Impressive. So far, John has managed to cite two pop-sci articles as if they were anywhere near the calibre of peer-reviewed publications. The first one was about somebody's blog post FFS. Then he carries on about what an amazing source the articles in Psychology Today are, apparently blissfully ignorant of the fact that, while excellent for the layperson, Psychology Today isn't a publication that any serious psychologist would ever cite. It is to psychology what Scientific American is to science. Some excellent articles to be sure, but not a word of it peer-reviewed.
An actual professional would have led with the original Gignac & Zajenkowski 2020 paper from Intelligence because they'd have known it by rote and would have had to go looking for the Psychology Today version. They'd have also been keenly aware of the more recent literature (e.g.: Lebuda et al., 2024) showing that while the Glejser test shows little to no evidence for DKE whereas classical quartile analysis provides strong support for DKE.
You sir, are a rookie trying to pose as the real thing, and sticking chicken feathers up your butt doesn't make you a chicken.
An actual professional would have led with the original Gignac & Zajenkowski 2020 paper from Intelligence because they'd have known it by rote and would have had to go looking for the Psychology Today version. They'd have also been keenly aware of the more recent literature (e.g.: Lebuda et al., 2024) showing that while the Glejser test shows little to no evidence for DKE whereas classical quartile analysis provides strong support for DKE.
You sir, are a rookie trying to pose as the real thing, and sticking chicken feathers up your butt doesn't make you a chicken.
