Don't idolize scientists. Some of the dumbest people I've ever known I met in undergrad.
Graduates were only mildly better.

Everything is a bell-curve even if scientists on average have an IQ of 110 (generous). +40% of them are sub 100.

@NickolasGir Actually your numbers are way off from reality. On average the IQ of scientists is something much higher than 154. In fact 154 is the IQ you get if you exclude the math portion of an IQ test in an attempt to make it "fair". On an ordinary IQ test their IQ would be even higher. In fact a vanishingly small portion of scientists have an IQ below 122.

@NickolasGir Here is the breakdown by verbal, spatial, and mathematical if you are curious.

@freemo
Nah, literally not possible. Post a link the study that is from and I bet I can find 3 basic methodological problems without trying.

@NickolasGir Well before you even attempted to counter-prove the point you've already had a major methodological problem of your own. You've admited to extreme confirmation bias and that you will find something wrong with a study you havent even read yet.

I'll find the link when im back behind a computer again.

@freemo
Conformation bias would be if I dismissed you and did not ask for the study. I think I'm being very magnanimous in offering to find the problems, not just assuming they will be there.

@NickolasGir No that wouldnt be confirmation bias, that would simply be not expressing your confirmation bias.

If you already drew conclusions about data you didnt see and have promised to disagree with it before seeing what it is, that is confirmation bias. Doing it silently doesnt make it any more or less a bias, it just means you keep your bias to yourself.

@freemo
Incorrect, I disagree with your conclusion, I promised to find methodological problems.

@NickolasGir exactly, you promised/garunteed methodological problems in a study you havent seen yet. Now if your response had been humble and suggests that you thought the numbers were high and **suspected** methological problems but would earnestly consider the data without drawing a conclusion then you wouldnt have confirmation bias.

But your two levels deep on confirmation bias now. Not only did you already conclude you'd find methological problems in a study you havent seen, but you are also certain that assuming a study cant possibly be correct because it disagreed with you is somehow not confirmation bias when it is pretty much the definition quality of it.

@NickolasGir By the way still waiting to hear how you came up with your own IQ numbers... since you apparently have a study you feel doesnt have methodological errors I would love to see it, just as I am happy to share mine this evening when I get home.

Or did you just maket he numbers up? That apparently has no methodological issues, just guessing?

@freemo
I like how you're excusing not posting that study I asked for an hour ago while simultaneously chiding me for not responding quickly enough.

No reason to start a ticking clock in the middle of a work day, we all have things we should be doing.

@NickolasGir I am not chiding you for not responding quick enough. The assumption here is you made up the figures. If you got it from a study I'm happy to wait. But you've been asked 2 or 3 times now and never said you got the numbers from a study or that you'd be providing them. You just continued to discuss the subject while ignoring the request all together.

Thanks for finally responding and I look forward to seeing the study that produced the exact numbers you mentioned.

@freemo
Then I apologize for not addressing your responses in the order you prefer.

And of course they're made up.

@NickolasGir No problem, apology accepted for not responding.

See therein is the problem. You made up fictional numbers pulled out of thin air with no data. My response was "hmm I wonder if he is right, let me try to find some data for the numbers". I found the data, the only data I could find, and shared it. You're assumption then was that your made up numbers with no real data must be true and conclusions attempting to draw from actual data must have methodological problems, and must clearly be false. Not simply that the numbers feel high and might be false (and thus you want to do more research) but that it **is** false before ever seeing the data.

It amazes me you cant see the problem with your approach. It doesnt rely on finding better data, it relies on assuming all the data that doesnt agree with your made up numbers must be wrong and that you will work backwards to find the problems in the data that must exist before you even see the data.

To be clear I dont think my data is correct. I am skeptical of it but without better data I wont dismiss it either. What I am concerned about is the mental gymnastics that demonstrate a strong confirmation bias that is almost intentional from the get go.

@freemo
No I responded just not in an order you liked.

@NickolasGir No I couldnt care less about the order. You either didnt mention that your numbers were made up, or I had missed it. If its the latter then I apologize, if its the former then I accept your apology for not being clear.

@freemo
If you don't care about the order, then complaining about the order in which i respond to your replies may not be the best way to express that.

@NickolasGir Jesus christ you do love to argue about nonesense. I did not complain about the order, I complained about your lack of a response. If you had made one then I missed it. I already explained this.