Note to Al - Since you are unable to discuss the findings in the article, or can make no effort to refute them, we can only conclude that you agree with the article but are pi$$ed about it. That's okay.
you can conclude antything you want but as I said my job is not to inflate your ego....Have a nice day.
@Hoot Crawford, I don't read links that are posted without surrounding content. I have said that several times before. If you find it to be persuasive, then you should be able to make the argument for yourself. Whatever side of an argument someone is on, if they merely post a link, I assume that it wasn't even interesting enough for them to read it and know what it was about, so I don't bother. If the best you can do is post links to people or sites that support the position you've signed on to, that's not a discussion worth bothering with.
you must have a reading comprehension problem....I never said you're right. I just said your ego is so big that you think you're right all the time.
I just would like to reiterate that the folks who are pro Covid vaccine people try to categorize anyone who is anti this particular vaccine as an "Anti-Vaxxer". I have posted before that I am anything but anti vaccine and have been involved in vaccine research. I think it is foolish to essentially test a vaccine that uses a new technology on millions of people. That is not anti-vax; that is simple common sense. Would someone who raises livestock vaccinate his entire herd with a new untried vaccine that used a new technology when he isn't even certain that the disease covered by the vaccine would affect his herd? As long as it is a personal choice, I have nothing against those who choose to get the vaccine(s) or those who choose not to do so.
Are you kidding? Folks on here are trying to crucify me for just giving them a link to an article that made them uncomfortable/angry. I intentionally did not say that I agree or disagreed because I hoped to foster an intelligent discussion about that article. And to assume that I have "signed on" to a position just because I post a link is more than a little prejudicial on your part. We are all well aware of your cast in stone anti-vax position, so I guess I'm not surprised. Any body else want to pile on?
lol - if you thought I was wrong, you would have said so. My ego isn't the issue here and I'm not the one finger pointing and name calling. I just "calls 'em as I sees 'em". Sorry to get you all triggered up.
Let’s try this anew. How MANY PEOPLE in the U.S. have actually taken an IQ test administered by a psychologist? Has any blue collar worker you know taken one? Has anyone you even know taken one? Have YOU? If not, then those folks are not included in those stats and they far outnumber those who have taken a bonafide test and if it is a bonafide test then the findings are not even published by the psychologist. YOU called me unintelligent and now you’re saying I’m pathetic. YOU WROTE IT so stand by it and stop acting as though you’re just some innocent bystander who came on this thread to “study the facts”. The real joke is you can’t see that the article you sponsored isn’t based on IQ because again, the proposed IQ’s nation wide are based on what it takes to achieve a particular educational level. The article is erroneous, the writer is an idiot for proposing that IQ has anything to do with the proposition simply because that data is totally unavailable. It’s garbage. If 5% of the population of a state has taken the test then all you can analyze is that 5%, NOT 100% of the population. And further, my own IQ is NOT a published item so I’m not even included in any analytics of any kind which is the case for most of those tested. In short, if you really believe that the article you sponsored is meant to be a real fact finding epiphany from some totally honest individual with no agenda then it is not I who is the unintelligent pathetic individual. Look in the mirror bubba……
No one is trying to crucify you, and I don't even know that anyone has even clicked on your link. If you have a point, make it yourself, or at least show us that you've actually read the stuff you'd have us read well enough to discuss it. Trading links is not only boring but silly, considering that the true believers in Dr. Fauci control the media. Make your own arguments, if you have any.
Dear @Bobby Cole Let me clear up a couple of things (a) I never said you or any other of the posters on here were unintelligent. Please show me where I wrote it. (b) I said the posts about the article were pathetic. Sorry if you are unable to appreciate the distinction. As for the IQ test results, the authors revealed their source. If you want to dispute the accuracy of the data, feel free to show us some information from a reputable source as a basis for you dispute. All you have done is given us your opinion, which is not a reputable source. As for your or my IQ, nobody asked for either, and neither would be relevant, so not sure why you felt the need to bring it up And it should also me noted that I never said I agreed or disagreed with the conclusion in the article, but I was kind enough to give folks a few counterpoints back in post 157. Anything else I need to explain to you?
It doesn't require intelligence to do or believe as you're told. That's known as blind obedience or naivete, and it's antithetical to everything America once stood for.
So, even after you have been quoted, you still deny what you wrote. I asked you for some information which you seemingly avoid answering. Have you taken an IQ test administered by a psychologist? If you have not, then YOU are not included in that data you sponsored. If you have and haven’t released that score then you are not included in the analytics. If you have and have also allowed the information to be released or have it on a scholastic or military record of some sort then you might be included in that data. How can ANYONE say that the empirical data shows that such and such a state or city has a higher or lower IQ without the complete overall inclusion of that population? It is conjecture and maybe even a bit of subjective reasoning but it isn’t empirical by any means of the word. Use your head for more than a hat rack. It’s pure logic! Now, as far as assumed IQ’s based on overall scholastic achievements of an area being the basis of that assumption, look it up for yourself. You like links and I think you need something else to mess with.
{sigh} show me the quote. And now that you have indicating that statistical sampling is not a valid science. Okay. Again, I made no representation about the accuracy/quality of the IQ data or what assumption or methodologies were used. The authors cited their source and you have not been able to provide any alternative, factual rebuttal of that data. All you have given is your opinions. You are apparently dying to tell us what you scored on an IQ test, since, in other post, you have also talked about being on a web site based on IQ, etc. Go Ahead, tell us! It will be our little secret. Sorry that the facts get you all triggered up. Please don't ask me to explain this to you again. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.