4 ms·

I struggle to take seriously sociology papers that mention g. Getting through this one is particularly painful because of careless writing. The second paragraph

I struggle to take seriously sociology papers that mention g. Getting through this one is particularly painful because of careless writing. The second paragraph of the introduction is a grammatical mess, and there are many awkward sentences throughout the paper. How much confidence should I have in the correctness of the author's analyses, given that the authors can't even make it through the first column of the introduction of a camera-ready version without glaring grammatical mistakes? I admit, "messy writing portends poor execution" a very general heuristic that definitely isn't causal and might be wrong more often than it's correct. But the authors want me to take "g" seriously, so shrugs.

bruce343434 5y ago
what does italicized g allude to?
- cyberbanjo 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
- tharne 5y ago
  "g", sometimes shown as "G", in the context of the study of intelligence typically refers to general intelligence or overall intelligence, in contrast to more specific types of intelligence such as EQ or mathematical ability.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  It refers to the meta-observation that many intelligence measures are correlated.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  A scientistic rhetorical/sophist ploy used by intelligence researchers.
threatofrain 5y ago
General intelligence is a very mainstream concept. It’s not any specific measure of intelligence, but rather a meta observation on a conglomeration of tests.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  > General intelligence is a very mainstream concept. Yes, psychometrics researchers believe in psychometrics.
karaterobot 5y ago
I found the article surprisingly easy to read compared to most sociology papers. I did notice a few mistakes, but my understanding is that an "In Press" article is still being edited. (in any case, if editing were completed on this article, I'd blame the editors and not the authors for leaving these mistakes in). While I respect good writing, bad writing doesn't reflect on the quality of the methodology or analyses in my opinion — as long as it doesn't get in the way, which I don't think it did in this case. I know many smart, careful people who can't string a complete sentence together to save their lives.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  You missed the point I was making.
  - karaterobot 5y ago
    You seem to have two points, and I was responding to this one: > How much confidence should I have in the correctness of the author's analyses, given that the authors can't even make it through the first column of the introduction of a camera-ready version without glaring grammatical mistakes? If I missed something, it would be useful to me if you said what it was.
    - throwawaygh 5y ago
      Read on, where I agree with you and make my actual point: > I admit, "messy writing portends poor execution" a very general heuristic that definitely isn't causal and might be wrong more often than it's correct. But the authors want me to take "g" seriously, so shrugs. My point isn't that we should disregard the paper because of some grammatical mistakes. My point is that if we're going to take on face value the notion of "g" then we might as well accept on faith the heuristic "bad writing = bad thinking". Because the latter might be wrong a lot, but it's not nearly as stupid as "g". Live by the sword [of mentally feeble generalizations], die by the sword [of mentally feeble generalizations]. I also provide a more substantive critique of the paper here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29798887 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29798887 But, "g" is stupid. It's an ephemeral concept that is so obviously unscientific that the entire field had to standardize on a math-y looking coefficient so as to distract everyone from the prime facie obvious fact that they're all full of shit.

bruce343434 5y ago

what does italicized g allude to?

cyberbanjo 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
tharne 5y ago
"g", sometimes shown as "G", in the context of the study of intelligence typically refers to general intelligence or overall intelligence, in contrast to more specific types of intelligence such as EQ or mathematical ability.
threatofrain 5y ago
It refers to the meta-observation that many intelligence measures are correlated.
throwawaygh 5y ago
A scientistic rhetorical/sophist ploy used by intelligence researchers.

threatofrain 5y ago

General intelligence is a very mainstream concept. It’s not any specific measure of intelligence, but rather a meta observation on a conglomeration of tests.

throwawaygh 5y ago
> General intelligence is a very mainstream concept. Yes, psychometrics researchers believe in psychometrics.

karaterobot 5y ago

I found the article surprisingly easy to read compared to most sociology papers. I did notice a few mistakes, but my understanding is that an "In Press" article is still being edited. (in any case, if editing were completed on this article, I'd blame the editors and not the authors for leaving these mistakes in). While I respect good writing, bad writing doesn't reflect on the quality of the methodology or analyses in my opinion — as long as it doesn't get in the way, which I don't think it did in this case. I know many smart, careful people who can't string a complete sentence together to save their lives.

throwawaygh 5y ago
You missed the point I was making.
- karaterobot 5y ago
  You seem to have two points, and I was responding to this one: > How much confidence should I have in the correctness of the author's analyses, given that the authors can't even make it through the first column of the introduction of a camera-ready version without glaring grammatical mistakes? If I missed something, it would be useful to me if you said what it was.
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    Read on, where I agree with you and make my actual point: > I admit, "messy writing portends poor execution" a very general heuristic that definitely isn't causal and might be wrong more often than it's correct. But the authors want me to take "g" seriously, so shrugs. My point isn't that we should disregard the paper because of some grammatical mistakes. My point is that if we're going to take on face value the notion of "g" then we might as well accept on faith the heuristic "bad writing = bad thinking". Because the latter might be wrong a lot, but it's not nearly as stupid as "g". Live by the sword [of mentally feeble generalizations], die by the sword [of mentally feeble generalizations]. I also provide a more substantive critique of the paper here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29798887 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29798887 But, "g" is stupid. It's an ephemeral concept that is so obviously unscientific that the entire field had to standardize on a math-y looking coefficient so as to distract everyone from the prime facie obvious fact that they're all full of shit.