= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Emile comments on [SEQ RERUN] Why Are Individual IQ Differences OK? - 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 (119)
Was anyone's mind destroyed, or did people get over it?
Might want to do an intro to statistics at the end if day one, where the mass of each soda bottle ever produced by Pepsi and Coke is calculated. Then find the average bottle mass for each company.
Then wait.
I don't see what you're getting at with the Pepsi and Coke bottle thing - could you explain a bit?
It's a test of the universal law that two random different things are never miraculously equal and never equal unless there is a spectacularly good reason. This applies even when there is a spectacularly good reason to think that they would be roughly equal, and also when summing and taking averages.
As a close analogy, consider the mass of each bottle to be the IQ of each person in a group, and the bottle types produced by each company to each comprise a group.
That's not a universal law. A random partition of a large set of objects may well produce two sets in which the distribution of all properties is the same as in the original set. The same is true if the set is partitioned according to some property that doesn't correlate with anything else.
The controversies on this issue are about whether certain properties that can be used to partition human populations do have correlations with various other relevant properties, what is the reason for these correlations if they do exist, and what should be their wider implications.
What I believe you meant to say is that the results of two different processes "are never miraculously equal and never equal unless there is a spectacularly good reason."