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
Replying to and
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
Replying to and
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.
2
Replying to and
Identity has a lot to do with persistence of symmetry across time. Basic evolution is highly nihilistic wrt to identity. Today "fitness" means good looks+brains. Tomorrow it might mean worm-like bodies and green ooze. Humans like traits they're attached to to be stably adaptive.