|
Top-level
@makeworld if you want to argue semantics, then let me be precise: IQ is pseudoscientific in that it does not do what it claims, it relies on false assumptions and confirmation bias, is routinely advocated for situations it fails miserably at, and lacks any kind of proper scientific basis. Some guy in the 1910s thinking that something is scientific does not make it so, no matter how popular it becomes. 2 comments
@makeworld "I watched a video by some guy on YouTube and I found it convincing" plus "I read a wikipedia article and found a quote I agreed with" 🙄 It's nothing but appeals to authority, and zero critical reasoning, all the way down with you isn't it? I'm sorry we've both wasted our time on this, but you really need to learn what a proper source is and isn't. Congratulations for being a textbook example of how structural racism upholds itself though. |
Gregory's Server
@georgepotter I mean okay, I think I just disagree. I like this video if you're interested in why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkKPsLxgpuY
Thankfully we've moved far beyond the 1910s, over 100 years ago. I have no doubt cognitive testing sucked back then.