Intelligence isn't genetic

submitted by Chipit from i.redd.it

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]bobbobbybob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

already established and referenced that education can't shift IQ by much.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You misunderstood me. I am effectively saying education level is probably a better predictor of one's likelihood to be a fan of Jerry Springer than IQ.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You are, and that is an unfounded assertion unbacked by any peer reviewed science.

Ie. you are talking out of your arse.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Note my use of the word "probably". I put that in there because I know I'm speculating.

Once again, you seem to be failing to grasp where the burden of proof falls in this conversation. If person x says the likelihood of watching Jerry Springer is driven by nature more than nurture, then person x must provide the evidence of their claim.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

in other words: you got nothing

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes, there exists no data on the subject of Jerry Springer fan base "intelligence". That's not my problem though.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

actual factual basis for my argument 'is not my problem'

gotcha, chaim.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Hmm... I wonder how to use *>*?...

Oh look a butterfly!

Things someone did not say

Fjdoejrbdk

That'll teach em