@StuartJRitchie A friend reviewed your book. If you're not bored of responding to reviews, curious what you think:https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1806210914 …
-
basically i just agree with borsboom's "attack of the psychometricians" http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~brian/Pmka-Attack-V71-N3/pmka-2006-71.3-425-440-borsboom.pdf …
and i thought fitness/"f" was a clear example where we could do stats w/o modeling and not really learn much
-
-
in the book, you mention thomson then say g "exists" in any event; i think existence claims require models
-
unless it's the case that any factor i get out of PCA etc "exists," giving us a weird ontology full of...
-
...things with no clear tie to the casual structure we're more sure of (from physics etc)
-
I think we actually agree in every respect. By "exists" I just meant that the factor is there (it could've been otherwise, cf. Thurstone)...
-
...in the data, explains a lot of the variance (again, could've been otherwise), and predicts stuff IRL.
-
*nod* but if those are the only criteria, we'd end up granting existence to nonsense variables ...
-
...like "IQ plus cube root of height" if they turned out to correlate w irl stuff (as that one likely would)
-
and i think the "not a nonsense variable" criterion is hiding some casual theorizing on our part
- 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.