ThisSpaceAvailable comments on Terminology Thread (or "name that pattern") - Less Wrong

8 Post author: sixes_and_sevens 03 July 2014 11:47AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (51)

Comments (51)

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

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 05 August 2014 07:05:59PM 0 points [-]

Do you really not know anything like what tests routinely load or anything about the historical development? If the latter, please go consult Wikipedia or one of many books on the topic. And if it's Socratic bullshit, just make your point already.

  1. I asked for metrics, not tests.
  2. You made a claim. The burden of proof is on you to support it. “Go read a book” is not a valid citation.
  3. So you think that asking questions to clarify a position is “bullshit”?

No, it's not circular. If all the cognitive tests have large fractions of variance explained by purely additive factors, then that large fractions of variance are explained by purely additive factors.

So, in other words, if a large fraction is additive, then a large fraction is additive. Do you not understand what the word “circular” means?

If they didn't, if for example there were some sort of fixed sum of 'cognition points' for every person which are zero-sum spread around various domains like verbal vs spatial, or if there were complex nonlinear relationships, then additive factors wouldn't explain much of anything in cognitive performance and certainly wouldn't predict anything in the real world.

You're arguing for a position by contradiction, but your contradiction is only one alternative hypothesis. That is fallacious. Your responses show you don't even understand what my objection is, and therefore all your attempts at refutation fall flat.

What a peculiar claim; quite aside from my karma, I helped make this website from the start.

When someone says “if A, then B”, it's not very honest to quote them as saying B. And what do you mean by “I help make this website”? Does having a lot of karma give you the right to ignore basic civility? Was this website constructed by going around being rude to people? Or is that a recent development on your part?

You flatter yourself that your comments aren't bad enough that other people will downvote them... I don't bother with mass downvotes of idiots.

I didn't say that I was dismissing all other hypotheses, only noting that of all the posters, you are the most likely candidate to have downvoted.

Comment author: gwern 05 August 2014 07:19:11PM *  1 point [-]

I asked for metrics, not tests.

Tests yield metrics. More quibbling. Good job there convincing me you're asking questions in good faith. I can really see that you've bothered to read anything on the topic.

You made a claim. The burden of proof is on you to support it. “Go read a book” is not a valid citation.

Yes, it is, when you're criticizing an entire century-old well-developed field with an abundance of materials online. At this point, the burden is not on the person talking about intelligence. Go educate yourself, stop wasting my time with your captious quibbling about whether 'tests' are 'metrics' (to point out your latest crap); if you actually cared about the topic, you wouldn't be saying any of this, you'd be reading Jensen's textbooks or hell, even a Wikipedia article.

So you think that asking questions to clarify a position is “bullshit”?

Given all your previous comments, yes.

So, in other words, if a large fraction is additive, then a large fraction is additive. Do you not understand what the word “circular” means?

I see you didn't understand the point of that. Think a little harder, and also think a little bit about what circular arguments are. (Hint: they don't take the form 'A, therefore, A'.)

You're arguing for a position by contradiction, but your contradiction is only one alternative hypothesis. That is fallacious. Your responses show you don't even understand what my objection is, and therefore all your attempts at refutation fall flat.

Sigh.

When someone says “if A, then B”, it's not very honest to quote them as saying B. And what do you mean by “I help make this website”? Does having a lot of karma give you the right to ignore basic civility? Was this website constructed by going around being rude to people? Or is that a recent development on your part?

Let me try again: when a newcomer and an oldtimer disagree on what is appropriate for a site, when the oldtimer was around before the site existed, helped make it, and is a major contributor by comments, articles, and karma, which is more likely to be correct? I'm thinking... it's probably not the newcomer, and that arguing that is astoundingly presumptuous of them.

I didn't say that I was dismissing all other hypotheses, only noting that of all the posters, you are the most likely candidate to have downvoted.

Nice walk back there. 'I never said he was a communist, I was merely noting he was the most likely candidate to be a communist.'

So to reiterate my previous question - you know, since you're totally not trolling or anything, and you're definitely arguing in good faith, and you're surely not going to reply with just some more rhetoric and attempts to shame or nitpick irrelevant wording, in this thread or others - what is your actual problem with these concepts? Do you have data which refutes the relevant concepts entirely? Or what?

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 05 August 2014 08:20:29PM *  0 points [-]

Tests yield metrics. More quibbling.

What metric to apply to a test is a completely nontrivial issue, and the fact that you refer to such a crucial issue as "quibbling" shows how little you understand about the issue.

Yes, it is, when you're criticizing an entire century-old well-developed field with an abundance of materials online.

I'm not criticizing the field. I'm asking you to answer a simple question, and you're refusing.

At this point, the burden is not on the person talking about intelligence.

Simply declaring yourself to not have the burden of proof does nothing.

I see you didn't understand the point of that.

And so, instead of explaining, you're simply telling me to "think a little harder".

(Hint: they don't take the form 'A, therefore, A'.)

"A, therefore A" is a circular argument. Most people put more effort into disguising the circular nature of their arguments, but that doesn't mean that yours is not circular.

Let me try again: when a newcomer and an oldtimer disagree on what is appropriate for a site, when the oldtimer was around before the site existed, helped make it, and is a major contributor by comments, articles, and karma, which is more likely to be correct? I'm thinking... it's probably not the newcomer, and that arguing that is astoundingly presumptuous of them.

I think it is astoundingly presumptuous for you to dismiss any criticism of your behavior with "I've been around here longer than you and have lots of karma". Your behavior is at blatant odds with what I understand to be the goals of this website. Either you are indeed acting contrary to those goals, or I have a deep misunderstanding about the goals of this website.

Nice walk back there.

I am not walking anything back. I deliberately included the word "appear" in my original post in recognition that this was merely the most likely explanation.

So to reiterate my previous question - you know, since you're totally not trolling or anything, and you're definitely arguing in good faith, and you're surely not going to reply with just some more rhetoric and attempts to shame or nitpick irrelevant wording, in this thread or others - what is your actual problem with these concepts? Do you have data which refutes the relevant concepts entirely? Or what?

So, it's "bullshit" when I ask you to clarify what you mean, but it's okay for you to ask me to clarify what I am saying, even though you've made it absolutely clear that you have no intention whatsoever of listening to my point of view, have already made up your mind that I am wrong and refuse to listen to any contrary arguments, interpret everything I say through the filter of presuming bad faith, and are here simply to insult me? A discussion is a cooperative process. I can't explain something to someone whose motive isn't to understand, but to attack.

Comment author: gwern 05 August 2014 08:41:29PM *  1 point [-]

So to reiterate my previous question - you know, since you're totally not trolling or anything, and you're definitely arguing in good faith, and you're surely not going to reply with just some more rhetoric and attempts to shame or nitpick irrelevant wording, in this thread or others - what is your actual problem with these concepts? Do you have data which refutes the relevant concepts entirely? Or what?

So, it's "bullshit" when I ask you to clarify what you mean, but it's okay for you to ask me to clarify what I am saying, even though you've made it absolutely clear that you have no intention whatsoever of listening to my point of view, have already made up your mind that I am wrong and refuse to listen to any contrary arguments, interpret everything I say through the filter of presuming bad faith, and are here simply to insult me? A discussion is a cooperative process. I can't explain something to someone whose motive isn't to understand, but to attack.

Exactly as predicted. I think we're done here.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit