.@KirkegaardEmil http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616300216 … states:no cov among factors once contr for g, hence g > mutualism. doesn't seem valid argument, no?
-
@MorHeene@KirkegaardEmil Since factor&mutualism in crosssect data mathem. equivalent, model fit no answer.Need developmental data@rogierK
@EikoFried @MorHeene @rogierK A test with developmental data has been done: negative for mutualism. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259510015_Dynamic_mutualism_versus_g_factor_theory_An_empirical_test …
-
-
@KirkegaardEmil@EikoFried@MorHeene it's cross-sectional data, it did find an increase in g strength & assumes strongest vers of mutualism -
@KirkegaardEmil@EikoFried@MorHeene so it's def an interesting paper (I like the simulation result) but certainly not the final answer imho - End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@KirkegaardEmil@EikoFried@MorHeene@rogierK There's also the implication with mutualism that gains would be self-reinforcing and permanentThanks. 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.