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" <[email protected]> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> Cc: "Michael Palij" <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> Cc: "Michael Palij" <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. 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: [email protected] . 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: [email protected]. 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
