http://www.sott.net/articles/show/237568-Psychologists-Defend-The-Importance-Of-General-Abilities
I'm sometimes curious about why certain sentences are chosen to be highlighted in bold on SOTT. Like the following in the article linked above:
The other bold/highlighted sections of that article are statements that are supported by the rest of the article, but the one I've quoted is an idea that their research challenges. So why is that section highlighted? Is it a mistake?
More generally, I'm curious about the reasons for bolding/highlighting sections of articles in general. I recognize that it often serves to highlight important points that corroborate other pieces of evidence from other articles (or add a new piece of data), but I'm curious how you decide what should be highlighted in general, and what are the different reasons for highlighting sections? Has this been answered before?
I'm sometimes curious about why certain sentences are chosen to be highlighted in bold on SOTT. Like the following in the article linked above:
(Bold by SOTT editors.)Challenging another "experts-are-made" contention - that beyond a certain threshold, intelligence makes less and less of a difference in accomplishment - the authors cite a study by Vanderbilt University researchers that looked at the math SAT scores of people with PhDs in science, technology, engineering, or math.
The other bold/highlighted sections of that article are statements that are supported by the rest of the article, but the one I've quoted is an idea that their research challenges. So why is that section highlighted? Is it a mistake?
More generally, I'm curious about the reasons for bolding/highlighting sections of articles in general. I recognize that it often serves to highlight important points that corroborate other pieces of evidence from other articles (or add a new piece of data), but I'm curious how you decide what should be highlighted in general, and what are the different reasons for highlighting sections? Has this been answered before?