Sat in a philosophy class today.

[Alawen]

Shalizi is basically backing up Glymour responding to Herrnstein and Murray.

Debunking the century-old incarnation of Spearman's theory of generalized intelligence is a straw man. You don't appear to understand the context of Shalizi's paper, you missed important details that make it irrelevant to anything I've been talking about, and you seem to have willful ignorance of contemporary intelligence theories. You apparently dismiss all social sciences as pointless, so why are we even discussing this?

I mentioned at the beginning of this discussion of IQ that I think there is a disconnect between IQ and intelligence; I am not a strong proponent of IQ as a measure of anything. I just think psychometrics are interesting and I know a few things about them. Neuroscience will probably answer many of these questions in the next few decades. I'm going to bed.