Is the "g factor" just a rebranding of IQ, or is there any scientific basis for it?
from gerikson@awful.systems to sneerclub@awful.systems on 08 Mar 2024 20:18
https://awful.systems/post/1141467
from gerikson@awful.systems to sneerclub@awful.systems on 08 Mar 2024 20:18
https://awful.systems/post/1141467
The Wiki page is voluminous enough to approach gish galloping, and the Talk page is almost as big en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
Asking because someone in another forum basically said that while IQ might be discredited, “g” is valid.
threaded - newest
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] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)#Cr…
@gerikson
Korb is a tool
Carlito et al, 2024
here’s the Korb paper. Can you guess what department he works in?
every fucking time. what’s the Wikipedia term for “this source is barely qualified to touch computers, much less weigh in on this topic?”
i tell you, i larfed and larfed
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
This but replace the references to stocks to references to IQ and the last panel with ‘everybody thinks im a piece of shit now’.
JFC the abstract
I mean, in that case the interest in IQ should have gone the way of phrenology except phrenology is still around.
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.
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.
It’s a rebranding of IQ.
Thanks for the link, I figured as much.
I decided there was no point in engaging the person in polemic on this matter (it’s the kind of forum where that kind of behavior will just get the comment deleted) so decided to just add the person to my (literal) shitlist, only to discover they’re already on it! Correlation or causation something something.
What a beautiful set of sneers. Though it’s sad how topical they still are.
The vibe I always got is that it’s somewhat more sinister than IQ, in that it’s purported to be an Actually Real Property of humans that’s measured by IQ tests, when IQ tests in themselves don’t necessarily make claims beyond raw statistical variance.
It’s like talk around IQ got too careful so they made this as a sort of anti-euphemism. Disphemism??
edit: wow it’s a real word
isn’t psychometrics the part of Talos I where you get the psychoscope?
the gish gallop that forms the majority of this article looks like an attempt to signal jam the criticisms section (which itself isn’t anywhere near as damning as it should be):
fascists will do anything to feel superior about a number they made up, and renaming IQ now that it’s got a lot of fash stank on it and pretending it’s different and sophisticated now, you wouldn’t understand is one of the older tricks in the fascist playbook
that wiki article leaves my eyes bleeding. i think i’ll leave it precisely where it is.
That’s got huge “it hasn’t been disproven, yet” energy. That’s basically the “it’s not illegal” argument but for ideology.
It also has “MBTI is pseudoscience, you should take this online Big 5 quiz instead” energy