>>16776197
>I don't recall this particular point being made, then again, I could be wrong, so if you can tell which part of the video, I would greatly appreciate.
You don't have to rely on data this much in a casual conversation. Logic actually works as soon as you build a somewhat believable picture of the world, so you can literally just deduce it and then scientific method would then probably validate it.
People for some reason love using scientific method incorrectly, it's like when you see that the grass is green, it merely and only means that the grass is green. It's like castrating your own intelligence by dogmas. You should be able to deduce and assume things or you won't ever take a step outside of available data. I touched my grass this summer, can you even compete?
Anyway, if by skipping through the video I will find it then: https://youtu.be/FkKPsLxgpuY?si=gEE-4t889Pc9Z2AS&t=1539 it's here, so you can look into that meta-analysis and maybe jump to a different conclusion.
Overall, the video explains how important and reliable IQ at least for the extremes. They have achieved 95% accuracy for identification of those who try to pretend to be dumber on IQ test. Poor mildly intelligent journo has been specifically training for the test and still failed to achieve peak performance, in fact he even looks like a guy who is below 119 fluid.