= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Apprentice comments on The Effectiveness of Developing World Aid - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (51)
Apprentice:
That article you linked to is horrendously bad. This guy starts talking about multiple lines of evidence for the hereditarian hypothesis, cites a prominent paper surveying these lines, and then proclaims that the best and most decisive evidence is provided by the regression-to-the-mean phenomena. Which is in reality one gigantic logical fallacy, and quite possibly the weakest and most flawed argument ever set forth by Jensen and other prominent hereditarians. He then proceeds to spin his misunderstanding of this already catastrophically bad argument into an even more elaborate web of fallacies.
If you're interested in this topic, here are some links to recent LW discussions where you'll find a bunch of much better references. The first one specifically deals with regression to the mean:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/2nz/less_wrong_open_thread_september_2010/2jpi http://lesswrong.com/lw/2eu/open_thread_july_2010/28v5
I've now read both threads. While I did learn some interesting things I'm not really much closer to understanding the flaws in the reasoning of the article I originally linked to.
Neuroskeptic's post on regression to the mean explains the concept clearly enough but I don't really understand why he's so hostile to it. Why does he think it's not a useful concept? The trick is being able to spot it when it happens, and to avoid being mislead by it. If you're not careful, it can happen anywhere. Uh, yeah. So why not have a word for it? Why not teach undergraduates about it? I don't get it. Did he just have a bad teacher or something?
I understand you spent a significant amount of time digging into the literature on group variation in cognition - and ultimately were unable to tell who's right. That's a bit disappointing to me, I'd hoped that with a bit of dilettanteish reading I could have an informed opinion - and you're probably better equipped to understand the literature than I am.
The term "regression to the mean" suggests time series and agency. But it's just about what happens with two correlated variables, if the correlation isn't 1. I suggest the alternative name: "a stupid prediction," as in "Because the parents' height is a stupid prediction for the children, the children of tall parents are not as tall as their parents." Perhaps it would be less vulgar to use "naive."
That's just a suggestion. Perhaps someone can think of a better name, but I think putting the focus on prediction is the key to a better name.