they're entirely valid, it's just that it invalidates much of letfist theories (like everything else).
>>16958185Yes, it's astrology for incels.
>>16958255that's a binary iq test
>>16958490why are leftoids so anti-scienceit's almost like their ideology is entirely about lies
