and several popsci books arguing that,against evidence. With impact on gymns and athletes.
-
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?
-
no, I'm saying it's an important omission because part of the point of the book is to argue against those! and that they…
-
(Gould, Gardner, Fodor etc.) have more of an impact than you think. AND that it isn't as obvious g factor is a given.
-
OK, i think we are evaluating the book on different standards. i fully admit i am not the target audience.
-
you're probably the target audience of the "arcane and nerdy disagreements" Stu decided to skip over in his basic into :)
-
ah! but my exact complaint is that one /can't/ skip over those disagreements in the way he does (cf my thread w him)
-
so my disagreements with you are a) What I said about what people expected, including making analogy unfair by lack of it
-
just to follow up on that, i think a) may involve conflation of "intuitively surprising" and "worth contesting academically"
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
no,harder to argue,because we don't observe brain and its metabolic efficiency i.e., in the same way we see sedentary people
-
not sure if people expect for a given level of physical activity than an athlete/swimmer also better at lifting or whatevs
-
hmm, i started out by thinking "the lay concepts of 'smart' and 'fit' seem similar"
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.