Hi

I know the following will be viewed dubiously (by Mike P at least), coming from 
a Canadian and one with University of Western Ontario (aka Western University 
Canada, another story) connections, but here goes anyway.

The short summary states: "No one component, or IQ, explained everything. 
Furthermore, the scientists used a brain scanning technique known as functional 
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), to show that these differences in cognitive 
ability map onto distinct circuits in the brain."

But of course no respectable g person says that g is everything.  Rather, the 
standard model today (I thought) was a hierarchical one with general and 
specific abilities.  Did the researchers (not IQ researchers) indeed find rs=0 
among their three components?  That would, I think, be surprising given the 
extensive literature on IQ tests.

Perhaps we will hear from Phil Rushton and Tony Vernon, also at Western, and (I 
believe in both cases) advocates for some contribution from general 
intelligence.

Take care
Jim




James M. Clark
Professor & Chair of Psychology
[email protected]
Room 4L41A
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
Dept of Psychology, U of Winnipeg
515 Portage Ave, Winnipeg, MB
R3B 0R4  CANADA


>>> "Mike Palij" <[email protected]> 19-Dec-12 2:31 PM >>>
A research article in the journal "Neuron" argues that it is incorrect to
think of intelligence as being a represented by a single underlying factor,
usually referred to as "g".  Instead, it is asserted that "g" is an artifact 
of
interacting distinct brain areas engaged in different types of processing.
A press release describing the article is accessible here:
http://www.uwo.ca/its/brain/iqmyth/ 
A version of the published article is available on this webpage (lower
right side; look for "Fractionating human intelligence (.pdf)" or click 
here:
http://www.uwo.ca/its/brain/iqmyth/Hampshire%20Owen%20IQ%20Neuron.pdf 

Though I admit to being partial to this kind of thinking I'd like to point
out two caveats:

(1)  Looking at the neuroimaging component and relating it psychometric
performance worries me because such analysis is quite complex and
really requires replication,

and

(2) the researchers are Canadians, eh, which should worry everyone. ;-)

Just trying to get back to normal.

-Mike Palij
New York University
[email protected] 


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=22445
 
or send a blank email to 
leave-22445-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=22446
or send a blank email to 
leave-22446-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

<<attachment: Jim_Clark.vcf>>

Reply via email to