Richard Pisacreta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References:
1
"John W. Kulig" wrote:
> Richard Pisacreta wrote:
>
> > I suggest the never ending controversy over what intelligence is, how to
> > measure it (only psych can say we don't have a consensus on what it is, but
> > here are five tests to measure it)
> > How much of it is nature and how much nurture.
>
> I agree, this is the mother of controversial issues - if by controversial we
> mean debate _outside_ the circle of experts who study it. Inside this circle
> there is wide-spead agreement on many measurement issues, heritability, and so
> forth. In fact, we measure intelligence as good as we measure any other complex
> trait, as evidenced by the extensive ability of intelligence scores to predict
> real-life outcomes.
As one "inside" the field, I must dissent. We do not know anything about measuring
intelligence since we don't have a definition of it. The construct validity is
unproven. A number of variables correlate and predict "real-life" outcomes. We
cannot understand these results without a clear definition of the variables we
measured.
Validity is unprovable until the measurement construct is defined with sufficient
detail to construct a measurement device. Somehow we got away with designing a
measurement device without defining what it measures.
If intelligence is undefined, how do you know what you inherited?
Mike Williams
http://www.mindcampus.com
http://www.brainmetric.com
