"A composite is a sum of different variables. GDP is an example, as it’s built up from the combination of consumption expenditures, investment, government spending, and net exports, (C + I + G + NX)."
I am going to disagree with you on GDP. The United States' GDP relies heavily on the financial sector, which has little to do with a country's economic health or living standards. China's GDP relies more on actual production. There is no standard for what is and is not allowed in the variables. A great example is the comparison of the US GDP and China's. When using GDP as a proxy for average IQ, the United States shows an average IQ higher than China's. When tested IQs are compared, that is not the case.
China is still moving towards the developmental frontier, whereas the U.S. is setting it. As I noted in my article on the validity of national IQs, the correlation with variables like GDP and HDI has been rising over time with development.
I completely disagree with the notion that the U.S.' GDP is heavily reliant on its financial sector or that such a thing is bad, and I definitely disagree with the relevance of such a thing because of the aforementioned issue with sum scores.
"I completely disagree with the notion that the U.S.' GDP is heavily reliant on its financial sector or that such a thing is bad, and I definitely disagree with the relevance of such a thing because of the aforementioned issue with sum scores."
There are plenty of people who disagree with you, and I am one of them.
And you did not address this comment: When using GDP as a proxy for average IQ, the United States shows an average IQ higher than China's. When tested IQs are compared, that is not the case.
> There are plenty of people who disagree with you, and I am one of them.
Then provide some support for your statements, and note that the Wilks issue still looms large over your concerns.
> And you did not address this comment
I directly addressed that comment when I wrote:
"China is still moving towards the developmental frontier, whereas the U.S. is setting it. As I noted in my article on the validity of national IQs, the correlation with variables like GDP and HDI has been rising over time with development."
Thank you sir. This was fascinating as not a math guy myself. But how does your field account for Goodhearts law? I'm assuming there's some kind of formula to account for this. Even if it's just a manual scale down being taken from the positive perception bias data (is how I would do it heuristically). But it probably wouldn't work that well. If you have time, I'd love to learn more. Thank you!
Just ask yourself how you could Goodhart GDP. You really can't at least for very long.
The Soviets, the Cubans, and the Venezuelans, for example, each did several years of basically purely extensive growth, but they couldn't keep it going (and there are good reasons to think they shouldn't be able to for long, either). That's about as close as you can get.
That makes sense, and also there's ways to find objective measures.(Like energy consumption. Really hard to fake) Not perception one that doese allow the compounding issues that you pointed out in your Soviet examples. If we had to rely on self-reported human data for all of our data, then this problem might come about. But thank goodness we do not. Thank you for asking. My very stupid question.
"A composite is a sum of different variables. GDP is an example, as it’s built up from the combination of consumption expenditures, investment, government spending, and net exports, (C + I + G + NX)."
I am going to disagree with you on GDP. The United States' GDP relies heavily on the financial sector, which has little to do with a country's economic health or living standards. China's GDP relies more on actual production. There is no standard for what is and is not allowed in the variables. A great example is the comparison of the US GDP and China's. When using GDP as a proxy for average IQ, the United States shows an average IQ higher than China's. When tested IQs are compared, that is not the case.
https://www.smartcapitalmind.com/what-are-the-different-problems-with-gdp.htm
China is still moving towards the developmental frontier, whereas the U.S. is setting it. As I noted in my article on the validity of national IQs, the correlation with variables like GDP and HDI has been rising over time with development.
I completely disagree with the notion that the U.S.' GDP is heavily reliant on its financial sector or that such a thing is bad, and I definitely disagree with the relevance of such a thing because of the aforementioned issue with sum scores.
"I completely disagree with the notion that the U.S.' GDP is heavily reliant on its financial sector or that such a thing is bad, and I definitely disagree with the relevance of such a thing because of the aforementioned issue with sum scores."
There are plenty of people who disagree with you, and I am one of them.
And you did not address this comment: When using GDP as a proxy for average IQ, the United States shows an average IQ higher than China's. When tested IQs are compared, that is not the case.
> There are plenty of people who disagree with you, and I am one of them.
Then provide some support for your statements, and note that the Wilks issue still looms large over your concerns.
> And you did not address this comment
I directly addressed that comment when I wrote:
"China is still moving towards the developmental frontier, whereas the U.S. is setting it. As I noted in my article on the validity of national IQs, the correlation with variables like GDP and HDI has been rising over time with development."
"Then provide some support for your statements, and note that the Wilks issue still looms large over your concerns."
I included two urls. There is plenty of opposition to your position. You alluded to it in your article.
Can you provide something relevant? The things you linked are fully addressed by what I've already said.
We disagree.
Here is another analysis.
https://www.google.com/search?q=IQ+of+the+US+compared+to+China+using+GDP+as+a+proxy&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS1182US1182&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Thank you sir. This was fascinating as not a math guy myself. But how does your field account for Goodhearts law? I'm assuming there's some kind of formula to account for this. Even if it's just a manual scale down being taken from the positive perception bias data (is how I would do it heuristically). But it probably wouldn't work that well. If you have time, I'd love to learn more. Thank you!
Respectfully,
Staffing Weenie
Just ask yourself how you could Goodhart GDP. You really can't at least for very long.
The Soviets, the Cubans, and the Venezuelans, for example, each did several years of basically purely extensive growth, but they couldn't keep it going (and there are good reasons to think they shouldn't be able to for long, either). That's about as close as you can get.
The idea of Goodharting GDP doesn't make sense.
That makes sense, and also there's ways to find objective measures.(Like energy consumption. Really hard to fake) Not perception one that doese allow the compounding issues that you pointed out in your Soviet examples. If we had to rely on self-reported human data for all of our data, then this problem might come about. But thank goodness we do not. Thank you for asking. My very stupid question.