There's a new Shalizi/Taleb on the block. Wrote this long anti-IQ piece. It's kinda boring but looks impressive so I am sure will be popular. I assume someone is going to write a rebuttal for the relevant parts, most of it being irrelevant philosophy.https://medium.com/@seanaaron100/intelligence-complexity-and-the-failed-science-of-iq-4fb17ce3f12 …
-
This actually is a reasonably interesting critique. The objection is that factor analysis & g doesn't present a mechanistic model of human intelligence that shows us the causality. Which is true! However this doesn't invalidate IQ science.pic.twitter.com/dyyaSsX9ln
No one said it did. Jensen said the opposite tons of times. However, people generally do affirm the reflective interpretation meaning that the PC1/g does index general intelligence even if it fails as a ratio scale measure. FA alone cannot show this is right but other methods can
-
-
A lot of critiques of IQ I have seen end up as a "demand for specific evidence". This is basically that; the author isn't satisfied without a causal model of how the brain works and all the cause and effect that generates the correlations we see.https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vqbieD9PHG8RRJddu/you-re-entitled-to-arguments-but-not-that-particular-proof …
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
> No one said it did. Sure, but we have moved up a level of sophistication from where the debate usually goes.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.