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
-
-
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.
-
I suspect because then it can become a sort of "constant of motion" in debates at the evolution level. Where you can assume that it is stable across periods of selection pressure and doesn't get refactored when environment shifts the current idea of 'fitness'
End of conversation
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 ? - 1 more reply
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.