Lumifer comments on Accuracy Versus Winning - Less Wrong

12 Post author: John_Maxwell_IV 02 April 2009 04:47AM

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

Comments (72)

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

Comment author: Lumifer 12 December 2013 08:21:05PM 0 points [-]

In any case, g is more a statement about the correlations between domain skills than the causes of intelligence or the shape of the ability curve.

g is an unobserved value, a scalar. It cannot say anything about "causes of intelligence" or shapes of curves. It doesn't aim to.

Comment author: Nornagest 12 December 2013 08:35:58PM *  1 point [-]

g was observed as a correlation between test scores. That is by definition a scalar value, but we don't know exactly how the underlying mechanism works or how it can be modeled; we just know that it's not very domain-specific. It's the underlying mechanism, not the correlation value, that I was referring to in the grandparent, and I'm pretty sure it's what ialdabaoth is referring to as well.

Comment author: Lumifer 12 December 2013 08:51:23PM 1 point [-]

g was observed as a correlation between test scores.

To be more precise, the existence of g was derived from observing the correlation of test scores.

Moreover, g itself is not the correlation, it is the unobservable underlying factor which we assume to cause the correlation.

It is still a scalar-valued characteristic of a person, not a mechanism.