20
Is the "g factor" just a rebranding of IQ, or is there any scientific basis for it? (awful.systems)
submitted 9 months ago by gerikson@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems
NSFW 18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Wiki page is voluminous enough to approach gish galloping, and the Talk page is almost as big https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

Asking because someone in another forum basically said that while IQ might be discredited, "g" is valid.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] gerikson@awful.systems 4 points 9 months ago

Man that wiki page is kinda shit, there's a section titled "Critique of Gould"[1], reference [178] is simply "Korb 1997", there's no link, and no hit for the name anywhere else.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)#Critique_of_Gould

[-] carlitoscohones@mas.to 6 points 9 months ago

@gerikson

Korb is a tool
Carlito et al, 2024

[-] dgerard@awful.systems 5 points 9 months ago

here's the Korb paper. Can you guess what department he works in?

[-] self@awful.systems 6 points 9 months ago

every fucking time. what’s the Wikipedia term for “this source is barely qualified to touch computers, much less weigh in on this topic?”

[-] self@awful.systems 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

oh that’s why he thinks he’s qualified to weigh in on psychological shit — he’s an AI researcher who specializes in Bayesian networks which is a pretty strong signal for him being a Rationalist, especially when you look at some of the topics of his research

e: god the titles of a lot of these papers sound like LessWrong or slatestarcodex posts

[-] Soyweiser@awful.systems 5 points 9 months ago

This but replace the references to stocks to references to IQ and the last panel with 'everybody thinks im a piece of shit now'.

[-] dgerard@awful.systems 4 points 9 months ago

i tell you, i larfed and larfed

[-] gerikson@awful.systems 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Meta Wiki question, are "bare" citations (no hyperlinks) acceptable in the reference section? It's not too hard to find this paper just based on author's last name and year in this case, but in others it might be harder.

[-] dgerard@awful.systems 5 points 9 months ago

yeah, absolutely. Some editors find it a bit lazy and annoying, but it's still a vast improvement over no reference. In fact there are bots that will attempt to turn URLs into nicely formatted references.

[-] gerikson@awful.systems 5 points 9 months ago

JFC the abstract

Gould has no difficulty in demonstrating the influence of racism; where he goes astray is in his dismissal of such prior work as simply unscientific because the racist conclusions preceded the collection of data. Advancing hypotheses prior to experimentation is how all of science proceeds, and is no mark of inferior work. And no science is immune to influences - racist or otherwise -from the culture in which it is embedded, as Gould elsewhere readily acknowledges.

I mean, in that case the interest in IQ should have gone the way of phrenology except phrenology is still around.

this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024
20 points (100.0% liked)

SneerClub

1003 readers
3 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
self@awful.systems
blakestacey@awful.systems
dgerard@awful.systems