I’m sorry, I don’t know any stats/pt, so this is probably dumb but my intuition is that this
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @karlrohe and
only would apply to a middle slice like in
@The_Lagrangian ‘s plot. If IQ were sum of additive features2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @karlrohe and
(which now seems to have genetic confirmation) then extreme sum wd require extremes for most components
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @karlrohe and
which would suggest cognitive abilities of very high IQ people would be more, not less, similar than mids
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
so therefore IQ is not additive? I would agree.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @karlrohe @Meaningness and
Or rather, it is not additive at the extremes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
right. All I have is anecdata, but suspicion is there’s some functional modularity involved, and the
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @karlrohe and
extremely smart have high “regular IQ” which is normally distributed bcs additive, PLUS unusual ability >
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @karlrohe and
in some other module that’s largely independent of the g system. Existence of idiot savants is consistent
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
yes. maybe g-system is additive-ish. exceptional is software; better algorithms (inference, etc).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Maybe! That would tend to contradict my low-confidence theory that very smart people can’t learn each >
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @karlrohe and
others’ peculiar abilities. But that is a very low confidence theory (am thinking of exceptions already)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
should "peculiar abilities" have more topology? subsets/types of abilities, hierarchies of sets, etc
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - 3 more replies
New conversation -
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.