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
-
-
It's more about the idea that statistical g is useful or meaningful, rather than about intelligence testing per se, no?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
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 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
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 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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'
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.