Re: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ

[John Kulig]

I know I am a little late reading emails and tips has moved on to other topics. 
I think there can be a lively debate about rotated versus non-rotated, 
correlated vs. non-correlated. I like to think g as a construct (as well as 
intervening variable) will persist to the extent it guides theory and research. 

The reasons I cling to g in my vocabulary: 

1. The predictive validity of g loaded tests increases with the complexity of 
the task, with 77% of rocket scientist (nuclear weapons specialists) success 
accounted for by g, versus 20 to 30% of lower level military task success 
predicted (note this is % variance, the r is the square root), Also note that g 
predicts a surprising chick of variance for even the lower level tasks. 
2. _Achievement_ tests are predicted better by g than by school grades 
3. Specific aptitude tests add virtually no predictive value for job success 
above and beyond g 
4. Items with high g loadings _look_ like they are measuring a general ability 
to manipulate symbol e.g. these items have big g loadings: 
a. Progressive Matrices 
b. analogies 
c. series completion 
d. reasoning: e.g. "Bob is twice as old as his sister, who is now 7. How old 
will Bob be when his sister is 40?" Answer: 47 (n.b. the math is trivial. But 
the reasoning is not) 

>From a validity construct standpoint, g looks like a duck, it quacks like a 
>duck, it waddles like a duck etc. So that is why I still believe in my heart 
>etc etc etc. BUT we probably all agree that neurological findings will 
>ultimately uncover causal mechanisms. 

Thanks Mike for a thoughtful reply ... 

== 
John W. Kulig, Ph.D. 
Professor of Psychology 
Coordinator, Psychology Honors 
Plymouth State University 
Plymouth NH 03264 
== 

- Original Message -

From: "Mike Palij"  
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" 
 
Cc: "Michael Palij"  
Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2014 8:36:09 PM 
Subject: Re: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ 

John, 

A few points: 

(1) One way to think about factor analysis is that it is a 
technique to explain the mathematical basis for correlations, 
specifically, being able to reduce a correlation matrix to a 
smaller matrix where the rows and columns are independent 
(though one may be satisfied with a smaller factor matrix with 
correlated factors). With the development of confirmatory factor 
analysis, we can test whether a single factor or multifactor 
model best accounts for a correlation matrix. Structural 
equation modeling (SEM) allows for much more complex 
factor models. That being said, there are a number of problems 
in getting adequate fit of models to data as well as problems 
of interpretation. The key point is that this is all in terms of 
mathematics and does not necessarily have any psychological 
relevance. 

(2) The original conception of "g" depended upon getting 
a large first eigenvalue or factor from an unrotated factor 
matrix. The model of the data can be said to be 

X = common variance + error variance 

where common variance is "g" when talking about measues 
of mental abilities. However, an unrotated factor matrix can 
be difficult to interpret because, well, it may not represent the 
structure in the data. That is, instead of a single factor, several 
factors may be required. Rotation of the factors while maintaining 
orthogonal relations among them (i.e., uncorrelated factors) 
often reveals several factors. Varimax rotation attempts to 
maximize the loading of a variable on one factor while minimizing 
the loadings on other factors. This, of course, undermines 
the whole "general intelligence" position. This was promoted 
by Thurstone with his primary mental abilities approach and 
others (e.g., Guilford; Gardner and his "multiple intelligences" 
approach is a johnny-come-lately) and this would researchers 
to focus on tests based on several specific factors (e.g., verbal 
ability, math ability, spatial, etc.) instead of a single factor. 

(3) If one allows the factors to be correlated after they are 
extracted, one can come up with a correlation matrix for the 
factors which can be further factor analyzed. Proponents of 
"g" would argue that "general intelligence" was a "higher order" 
factor in order to save their theory -- but now "g" is even further 
away from the actual data it is supposed to explain. "g" 
is now a "second order" factor but some situations might have 
it as a "third order" factor (a large number of variables and 
subjects are required to get these higher order factors). 
"g" has strayed far from its original meaning and it is no longer 
clear what it means, especially when is refering to second-order 
or higher unitary factors. In this sense, "g" is an artfact because 
it comes about the continual factor ana

Re: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ

[Mike Palij]

John,

A few points:

(1)  One way to think about factor analysis is that it is a
technique to explain the mathematical basis for correlations,
specifically, being able to reduce a correlation matrix to a
smaller matrix where the rows and columns are independent
(though one may be satisfied with a smaller factor matrix with
correlated factors). With the development of confirmatory factor
analysis, we can test whether a single factor or multifactor
model best accounts for a correlation matrix. Structural
equation modeling (SEM) allows for much more complex
factor models. That being said, there are a number of problems
in getting adequate fit of models to data as well as problems
of interpretation. The key point is that this is all in terms of
mathematics and does not necessarily have any psychological
relevance.

(2) The original conception of "g" depended upon getting
a large first eigenvalue or factor from an unrotated factor
matrix.  The model of the data can be said to be

X = common variance + error variance

where common variance is "g" when talking about measues
of mental abilities.  However, an unrotated factor matrix can
be difficult to interpret because, well, it may not represent the
structure in the data.  That is, instead of a single factor, several
factors may be required.  Rotation of the factors while maintaining
orthogonal relations among them (i.e., uncorrelated factors)
often reveals several factors. Varimax rotation attempts to
maximize the loading of a variable on one factor while minimizing
the loadings on other factors.  This, of course, undermines
the whole "general intelligence" position. This was promoted
by Thurstone with his primary mental abilities approach and
others (e.g., Guilford; Gardner and his "multiple intelligences"
approach is a johnny-come-lately) and this would researchers
to focus on tests based on several specific factors (e.g., verbal
ability, math ability, spatial, etc.) instead of a single factor.

(3)  If one allows the factors to be correlated after they are
extracted, one can come up with a correlation matrix for the
factors which can be further factor analyzed.  Proponents of
"g" would argue that "general intelligence" was a "higher order"
factor in order to save their theory -- but now "g" is even further
away from the actual data it is supposed to explain.  "g"
is now a "second order" factor but some situations might have
it as a "third order" factor (a large number of variables and
subjects are required to get these higher order factors).
"g" has strayed far from its original meaning and it is no longer
clear what it means, especially when is refering to second-order
or higher unitary factors.  In this sense, "g" is an artfact because
it comes about the continual factor analyses of correlation
matrices -- from the original correlation matrix of empirical
variables to the derived correlation matrices for factors.
If one believes in his/her heart that "g" exists as a meaningful
entity, I'm sure that this seems like a reasonable thing to do.
If one does not believe in "g", this seems like grasping at
straws.

(4) This is a special time of year because the different strains
of Christianity celebrate Easter at the same time; see:
http://www.almanac.com/content/when-easter
The main distinction is whether one follows the "modern"
Gregorian calendar or the "old" Julian calendar (they are based
on lunar cycles and not all have transitioned from the old
calendar to the new old; however, Russia was late in making
the transition which explains why the October revolution is
celebrated in November).  Roman Catholics follow the
Gregorian calendar while the Orthodox Christians tend to
follow the Julian calendar which means that the holidays
are usually out of sync.  However, Byzantine rite Catholics
historically have followed the Julian calendar though in
recent years some have changed to observing the holiday
on the Gregorian calendar.  For some background on this
see:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/we-are-non-roman-catholics

Bringing this back to the original point of this thread, one
could use the metaphor that "g" is like the Catholic Church,
that is, an overarching conception that governs all sub-units
even those that don't recognize its authority because it can
be argued that they are all derived from Roman Catholicism.
The different varieties of Catholics and Christians are like
specific abilities, representing different components that
operate in a common system.  So, from this perspective,
a "g" enthusiast would focus on the importance of Roman
Catholicism as driving all forms of Christianity while people
who don't care for "g", well, not so much. ;-)

Me, I'm a primary abilities kind of guy. ;-)

-Mike Palij
New York University
m...@nyu.edu


- Original Message - 
On  Wednesday, April 09, 2014 12:37 PM, John Kulig wrote:


Mike

I am not sure I get the point about g being an artifact of factor 
analysis. I realize we can name factors anything we w

Re: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ

[Paul C Bernhardt]

I still think we'd all be a lot less worried about this thing if it were called 
"academic preparedness". 

Paul

On Apr 9, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Mike Palij wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 07:50:49 -0700, Jim Clark wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> I'm surprised to see the IQ bashing based on a perhaps simplistic
>> interpretation of some brain research showing that two different
>> areas of the brain light up in 16 subjects performing various cognitive
>> tasks.
> [snip]
> 
> I think you miss the point: it is the use of IQ/intelligence/"g" as
> theoretical concepts for cognitive or brain processing that is
> being contested.  There are alternative theoretical frameworks
> that can be used but some people feel compelled to use
> IQ/intelligence/"g".  One might prefer a theory that claims that
> the Flying Spaghetti Monster fills a person's heads with blue
> fairies that when active give off energy that is detected by
> neuroimaging techniques (but I'll leave the debunking of
> neuroscience results to Tips resident neuroscience debunker
> Scott Lilienfeld ;-).  Hence, every thought you have is the result
> of a busy blue fairy.  Now try to falsify that claim.  But do so
> after you show the evidence for virtual particles. ;-)  See
> the following article in Scientific American but also read the
> comments:
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/
> Then take a look at the Physics FAQ on virtual particles:
> http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/topics/virtual
> 
> Oh, and I'm glad that no one has shown that the claim that "g"
> is an artifact of factor analysis is false. ;-)
> 
>> Somewhat related, there is an interesting interview with Flynn in
>> the latest Skeptic magazine.
> 
> Interesting interview but it leaves one wondering why anybody let
> the Irish immigrate to their country. ;-)
> 
> -Mike Palij
> New York University
> m...@nyu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: pcbernha...@frostburg.edu.
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263003&n=T&l=tips&o=36005
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-36005-13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
> 


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=36008
or send a blank email to 
leave-36008-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ

[John Kulig]

Mike 

I am not sure I get the point about g being an artifact of factor analysis. I 
realize we can name factors anything we wish. The loadings correlate the 
sub-tests with the hypothetical/latent variable that we call factor I, II etc 
 I also know that there are different methods of factor analysis, and we 
can get different results, but if guided by theory/common sense and the result 
is a construct that succinctly summarizes a broad array of empirical findings, 
then I do not see the artifact. 

I do know that a factor will emerge when it predicts differences . So (loosely 
stealing an example from Cronbach/ the pencil is my example) ... a sub-test of 
vocabulary and a sub-test of pencil sharpening ability will not see a common 
factor emerge with homogeneous Ss, even though there is a skill common to both 
- willingness to sit and follow directions. But if we had a more heterogeneous 
sample of people from very different cultures, a common factor of "willingness" 
would emerge to predict differences. In the later example, the "willingness" 
would be a useful construct, label it what you will. As I think about the 
neurological underpinnings (jumping from one issue to another) it may be the 
case that there are numerous brain functions common to all tasks, or maybe only 
some tasks. Like factor analysis, do they predict differences in the population 
we get our samples from? 

And - jumping again - I suspect Mike and I are in a small group who celebrate 
Greek Passover/Easter given his expertise in that area (add our list to the 
cross-cultural dudes on tips. UNLESS he is simply an expert in very diverse 
fields - OMG! is that g). Whatever the case, have a fruitful equinox 
holiday season! 

== 
John W. Kulig, Ph.D. 
Professor of Psychology 
Coordinator, Psychology Honors 
Plymouth State University 
Plymouth NH 03264 
== 

- Original Message -

From: "Mike Palij"  
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" 
 
Cc: "Michael Palij"  
Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2014 12:16:17 PM 
Subject: RE: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ 

On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 07:50:49 -0700, Jim Clark wrote: 
>Hi 
> 
>I'm surprised to see the IQ bashing based on a perhaps simplistic 
>interpretation of some brain research showing that two different 
>areas of the brain light up in 16 subjects performing various cognitive 
>tasks. 
[snip] 

I think you miss the point: it is the use of IQ/intelligence/"g" as 
theoretical concepts for cognitive or brain processing that is 
being contested. There are alternative theoretical frameworks 
that can be used but some people feel compelled to use 
IQ/intelligence/"g". One might prefer a theory that claims that 
the Flying Spaghetti Monster fills a person's heads with blue 
fairies that when active give off energy that is detected by 
neuroimaging techniques (but I'll leave the debunking of 
neuroscience results to Tips resident neuroscience debunker 
Scott Lilienfeld ;-). Hence, every thought you have is the result 
of a busy blue fairy. Now try to falsify that claim. But do so 
after you show the evidence for virtual particles. ;-) See 
the following article in Scientific American but also read the 
comments: 
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/ 
Then take a look at the Physics FAQ on virtual particles: 
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/topics/virtual 

Oh, and I'm glad that no one has shown that the claim that "g" 
is an artifact of factor analysis is false. ;-) 

>Somewhat related, there is an interesting interview with Flynn in 
>the latest Skeptic magazine. 

Interesting interview but it leaves one wondering why anybody let 
the Irish immigrate to their country. ;-) 

-Mike Palij 
New York University 
m...@nyu.edu 



--- 
You are currently subscribed to tips as: ku...@mail.plymouth.edu. 
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454&n=T&l=tips&o=36005
 
or send a blank email to 
leave-36005-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu 


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=36006
or send a blank email to 
leave-36006-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

RE: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ

[Mike Palij]

On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 07:50:49 -0700, Jim Clark wrote:

Hi

I'm surprised to see the IQ bashing based on a perhaps simplistic
interpretation of some brain research showing that two different
areas of the brain light up in 16 subjects performing various cognitive
tasks.

[snip]

I think you miss the point: it is the use of IQ/intelligence/"g" as
theoretical concepts for cognitive or brain processing that is
being contested.  There are alternative theoretical frameworks
that can be used but some people feel compelled to use
IQ/intelligence/"g".  One might prefer a theory that claims that
the Flying Spaghetti Monster fills a person's heads with blue
fairies that when active give off energy that is detected by
neuroimaging techniques (but I'll leave the debunking of
neuroscience results to Tips resident neuroscience debunker
Scott Lilienfeld ;-).  Hence, every thought you have is the result
of a busy blue fairy.  Now try to falsify that claim.  But do so
after you show the evidence for virtual particles. ;-)  See
the following article in Scientific American but also read the
comments:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/
Then take a look at the Physics FAQ on virtual particles:
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/topics/virtual

Oh, and I'm glad that no one has shown that the claim that "g"
is an artifact of factor analysis is false. ;-)


Somewhat related, there is an interesting interview with Flynn in
the latest Skeptic magazine.


Interesting interview but it leaves one wondering why anybody let
the Irish immigrate to their country. ;-)

-Mike Palij
New York University
m...@nyu.edu



---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=36005
or send a blank email to 
leave-36005-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

RE: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ

[Tim Shearon]

The Department of Psychology at The College of Idaho invites applications for 
two one-year Visiting Assistant Professor positions beginning August 2014. The 
first is a SOCIAL psychology position. Preference will be given to candidates 
with a PhD in social psychology at the time of appointment. Primary 
responsibilities include teaching introduction to social psychology and 
introductory courses in psychology. The second is a GENERALIST position for 
someone trained in an area of empirical-scientific psychology. The primary 
responsibility is teaching introductory courses in psychology, specifically 
General Psychology, Introduction to Psychological Science, and one of the 
following content areas - Social, Developmental, Cognitive, or Biological 
Psychology. It is likely that two national searches to fill tenure-track 
positions will follow during fall 2014.

Commitment to undergraduate teaching and the liberal arts is required and 
strongly emphasized at The College. Experience in the liberal arts is highly 
desirable. Candidates who can actively support undergraduate students in 
research activities are strongly encouraged to apply. The teaching load is 
3-1-3. The department facilities include E-Prime, medium and small research 
rooms with computers. Application should include CV, statement of teaching 
philosophy, teaching evaluations, and letters of recommendation. At least one 
letter must address teaching.

Please submit materials via email to 
h...@collegeofidaho.edu (subject: Social 
Psychology Search or Generalist in Psychology Search). Review of materials will 
begin immediately. Applications will be considered until the positions are 
filled. The College of Idaho is proud to be an equal opportunity/affirmative 
action employer. We are committed to attracting, retaining, and maximizing the 
performance of a diverse and inclusive workforce. Candidates must be authorized 
to work in the United States as of the expected hire date and throughout the 
date of the contract without sponsorship from The College of Idaho.

The College of Idaho, founded in 1891, is the oldest institution of higher 
education in Idaho. The College is a selective, residential, liberal arts 
college enrolling approximately 1050 students. We emphasize excellence in 
teaching, collaborative research with students, and collegial relationships 
among faculty. Our beautiful, historic campus is located just 24 miles west of 
Boise in close proximity to outdoor recreation. To learn more about The College 
of Idaho please visit, http://www.collegeofidaho.edu

___
Timothy O. Shearon, PhD
Professor and Chairperson, Department of Psychology
The College of Idaho
Caldwell, ID 83605
email: tshea...@collegeofidaho.edu
Webpage: http://www.collegeofidaho.edu/psychology

teaching: intro to neuropsychology; psychopharmacology; general; history and 
systems

"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." Dorothy Parker


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=36004
or send a blank email to 
leave-36004-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ

[John Kulig]

Thanks Jim and Stuart for thoughtful comments, and Mike for getting me thinking 
about the speed of race cars! 

Speaking about construct validity, the strong inter-correlations between 
diverse sub tests is difficult to dismiss. Even more impressive, g is 
consistently the best predictor of occupational performance, even better than 
tests specifically designed to predict performance at specific jobs. All the 
more remarkable since g items - on their surface - do not look like they relate 
to specific job, no face validity. There is also tons of evidence showing 
correlations between g and a bewildering array of social measures - including 
who we marry, our happiness, etc etc etc - that contribute to the construct 
validity of g. 

== 
John W. Kulig, Ph.D. 
Professor of Psychology 
Coordinator, Psychology Honors 
Plymouth State University 
Plymouth NH 03264 
== 

- Original Message -

From: "Jim Clark"  
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" 
 
Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2014 10:49:08 AM 
Subject: RE: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ 

Hi 

I'm surprised to see the IQ bashing based on a perhaps simplistic 
interpretation of some brain research showing that two different areas of the 
brain light up in 16 subjects performing various cognitive tasks. It seems to 
me that such a finding (even if many more areas had lit up) is prone to the 
same interpretive issues as different cognitive tasks themselves. Perhaps it is 
addressed in the paper, but is it not possible, for example, that there is some 
more fundamental brain process shared across different regions that constitutes 
"g?" I haven't kept up with the literature on speed of neuronal transmission 
(and am skeptical about such a simple possibility), but wouldn't any such 
mechanism at that level operate in multiple regions of the brain? And what 
about an even more molecular, biochemical level? 

Others, including Stuart below, have pointed out the multiple lines of evidence 
consistent with g and its efficacy at predicting many aspects of performance 
(school, work, training, ...). Surely that warrants some support from people 
familiar with the research and not overly enamored of simplistic neurologizing 
of psychology? 

Somewhat related, there is an interesting interview with Flynn in the latest 
Skeptic magazine. 

Take care 
Jim 

Jim Clark 
Professor & Chair of Psychology 
204-786-9757 
4L41A 


-Original Message- 
From: Stuart McKelvie [mailto:smcke...@ubishops.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 8:49 AM 
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) 
Subject: RE: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ 

Mike Williams wrote: 
I couldn't agree more with Mike Palij's analysis. IQ and g never existed. IQ is 
just an average score; g is just an artifact of factor analysis. Neither 
represent cognitive or brain processes. They don't explain anything and they 
are hard to define. Any vague construct has unknown construct validity. 

I may be repeating some things that others have said, but here are some 
comments. 

1. In the language of testing and measurement, we have to be careful not to 
reify concepts that we claim to be measuring. 
2. According to Cronbach and Meehl in their classic paper on construct 
validity, this notion applies under specific circumstances (e.g., the test is 
not designed to simply predict one specific criterion). 
3. Such constructs are validated by a complex set of procedures that involve 
many kinds of empirical evidence. However, we can never say absolutely what the 
test or the construct IS valid. We continue to make statements about the 
construct and the test that become richer as evidence accumulates. 
4. The question of whether the construct is sufficiently understood to pin it 
to (at least some) brain processes is also a matter for empirical 
investigation. McCorquodale and Meehl made an interesting distinction here 
between an "intervening variable" (postulated to account for something going on 
between stimulus and response) and a "hypothetical construct" (which may have 
some known ties to brain processes). A concept may begin as an IV and then 
become an HC as evidence accumulates. 
5. "Intelligence", it seems to me, fits the preceding comments. 
6. "IQ" is a test score that expresses where a person stands relative to 
others. 
7. If that score can meaningfully be said to measure a construct in the sense 
just outlined, then it is meaningful to speak of IQ and intelligence. 
8. All of this also applies to "g". 

I think that these considerations should be taken into account in the 
discussion of the meaning of "intelligence" and "IQ". 

Sincerely, 

Stuart 
___ 
"Floreat Labore" 


"Recti cultus pectora roborant"

RE: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ

[Jim Clark]

Hi

I'm surprised to see the IQ bashing based on a perhaps simplistic 
interpretation of some brain research showing that two different areas of the 
brain light up in 16 subjects performing various cognitive tasks. It seems to 
me that such a finding (even if many more areas had lit up) is prone to the 
same interpretive issues as different cognitive tasks themselves. Perhaps it is 
addressed in the paper, but is it not possible, for example, that there is some 
more fundamental brain process shared across different regions that constitutes 
"g?" I haven't kept up with the literature on speed of neuronal transmission 
(and am skeptical about such a simple possibility), but wouldn't any such 
mechanism at that level operate in multiple regions of the brain?  And what 
about an even more molecular, biochemical level?

Others, including Stuart below, have pointed out the multiple lines of evidence 
consistent with g and its efficacy at predicting many aspects of performance 
(school, work, training, ...). Surely that warrants some support from people 
familiar with the research and not overly enamored of simplistic neurologizing 
of psychology?

Somewhat related, there is an interesting interview with Flynn in the latest 
Skeptic magazine.

Take care
Jim

Jim Clark
Professor & Chair of Psychology
204-786-9757
4L41A


-Original Message-
From: Stuart McKelvie [mailto:smcke...@ubishops.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 8:49 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ

Mike Williams wrote:
I couldn't agree more with Mike Palij's analysis. IQ and g never existed.  IQ 
is just an average score; g is just an artifact of factor analysis.  Neither 
represent cognitive or brain processes.  They don't explain anything and they 
are hard to define.  Any vague construct has unknown construct validity.  

I may be repeating some things that others have said, but here are some 
comments.

1. In the language of testing and measurement, we have to be careful not to 
reify concepts that we claim to be measuring.
2. According to Cronbach and Meehl in their classic paper on construct 
validity, this notion applies under specific circumstances (e.g., the test is 
not designed to simply predict one specific criterion).
3. Such constructs are validated by a complex set of procedures that involve 
many kinds of empirical evidence. However, we can never say absolutely what the 
test or the construct IS valid. We continue to make statements about the 
construct and the test that become richer as evidence accumulates.
4. The question of whether the construct is sufficiently understood to pin it 
to (at least some) brain processes is also a matter for empirical 
investigation. McCorquodale and Meehl made an interesting distinction here 
between an "intervening variable" (postulated to account for something going on 
between stimulus and response) and a "hypothetical construct" (which may have 
some known ties to brain processes). A concept may begin as an IV and then 
become an HC as evidence accumulates.
5. "Intelligence", it seems to me, fits the preceding comments. 
6. "IQ" is a test score that expresses where a person stands relative to others.
7. If that score can meaningfully be said to measure a construct in the sense 
just outlined, then it is meaningful to speak of IQ and intelligence.
8. All of this also applies to "g".

I think that these considerations should be taken into account in the 
discussion of the meaning of "intelligence" and "IQ".

Sincerely,

Stuart
___
   "Floreat Labore"

  
"Recti cultus pectora roborant"
  
Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D., Phone: 819 822 9600 x 2402 Department of 
Psychology,     Fax: 819 822 9661 Bishop's University,
2600 rue College,
Sherbrooke,
Québec J1M 1Z7,
Canada.
 
E-mail: stuart.mckel...@ubishops.ca (or smcke...@ubishops.ca)

Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page: 
http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy

 Floreat Labore"

 


___




-Original Message-----
From: Mike Wiliams [mailto:jmicha5...@aol.com]
Sent: April 9, 2014 1:41 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ

I couldn't agree more with Mike Palij's analysis. IQ and g never existed.  IQ 
is just an average score; g is just an artifact of factor analysis.  Neither 
represent cognitive or brain processes.  They don't explain anything and they 
are hard to define.  Any vague construct has unknown construct val

RE: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ

[Stuart McKelvie]

Mike Williams wrote:
I couldn't agree more with Mike Palij's analysis. IQ and g never existed.  IQ 
is just an average score; g is just an artifact of factor analysis.  Neither 
represent cognitive or brain processes.  They don't explain anything and they 
are hard to define.  Any vague construct has unknown construct validity.  

I may be repeating some things that others have said, but here are some 
comments.

1. In the language of testing and measurement, we have to be careful not to 
reify concepts that we claim to be measuring.
2. According to Cronbach and Meehl in their classic paper on construct 
validity, this notion applies under specific circumstances (e.g., the test is 
not designed to simply predict one specific criterion).
3. Such constructs are validated by a complex set of procedures that involve 
many kinds of empirical evidence. However, we can never say absolutely what the 
test or the construct IS valid. We continue to make statements about the 
construct and the test that become richer as evidence accumulates.
4. The question of whether the construct is sufficiently understood to pin it 
to (at least some) brain processes is also a matter for empirical 
investigation. McCorquodale and Meehl made an interesting distinction here 
between an "intervening variable" (postulated to account for something going on 
between stimulus and response) and a "hypothetical construct" (which may have 
some known ties to brain processes). A concept may begin as an IV and then 
become an HC as evidence accumulates.
5. "Intelligence", it seems to me, fits the preceding comments. 
6. "IQ" is a test score that expresses where a person stands relative to others.
7. If that score can meaningfully be said to measure a construct in the sense 
just outlined, then it is meaningful to speak of IQ and intelligence.
8. All of this also applies to "g".

I think that these considerations should be taken into account in the 
discussion of the meaning of "intelligence" and "IQ".

Sincerely,

Stuart 
___
   "Floreat Labore"

  
"Recti cultus pectora roborant"
  
Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D., Phone: 819 822 9600 x 2402 
Department of Psychology,     Fax: 819 822 9661
Bishop's University,
2600 rue College,
Sherbrooke,
Québec J1M 1Z7,
Canada.
 
E-mail: stuart.mckel...@ubishops.ca (or smcke...@ubishops.ca)

Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page: 
http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy

 Floreat Labore"

 


___




-Original Message-
From: Mike Wiliams [mailto:jmicha5...@aol.com] 
Sent: April 9, 2014 1:41 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ

I couldn't agree more with Mike Palij's analysis. IQ and g never existed.  IQ 
is just an average score; g is just an artifact of factor analysis.  Neither 
represent cognitive or brain processes.  They don't explain anything and they 
are hard to define.  Any vague construct has unknown construct validity.  Check 
out Muriel Lezak's INS presidential address (IQ: RIP):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3292568

Mike Williams

On 4/9/14 2:00 AM, Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) digest
wrote:
> Subject: Re: How Intelligent is IQ? - Neuroskeptic | 
> DiscoverMagazine.com
> From: "Mike Palij"
> Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 15:18:45 -0400
> X-Message-Number: 8
>
> John,
>
> Create 10 random variables via SPSS or your favoriate statistical 
> package.
> The distributions don't matter (for simiplicity's sake, they can all 
> be random normal variate but for generality sake use a different 
> probability distribution for each variable).  The correlation matrix 
> of these 10 variables will have a rank = 10 (i.e., cannot be reduced 
> to a smaller matrix because the rows and columns are independent).  
> This is how modules are supposed to work.
> But why then do we get correlations, especially in cognitive tests?
> Chomsky
> might argue that for tests of language, the correlations are artifacts 
> of measurement or from other sources because "the" language module is 
> independent of all other cognitive modules.  And Chomsky will argue 
> until the cows come home that language is an independent module, so 
> take it up with him if you are feeling feisty.;-)
>
> Of course the real problem with "g" is that it is not theory of mind 
> but a mathematical consequence of factor analyzing correlation matrices.
> Stop and co

[tips] How Intelligent is IQ

[Mike Wiliams]

I couldn't agree more with Mike Palij's analysis. IQ and g never 
existed.  IQ is just an average score; g is just an artifact of factor 
analysis.  Neither represent cognitive or brain processes.  They don't 
explain anything and they are hard to define.  Any vague construct has 
unknown construct validity.  Check out Muriel Lezak's INS presidential 
address (IQ: RIP):


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3292568

Mike Williams

On 4/9/14 2:00 AM, Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) digest 
wrote:

Subject: Re: How Intelligent is IQ? - Neuroskeptic | DiscoverMagazine.com
From: "Mike Palij"
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 15:18:45 -0400
X-Message-Number: 8

John,

Create 10 random variables via SPSS or your favoriate statistical
package.
The distributions don't matter (for simiplicity's sake, they can all be
random
normal variate but for generality sake use a different probability
distribution
for each variable).  The correlation matrix of these 10 variables will
have
a rank = 10 (i.e., cannot be reduced to a smaller matrix because the
rows
and columns are independent).  This is how modules are supposed to work.
But why then do we get correlations, especially in cognitive tests?
Chomsky
might argue that for tests of language, the correlations are artifacts
of
measurement or from other sources because "the" language module
is independent of all other cognitive modules.  And Chomsky will argue
until the cows come home that language is an independent module,
so take it up with him if you are feeling feisty.;-)

Of course the real problem with "g" is that it is not theory of mind but
a mathematical consequence of factor analyzing correlation matrices.
Stop and consider:  one theory of cognitive architecture for "g" is that
there is a single process that serves as the basis for thought.  This
breaks down as soon as we make a distinction like short-term memory
versus long-term memory or declarative memory versus nondeclarative
memory or [insert you own favorite distinction].  What is "g" supposed
to be besides an mathematcal entity?

Or consider the following:  let's call the performance of racing cars
"g" which represents winning races.  All cars can be rank-ordered on
the basis of how many races and "g" explains performance. Cars
high in "g" win more races than cars low in "g".  "g" is the general
ability of cars to win races.  How useful is that as a concept?
NOTE: assuming "g" in this case does not require one to know
anything about automotive engineering, just how well cars perform.

Now change cars to people and races to tests.  "g" is the general
ability of people to do well on tests.  How useful is that as a concept?

-Mike Palij
New York University
m...@nyu.edu




---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=35982
or send a blank email to 
leave-35982-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ? - Attn.John Kulig

[michael sylvester]

  - Original Message - 
  From: John Kulig 
  To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) 
  Cc: Michael Palij 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 2:49 PM
  Subject: Re: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ? - Neuroskeptic | 
DiscoverMagazine.com




  John: I can recall a video(perhaps Zimbardo) where intelligence
  was seen as a function of the level of brain distractability,
  For example,if you are at a football stadium and you can still concentrate  
on you notes for a forthcoming test,this ability
  despite the distractions of the game may be a biological
  marker of your intelligence.
  michael











  If this issue is about defining g and/or intelligence, I was always struck 
with the insight that electricity, like g, is easier to measure than define. I 
suspect that as long as we have measuring instruments with near perfect 
reliabilities that predict more variance on numerous outcomes better than any 
other instrument psych has created, we will find g a useful concept - and I say 
this even as I cheer on the neurological research.



  ==
  John W. Kulig, Ph.D.
  Professor of Psychology
  Coordinator, Psychology Honors
  Plymouth State University 
  Plymouth NH 03264 
  ==




--

  From: "John Kulig" 
  To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" 

  Cc: "Michael Palij" 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2014 2:41:12 PM
  Subject: Re: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ? - Neuroskeptic | 
DiscoverMagazine.com

















  It is possible that g may be modularized at the neural level, but for me here 
is the issue: we have measuring instruments that can measure g (at least, items 
that load heavily on the factor we label 'g'). This g score is usually the best 
single predictor of things like occupational success, school success, etc. 
Heritability is also highest on the g-items. Would measuring instruments of 
separate modules such as memory or specific forms of reasoning do a better job 
predicting - alone or in aggregate?



  ==
  John W. Kulig, Ph.D.
  Professor of Psychology
  Coordinator, Psychology Honors
  Plymouth State University 
  Plymouth NH 03264 
  ==




--

  From: "Mike Palij" 
  To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" 

  Cc: "Michael Palij" 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2014 2:30:39 PM
  Subject: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ? - Neuroskeptic | DiscoverMagazine.com



  On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 05:55:37 -0700, Christopher Green wrote:
  >Maybe there is no g. Maybe there are independent memory and
  >reasoning functions but statistically they look like g because
  >almost all IQ test tasks require both.
  > 
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2012/12/24/how-intelligent-is-iq/#.U0Pwfui9KSM



  Which reminds: did they ever resolve the modularity and g conundrum?
  That is, if there really is such a thing like g, how does it account for 
  the
  evidence of modularity of cognitive processes that appears to operate
  independently of each other (i.e., uncorrelated)?  See for example:
  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02643294.2011.557231#.U0Q_WKLeRfQ



  Really, does anyone seriously entertain "g" as a theoretical construct
  and not a by-product of higher-order factor analysis?



  -Mike Palij
  New York University
  m...@nyu.edu




  ---
  You are currently subscribed to tips as: ku...@mail.plymouth.edu.
  To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454&n=T&l=tips&o=35955
  or send a blank email to 
leave-35955-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu





  ---

  You are currently subscribed to tips as: ku...@mail.plymouth.edu.

  To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454&n=T&l=tips&o=35956


  (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

  or send a blank email to 
leave-35956-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu














  ---

  You are currently subscribed to tips as: msylves...@copper.net.

  To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13424.eb17e1c03643c971ab35c22d86587541&n=T&l=tips&o=35957

  (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

  or send a blank email to 
leave-35957-13424.eb17e1c03643c971ab35c22d86587...@fsulist.frostburg.edu









---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=35966
or send a blank email to 
leave-35966-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ? - Neuroskeptic | DiscoverMagazine.com

[Mike Palij]

John,

Create 10 random variables via SPSS or your favoriate statistical 
package.
The distributions don't matter (for simiplicity's sake, they can all be 
random
normal variate but for generality sake use a different probability 
distribution
for each variable).  The correlation matrix of these 10 variables will 
have
a rank = 10 (i.e., cannot be reduced to a smaller matrix because the 
rows

and columns are independent).  This is how modules are supposed to work.
But why then do we get correlations, especially in cognitive tests? 
Chomsky
might argue that for tests of language, the correlations are artifacts 
of

measurement or from other sources because "the" language module
is independent of all other cognitive modules.  And Chomsky will argue
until the cows come home that language is an independent module,
so take it up with him if you are feeling feisty. ;-)

Of course the real problem with "g" is that it is not theory of mind but
a mathematical consequence of factor analyzing correlation matrices.
Stop and consider:  one theory of cognitive architecture for "g" is that
there is a single process that serves as the basis for thought.  This
breaks down as soon as we make a distinction like short-term memory
versus long-term memory or declarative memory versus nondeclarative
memory or [insert you own favorite distinction].  What is "g" supposed
to be besides an mathematcal entity?

Or consider the following:  let's call the performance of racing cars
"g" which represents winning races.  All cars can be rank-ordered on
the basis of how many races and "g" explains performance. Cars
high in "g" win more races than cars low in "g".  "g" is the general
ability of cars to win races.  How useful is that as a concept?
NOTE: assuming "g" in this case does not require one to know
anything about automotive engineering, just how well cars perform.

Now change cars to people and races to tests.  "g" is the general
ability of people to do well on tests.  How useful is that as a concept?

-Mike Palij
New York University
m...@nyu.edu




- Original Message -

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 11:42:06 -0700, John Kulig wrote:
It is possible that g may be modularized at the neural level, but for me 
here
is the issue: we have measuring instruments that can measure g (at 
least, items
that load heavily on the factor we label 'g'). This g score is usually 
the best
single predictor of things like occupational success, school success, 
etc.
Heritability is also highest on the g-items. Would measuring instruments 
of
separate modules such as memory or specific forms of reasoning do a 
better job

predicting - alone or in aggregate?

- Original Message -

On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 2:30:39 PM, Mike Palij wrote:

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 05:55:37 -0700, Christopher Green wrote:
Maybe there is no g. Maybe there are independent memory and
reasoning functions but statistically they look like g because
almost all IQ test tasks require both.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2012/12/24/how-intelligent-is-iq/#.U0Pwfui9KSM



Which reminds: did they ever resolve the modularity and g conundrum?
That is, if there really is such a thing like g, how does it account for
the
evidence of modularity of cognitive processes that appears to operate
independently of each other (i.e., uncorrelated)? See for example:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02643294.2011.557231#.U0Q_WKLeRfQ

Really, does anyone seriously entertain "g" as a theoretical construct
and not a by-product of higher-order factor analysis?
John Kulig Tue, 08 Apr 2014 11:42:06 -0700
It is possible that g may be modularized at the neural level, but for me 
here
is the issue: we have measuring instruments that can measure g (at 
least, items
that load heavily on the factor we label 'g'). This g score is usually 
the best
single predictor of things like occupational success, school success, 
etc.
Heritability is also highest on the g-items. Would measuring instruments 
of
separate modules such as memory or specific forms of reasoning do a 
better job

predicting - alone or in aggregate?
==
John W. Kulig, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Coordinator, Psychology Honors
Plymouth State University
Plymouth NH 03264
==

- Original Message -----

From: "Mike Palij" 
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)"

Cc: "Michael Palij" 
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2014 2:30:39 PM
Subject: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ? - Neuroskeptic | 
DiscoverMagazine.com


On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 05:55:37 -0700, Christopher Green wrote:

Maybe there is no g. Maybe there are independent memory and
reasoning functions but statistically they look like g because
almost all IQ test tasks require both.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2012/12/24

Re: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ? - Neuroskeptic | DiscoverMagazine.com

[Paul C Bernhardt]

It seems to me, given the origins of IQ testing as a method of identifying 
students who may have academic difficulty*, if it had not been named 
'intelligence' testing but had been named 'academic readiness' testing, a world 
of pain, suffering, misguided thinking both by laypersons and scholars, etc. 
would have been avoided. Intelligence seems to focus on an internal capacity 
compared to academic readiness, which allows for any number of influencing 
factors to be examined. It becomes less a description of an immutable 
characteristic, and instead a description of a person embedded in a life 
circumstance.

But, what's done is done. Therefore, these futile discussions will continue.

*as represented by Wertheimer, 2012; A Brief History of Psychology, 5th edition

Paul

On Apr 8, 2014, at 2:41 PM, John Kulig wrote:








It is possible that g may be modularized at the neural level, but for me here 
is the issue: we have measuring instruments that can measure g (at least, items 
that load heavily on the factor we label 'g'). This g score is usually the best 
single predictor of things like occupational success, school success, etc. 
Heritability is also highest on the g-items. Would measuring instruments of 
separate modules such as memory or specific forms of reasoning do a better job 
predicting - alone or in aggregate?

==
John W. Kulig, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Coordinator, Psychology Honors
Plymouth State University
Plymouth NH 03264
==


From: "Mike Palij" mailto:m...@nyu.edu>>
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" 
mailto:tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu>>
Cc: "Michael Palij" mailto:m...@nyu.edu>>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2014 2:30:39 PM
Subject: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ? - Neuroskeptic | 
DiscoverMagazine.com<http://DiscoverMagazine.com>

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 05:55:37 -0700, Christopher Green wrote:
>Maybe there is no g. Maybe there are independent memory and
>reasoning functions but statistically they look like g because
>almost all IQ test tasks require both.
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2012/12/24/how-intelligent-is-iq/#.U0Pwfui9KSM

Which reminds: did they ever resolve the modularity and g conundrum?
That is, if there really is such a thing like g, how does it account for
the
evidence of modularity of cognitive processes that appears to operate
independently of each other (i.e., uncorrelated)?  See for example:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02643294.2011.557231#.U0Q_WKLeRfQ

Really, does anyone seriously entertain "g" as a theoretical construct
and not a by-product of higher-order factor analysis?

-Mike Palij
New York University
m...@nyu.edu


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: ku...@mail.plymouth.edu.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454&n=T&l=tips&o=35955
or send a blank email to 
leave-35955-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu



---

You are currently subscribed to tips as: 
pcbernha...@frostburg.edu<mailto:pcbernha...@frostburg.edu>.

To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263003&n=T&l=tips&o=35956

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to 
leave-35956-13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263...@fsulist.frostburg.edu<mailto:leave-35956-13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263...@fsulist.frostburg.edu>






---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=35958
or send a blank email to 
leave-35958-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ? - Neuroskeptic | DiscoverMagazine.com

[John Kulig]

If this issue is about defining g and/or intelligence, I was always struck with 
the insight that electricity, like g, is easier to measure than define. I 
suspect that as long as we have measuring instruments with near perfect 
reliabilities that predict more variance on numerous outcomes better than any 
other instrument psych has created, we will find g a useful concept - and I say 
this even as I cheer on the neurological research. 

== 
John W. Kulig, Ph.D. 
Professor of Psychology 
Coordinator, Psychology Honors 
Plymouth State University 
Plymouth NH 03264 
== 

- Original Message -

From: "John Kulig"  
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" 
 
Cc: "Michael Palij"  
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2014 2:41:12 PM 
Subject: Re: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ? - Neuroskeptic | 
DiscoverMagazine.com 











It is possible that g may be modularized at the neural level, but for me here 
is the issue: we have measuring instruments that can measure g (at least, items 
that load heavily on the factor we label 'g'). This g score is usually the best 
single predictor of things like occupational success, school success, etc. 
Heritability is also highest on the g-items. Would measuring instruments of 
separate modules such as memory or specific forms of reasoning do a better job 
predicting - alone or in aggregate? 

== 
John W. Kulig, Ph.D. 
Professor of Psychology 
Coordinator, Psychology Honors 
Plymouth State University 
Plymouth NH 03264 
== 

- Original Message -

From: "Mike Palij"  
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" 
 
Cc: "Michael Palij"  
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2014 2:30:39 PM 
Subject: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ? - Neuroskeptic | DiscoverMagazine.com 

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 05:55:37 -0700, Christopher Green wrote: 
>Maybe there is no g. Maybe there are independent memory and 
>reasoning functions but statistically they look like g because 
>almost all IQ test tasks require both. 
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2012/12/24/how-intelligent-is-iq/#.U0Pwfui9KSM
>  

Which reminds: did they ever resolve the modularity and g conundrum? 
That is, if there really is such a thing like g, how does it account for 
the 
evidence of modularity of cognitive processes that appears to operate 
independently of each other (i.e., uncorrelated)? See for example: 
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02643294.2011.557231#.U0Q_WKLeRfQ 

Really, does anyone seriously entertain "g" as a theoretical construct 
and not a by-product of higher-order factor analysis? 

-Mike Palij 
New York University 
m...@nyu.edu 


--- 
You are currently subscribed to tips as: ku...@mail.plymouth.edu. 
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454&n=T&l=tips&o=35955
 
or send a blank email to 
leave-35955-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu 




--- 

You are currently subscribed to tips as: ku...@mail.plymouth.edu . 

To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454&n=T&l=tips&o=35956
 


(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) 

or send a blank email to 
leave-35956-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu 









---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=35957
or send a blank email to 
leave-35957-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ? - Neuroskeptic | DiscoverMagazine.com

[John Kulig]

It is possible that g may be modularized at the neural level, but for me here 
is the issue: we have measuring instruments that can measure g (at least, items 
that load heavily on the factor we label 'g'). This g score is usually the best 
single predictor of things like occupational success, school success, etc. 
Heritability is also highest on the g-items. Would measuring instruments of 
separate modules such as memory or specific forms of reasoning do a better job 
predicting - alone or in aggregate? 

== 
John W. Kulig, Ph.D. 
Professor of Psychology 
Coordinator, Psychology Honors 
Plymouth State University 
Plymouth NH 03264 
== 

- Original Message -

From: "Mike Palij"  
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" 
 
Cc: "Michael Palij"  
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2014 2:30:39 PM 
Subject: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ? - Neuroskeptic | DiscoverMagazine.com 

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 05:55:37 -0700, Christopher Green wrote: 
>Maybe there is no g. Maybe there are independent memory and 
>reasoning functions but statistically they look like g because 
>almost all IQ test tasks require both. 
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2012/12/24/how-intelligent-is-iq/#.U0Pwfui9KSM
>  

Which reminds: did they ever resolve the modularity and g conundrum? 
That is, if there really is such a thing like g, how does it account for 
the 
evidence of modularity of cognitive processes that appears to operate 
independently of each other (i.e., uncorrelated)? See for example: 
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02643294.2011.557231#.U0Q_WKLeRfQ 

Really, does anyone seriously entertain "g" as a theoretical construct 
and not a by-product of higher-order factor analysis? 

-Mike Palij 
New York University 
m...@nyu.edu 


--- 
You are currently subscribed to tips as: ku...@mail.plymouth.edu. 
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454&n=T&l=tips&o=35955
 
or send a blank email to 
leave-35955-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu 


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=35956
or send a blank email to 
leave-35956-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

[tips] How Intelligent is IQ? - Neuroskeptic | DiscoverMagazine.com

[Mike Palij]

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 05:55:37 -0700, Christopher Green wrote:

Maybe there is no g. Maybe there are independent memory and
reasoning functions but statistically they look like g because
almost all IQ test tasks require both.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2012/12/24/how-intelligent-is-iq/#.U0Pwfui9KSM


Which reminds: did they ever resolve the modularity and g conundrum?
That is, if there really is such a thing like g, how does it account for 
the

evidence of modularity of cognitive processes that appears to operate
independently of each other (i.e., uncorrelated)?  See for example:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02643294.2011.557231#.U0Q_WKLeRfQ

Really, does anyone seriously entertain "g" as a theoretical construct
and not a by-product of higher-order factor analysis?

-Mike Palij
New York University
m...@nyu.edu


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=35955
or send a blank email to 
leave-35955-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ? - Neuroskeptic | DiscoverMagazine.com

[Paul Brandon]

So what's new?

On Apr 8, 2014, at 7:54 AM, Christopher Green wrote:

> Maybe there is no g. Maybe there are independent memory and reasoning 
> functions but statistically they look like g because almost all IQ test tasks 
> require both.
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2012/12/24/how-intelligent-is-iq/#.U0Pwfui9KSM
> 
> Chris
> ...
> Christopher D Green
> Department of Psychology
> York University
> Toronto, ON M6C 1G4
> 
> chri...@yorku.ca
> http://www.yorku.ca/christo
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: pkbra...@hickorytech.net.
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13438.3b5166ef147b143fedd04b1c4a64900b&n=T&l=tips&o=35940
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-35940-13438.3b5166ef147b143fedd04b1c4a649...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Paul Brandon
Emeritus Professor of Psychology
Minnesota State University, Mankato
pkbra...@hickorytech.net




---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=35943
or send a blank email to 
leave-35943-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ? - Neuroskeptic | DiscoverMagazine.com

[John Kulig]

Hi Chris 

I couldn't tell how they defined the reasoning part, but we can assume the 
memory tasks were similar to memory tasks on other tests. It would be 
interesting to look at factor loadings for these. It has always been my 
understanding that vocabulary items, as well as many Progressive Matrices 
items, load heavily on the first (g) factor; not sure loadings on working 
memory, but this is easily found. 

JK 

== 
John W. Kulig, Ph.D. 
Professor of Psychology 
Coordinator, Psychology Honors 
Plymouth State University 
Plymouth NH 03264 
== 

- Original Message -

From: "Christopher Green"  
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" 
 
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2014 8:54:01 AM 
Subject: [tips] How Intelligent is IQ? - Neuroskeptic | DiscoverMagazine.com 

Maybe there is no g. Maybe there are independent memory and reasoning functions 
but statistically they look like g because almost all IQ test tasks require 
both. 
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2012/12/24/how-intelligent-is-iq/#.U0Pwfui9KSM
 

Chris 
... 
Christopher D Green 
Department of Psychology 
York University 
Toronto, ON M6C 1G4 

chri...@yorku.ca 
http://www.yorku.ca/christo 
--- 
You are currently subscribed to tips as: ku...@mail.plymouth.edu. 
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454&n=T&l=tips&o=35940
 
or send a blank email to 
leave-35940-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu 


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=35941
or send a blank email to 
leave-35941-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

[tips] How Intelligent is IQ? - Neuroskeptic | DiscoverMagazine.com

[Christopher Green]

Maybe there is no g. Maybe there are independent memory and reasoning functions 
but statistically they look like g because almost all IQ test tasks require 
both.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2012/12/24/how-intelligent-is-iq/#.U0Pwfui9KSM

Chris
...
Christopher D Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M6C 1G4

chri...@yorku.ca
http://www.yorku.ca/christo
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=35940
or send a blank email to 
leave-35940-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu