{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02531645569620253, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006329113924050633, 'mean_word_length': 5.880434782608695, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Disambiguating Latent Variables

In contrast to Borsboom (2008) who distinguishes between manifest and latent variables on epistemic grounds in terms of “epistemic accessibility,” I advocate a demarcation on pragmatic grounds. The latter way of understanding this distinction does justice to the intuitions driving Borsboom’s account, but avoids unnecessary epistemic complications. I then turn to two cases, the Flynn Effect and the case of psycho-educational assessment, and show an equivocal understanding of one latent variable, Spearman’s g, has led some researchers to draw paradoxical conclusions regarding cognitive ability.