@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 …
-
but really, it's a painful ex. of http://lesswrong.com/lw/im/hindsight_devalues_science/ … personal peet peeve, sorry if spam
i guess i disagree w author of paper you quoted. "we have multiple faculties" != "statistical independence on tests"
-
-
e.g. in fitness example, "faculty physiology" is /true/ (muscles and heart are distinct etc) yet we see pos correlations
-
cpu speed and ram size are distinct "faculties," but i'm sure the two are correlated in "population" of existing computers
-
That's an argument regarding *why* they correlate. Different to what laymen or educated people expected/expect
-
I'm glad if in your bubble(non-pejoratively,as opposed to mine) it doesn't happen, but I've heard several times people...
-
expecting that if X person/kid it's bad at maths, then at least he should be good at reading, and/or viceversa
-
hey, if you predict IQ from other knowledge about kid and condition on prediction, that's a perfectly good inference :P
-
more seriously, i know people argued hard against positive manifold, but do we know they wouldn't do the same for fitness?
-
i can easily imagine my alt. universe having a fitness!Gould, et al. are you saying you find that hard to to imagine?
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
nono, like I said before, people expected uncorrelatedness. Galton had to argue against it before Spearman had evidence.
-
Chabris 2007 is on integrating minds, it's on libgen, part of the argument is against people like Fodor that expect...
-
independent modules. And your alternate Earth lacks people saying f factor isn't real, with impact on training etc.
End of conversation
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.