This is cool. My husband has huge pupils at baseline, beautiful blue eyes. He’s really inquisitive and the smartest person I know. Like, so smart you’re depressed smart.
How absurd. As with most modern science it ignores the glaringly obvious problem that if even a handful of people don't have one characteristic but have the other than the study proves nothing. It's like trying to prove gravity exists but you can only demonstrate it working ~60% of the other time; doesn't indicate anything. Science is only useful for learning what will be the case under a given circumstance 100% of the time and then trying to figure out why. Anything else is useless.
"Science is only useful for learning what will be the case under a given circumstance 100% of the time and then trying to figure out why."
Arguably, if you had something you could reproduce 99% the time you'd be well off to lend some credence to it and try to figure out the why of the 1% case along the way. But yah, most of these studies depend on the flimsiest of correlations and act like they've struck a gold vein of truth.
This is cool. My husband has huge pupils at baseline, beautiful blue eyes. He’s really inquisitive and the smartest person I know. Like, so smart you’re depressed smart.
How absurd. As with most modern science it ignores the glaringly obvious problem that if even a handful of people don't have one characteristic but have the other than the study proves nothing. It's like trying to prove gravity exists but you can only demonstrate it working ~60% of the other time; doesn't indicate anything. Science is only useful for learning what will be the case under a given circumstance 100% of the time and then trying to figure out why. Anything else is useless.
Additionally, there is no one mentioned in this article that I would trust to rate cognitive ability or intelligence.
It's a really good point, but
"Science is only useful for learning what will be the case under a given circumstance 100% of the time and then trying to figure out why."
Arguably, if you had something you could reproduce 99% the time you'd be well off to lend some credence to it and try to figure out the why of the 1% case along the way. But yah, most of these studies depend on the flimsiest of correlations and act like they've struck a gold vein of truth.
It's in Scientific American, so it must be true. The same Scientific American that published an opinion piece that said sex isn't binary.