particularly in the domain of verbal abilities, since you implied they are part of ‘design’, or at least correlated
Lawyers are on average a bit less smart than physicists, but yeah, both are quite smart.
The best evidence I can provide here is all the evidence about verbal intelligence being a meaningful sub-factor of g, and that lawyers do score substantially higher on that than physicists, after controlling for g.
And then I don’t quite know how I would best show that “verbal” skill is related to research skill and ontologization skill. We measure the skill by measuring vocabulary and ability to make and follow clear arguments, which I think point vaguely in this direction.
Then I don’t think you’re using the word design to mean what it is usually taken to mean.
It obviously would be hella confusing to use the word as I am using it here without defining it. But I am literally using the phrase “design (in this ontology)” in the quoted passage. Like, I say right there that I mean “design” as I have defined it for the purpose of this post.
Lawyers are on average a bit less smart than physicists, but yeah, both are quite smart.
The best evidence I can provide here is all the evidence about verbal intelligence being a meaningful sub-factor of g, and that lawyers do score substantially higher on that than physicists, after controlling for g.
And then I don’t quite know how I would best show that “verbal” skill is related to research skill and ontologization skill. We measure the skill by measuring vocabulary and ability to make and follow clear arguments, which I think point vaguely in this direction.
It obviously would be hella confusing to use the word as I am using it here without defining it. But I am literally using the phrase “design (in this ontology)” in the quoted passage. Like, I say right there that I mean “design” as I have defined it for the purpose of this post.