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"<[email protected]>
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
[email protected]
---
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=35982
or send a blank email to
leave-35982-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
