[BeardFisher-King]

Actually I didn't even read the article, but now after having read (skimmed) the article I still can't see how the short conclusion is ambiguous compared to the article.

Honestly, my point is not that complicated:

35.
Intelligence doesn’t make someone more likely to change their mind. People with higher IQs are better at crafting arguments to support a position—but only if they already agree with it.

Here's the proposition:
"People with [quality A] are better at [task B]...but only if [condition C]."

Read in this content-neutral format, the proposition states that condition C is necessary for the main clause to be true.

So: people with higher IQs are only better at crafting arguments for a position if they already agree with it. Their agreement is a necessary condition.

[TLEILAXU]

Well, I don't read it in a content-neutral format, but sure I agree it's a bit unclear.

[BeardFisher-King]

Well, I don't read it in a content-neutral format, but sure I agree it's a bit unclear.

That's what I'm saying. Basically, bad syntax leading to confused meaning.

[Wilshire]

Actually I didn't even read the article, but now after having read (skimmed) the article I still can't see how the short conclusion is ambiguous compared to the article.

Agreed.

Honestly, my point is not that complicated:

35.
Intelligence doesn’t make someone more likely to change their mind. People with higher IQs are better at crafting arguments to support a position—but only if they already agree with it.

Here's the proposition:
"People with [quality A] are better at [task B]...but only if [condition C]."

Read in this content-neutral format, the proposition states that condition C is necessary for the main clause to be true.

So: people with higher IQs are only better at crafting arguments for a position if they already agree with it. Their agreement is a necessary condition.

Except your adding words and clauses to the original that simply aren't there. You've changed it entirely so that now we're talking about something else entirely. I believe that's the main component of a straw man argument, isn't it?

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition

I confess, I'm very confused.

[BeardFisher-King]

No, it's not a straw man argument*, and I'm not adding anything to the proposition. Might I request that you reread my restatement of the proposition? I am simply analyzing the sentence logic of the proposition. My analysis is reductive; I'm trying (and failing, I suppose) to show that it's the construction of the proposition, not its content, that is the problem.

Perhaps the proposition should read:
"People with higher IQs are better at crafting arguments generally; unfortunately, they prefer to do so for positions with which they agree."

ETA: It's not a straw man argument because I'm not arguing either for or against the proposition.

[Wilshire]

No, it's not a straw man argument*, and I'm not adding anything to the proposition. Might I request that you reread my restatement of the proposition?

Article: "Intelligence doesn’t make someone more likely to change their mind. People with higher IQs are better at crafting arguments to support a position—but only if they already agree with it."
vs.
BFK: "people with higher IQs are only better at crafting arguments for a position if they already agree with it."

They certainly do look the same - don't know what I was thinking. Nevermind.

I am simply analyzing the sentence logic of the proposition. My analysis is reductive; I'm trying (and failing, I suppose) to show that it's the construction of the proposition, not its content, that is the problem.

So what makes the construction confusing, wrong, ambiguous, etc. - what is your concern?
It seems clear (as we've all been able to clearly identify what its saying without confusion) - why do you want to keep rearranging it and adding/removing content so that it says something other than what is actually written?

Perhaps the proposition should read:
"People with higher IQs are better at crafting arguments generally; unfortunately, they prefer to do so for positions with which they agree."

Right. I definitely agree that if you change the original statement it says something else. Indeed, that's why there's a whole study done rather than just some guy giving his opinion to a journalist, right? I know that I certainly won't, and guess that neither will you, be reading the original work paraphrased by the article, so again what is your goal?

ETA: It's not a straw man argument because I'm not arguing either for or against the proposition.

Which is why I said,

I believe that's the main component of a straw man argument, isn't it?

. You're absolutely right, until you make an argument (which apparently you haven't), its not.
If you are making an argument, or indeed a point of any kind, I don't know what it is.

Phew, 73 more to go. Going to be a long discussion.

[BeardFisher-King]

Once again into the breach...

The proposition states that 1) people with higher IQs are better at crafting arguments for a position...(obviously true, correct?)...however, there's a qualification: 2) ...but only if they agree with the position. Now the proposition becomes problematic. Surely people with higher IQs are equally better at crafting arguments for positions with which they disagree, right? They're always going to be better at crafting arguments for positions, regardless of their agreement or disagreement with those propositions.

I think I may have well and truly hit the nail on the head, finally.

[Wilshire]

Yes that's what it says.

As a sentence, its not a very cogent argument for anything:
What is a 'higher IQ'? Higher than what? Surely its not implying that an IQ of 190 can't come up with an argument for something they disagree with that's better than an IQ of 60 who agrees (or 600 vs. 6, whatever makes that concept more ridiculous).
What relative amount of higher is important? 1 point, or 100? For 89 not generally form a better argument than 90?
You've already pointed out the agree/disagree confusion.
The list goes on.

However, without the context of the actual study that was done, the entire thing is questionable, which points only to the problem with not giving someone a charitable reading. If you expect someone is trying to deceive you - you will find them deceiving.

But there is context to the statement, we just aren't going to bother to read it. So the choice is to simply dismiss it or accept it - whatever the statement actually says isn't particularly relevant, and 'dissecting' it like this is not a useful exercise.

I would guess that you know all this as well, so I'm still not sure what point you're driving at.

[BeardFisher-King]

Wilshire,  I don't know how else to say this. I'm not addressing the article. I am simply analyzing the sentence logic of proposition #35, which, in my reading, claims that people with higher IQs are only better at crafting arguments for positions if they already agree with those positions.

If you believe that dissecting this statement is "useless", then why are you pursuing this matter? The only reason I'm pursuing it at this point is, frankly, my amazement and frustration over your wonderment towards "what point I'm trying to make". It's just analysis of a claim that strikes me as ambiguous by pointing out how the ambiguity arises. That is my point. That is my only point.

[Wilshire]

It's just analysis of a claim that strikes me as ambiguous by pointing out how the ambiguity arises. That is my point. That is my only point.

Interesting. Well I'd like to point out that everything is always ambiguous without context - I don't think anything further need be pointed out.
That said, you appear to be frustrated - I'm very sorry to have caused you distress.

To answer you question, I'm pursuing the matter to find out in what context you are pursuing the matter. ie I'm confused by why you appear to be confused, and that confusion has lead me to ask you to clarify your confusion to assuage my confusion. Simple .

[BeardFisher-King]

It's just analysis of a claim that strikes me as ambiguous by pointing out how the ambiguity arises. That is my point. That is my only point.

That said, you appear to be frustrated - I'm very sorry to have caused you distress.

To answer your question, I'm pursuing the matter to find out in what context you are pursuing the matter. ie I'm confused by why you appear to be confused, and that confusion has lead me to ask you to clarify your confusion to assuage my confusion. Simple .

I've beaten this poor horse of a proposition to death; no need to add to either of our levels of confusion. Two reasons for this dogged pursuit:
1. To practice my close-reading/analytic skills.
3. To practice even-tempered disputation in online fora; to disagree without becoming disagreeable.

No worries, Wilshire. We just seemed to be talking past each other. Looking back, I should have been clearer about the limits of what I was discussing.

Regards,
-BFK

[Wilshire]

It's just analysis of a claim that strikes me as ambiguous by pointing out how the ambiguity arises. That is my point. That is my only point.

That said, you appear to be frustrated - I'm very sorry to have caused you distress.

To answer your question, I'm pursuing the matter to find out in what context you are pursuing the matter. ie I'm confused by why you appear to be confused, and that confusion has lead me to ask you to clarify your confusion to assuage my confusion. Simple .

I've beaten this poor horse of a proposition to death; no need to add to either of our levels of confusion. Two reasons for this dogged pursuit:
1. To practice my close-reading/analytic skills.
3. To practice even-tempered disputation in online fora; to disagree without becoming disagreeable.

No worries, Wilshire. We just seemed to be talking past each other. Looking back, I should have been clearer about the limits of what I was discussing.

Regards,
-BFK

Thanks, BFK. I could have done much better as well.

And even though its probably inappropriate:

1. To practice my close-reading/analytic skills.
3. ...

Now I think you must be messing with me

[BeardFisher-King]

And even though its probably inappropriate:

1. To practice my close-reading/analytic skills.
3. ...

Now I think you must be messing with me

Damn proofreaders.....lmao! There were three reasons....and then there were two!

I try not to mess with the BanHammer. 
Fondly,
-BFK