Why would the money specifically only motivate the people with lower scores

Cause otherwise it's not a factor to consider

Now you're straw manning and poisoning the well.

Neither of us said it means nothing. Of course we think that intelligence levels vary. I think it's more complicated than a simple test and that the test isn't as important in measuring it as you think. I think motivation is much more important to it than you're giving credence. Even then, there's evidence that you can train your IQ. People that participate in more brain stimulating activities tend to do better in the areas related to what's being stimulated.

https://www.livescience.com/36143-iq-change-time.html

I also read this article that used George Bush as an example of somebody that had high IQ (in the top 10 percentile) and had self admitted troubles with cognitive ability.

https://som.yale.edu/news/2009/11/wh...an-youre-smart

Which correlates with things like abstract and spatial reasoning, memory, processing, etc.


...if you assume that's the only factor, and that people who score well can't be any more motivated to try, yes.

why would you respond to my post to elph instead of my post to you?

I didn't strawman you at all. You are essentially arguing that motivating could make up the difference in IQ scores. At least own that instead of copping out.

No, actually, not really. Because being motivated already doesn't mean you can't have more motivation. That's a false dichotomy. There could be varying levels of motivation and that could result in varying IQ scores.

Is elph already said, I don't think it's the sole reason, I just think it's a major factor.

When did I cop out of that? Oh, wait, because you were straw manning my position to mean something else.

Uhhh... That is my point

If you can potentially motivate everyone to score higher than they do, that changes nothing since the scores are based on what the average score is.

It does because of the point I made several times already. Some people are just more motivated to score higher on average and that's why it's a good indicator of who will do better in school and in the job force because typically they'd be more motivated to 'do well' in general. I didn't say means absolutely nothing when measuring intelligence, but not nearly as much because the sole idea that some people score higher on average because they are more motivated on average shows how inaccurate it is.

You're still assuming that you can motivate low scoring (stupid) people more with money than you can high scoring people.

Otherwise, if you're not assuming that, the motivation argument means NOTHING. At this point, if you're too stupid to understand this then I'm too unmotivated to continue to explain it again and again.

I'm not sure why you would think I don't know that?

Because they are intrinsically more motivated, are they less susceptible to external forms of motivation like bribing?