Thanks for your comment. I upvoted it because I think it contributes for an important discussion, and think positive/negative feedback is how things improve.
I don’t know why you reported results for the correlation coefficient as a percentage. The range for R is [-1, 1] and it cant’ be interpreted as a percentage.
This means the correlation coefficient between X and Y can be interpreted as the covariance between X and Y as a fraction (or percentage) of the product between the standard deviations of X and Y. More generally, the symbol “%” in non-dimensional number can be interpreted as meaning “per 100″ or “10^-2” (in the same way that “k” means “10^3”).
It feels disingenuous to use Lynn’s data or write about this topic without providing more context. Both are extremely controversial to say the least.
To be honest, I did not know Lynn was a contentious figure. However, I think the data from Lynn 2019 should be mostly assessed on the merits of its methodology.
Apparently naively, I thought it was fine to do an analysis involving IQ without making any claims about its implications, which are outside of scope, and would require much further thought (namely for the reasons you are alluding to). My motivation for not including disclaimers is captured in the following paragraphs from this post from Emrik:
If writers have to spend five paragraphs on disclaimers and clarification just to make sure we don’t accuse them of nazism, well, we’ve wasted everyone’s time, and we’ve lost a hundred good writers who didn’t want to take the risk in the first place.
But it’s worse, because if we already have the norm of constantly suspecting nazism or whatever, then the first writer to notcorrect for that misunderstanding is immediately going to look suspicious. This is what’s so vicious about refusing to interpret with a little more recursive wisdom. If you have an equilibrium of both expecting and writing disclaimers about X, it self-perpetuates regardless of whether anyone actually means or supports X.
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for your comment. I upvoted it because I think it contributes for an important discussion, and think positive/negative feedback is how things improve.
From Wikipedia, the correlation coefficient is:
This means the correlation coefficient between X and Y can be interpreted as the covariance between X and Y as a fraction (or percentage) of the product between the standard deviations of X and Y. More generally, the symbol “%” in non-dimensional number can be interpreted as meaning “per 100″ or “10^-2” (in the same way that “k” means “10^3”).
To be honest, I did not know Lynn was a contentious figure. However, I think the data from Lynn 2019 should be mostly assessed on the merits of its methodology.
Apparently naively, I thought it was fine to do an analysis involving IQ without making any claims about its implications, which are outside of scope, and would require much further thought (namely for the reasons you are alluding to). My motivation for not including disclaimers is captured in the following paragraphs from this post from Emrik: