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
Not confidently thinking that there aren't any such tests is not the same thing as alleging that there are such tests. I agree that the first probably applies to Shalizi. Dalliard asserts that the second does, but it doesn't look to me as if Dalliard's assertion is true.
Physicist Steve Hsu claims it's very misleading in not discussing extensive empirical research that has falsified the key claims, and links to a lengthy rebuttal.
I made it halfway through the comments thinking this post was about the gravitational constant.
It seems to me that it's fine to attack an existing model; however, you should then present an alternative model that does a better job empirically. I don't think the latter has been accomplished.
1smoofra
thanks for the link.
Not that I feel particularly qualified to judge, but I'd say Dalliard has a way better argument. I wonder if Shalizi has written a response.
These quotes attack psychologists for failing to find such tests, which would be pointless if Shalizi confidently thought there weren't any:
... (read more)