This is a special post for quick takes by lionhearted (Sebastian Marshall). Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.

New to LessWrong?

7 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 3:44 AM

"Decisionmaking", I think, is better a single compound word than two words.

I think it's more like "treehouse" than "tree house." I write it as such, and hope it catches on.

First — Agree/disagree?

Second — Any thoughts on how to go about influencing usage, dictionaries, and autocorrect over time?

Wikipedia spells it with a hyphen and says it's spelled all three ways:

I like "decision-making" the most.

I think if your aim is to communicate then indeed we have communicated by using any of the three forms. But for me, the three are slightly different. I think it depends on the context most of the time. For example, "decision-making", for me, relates more to the cognitive process as it's studied and its research and "decision making" to the act of making decisions.

If "Decisionmaking" isn't taken, then I'm going to suggest that it mean "creating decisions".

(This might be taken literally, particularly in contexts where 'decisions being made' is important, or refer to making new options, where "decision making" refers to choosing among options.)

"According to some theorists (e.g. Anderson 2001), information processing speed forms the basis of individual differences in IQ. [...] Inspection time among individuals with autism has been reported to be (i) much better than expected, based upon measured IQ, (ii) equal to that of a typically developing group with mean IQ scores 25 points higher..."

Note 1: Lightly edited to remove acronyms.

Note 2: !!!! Whoa.

According to some theorists (e.g. Anderson 2001), information processing speed forms the basis of individual differences in IQ.

My understanding is that information processing time (as measured by reaction time) is pretty standard across humans, and pretty close the physical limits of neurons.

It is true that reaction time correlates with IQ, but that is a bit misleading. Average reaction time correlates with IQ, but every person's best case reaction time is about the same. It seems that the the correlation with between average RT and IQ is mediated by better vigilance. That is, people with higher IQs are able to score better on RT tasks because they are able to maintain their attention on the task (and therefore maintain an RT closer to their best), for longer periods.

My citation is chapter 3 (?) of this textbook.

I'm somewhat suspicious that this is an artifact of the way we usually measure IQ since tests often look like "more IQ for more questions answered correctly in a fixed amount of time", so unless we really mean to include speed in our measures of g, this seems possibly spurious.