i feel like i kind of expect “research” to be potentially separate from these? eg you can have very very technical people without good technical research taste, and i think probably the same on a lot of design type skills / research?
Research is mostly design! This is one of the big mistakes that people make IMO! Almost all of high-quality research is ontologizing new domains and thinking really hard about what are good new abstractions to think in within this domain, and that’s the very central design skill!
One of the reasons why research is hard is because you need design, and usually you have technical prerequisites.
No, absolutely not on average! Average intelligence in humanities and law is substantially below average intelligence in STEM, and as I said a few times in the post, general intelligence dominates. So mostly, if you give the same ontologization task to someone in STEM and in humanities, the STEM person will smoke the other person.
But yes, if you control for intelligence, and have someone do a bunch of good and solid humanities and law work, especially writing, research and conceptual work, then I expect them to outperform the STEM person.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that Maxwell or Faraday ‘designed’ the concept of an electromagnetic field or electromagnetic radiation
I do think it’s reasonable to say that. Indeed, I think it’s obvious that Maxwell and Faraday had a way of interfacing with their respective fields that most other scientists lacked, and I think being both good at the technical work and clearly world class at design in this ontology was one of those (of course they also had many other differences).
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.
i feel like i kind of expect “research” to be potentially separate from these? eg you can have very very technical people without good technical research taste, and i think probably the same on a lot of design type skills / research?
Research is mostly design! This is one of the big mistakes that people make IMO! Almost all of high-quality research is ontologizing new domains and thinking really hard about what are good new abstractions to think in within this domain, and that’s the very central design skill!
One of the reasons why research is hard is because you need design, and usually you have technical prerequisites.
Comment withdrawn.
No, absolutely not on average! Average intelligence in humanities and law is substantially below average intelligence in STEM, and as I said a few times in the post, general intelligence dominates. So mostly, if you give the same ontologization task to someone in STEM and in humanities, the STEM person will smoke the other person.
But yes, if you control for intelligence, and have someone do a bunch of good and solid humanities and law work, especially writing, research and conceptual work, then I expect them to outperform the STEM person.
I do think it’s reasonable to say that. Indeed, I think it’s obvious that Maxwell and Faraday had a way of interfacing with their respective fields that most other scientists lacked, and I think being both good at the technical work and clearly world class at design in this ontology was one of those (of course they also had many other differences).
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.