I'm saying that 130 verbal IQ and 160 spatial is more likely than 100 verbal and 130 spatial.
-
-
Replying to @peroxycarbonate
I don't think that's true, but also I don't think that has anything to do with g.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
The issue is how much explanatory power "g" has, which involves correlation between intelligence types.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @peroxycarbonate @St_Rev
My view is that the correlation is lower at the high end than it is for the more typical people the stats are calculated from.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @peroxycarbonate @St_Rev
Do you happen to have any evidence against my view here, then?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @peroxycarbonate
You're advancing the claim, you're the one who has to defend it. My claim is that 'g' pops out of a PCA as the first factor.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
I wasn't disagreeing with that. IQ tests don't work well above 140, and there isn't a lot of statistics about people I'd consider 160+.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @peroxycarbonate @St_Rev
So, if my personal experience is out, what kind of evidence would you consider valid?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @peroxycarbonate
You'd want to show that the correlation plot wasn't elliptical. TBH what you're *probably* seeing is a restriction of range phenomenon.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Because restriction of range is the usual explanation for apparent anticorrelations appearing at the tail of an ability distribution.
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.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.