Thinking about taking an IQ test. What should I expect in the test?

>psychology as a whole fails to replicate studies 50% of the time
>therefore everything is psych isn't legit
I hope you realize how retarded you sound.

...

Stefbot: Social science is not a science!
Subscriberbot: Yes, but don't you promote IQ tests as being scientific?
Stefbot: IQ are scientific
Subscriberbot: But aren't IQ tests developed by social scientists
Stefbot: Let me deflect that question by asking about your use of language, political beliefs or personal life.

> Social science is not a science!
when will this meme die

when it starts being a science and stops being a megaphone for political narratives.

> social scientists : we use IQ becuse of pattern recognition
> anti-social scientists : we can't know nuthin
lol

there is no political narratives. all science branches inevitably intersect with politics except for maths. i don't know why you're nitpicking specifically on social sciences but you make no sense

Yes there are political narratives. There is even in legit sciences like climate science when oil companies pay for studies debunking AGW. Just in social "sciences" we have political activists who want to prove their ideologies right. And that is 90%+ of social "scientists".

not only is that a straw man, it's not even close to anything anyone has ever said ever

empiricists and philosophers don't say "we can't know", they just reject self-serving presumption and confirmation bias because they're irrational and unfounded.

You keep chuckling to yourself but you non-sequitur reductio ad absurdum isn't funny.

It's like claiming
>Pro social scientists: Pizza pies are peanut sky lala bread

It doesn't make any sense, even as a straw man.

>all science branches inevitably intersect with politics except for maths
He's not speaking about personal politics but socio-legal political interests.
Most sciences do not intersect with that at all.

Also a science isn't a science until it can provide scientific results and laws.

Well if you throw away every scientific branch that mixed with politics than you will throw away every one of them except for maths. If you draw the line where social politics begin, then you're just nitpicking.

> strawman
> no i reject what you say
> no it doesn't meet my arbitrary standards of true
> no i won't bother offering anything instead
> no i'm not even ready to accept an alternative answer
> where did i say "we can't know nuthing" ???
lol

Projecting + False dilemma = More straw man fallacies

You're the idiot that multiples fallacies when they get caught using them.

> no i reject what you say
> no it doesn't meet my arbitrary standards of true
seriously you do use the false dilemma fallacy way too much
calm down on the trolling

> if i list some argumentative fallacies that i don't even understand the meanings of, maybe this time it will look like i had some context in my post.
Your semantic word play leads up the same thing as always. But don't worry, you just belong to the group of retards who simply accepted "we cant know nuthin" as their definitive answer. So settle in.

learn what the words you use mean before typing them up for fucks sake. its embarrassing.

You use more projection when people call you out on projection.
You have no idea what I think because I have only spent time mocking you for being arrogant.

But you do use fallacies and every time you get called out on them, you look them up, don't understand them, ignore what fallacies are, and then go on using more.

You even denied the existence of formal fallacies yesterday.

You don't wish to learn, so you reject epistemology and deduction.
If we know fallacies are wrong, then we can't use them in argumentation.
Your attempts to falsely accuse me of using fallacies wrongly is also teetering on ad hominem nonsense.

You can't use formal fallacies and form logical arguments.
You also have to admit that you don't know what you don't know.
That doesn't mean you can't know anything, it means you have to accept you don't know everything.
Do you even understand that?

That's not a counter argument nor a refutation.
And stop same fagging.
I reiterate:

You can't use formal fallacies and form logical arguments.
You also have to admit that you don't know what you don't know.
That doesn't mean you can't know anything, it means you have to accept you don't know everything.
Do you even understand that?

Also:
You don't wish to learn, so you reject epistemology and deduction.
If we know fallacies are wrong, then we can't use them in argumentation.
Your attempts to falsely accuse me of using fallacies wrongly is also teetering on ad hominem nonsense.