Dalliard writes:
Shalizi alleges that there are tests that measure intelligence “in the ordinary sense” yet are uncorrelated with traditional tests, but unfortunately he does not gives any examples.
but this appears to be false: I don't find any such allegation in Shalizi's article. Did I miss it, or did Dalliard misread, misunderstand, or (less likely) deliberately misrepresent Shalizi?
These quotes attack psychologists for failing to find such tests, which would be pointless if Shalizi confidently thought there weren't any:
...Since intelligence tests are made to correlate with each other, it follows trivially that there must appear to be a general factor of intelligence. This is true whether or not there really is a single variable which explains test scores or not.
The psychologists start with some traits or phenomena, which seem somehow similar to them, to exhibit a common quality, be it "intelligence" or "neuroticism&quo
I found this post very interesting
It's about statistics, causal inference, and 'g'.