otherwise I think Stu has said the rest (including interest that g is 50% and not, say, 8%)
-
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"
-
like, "smart" is a word. the "man on the street" talks about general intelligence all the time.
- 1 more reply
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.