6/ I'm not saying that modern g isn't a useful predictor of all sorts of things.
The reply to his claims is herehttp://humanvarieties.org/2013/04/03/is-psychometric-g-a-myth/ …
-
-
-
It would appear that the g requirement for using chained tweets is quite high.
-
Just as a starter, so that a polymath can get the math right: http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~may/VIGRE/VIGRE2007/REUPapers/FINALAPP/Khim.pdf …
-
Schönemannian sophistry does not work on me.
-
Are you saying that you disagree with the blog post you linked to & think that psychometric studies do tell us about neurobio of cognition?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
1/ What
@cshalizi is basically saying and which is still a valid criticism: Modern g follows from the Perron-Frobenius theorem:Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
2/ Eigenvalues of a positive matrix are always sorted by size and the corresponding eigenvectors are positive.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
3/ This is a mathematical necessity and not an empirical discovery. It's always true and not falsifiable.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
4/ It's foolish to act as if modern g were a new element of the periodic table. It is a mathematical necessity.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
yup mentioned it earlier. think it largely agrees (end of section iv): g measurements don't imply unitary neurobio
-
the last jensen quote *does* disagree, but i think is pretty clearly flawed, arguably even backward
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
5/ Spearman's g, on the other hand, implies a falsifiable hypothesis.
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.