Conversation

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Replying to and
I genuinely don't understand the point in contention here. I get the positive manifold, which is a thing out there in the world. I get that it is a positive manifold across tests that it might be argued have an ambiguous relationship with what we subjectively call intelligence.
2
1
Replying to and
Causality is the point of contention. g has no referent which could be studied via causal modelign. Even weaker in fact, there is no physical phenomenology. There is no part of the brain you can point to and say, "this is the g part of the brain" afaict. Phlogiston comp is apt.
4
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Replying to and
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.