There is a tremendous amount of scientific literature on the measurement of intelligence, much of it unknown outside the discipline, even amongst psychologists from other specialties. Gardner's multiple intelligences is not held in the highest esteem in the field. You don't see well developed operational definitions with high reliabilities and validities for his various intelligences (which might be better described as talents or abilities).
On the g issue, correlations between real-world success and "intelligence" is highest when the test is heavily loaded on g (e.g. Raven test). Contrary to what a previous person said about the Raven test, one does not memorize the answers (there is nothing to memorize). Some "g" items look like they might involve memorized material, actually do not. This is an arithmetic reasoning item (not a Raven item) that would contribute to g: "Bob is twice as old as his sister, who is now 7. How old will Bob be when his sister is 40?" The "math" is not the issue - it's the ability to represent the elements symbolically and co-ordinate the different parts of the problem. People more "heavily load" with g can do these faster and more efficiently. Though in fairness to critics, we can measure intelligence better than we can define it (i.e. we can show it "by site if not by nature").Tests that utilize more rote memory are lower and g, and, show worse psychometric properties, such as validity coefficients. The fact that factor analysis was involved in demonstrating g lead many people to view it as a statistical abstraction only, but the collective evidence suggests this is not so. For years people used to claim g did not correlate that well with "real world" success, but studies with large N show a remarkable effect of g. Ree & Earles (1990) "Differential validity of a differential aptitude test" AFHRL-TR-89-59 (Brooks AF Base, TX) reports % of "training success" in different military specialties explainable by g (I round to nearest %). Nuclear weapons specialist 77% (i.e. rocket scientist!) Weather specialist 70% Fireman 60% Vehicle maintenance 49% Maintenance 28% [to mention a few] Hunter and Hunter's meta-analysis (1984 Psych Bulletin) across a wide variety of professional occupations finds cognitive test score (i.e. IQ) the best overall predictor (r = .53); second is biographical data r = .37, and college grades is a feeble .11! Interestingly, twin studies find that of all the major components of intelligence, g is the most heritable. Psychometrics is an interesting aspect of psychology. The "controversies" regarding these tests _outside_ the field belies the consensus within the discipline regarding the definition and measurement of intelligence. ============================================ John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State College Plymouth NH 03264 ============================================ > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Peter Flom > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 9:59 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [edstat] 'standards' Was: IQ, Why do we transform > > Rich Ulrich wrote > <<< > - Just *one* thing? I don't believe there is, though it often is > useful to talk about intelligence that way. > > Have you read Gardner's multiple intelligences? That sounds awkward, > but google gives 39,300 hits for < "multiple intelligences" Gardner > > .>>> > > Yes, I have read Gardner's work. I think it makes an already confusing > term (intelligence) even more confusing by conflating various abilities > and calling them all intelligence. IIRC correctly, he came up with > seven 'intelligences' including interpersonal intelligence, > intrapersonal intelligence, artistic intlelligence, and so on. (I may > have the names wrong - been a while since I read his book). Now, I am > perfectly willing to admit that these other abilities exist - but I > think it helps nothing to call them 'intelligence'. > > > ================================================================= . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
