By the Authority of this Local Human Commune (g-factor)

4:43:40 PM@karstensrageim trying to be more present
4:43:48 PM@karstensragebut i cant sacrifice the network
4:43:51 PM@karstensragei know that
4:43:57 PM@karstensragebut something is
4:44:05 PMEriukarstensrage: Do you think you're smart?
4:44:08 PM@karstensrageno
4:44:26 PMEriukarstensrage: Do you think SmartPeople is non-empty?
4:44:54 PM@karstensragei think that smart people dont talk about how smart they are
4:45:02 PMEriukarstensrage: Irrelevant.
4:45:23 PM@karstensragei also think there are many types of intelligence and most people only value a small subset
4:45:32 PMEriukarstensrage: There is a single type of intelligence.
4:45:39 PMEriuIt's called the g-factor.
4:45:50 PMEriuFactor analysis of cognitive studies have validated this construct.
4:45:54 PMEriuHow valid is this construct?
4:46:03 PMEriu*It is the single most validated constructed in the entire field of psychology*
4:46:19 PMEriuWhich is to say, to reject the single g-factor model of intelligence is to REJECT ALL OF PSYCHOLOGY.
4:46:31 PMEriuThe next most valid psychological constructs are the Big Five Factors of personality.
4:46:34 PMEriuFor your edification.
4:47:27 PM@karstensragehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)#Other_criticisms
4:48:08 PMEriuThe first two sentences do not apply here.
4:48:18 PMEriuI explicitly indicated "this construct".
4:48:43 PMEriuSo, I set those aside.
4:48:52 PMEriuHe further noted that it is possible to produce factor solutions of cognitive test data that do not contain a g factor yet explain the same amount of information as solutions that yield a g. According to Gould, there is no rationale for preferring one factor solution to another, and factor analysis therefore does not lend support to the existence of an entity like g.
4:48:56 PMEriuThese alternate analysis are not mentioend.
4:49:04 PMEriuNobody can comment on them from this passage.
4:49:08 PMEriuSetting that aside.
4:49:12 PMEriuMore generally, Gould criticized the g theory for abstracting intelligence as a single entity and for ranking people "in a single series of worthiness", arguing that such rankings are used to justify the oppression of disadvantaged groups.[34][136]
4:49:27 PMEriuI am a data scientist, karstensrage. Which is to say, I am smarter than Gould in some ways.
4:49:47 PMEriuYou can always, mathematically, project any space to a one-dimensional subspace or even a binary model.
4:49:57 PMEriuNow, is it useful to do that?
4:50:06 PMEriuWell, there is a tension between conflicting goals in this case.
4:50:17 PMEriuOne goal of humans is to have 'succinct communication of useful data'.
4:50:25 PMEriuAnother goal humans have is 'to be accurate and truthful'.
4:50:35 PMEriuEvery piece of knowledge we have is a summarization from reality.
4:50:41 PMEriuThe only thing which can 'compute' the universe is the universe itself.
4:50:44 PM@karstensrageseems more like humans have a goal to be fat and truthy
4:50:55 PMEriuEverything in all of science is an abstraction -- at varying levels of succinctness and accuracy.
4:51:14 PMEriuSo, yes, the g-factor model of intelligence is a summarization of data.
4:51:16 PMEriuIs it useful?
4:51:24 PMEriu*It is the single most predictive metric in all of psychology*
4:51:29 PMEriuSo, yeah, it's useful.
4:51:45 PMEriuThe commentary by Gould on the social uses of this model present zero content on the model.
4:51:53 PMEriuAnd can be discarded by those that secret useful models of truth.
4:51:59 PMEriuSo, I set that aside.
4:52:12 PMEriuDo you feel satisfied?
4:52:27 PMEriu(That was the end of the passage referencing Gould's position)
4:52:45 PMEriuMany researchers have criticized Gould's arguments. For example, they have rejected the accusation of reification, maintaining that the use of extracted factors such as g as potential causal variables whose reality can be supported or rejected by further investigations constitutes a normal scientific practice that in no way distinguishes psychometrics from other sciences.
4:52:50 PMEriuWhat Eriu said.
4:53:04 PMEriuCritics have also suggested that Gould did not understand the purpose of factor analysis, and that he was ignorant of relevant methodological advances in the field. While different factor solutions may be mathematically equivalent in their ability to account for intercorrelations among tests, solutions that yield a g factor are psychologically preferable for several reasons extrinsic to factor analysis, including the phenomenon of the positive manifold, the fact that the same g can emerge from quite different test batteries, the widespread practical validity of g, and the linkage of g to many biological variables.[34][35][137]
4:53:33 PMEriuIf you want to understand human minds without categories, you merely need to have access to the mind.
4:53:42 PMEriuThere are at least 100 trillion parameters in the average human mind.
4:53:49 PMEriuThere are currently 7.4 billion humans.
4:53:54 PMEriuWhat's the size of your working memory?
4:54:18 PMEriuI should have said brain above where I said mind for greater accuracy.
4:55:01 PMEriuScience is a dangerous endeavor; it says we shall pursue truth regardless of what humans think about it.
4:55:22 PMEriuTo suddenly object to summarization, abstractions, and models when it comes to intelligence is not consistent with the scientific project.
4:55:28 PMEriuIt is saying, This far and no further.
4:56:10 PMEriuNo further shall we allow science to proceed in its analysis of the human experience without Validation and Permission of the local Human Commune and what they are doing with the artifacts that science is producing.