= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl 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)
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.