= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
IlyaShpitser comments on Starting University Advice Repository - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (93)
Yeah, I don't buy it. Lying with statistics and shitty models are completely orthogonal issues. You can lie with shitty models or with good models.
Also the argument "we should use IQ because people lie with statistics" is a very different argument from the one usually made by IQ proponents.
I wouldn't call the problem "shitty models" but models that aren't tried and tested in many different contexts. We know about how the model of IQ works a lot better than how a new model of intelligence works that a new researcher creates for his PHD thesis.
Once you think that it's good to have a single metric for intelligence because it helps you to make arguments about issues like the effect of mercury pollution on intelligence, there are additional arguments why IQ is a good metric for that purpose.
Single parameter models for anything complicated are shitty models. Intelligence is complicated. A single parameter model of intelligence is a shitty model.
Do you think it's shitty in the sense that what the EPA is doing with it is without basis?
I think I am done repeating myself.