Wow, @cshalizi did a takedown of IQ statistics? This should be
I basically don't trust a pop-stats idea until Shalizi has taken a run at it
http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html ht @Aelkus
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
And I think that should be taken as strong evidence that it is an ill-posed construct that is primarily of social and ideological utility. Trust it no further than mathified superstition. "Data without generalization is just gossip" etc.
End of conversation
-
-
-
So the point I don't get - presumably because I don't have a deep enough understanding of the relevant stats - is why anyone cares if 'g' is a genuine thing vs. cognitive ability being a bunch of abilities that are correlated.
-
This seems, to me, to be completely irrelevant to the core question of whether those cognitive abilities are mostly innate or whether they're driven by environmental factors.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Neuroscience is too primitive a science for anything complex to have a referent in the brain. The g factor however has a referent at a deeper level: it is lots of genes + some noise & can be modeled in twin studies & increasingly in terms of causal alleleshttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4002017/ …
-
Out of curiosity, What do you think of Schalizi's criticisms
@pnin1957 ? - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
What theories from social science do we have causal evidence for of the quality that Schalizi expects?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.