height and hair color also have the virtues of being easy to measure and unambiguously defined whereas "intelligence" is the opposite
-
-
Replying to @mtsw @slatestarcodex and
hmm, no, the Vox article specifically says that there's strong academic consensus about what intelligence is & how to measure
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @johndbro1 @slatestarcodex
i know a lot about baseball statistics though!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
and SABR people would laugh you out of the room if you posited "h" a factor that could be expressed linearly that determined hitting ability
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
yet, to me, a dummy, "ability to hit baseballs" is easier to define, measure and recognize than "intelligence" is by a lot!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mtsw @johndbro1
Isn't this what batting average is? Or am I misunderstanding?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slatestarcodex @johndbro1
e.g. easy for baseball scouts to identify that say, byron buxton has more hitting ability than eric sogard despite sogard's better results
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mtsw @johndbro1
I would be surprised it it were literally impossible to make a number correlated with people's ability to hit a ball in a game.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I agree that you couldn't perfectly measure underlying hitting-ability, but I don't think anyone thinks you can perfectly measure g.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I feel like if Yankees consistently got higher batting average than Red Sox, would be a good start to saying Yankees are better at hitting.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Though maybe my lack of knowledge of baseball means I've accidentally stumbled into a terrible analogy that disproves my point.
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.