C2, you will see that those graphs are not just a single row of dots right along the expected line but have got a wide range of variation and he specifically mentioned Barbados and South Africa as extreme examples which diverge from the expected line by a long way.
What that shows is not that the theory is wrong, but the extent to which other variables also have an influence.
The fact that other variables have an influence too is entirely irrelevant to the smart fraction theory.
What his maths shows is the effect of smart fractions and verbal intelligence on GDP per capita. It doesn't purport to show what are the effects of other variables such as you were thinking of - multitudinous, complex and perhaps difficult to explain though they might be. Those other variables are irrelevant.
So I'm sorry to say that you don't believe what he wrote, mainly because you didn't understand it.
To show he's wrong, you would have to dig into the maths or data rather than throw some ideas about other true, but irrelevant, variables around.
He did show that the data fits his theory really nicely. That's what happens when scientific people come up with theories which nicely match reality. The data slips right into their theory and comes out looking very nice.
Even a non-mathematician can see from his graphs that the clusters of points fit quite reasonably around his graphs, with oddball outliers like South Africa and Barbados.
The point he explained about South Africa, that it's not a Gaussian distribution [due to the very large Negro population and the smaller Euro population] would also apply to the USA, which would be a variable which would help explain the difference between expected GDP per capita and actual GDP per capita. Other variables such as the size of the country, natural resources, capitalist history, working hours rules also contribute to deviation from the expected result, as you say.
The fact that those variations exist doesn't make the Smart Fraction Theory wrong. They are just confounding variables, which are relatively small compared with the dominant issue which is verbal intelligence smart fraction. If verbal intelligence smart fraction was a trivial variable, the data would form what is called a "starry night", which is a very annoying data set for people looking for effects of things.
When one gets "starry nights" in one's data, one is stuck with having to do large studies, which cost lots of money, to pin down the actual effects being studied.
For example, the brain cancer effects of cell phones are no doubt present, but so overwhelmed by other variables, that so far, nobody has shown effects. If there are effects, [which I think there are], they are so small that they are very well hidden in the noise from all the other things that contribute to brain cancer. The data is a starry night as far as cellphone radiation is concerned.
That isn't the case with verbal intelligence and its effect on GDP. It sticks out from the background noise like a flag pole.
He did have to ditch the confounding variable of visuo-spatial ability because it messed things up. Of course visuo-spatial ability also has an effect, like other variables, but it's the verbal intelligence which does the heavy lifting in GDP per capita.
You can see why I despair at juries and judges deciding whether phragmented photons in Fourier transforms are patentable and whether QCOM should be beholden to poxy little obvious patents like Broadcom's power saving "light switch" patent.
While judges have got verbal intelligence, they are not notable mathematicians, or even amateur ones. Juries of course are lucky to find the coffee machine and work out how to use it.
In law, arbitrary subjective decisions are the norm. There is no linear regression analysis of data that the legal process does. That's why it's entirely unpredictable. Any reality a judge and jury declare is ipso facto a good reality and the right one and cannot be denied, on pain of death or prison. Their realities don't have to match any data sets or be tested in reality. They just are and too bad for the victims of their faulty thinking.
Mathematicians run their theories, collect data, crunch the numbers and if the numbers don't fit, then their theories are DEAD. There is no appeal to a higher court to reverse reality. They are defunct.
In summary, the score is Griffe 10, C2 0.
It was like watching me play Kasparov at chess. I would wildly wave a few knights around and pop a pawn here and there. But it would soon be game over for me with holes through all my ideas and my king prostrate before him.
I might contend that Kasparov is full of high-falutin' bunk, but that wouldn't make my assertions correct. Kasparov could beat me while brushing his teeth and with his eyes shut.
I recommend even slower reading next time. Griffe's other theories are also very interesting; such as why melanin-deficient males are the serial murderers.
I would like to see him do a review of brain performance versus age at puberty. Mq's theory is that females are disadvantaged by having their brains fully grown 3 years younger than males. Females get a double disadvantage because not only are they matured younger, hence enjoying fewer experiences during their growth, but the education processes are not challenging them when they are rapidly developing, while prepubescent, with maths, science and languages.
Females do better than males at school because they have got bigger brains which are mature. Males catch up later and overtake the females, if they haven't given up, quit school and gone to work as a carpenter or something.
Mqurice |
