I mean, I could tell you that if you are really super-passionate and very very outraged, you can convince me to abandon my factual beliefs for some kind of feel-good claptrap. But that might lead you to make another comment of similar tone and content to the one to which I responded, leaving us both worse off. Do you see where I'm coming from?

I am in a business that most batteries of tests would predict I'd fail at, so I clearly don't follow your parody of my thought processes.

The problem with this assertion is the assumption that you have all the facts, facts meaning absolute certainty what a person is capable of given a scalar score from a test.

But that might lead you to make another comment of similar tone and content to the one to which I responded, leaving us both worse off. Do you see where I'm coming from?

I'm guessing not from a vantage point of omniscience.

I am in a business that most batteries of tests would predict I'd fail at, so I clearly don't follow your parody of my thought processes.

Not a parody, just an observation that your aggregates mean nothing to a given instantiation. And congratulations on defying what the stats say you would fail at. Hard worker, indeed.

I would appreciate it if you could explore some middle ground between omniscience and total ignorance. Tests that actually measure stuff give you data, and proudly claiming to be unswayed by data because you can imagine an exception is not rigorous.

Agreed, and likewise I would appreciate an understanding of the lack of absolute certitude of the predictive power of said data to an instantiation without giving external factors weight.

Again, my argument was not intended as a parody, just as a nudge toward the "middle ground" you speak of.