Comment by ninetyninenine
9 days ago
>I didn't say anything about the validity of IQ. I said that Richard Lynn's numbers, which this site cites, are fraudulent. "IIT 2024" appears to be results from a website survey.
You said IQ by country doesn't exist. And i said, IQ is so pervasive it fucking does. You also referenced something completely off topic. Some random book claiming that because that random book is invalid the whole concept of IQ by country doesn't exist which is absolutely wrong.
>Respectfully, I think it's you that needs to do a bit more reading. I might be wrong about any of this stuff; I'm not an expert. But I'm pretty sure the first Google search result you find for "IQ by country" isn't going to rebut me effectively.
I'm well versed enough in IQ to know that even the first link on google is good enough to refute you. You don't have to believe me, but you can always do your own research to find out I'm right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSo5v5t4OQM&list=PL_K7XH1AIG... this can help
You cited a ranking of countries that was based on Lynn and his colleagues collecting data from childrens hospitals, because IQ is a diagnostic and not a ranking mechanism, and outside of wealthy western countries nobody has done latitudinal studies. If that was the worst thing Lynn had done to generate his data, it would already be fraudulent, but it isn't. Unfortunately, I don't think you actually understand the statistics you're citing.
[flagged]
I don't know what you're talking about. You cited a source upthread that included the Richard Lynn data --- very prominently! --- alongside an online survey site where people sign up, claim a country of origin, and fill out an online survey.
And no, your logic about how any diagnostic can be "ranked" obviously does not hold; it doesn't even make sense. But we've reached the point on the thread where you're trying to axiomatically derive your own psychometrics, so we can probably wrap it up here.