/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>16467172
> Literally googling the fucking term. Im not going to make a criteria for a word who's definition already exists.
"If you can google a term, it must only be understood only one way, despite how subjective it is, and all research that use that term must it, and test for it the exact same way."
"If you can google a term, it must be measured the exact same way by every person on the planet."
You are exactly this dumb.
>I dont believe in "convenient coincidences"
That's a convenient way to avoid having to establish causation after implying causation for so long. It's no different really, from saying, "It's trump's fault because correlation is always causation if it supports my biases."
> Im not going to make a criteria for a word who's definition already exists.
"If a definition exists, everyone measures it the same way, and comes to the same conclusions."
You making up a definition is not as relevant as knowing how the data you relied on determines if something fits in that definition. You were not asked to redefine, you were asked how to determine if a person fits the definition objectively.

Since you're fucking retarded, I'll simplify it for you.

Let's say I create a survey of idioicy. On the first survey I define being an idiot as an IQ of less than 80. The headline says, "X% of all americans are idiots."

Another company makes a survey. This time , they define stupidity as an IQ less than 70. The headline says, "Y% of americans are idiots." Y is greater than X.

Nobody knows how the research was done. Someone like you comes around, looks at the data, and says everyone is dumber, it's the president's fault, and all his fans are making things worse.

Someone asks you if stupidity is defined the same way. You google a definition, then post pic related. You then use it to imply that if a definition exists, everyone must use it the same you.