= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
IlyaShpitser comments on The Truth About Mathematical Ability - LessWrong
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 (138)
Out of 800. About 80-85ish percentile?
That still doesn't tell me what the average person gets.
How many characters is the google complexity of your question (defined as "lowest length of query, in characters, that gives you an answer on the first page")? An upper bound is 8 characters.
I can Google the answer, but I don't think I'm the only person who doesn't know what the average happens to be. I think it's worthwhile that an article like this provides a reference for such a score.
Reading on (http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/ra/sat/SATPercentileRanks.pdf) that Jonah's score of 720 puts him into the 96 percentile of the overall population makes a sentence like
more interesting. There no good reason not to provide that information in the article.
I agree with your larger point.
The fact that any dimension reduction strategy from [super large and complicated space that is your brain] to [positive integer within a range] is badly calibrated should be news to precisely no one.
I don't think I agree with "badly calibrated," there. It's not like everyone saw g coming, or it doesn't see any opposition; it's surprising and interesting how much of the variance in human intelligence can be captured by a single dimension. Is it 100%? Of course not, and I say that because we calculate g loadings and correlations and have a good idea of just how much information g does or does not give us.