I'm not sure the assumption that the comment above you is somewhat delusional is not necessarily reasonable here. I do think its that people are interpreting "everyone" differently.
To me, 'everyone' does not mean literally every person but rather the vast majority. Whether this number is 95% or 90% is going to be interpreted differently. I think nearly all of us can agree that as intelligence falls on a bell curve there will always be those unfortunate enough to not be able to do certain tasks. However the nature of the bell curve does mean that around 90% of people are above ~80 IQ.
If you take someone with an IQ of 100 and train them for a decade I think it's still very unlikely that they would become an elite chess player/musician/etc.
I see intelligence mostly as your rate of learning. That means you're competing with people who will get better faster than you. The only way to beat that is to outwork them, but there are only so many hours in the day.
Your understanding is the correct understanding Alice! But I think you're assuming most people understand it as you do, and that's not correct. Most people haven't learned to think with probabilities or distributions, and I would just downgrade that to "many" even here. I think many of the people commenting and reading here actually believe that one could e.g. teach calculus to everyone, it's just a failing in our efforts.
There used to be an old-fashioned, well-known hand-signal for this situation. You pause long enough to hold up one finger for a second or two, then return to what you were doing. The polite would then poke around or sit down or return in a half-minute or minute to see if you'd paused. The impolite would get barked at.
I'm a native speaker too and while I think there are a few areas where it feels a little unnatural, for the most part it seems natural to my ears. Could be a dialect based thing for how it feels though.
> In science and philosophy, a just-so story is an untestable narrative explanation for a cultural practice, a biological trait, or behavior of humans or other animals. The pejorative[1] nature of the expression is an implicit criticism that reminds the listener of the essentially fictional and unprovable nature of such an explanation. Such tales are common in folklore and mythology (where they are known as etiological myths—see etiology).
Yeah, from my brief perusal of the contents, you are correct.
Normally, books like R for Psychologists/Geologists/Whatever are just textbooks with examples and verbiage from the particular domain (in this case, psychology).
It's a little depressing that it doesn't talk about experimental design, which tends to be the strongest data science area for most people with a psychology qualification.
