if there IS such EVIDENCE, then that means it is FACT, yes?
I haven't read your entire post. I DO NOT think we should dismiss the study, unless it is falsified. This is where we differ on how we process information. Evidence is not a fact. It's evidence---a clue if you will----how we read that evidence can be subject to bias.
Let me explain.
The cookie jar has been breached! A trail of crumbs leads to the a sleeping toddler. The Evidence would point to the toddler. But is that the fact, or our interpretation of the evidence? We really can't know until we consider all other possiblities and test them. Maybe this is only the work of a mean older sister that made the trail to the sleeping toddler because she wants to get him in trouble. Or maybe the other parent gave the cookie to the toddler, who left the trail of crumbs after having received the cookie by legitimate means.
This is how we look at the world. We don't look to confirm our bias, but we look to falsify findings. We don't take this study, and then look at areas where some young people may be weak, ignore the astonishing intelligence of other young people, and conclude---yep it's genetic. Because if you are saying this is some kind of evolution (evolution does not work backwards---it simply moves forward and does not turn back) then it would have to be genetic.
It is appropriate to question findings and to challenge them. It is inappropriate to accept them at face value. More information is needed before we lament that we don't read sun dials anymore. That's the scientific method, and that is what people on this thread have been using---not criticizing you---but criticizing what has been presented. It's critical thinking.
Nobody here has claimed to be right or wrong, instead an entire conversation was opened and many were bringing ideas to the table. Which is how it works. Rather than be part of that process, you chose to go into victim mode. Nobody said anything mean to you, we just began pulling apart some findings, which is the right thing to do, and you took it personal. Then you put in the comment that it seems people were more intelligent when they were more religious, and that it is science that is making us dumb. I don't know why you want to do that. But it is clear that you don't want to have a discussion on something scientific, because we can't criticize the idea without somehow being malicious in your eyes. That's a shame. It had promised to be a very cool discussion---but not with the drama.
