3 ms·

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.