Hi Not much prediction necessary when Mike P writes:
(2) the researchers are Canadians, eh, which should worry everyone. ;-) As for Authoritarianism, perhaps it is hierarchical in nature with some general component running throughout Auth measures, and specific facets measured by subscales. I believe, for example, that one can get a general prejudice measure (P?) by aggregating across measures of prejudice against different groups (minorities, gays, atheists, ...). And perhaps there are also specific elements of prejudice against the particular groups. 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 4:31 PM >>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:19:36 -0800, >Jim Clark wrote: >Hi > >I know the following will be viewed dubiously (by Mike P at least), Boy, how predictable I've become. ;-) >coming from >a Canadian and one with University of Western Ontario (aka Western >University >Canada, another story) connections, but here goes anyway. You should just quit here and tap out. ;-) >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. No, if memory serves, "they" say that there is a general intellectual "factor" that underlies all other intellectual "factors". I emphasize "factor" to keep the focus on the reification of intelligence into statistical entities, namely factors, which are simply solutions to a set of equations and does not provide info about processes. In other words, factors serve as the mathematical basis for observed correlation and may actually provide little insight into the processes that generated the correlations (which I think is the main point of the "Neuron" paper). To demonstrate how to beat a dead horse, I refer the interested reader to the classic paper by Armstrong "Derivation of Theory by Means of Factor Analysis or Tom Swift and His Electric Factor Analysis Machine". A copy is available here: http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=marketing_papers >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. When one is trying to explain the pattern among correlations in a correlation matrix, one can continue to factor analyze subsequent matrices (i.e., correlations among factors) in a hierarchical manner until one has achieved a rank=1, that is, the correlation matrices have been reduced to a single number. One might want to call this number "g" or "general intelligence" or "pool-pah" or whatever. Let me explain this in the context of another but similar situation. Unfortunately, I'll have to use the work of another Canadian research, Bob Altemeyer to do so -- I apologize. ;-) Altemeyer developed his Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale on the basis of Adorno et al's research in "The Authoritarian Personality". While Adorno et al thought that there were nine components to authoritarian personality, Altemeyer decided to select three of them as the basis for the RWA scale: authoritarian submission (AS), conventionalism (CO), and authoritarian aggression (AA). Over the course of a few decades, Altemeyer refined his RWA scale to such a degree that one can readily obtain large Cronbach's alpha for it even with small sample sizes; I use the RWA in one of the studies I have students perform in experimental psych lab have consistently gotten alphas greater than .90 over a dozen semesters. Altemeyer points out that when he factor analyzes the RWA, he typically get a single factor (sometime two) which helps support his position that authoritarianism is a unidimensional construct. However, is it really unidimensional? Altemeyer constructed the RWA items by basing them on aspects of the three components he took from Adorno et al. He intentionally mixed up aspects of AS, CO, and AA in the items, so perhaps it should not be surprising that alphas are so large or that a single factor is obtained. But Cronbach's alpha is not a measure of unidimensionality, rather it is dependent upon the pattern of correlations among items and these correlations could be based on: (1) A single factor "Authoritarianism" or (2) Three correlated factors of "Auth Submission", "Conventionalism", and "Auth Aggression" If authoritarianism is dependent upon the "profile" of values on the three factors, one will see that there will be different types or groups of authoritarians. Of the three factors, authoritarian aggression, that is, committing violence in the service of someone in authority, is the most dangerous characteristic -- this helps to explain why one would actively hurt others. But what if one were low on authoritarian aggression but high on authoritarian submission and conventionalism? Some religious groups, for example, the Quakers, are pacifistic but would be high on submission and conventionalism -- how many kill crazy Quaker mass murderers have there been? But if one gave Quakers the RWA, their score may be very high, perhaps similar to that of neo-nazis or other hate groups. The solution might be to reconstruct the RWA into three subscales, one for each of the factors, and then interpret the profile that a person produces. Friedrich Funke in a 2005 article in the journal "Political Psychology" developed a three factor authoritarianism scale and finds that a structural equation model with three correlated latent variables (one for each factor) does a good job describing the responses (it's a little more complicated but the main point is correct; NOTE: the items were in German and he used German participants). So, we're left with the following dilemma (1) Should one describe the degree of a person's authoritarianism in terms of a single score which assume a unidimensional scale or (2) Should one describe the degree of a person's authoritarianism in terms of three scores reflecting the degree of influence of each latent variable To return to the original point of this post, which is more correct: (1) Should one describe the degree of a person's intelligence in terms of a single score which assume a unidimensional scale or (2) Should one describe the degree of a person's intelligence in terms of a profile of scores reflecting the degree of influence of each latent variable representing different cognitive abilities? It seems to me that a single score descriptions is likely to be misleading and theoretically unproductive. >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. I don't know. Rushton might too busy measuring penises and correlating penis length with intelligence. Vernon might be too busy measuring head size and correlating it with intelligence. The things and body parts these "researchers" focus on. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] >>> "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. --- 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=22450 or send a blank email to leave-22450-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@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=22451 or send a blank email to leave-22451-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
<<attachment: Jim_Clark.vcf>>
