For example, one could throw into the bag height, sexiness, feet length, and BMI, which are all somewhat correlated with one another and with "IQ".
The point is that if those phenomena are all correlated with one another, there is likely to be an underlying reason for that. Maybe it's not general intelligence, but there is something.
Suppose you threw a different set of things into the bag: phase of the moon at birth, whether you were bitten by a wolf, and how good you are with computers. These things almost certainly will not be correlated, because there is indeed no relationship between them. The only reason the author discovered a large principal component in all his models is because he explicitly built one in!
Now, my analogy with physics is not to the physics of today. Rather, it's to physics pre-Boltzman. Before that, we didn't really know how the atomic theory of physics was related to thermodynamics. All we really had were correlations - boiling is correlated with burning, with faster chemical reactions, expansion of solids, with the human perception of warmth, etc. We observed they all occurred together, and postulated an underlying variable T which correlated well with all of them. We then exploited the correlation between this hidden variable T and thermal expansion to design a specific test to measure it (thermometers).
Pre-Boltzman, all we had were correlations between fundamentally different physical phenomena. We had various incorrect theories about why some of them occurred together, but that's about it.
Now suppose Boltzman comes along. He says "what you call a single variable T, I can explain with the sum of many variables." Does that mean it's reasonable to conclude T is a "statistical myth"?
See, the article is not arguing that. The article has nothing against latent variable(s) to account for what we observe as intelligence. What it is against is, misapplication of methodology. The myth is not in a latent variable summarizing intelligence, that may very well exists as admitted by the author. The myth is that g is derived in a meaningful way and explains the correlations in data instead of being a by product of the fact that the data is made to correlate (these days) and is just a measure of the correlation of the tests (now made to correlate). Again, I remain sceptical you read the article in full.
g is not as useful as T, since its ability as an explanatory variable and verification in experimental settings are sorely lacking.
Also, even if a valid concept of a single explanatory variable for intelligence were created, I personally, remain sceptical of the scope of its usefulness considering the space of complexity at hand (humans, genes, environment,...) and likely a lot less profound and far reaching as the insights of Boltzmann. And on the political side, the capacity for damage it would entail could be large - many people's lives could be impacted negatively. So it would have to be wielded carefully, one eugenics movement is enough.
What it is against is, misapplication of methodology.
Yes, and the author rightly points out that latent variables do not exclude the possibility of microstructure. That doesn't mean the use of the latent variables is a "statistical myth", unless you define the term "statistical myth" so broadly as to include temperature and pressure.
g is not as useful as T, since its ability as an explanatory variable and verification in experimental settings are sorely lacking.
This is both undisputed, and unrelated to the author's argument. The difference between our pre-Boltzman understanding of T and our contemporary understanding of g is one of precision. The author's argument was independent of precision, so invoking precision to protect his argument is disingenuous.
You might want to criticize the confidence levels of g. That's a perfectly legitimate thing to do. But that's not what I'm responding to.
So it would have to be wielded carefully, one eugenics movement is enough.
Not sure about that. The Dor Yesherim organization does such a great job of eugenics, I'd love to see further eugenics movements in other genetically isolated groups.
The point is that if those phenomena are all correlated with one another, there is likely to be an underlying reason for that. Maybe it's not general intelligence, but there is something.
Suppose you threw a different set of things into the bag: phase of the moon at birth, whether you were bitten by a wolf, and how good you are with computers. These things almost certainly will not be correlated, because there is indeed no relationship between them. The only reason the author discovered a large principal component in all his models is because he explicitly built one in!
Now, my analogy with physics is not to the physics of today. Rather, it's to physics pre-Boltzman. Before that, we didn't really know how the atomic theory of physics was related to thermodynamics. All we really had were correlations - boiling is correlated with burning, with faster chemical reactions, expansion of solids, with the human perception of warmth, etc. We observed they all occurred together, and postulated an underlying variable T which correlated well with all of them. We then exploited the correlation between this hidden variable T and thermal expansion to design a specific test to measure it (thermometers).
Pre-Boltzman, all we had were correlations between fundamentally different physical phenomena. We had various incorrect theories about why some of them occurred together, but that's about it.
Now suppose Boltzman comes along. He says "what you call a single variable T, I can explain with the sum of many variables." Does that mean it's reasonable to conclude T is a "statistical myth"?