I used to think Spearman’s Law of Diminishing Returns (SLODR) was a good argument against the existence, or relevance, of g. That is where g-loading drops off at the higher ranges of intelligence. I no longer think that it is a good argument against g, because it might just be proportional. If a baby’s arm is 30cm, and the foot is 10cm, then the difference is 20cm. And if an adult’s arm is 75cm and foot 25cm, then the difference is 50cm. So the difference is larger, but only because everything is larger. It is proportional, the difference grew 2.5 times along with the foot and the arm. Maybe this is how SLODR works too, and if so, it is not a good case against
A better case against g
A better case against g
A better case against g
I used to think Spearman’s Law of Diminishing Returns (SLODR) was a good argument against the existence, or relevance, of g. That is where g-loading drops off at the higher ranges of intelligence. I no longer think that it is a good argument against g, because it might just be proportional. If a baby’s arm is 30cm, and the foot is 10cm, then the difference is 20cm. And if an adult’s arm is 75cm and foot 25cm, then the difference is 50cm. So the difference is larger, but only because everything is larger. It is proportional, the difference grew 2.5 times along with the foot and the arm. Maybe this is how SLODR works too, and if so, it is not a good case against