> "Is your point that no scientist is literally saying the exact thing you're saying, not by implication and context, but verbatim?"
You asserted that Wade did "precisely that". I am merely asking for you to quote the section of the article you linked as supporting your point, the words which you interpret as generalizing US tests to the…
> "Is your point that no scientist is literally saying the exact thing you're saying, not by implication and context, but verbatim?"
You asserted that Wade did "precisely that". I am merely asking for you to quote the section of the article you linked as supporting your point, the words which you interpret as generalizing US tests to the world, whether precisely or fuzzily. I did not ask for verbatim, just show whatever words he said which you thing translate to the belief you attribute to him.
About your latter points If you and I were communicating privately, I would write differently. I always assume when writing on Substack (or public comments) that there will be more unknown readers than known ones, much less the direct person I am replying to. Taking it as if I must be talking about you or I wouldn't mention it, will lead to ongoing misunderstanding.
If I say I am not talking about you, then trust that. Exactly like I take you at your word when you say "And while I'm confident that you are personally intelligent enough to nuance the specifics of these points, people like Peyton Gendron aren't." I do NOT assume that you really are attributing lack of nuance to me, despite your explicit disclaimer otherwise; if I did, we'd needlessly go back and forth over my imagining that you were disingenuously insulting me. Instead I trust that you are speaking honestly and not indirectly trying to link me to someone else. If you give me the same trust, we'll avoid some miscommunication.
> "Is your point that no scientist is literally saying the exact thing you're saying, not by implication and context, but verbatim?"
You asserted that Wade did "precisely that". I am merely asking for you to quote the section of the article you linked as supporting your point, the words which you interpret as generalizing US tests to the world, whether precisely or fuzzily. I did not ask for verbatim, just show whatever words he said which you thing translate to the belief you attribute to him.
About your latter points If you and I were communicating privately, I would write differently. I always assume when writing on Substack (or public comments) that there will be more unknown readers than known ones, much less the direct person I am replying to. Taking it as if I must be talking about you or I wouldn't mention it, will lead to ongoing misunderstanding.
If I say I am not talking about you, then trust that. Exactly like I take you at your word when you say "And while I'm confident that you are personally intelligent enough to nuance the specifics of these points, people like Peyton Gendron aren't." I do NOT assume that you really are attributing lack of nuance to me, despite your explicit disclaimer otherwise; if I did, we'd needlessly go back and forth over my imagining that you were disingenuously insulting me. Instead I trust that you are speaking honestly and not indirectly trying to link me to someone else. If you give me the same trust, we'll avoid some miscommunication.