.@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?
-
-
Replying to @EikoFried
@EikoFried@KirkegaardEmil Perhaps useful?: http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html and4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MorHeene
@EikoFried@KirkegaardEmil But factor analytic g (first factor) exists per definition (see Perron-Frobenius theorem). Not falsifiable…2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @MorHeene
@MorHeene@KirkegaardEmil Since factor&mutualism in crosssect data mathem. equivalent, model fit no answer.Need developmental data@rogierK1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @EikoFried
@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 …2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil
@KirkegaardEmil@EikoFried@MorHeene it's cross-sectional data, it did find an increase in g strength & assumes strongest vers of mutualism1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @rogierK
@KirkegaardEmil@EikoFried@MorHeene so it's def an interesting paper (I like the simulation result) but certainly not the final answer imho2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
@rogierK @EikoFried @MorHeene I agree.
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.