taw comments on Preference utilitarian measure of historical welfare - Less Wrong

7 Post author: taw 14 April 2010 01:32PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (25)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: taw 14 April 2010 09:21:46PM 7 points [-]

PCA components cluster correlated input variables, with component weights essentially proportional to number of inputs corresponding to it. If you put 10 health indicators, 2 economy indicators, and 2 education indicators - your principal component will be health-based. If you put 10 education indicators, 2 economy, 2 health, your principal component will be education-based etc. In no case will it be meaningfully "welfare".

That's how you get 5-factor models in psychology - you just know what kind of questions to put on the questionnaire, and as long as you don't stray too far from it, you'll get exactly the 5 factors you want.

PCA can only be insightful if all inputs are equally important - something that people using PCA rarely bother sanity-checking.

Comment author: rhollerith_dot_com 14 April 2010 10:26:16PM 1 point [-]

Thanks for this comment, taw. I'd been wondering whether PCA is solid evidence that the Big Five personality traits carve reality at the joints.

Comment author: Unnamed 15 April 2010 01:47:04AM 5 points [-]

The Big Five personality model was originally developed by researchers who raided dictionaries for every personality trait term that they could find, had people rate themselves (or others) on hundreds or even thousands of them, and kept finding this five factor solution that explained a lot of variance. Studies in other languages and cultures typically find similar results, although it doesn't always replicate perfectly (e.g., a missing factor, an extra factor or two, a slightly different meaning for one factor). In some ways it reflects people's lay theories of personality more strongly than actual personality, so it might share some widespread blind spots or misconceptions, but it was constructed in a thorough, systematic way (and there is evidence that each factor predicts behaviors, so it can't be too wildly off).

Comment author: cupholder 14 April 2010 10:34:42PM 0 points [-]

Good point, thanks.