just realized going forward I can object to any arguments on the grounds of it relating to specific IQ levels and leaving up to them to identify which IQ they are even if they say "what thats stupid" theyll think about which they are first in any c ase one more way to derail
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
s p i c y
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There certainly exist ideas, the arguments FOR which have one threshold and the counterarguments another, higher threshold. And the opposite pattern too
-
You probably have to be 110 to fucking love science and 125 to recognize scientism when you see it
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
A = {74, 95, 112, 139, 154, 173} IQₛ ∈ A IQₑ ∉ A
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Take it even further, Horoscopes but for WAIS subtests
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
IQ Quantum is at best probabilistic. More likely IQ is like aether and like aether will fall by the wayside.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The problem is that the true iq distribution in continuous. If any two people were to have the *exact* same score, their worldviews would be perfectly identical. This is a fact.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
If you never think, then your IQ never settles into any of its eigenvaluespic.twitter.com/rD7KGYbVWz
-
0 is a trivial solution to an eigenvalue problem
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.