Earlier quoted context omitted.
> FYI the parent comment was not reasoned argument either. The notion of relation between education and IQ is questionable. Questionable based on ethical considerations is not the same as non-rational. It's a very logical thing to consider. A mechanism for example would be that people with higher IQ also tend to succeed in completing more higher education degrees. The inverse is also possible, and it's also a perfect…
>It's not however required for merely putting forward the argument as a possible explanation, or for judging whether the argument is rational or not. This is the difference between you and me. Before putting an argument forward I would evaluate it or at least calculate it a little bit! >It seems that your concerns are more tied to a priori axioms and emotional resistance than actual methodological issues in the quest…
Did this difference emerge very recently?
Because for someone who claims that, it seems bizarre that you entered this thread by stating: "Let me ask you how many of immigrants are grad students or people with high tech jobs?"
How is that more "evaluated" or "at least calculated" that what the parent wrote? Where were the numbers that go with this?
You then went on to give non-arguments combined with non-facts: "Is it one of the stupidest thing to say drop in IQ is connected to immigrants!"
And on with the non-arguments + non-facts: "It is greatly disappointing to see this kind of nonsense in HN which is kind of home for many hackers and programmers. Hearing these kind of stupid ideas in C-Span? Who cares? But HN, that shows how low our societies has become."