GPA's accuracy reflecting intelligence.

[devonin]

Alright, let's see what we can do here.

Bynary: The first article you linked to in support of your claims was not a legitimate source, and the second referred only to there being no support for a claim that many kids make for kids with a lower IQ. It said nothing at all about parents, and nothing at all about anyone having their IQ lower, and thus had nothing to do with your point either.

Further, even if there were a correlation, as was pointed out above: post hoc ergo propter hoc is one of the standard logical fallacies, and you need to properly -prove- a causal relationship before you can claim one.

Reach: Same deal with the correlation. It can exist and still be coincidental, just because its there doesn't mean the correlation is causal. Also, The ratio system says if your intelligence remains constant, your IQ will drop as your chronological age increases, and saying "Well then you switch to deviation" sounds a little like "So then we switch from one set of numbers that suddenly becomes wrong, to a totally new set of numbers that supports the validity of our process"

I'd suggest that any IQ test result you want to cite with reference for yourself ought to only be considered valid for about a year after you take it. I'm of the opinion that the subjective nature of test to test, and the way they interact with respect to mental and chronological age makes it that if you want to justifiably go around telling people about your IQ, you ought to get retested every year. I think that would solve both of our issues with the system yes?

gnr: You're perfectly right to ask to see sources cited when someone is claiming facts you disagree with, but there were better ways to ask to see them. No harm no foul, really, but you were a little more confrontational than you perhaps needed to be, though Bynary, you also took it a little harder than you ought to. Civility is the order of the day.

Rubin0: If you hate to make generalizations about people's ages, then don't make generalizations about people's ages. Also, while it may be true in large parts of the forum (Especially stuff like TGB) that new users have no credibility with the old users, here credibility comes with intelligent and contributory posting, not just being around a long time.

A very well known, even well liked, user from 3 or 4 years of constant forum activity can make their first post in CT, and if it sucks, contributes nothing, is full of fallacy and nonsense, that's where credibility goes away. We've had several people who started posting here who were quite new, and many who pretty much -only- post here, and they have plenty of credibility.

And see, I didn't even put all that in red text. We can solve our issues without the iron fist.