Are we programmed in C or in FORTRAN?

Why do I like the idea of the g-factor as it relates to intelligence? Well, because it makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. It makes sense that we would have evolved a few very specific abilities that enable people to learn skills crucial to their survival really, really quickly:

- The ability to judge people relatively accurately fast (there is actually a brain structure that contains some of the most highly myelinated neurons, capable of very fast processing of information. This allows us to get a sense of what we think about others... and get an accurate sense, in a short amount of time)

- The ability to communicate (Broca's area).

I can't think of many other abilities off the top of my head. But the point is that for every one of these very specific abilities, there's a specific brain structure.

Nevertheless, getting back to the evolutionary picture: As our world got more complex and dynamic, it would make sense that whatever evolved the ability to change quickly would be best adapted. Accordingly, most of the cortex is an undifferentiated mass of neurons. These neurons might be very slightly differentiated, however, they can't be too differentiated because (and this is cool) you can teach blind people to see through their tongues:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKd56D2mvN0

In contrast, the idea that we evolved 1000 separate specific abilities doesn't make that much evolutionary sense to me. My present opinion is that it stems from 1. the feeling that we should all be equal 2. an imposition of familiar computer science and mechanical understanding on something mysterious which we really don't understand.


But I realize I have my own prejudices bearing upon reality. I like this guy's (http://www.mega.nu/ampp/rummel/uc.htm) way of putting it:

"Of course, many of our concepts may be a priori, our frameworks may be projected onto phenomena and create order, and our understanding may be partly intuitive. Our knowledge is a dialectical balance between that sensory reality bearing on us, and our reaching out and imposing on this reality structure and framework."

Little moments of unlearning

Einstein said something about common sense being the collection of prejudices accumulated before the age of 18. This is why it's always fun to mess with people's "common sense."

This is probably the source of a lot of my rebelliousness. Can you do calculus while being totally baked? Well, yes... some of the problems are that easy.

In case people assume you're dumb, start talking in several different languages, using "big" words, and spouting off science (usually makes people dislike you, but fun to do nevertheless).

In case people assume you're smart, start acting dumb.

In case people assume you're polite, start swearing like a sailor.

In case people think you're bashful, get naked.

In case people think their hair should be red when they buy said product, switch said product with another one guaranteed to turn their hair green.

In case people think you're straight, act gay. Then act straight again, or declare your love of the opposite sex, which might make people think you're overcompensating, so then it's best to declare you're gay again. Anyway, it's easy to switch between he-man and superwoman several times in a night... and eventually other people also realize the absurdity of trying to behave like your gender. When we act naturally it typifies our gender, but when we try we fail so badly it's funny.

My present mental state

The song below has been stuck in my head. I feel blue. The typical no one loves me and shit (although that's definitely not true... but no one has any romantic interest in me). I guess I just feel misunderstood and unappreciated, as I have the majority of my life.

My past loves claimed to have had feelings for me long after breaking up. I have a tendency to push people away too soon after they show signs of disinterest... allowing the remaining feelings to die slowly and in a tortured manner.

Ladytron - Burning up

I wrote a protest song about you, about you
Set off on a long march without you, without you x2

I wrote a protest song about you, about you
about whats left that lies between us, I'm walking
so many things we're burning for

I set myself on fire without you, without you
I wrote a song about you, about you
that not a soul was meant to hear, except you

I wrote a protest song about you, about you
I cheated gravity to chase you, to chase you
and through the burning space between us, you're falling
you have a long way to fall

I set myself on fire without you
I wrote a song about you, about you
that not a soul was meant to hear, except you

so many things we're burning for x7

So I'm commenting on this post: http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html. I'm hoping to understand factor analysis stuff better. Don't know where to find the time. But if I do find the time, I'm assuming the understanding gained will somehow be useful.

"The way we can unambiguously tell that it had falsifiable empirical content is that it was, in fact, falsified. Looking at larger and more diverse data sets, it became clear that the partial correlations among scores on mental ability tests were not zero, or even close enough to attribute the difference to chance."

Don't really understand this. Maybe we did discover that Spearman's data was falsified. But assuming we did, I first want to know... just how do you "control for the common factor" and produce partial correlations?

OK, now, assuming we established that Spearman's original factor analysis shit was wrong... So I have a question: Does it matter whether it is really a combination of separate abilities or one single ability that we're measuring, if in the end, we know that the score we get out correlates well with grades, chance of landing in prison, ...? Cites example http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/06/19/admit.

"The same study suggests that the SAT adds little predictive value to admissions decisions and is hindered by a high link between SAT scores and socioeconomic status — a link not present for high school grades."

Wha- wha - what? I would think there's a definite link between socioeconomic status and high school GPA... think about that rich kid getting tutors to do his homework... to explain every concept 4 times over... to practically hand him the test forms and ask him to memorize the answers... does that leave any room for actual on-the-spot analysis, or are we just parroting answers now?... Of course, rich parents never bribe teachers (I'm sure shit like that never happens, because I've never heard it, and I have such a sunny view of human nature)... well, nevermind. Point is, SAT scores do add predictive value to admissions decisions, despite these decisions being near impossible to make. That article proves that you can admit a smart kid only to have him decide that he'd rather stay in a constant state of drunkenness and pee on the chancellor than make any real academic progress... you can't control for that with any statistical tool.

Imagine there are 100 unique abilities (i.e. completely statistically independent in some way I don't care to elaborate on). If we use abilities 10-40 predominantly in English class and abilities
20-50 in math class (all weighted differently) and I designed a test that tested for abilities 0-60, but that nevertheless predicted grades in English and in Maths classes very well... does it matter that I didn't test exactly abilities 10-40 and 20-50 with two different tests (as a sidenote: the advantage of 1 test over 2 is obvious when you look at price, convenience, etc.)? Does it matter that it doesn't seem fair and that some students whom you might like a lot might be denied admission if you used these tests? Yeah, a little bit. But a college that has 100,000 applicants doesn't have time for that. And there are contingency plans (which got Bush admitted to Yale).

In fact, I advise performing statistical tests in an attempt to correlate just about every observable characteristic of a person with their chance of succeeding in college. Then combine the results of these tests and only then decide whether you want to admit students (I hear that's why Ivy leagues like kids that play sports).

Argh, what's the point. I think one comprehensive high school exit exam (which tests everything you supposedly learned in high school), with a mandatory year off to have the results be graded and analyzed would be best. Complaints of lack of freedom are just annoying and seem to stem from laziness, above all else. This is what countries other than USA are doing, and they completely dominate the US in secondary education. The US is known for post-secondary education and its grad-schools (partly because it imports its talent from abroad).

Mensa?

for some time now i wanted to have more tangible proof that i am not an idiot, despite what others might think.

so i took the mensa admissions test today. and it seemed like a good idea at the time.

but what if i fail? i've taken the home test and got 137, but this is not comforting enough. so I end up obsessing over this stupid test when tomorrow i'm running a marathon (and i really should worry about the marathon). argh.

maybe this was a bad idea.

trying to remember a question. all i remember is that "scour" was one of the answer choices.

i remembered the definition of scour that goes "move rapidly in search of someone or something" ... but i didn't remember the one that involves cleaning. that really sucks. and i didn't know that piteous and pitiable had the same meaning. that's stupid. i never use those words anyway. never hear piteous.