And "measurement error". I've asked some researchers who entertain this idea why they don't they just estimate the heritability of the latent factor via GREML/LDSC. 4/5 said they didn't think it was even possible, but it is(www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S000...

I might be wrong about the last point

The current state of the art is using item level data directly. Sadly it depends on the chosen IRT model, and power is still low. Also, it cannot detect AxC if the estimated C is zero, which is ofc a problem since AxC acts very much like A
ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfil...

I looked through all my bookmarks, sadly I failed to find it. However I'm 99% sure the statement was made by Mcardle or Horn.
On the bright side I managed to recover this lost article my Mcardle, where he has to admit that Horn was right all along, g is not real.

krichard12.com/docs/McArdle...

Yeah Guttman is extremely underrated. Peter Molenaar also proved the equalivence between network models and common factors models in the early 2000s or late nineties. Network analysis is not that new, it just finally gained some traction

Did you know that one of the most influential g-men has written that Gould was correct about factor analysis? I'll dig up the quote someday

Installing an AC a few years ago was one of the best decisions of my life. It's good enough for heating in winter too, I never have to use gas for heating anymore, I'm pretty sure it's a net positive overall

In both the article and twitter reply, he claims to have fit both an independent pathway model(high c) and a common pathway model(low c, high a)

In the paid article he cites a different article(that's why he messed up the publication date).
But of course this article also notes that it is not identified.
link.springer.com/article/10.1...

Hereditarians claim that these are not g-laoded gains, whatever that means. Schooling doesn't inrcrease intelligence because the gains aren't on g(except for the studies that find the opposite result.). Most theories agree that g is just a statistical thing, it doesn't exist literally.

This is so true, altho it is very weird. Like how can the human brain just start to understand memorized text without conscious effort to do so.

The moment the tiktok community found out that the shark one mocked God, its popularity went down and the tone of the comments changed which is another good sign that kids are not manipulated into hate *that* easily.

Only the shark and crocodil one afaik(but they are among the most popular). The rest are either random words that gpt made up, or are fairly innocent. Some are not even Italian, but only a few know. This implies that thankfully they don't translate them, so are not affected that much.

semPlot is better
sachaepskamp.com/semPlot/exam...

I wonder whether he kept his lies on the internet and IRL the same. He claimed being related to 4 chess grandmasters, being fluent in German, holding a degree in Chemistry, being a 6'3 bodybuilder among other things.

They go by the "they, them" pronouns FYI

I can't find the post, but he said something like "even the anti-g dutch psychometricians agree if you push them enough"