>>7280272>>7280399(2)
>People have been trying to prove causation for a long time and still come up empty handed. Shoe size correlates highly with income, you know because babies and children don't earn money.Postmodernism makes for nice sophistry, but your idea that correlation isn't equaling causation for the stratification of society along IQ deviations is false.
You used a shoe example. "Shoe size correlates highly with income, you know because babies and children don't earn money".
This example may state 1 or 2 things: that statistical data can be shoddy, which is true, or that correlation and causation cannot be discerned -- especially when it pertains to IQ.
For the former, or that shoddy statistical methods are used to fixate duplicitous results regarding occupation and IQ, I'd challenge you to find a study wherein the labor force includes toddlers and babies thereby lowering the average IQ of the poor.
The fact is, someone with an IQ of 85 isn't capable of being a doctor or lawyer (without copious affirmative action). And study after study shows us this -- unless we assume all these studies are heavily agendized and false, which is the proposition it seems you're taking.
As for point number two, or the idea that correlation cannot equal causation when discussing IQ and occupation, then that is your heavily liberal-lens choice.
What you're essentially saying is that you refuse to believe that society is stratified by IQ.
Fine, we can use absurd examples, like your shoe size one, all day. Or others.
But let's suppose people who get heart disease are more likely to wear black socks than white socks. We have no reason to believe that black socks are the cause of heart disease -- fine. But let's suppose people who've been stricken with heart disease are vastly more likely to be overweight? Do we ignore this correlation as well? Even though we can observe the fat constricting the heart? Even though we can observe that fats from an overweight persons diet being the cause of their arteral sclerosis? Your proposition is that we can ignore the accompanying evidence of the latter correlation.
Let's try with IQ. Those with an IQ above 1SD are more likely to wear black socks. We have no reason to believe their preference for blacks socks is due to IQ. Correlation two: Professions which pay higher wages and require greater cognitive ability are invariably occupied by those with a higher IQ -- after we've controlled for any statistical fuddling. Again, your proposition is that even though these jobs require greater cognitive ability, we can ignore this correlation and repudiate its position as a cause for stratification?
I'm sorry sir, but that's some of the greatest postmodern sophistry I've seen -- you're truly a revolutionary in the field of social justice.
