4 ms·
But you might naturally assume a strong correlation between the middle range of each dimension - the interesting conclusion is that it's not nearly as strong as
by gefh 11y ago
But you might naturally assume a strong correlation between the middle range of each dimension - the interesting conclusion is that it's not nearly as strong as our intuition suggests.
- danbruc 11y agoBut even if they are correlated that does not necessarily imply that being average on one dimension makes it likely to be average on other dimensions. I can well imagine that correlations conspire against you, i.e. that being average in one dimension makes it likely to be non-average in another dimension.
- gefh 11y agoThat appears to be the case, but is counter-intuitive enough that it took the air force years to realize it.
- Gibbon1 11y agoI assume there are developmental genetics that apply to a whole organism. Everything on an elephant has to be big and everything on a mouse has to be small. But then there probably is little correlation between localized development genetics. The result is that within the 5% to 95% range the correlation between the size and shape of developmental features is pretty much zippo and simple non-correlated probability dominates.