3 ms·
> which simply means that "being predictive" is not by itself dispositive of some underlying mechanism. Right. I don’t see how any statistical analysis can tel
by User23 3y ago
> which simply means that "being predictive" is not by itself dispositive of some underlying mechanism.
Right. I don’t see how any statistical analysis can tell you if a mechanism exists or what it is. Quite the opposite. The better you understand the mechanism of the process that generates your data points the higher quality your statistical analysis will be. And in the case of intelligence we know there must be an actual real underlying factor because some people are observably smarter than others.
- tptacek 3y agoI don't think anybody is arguing that people aren't observably smarter than other people; the question is about the metrics we're using, which, I mean, an equally vivid (and equally non-rigorous) argument would be: if you really buy into the IQ/g story, go hang out with a bunch of Mensa people and see how long you hold onto that belief.
- User23 3y agoI’m willing to bet that a Y combinator founder’s event’s attendees have as high if not higher average IQs than persons at a Mensa meeting. Mensa appears to select for high aptitude and low achievement, which is a really unfortunate combination.