John Knight wrote:
> "Mark D. Morin" <mdmpsyd at NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> news:3D2BA223.4020605 at NOSPAMgwi.net...>>>>>>Most of the corrlations I've gotten are in the range of 0.6, so it
>>>>> would
>>>>>>really be appreciated if you could provide a reference to the above.
>>>>>>>>0.6 is not a low correlation--it explains over one third of the
>>>>variation in scores. In any other field, an R of this size would be
>>>>considered robust.
>>>>>>>>my resources are at the office, I'll dig them out today.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, 0.6 really is good correlation, but when compared to the 0.8795
>>>correlation between brain size and GRE Quantitative, you have to wonder
>>>what's missing from "IQ tests".
>>>>and there still isn't a reliable source for this statistic.
>>>>>> For which statistic? Are you questioning Philippe Rushton's measurements of
> brain size,
yes
> GRE Quantitative Scores, or the method for calculating
> r-squared?
yes
note the measurement error reported.
>> Run the data at http://christianparty.net/grebrainsize.htm yourself.
There are no data there that are "runnable."
Or use
> the following figures and see what you get for r-squared. The first column
> of numbers is brain size in cubic centimeters,
which presumes accuracy of measurement. with the reported variability
(measurement error), by definition, those numbers are not valid--for
something to be valid, they first need to be reliable. If brain sizes
can not be measured reliably, your numbers are meaningless.
--
====================================================
You can't make someone love you, but you can let
yourself be loved by someone.
http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
