You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Lumifer comments on Open thread, September 15-21, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: gjm 15 September 2014 12:24PM

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

Comments (339)

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

Comment author: Metus 16 September 2014 01:34:02PM *  2 points [-]

We managed to reduce performance on any number of tests to essentially a single number, g, together with a couple more for domain-specific skill. We managed to reduce the huge variation in personalities to five numbers, the OCEAN dimensions. I even recall reading that there is quite some correlation between those five numbers and that they might be reduced to a single one but I can't find the source any more.

Can we construct a whole host of other, similar numbers, like "math skills" and thus measure the impact of education and aging?

Another number I have in mind is, can we construct three numbers general health gh, mental health mh and physical health ph, and measure their correlations? I have the vague observation that medical issues tend to cluster, that is people with mental issues tend to not only exhibit any one of ADHD, depression, OCD and so on, but more than one of them. Similarly I have the impression that people tend to complain of many physical symptoms at once.

I seem to recall that BMI and/or WHR tend to be excellent predictors of physical health. Together with a couple of more measures these predictions can further be improved. The advantage of having a single number would be for research purposes on population health and it is easier to have a single mumber for personal assesment.

Comment author: Lumifer 16 September 2014 03:11:00PM 5 points [-]

We managed to reduce...

Not quite reduce. We managed to develop certain approximations which, albeit crude, work sufficiently well for some purposes. Of course, not all purposes.

I seem to recall that BMI and/or WHR tend to be excellent predictors of physical health.

I seem to recall they tend not. In particular, BMI is a flawed indicator as it has a pronounced bias for short and tall people.

these predictions can further be improved

Which "these predictions" -- what are you forecasting?

Comment author: hyporational 18 September 2014 04:25:51AM 1 point [-]

In particular, BMI is a flawed indicator as it has a pronounced bias for short and tall people.

And muscular people. What's wrong with WHR?