Remix.run Logo
mmooss a day ago

> you either have something to channel or don't

Again, any evidence? What exactly is 'cognitive ability'? A hallmark of the lack of substantive argument is vague terms that can mean anything the speaker likes, and by not defining the term they prevent any substantive critique - nobody really knows what they're talking about (and usually, not the speaker either).

I highly doubt it's all or nothing. While there are likely variations in anything, they can be quite insignificant. For example, everyone, with tiny exceptions, can learn to speak & understand language, and write & read - highly sophisticated cognitive abilities. And they can improve those abilities through education.

These baseless generalities don't show much 'cognitive ability'.

literalAardvark a day ago | parent [-]

There's plenty of evidence for those who want to learn instead of split hairs.

I'd start with a search on "general intelligence factor".

paulryanrogers a day ago | parent | next [-]

Is this the 'g' factor? What studies do you find compelling? Any done after the early 1900s or on adults?

mmooss a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So you've got nothing to offer?

foxglacier a day ago | parent | next [-]

It's the scientific consensus not somebody's pet theory. So you don't need to get answers from here, you can get them from Google.

tptacek 21 hours ago | parent [-]

It's the consensus among g-theorists. "The scientific consensus" on cogntive function is Not A Thing.

literalAardvark a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I answered your question clearly and in good faith.

The rest of your diatribe is US styled epistemic theatre I don't feel the need to engage with, so I didn't.

What exactly did your posts contribute?

mmooss 19 hours ago | parent [-]

You provided nothing but unsupported claims. Nobody else is doing your research for you.

zapzupnz a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Are you really lmgtfy-ing on Hacker News?