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" <j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu> 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" 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"<m...@nyu.edu> > 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: smcke...@ubishops.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb72e3&n=T&l=tips&o=35982 or send a blank email to leave-35982-13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb7...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=35993 or send a blank email to leave-35993-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@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=35995 or send a blank email to leave-35995-13338.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=35998 or send a blank email to leave-35998-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
