3 ms·
Ironically, I learned a new word: 'confound' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding ). And then I realized that the
by tmsh 16y ago
Ironically, I learned a new word: 'confound' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding ). And then I realized that the last chart has confounds. Intelligence and vocabulary are correlated, but worth differentiating in this case.
A higher vocabulary is pretty strongly correlated with being well-read. I think we can trust that. And being well-read implies being exposed to different things (though it is by no means the only way to be exposed to different things -- i.e., those who are well-read [subset operator] those who are exposed to a wide variety of things.
But those who are exposed to a wide variety of things are highly correlated with those who wish to take risks to be exposed to new things. And the latter group seems pretty well correlated with those who drink.
Note, intelligence only 'lurks' near vocabulary.
- ramchip 16y agobeing well-read implies being exposed to different things [...] But those who are exposed to a wide variety of things are highly correlated with those who wish to take risks to be exposed to new things I don't follow this reasoning. Being well-read implies being exposed to a lot of different books, not a lot of different activities. In my experience, people that read a lot are not people who take risks to be exposed to new things, precisely because they have rather intellectual hobbies and they have less free time due to reading a lot.
- tmsh 16y agoGood point. And I don't know how the vocabulary test was made. I think the monotonicity can be explained by, in general, people who read marginally more are marginally exposed to more things (even after to discounting for the important fact that there is less free time and they're more intellectual, etc.). But it's a very good point. It seems like there are a lot of different factors.