What is Reddit's opinion of Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

> Hierarchical models in statistics are something completely different.

Irrelevant. I am talking about hierarchical models of intelligence. I have explained to you what they mean.

> If you want to prove a theory, you use statistics.

I proved "my theory". My theory has been proven since at least 1993 or since Spearman.

> I take it you don't read your own citations?

I sure have.

> The highest correlations between the different tests in your Wicherts paper was 0.76,

This is not the case buddy. The Wicherts paper is a generational comparison, completely besides the point of what I said. It's BIASED. Learn this. If you want to learn about inter correlations among tests, read Cattell's bible of factor analysis: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Human-Cognitive-Abilities-Factor-Analytic-Studies/dp/0521387124

> Well, that's certainly not true. Flynn didn't make up his data, for example. There are also scoring methods going back well before 1980.

That is true. That's simply the data they used. If you think there is data that shows the opposite go ahead and show it to me. I did not claim Flynn made up his data, neither did my source. You are making shit up yet again.

> What was your sample representative of?

Races in the US.

> Great! Show a paper that uses this analysis in a study that adjusts adequately for confounding factors.

You have to show confounding factors are relevant first. I walked you through how to do this. Scientists cannot account for something the existence of is at best unproven and at worst implausible. As I already taught you, the only reasonable possible confounder of admixture analysis is through skin colour. This is not the case. See the sources I already posted.

>You keep making up what your own citations say, and ignoring what mine say.

My citations fully supported everything I said. Yours (the one you had) were flawed as I have shown

>You start BSing when I catch you in simple numerical errors - like when you claim that the correlations are all in the .8-.9 range and it was contradicted by your own source.

This is not the case, as I already explained. See the " The Wicherts paper is a generational comparison, completely besides the point of what I said. It's BIASED. Learn this. If you want to learn about inter correlations among tests, read Cattell's bible of factor analysis: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Human-Cognitive-Abilities-Factor-Analytic-Studies/dp/0521387124 " part.

>Good day. We can revisit this when you take a beginning stats course.

Right, thanks for conceding after I refuted your bogus claims.