The Wiki page is voluminous enough to approach gish galloping, and the Talk page is almost as big https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
Asking because someone in another forum basically said that while IQ might be discredited, “g” is valid.
Man that wiki page is kinda shit, there’s a section titled “Critique of Gould”[1], reference [178] is simply “Korb 1997”, there’s no link, and no hit for the name anywhere else.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)#Critique_of_Gould
@gerikson
Korb is a tool
Carlito et al, 2024
here’s the Korb paper. Can you guess what department he works in?
every fucking time. what’s the Wikipedia term for “this source is barely qualified to touch computers, much less weigh in on this topic?”
oh that’s why he thinks he’s qualified to weigh in on psychological shit — he’s an AI researcher who specializes in Bayesian networks which is a pretty strong signal for him being a Rationalist, especially when you look at some of the topics of his research
e: god the titles of a lot of these papers sound like LessWrong or slatestarcodex posts
This but replace the references to stocks to references to IQ and the last panel with ‘everybody thinks im a piece of shit now’.
i tell you, i larfed and larfed
JFC the abstract
I mean, in that case the interest in IQ should have gone the way of phrenology except phrenology is still around.
Meta Wiki question, are “bare” citations (no hyperlinks) acceptable in the reference section? It’s not too hard to find this paper just based on author’s last name and year in this case, but in others it might be harder.
yeah, absolutely. Some editors find it a bit lazy and annoying, but it’s still a vast improvement over no reference. In fact there are bots that will attempt to turn URLs into nicely formatted references.