Mike Williams wrote:
>
> "John W. Kulig" wrote
> > 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.
We can measure electricity far easier than we can define it. Are you willing to say
a voltmeter has unproven validity?
> If intelligence is undefined, how do you know what you inherited?
I believe the second half of this sentence is a non-sequitar, and the first half is
wrong.
The point of this thread was to locate controversies. Do you think we have one
here? :)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Kulig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Psychology http://oz.plymouth.edu/~kulig
Plymouth State College tel: (603) 535-2468
Plymouth NH USA 03264 fax: (603) 535-2412
---------------------------------------------------------------
"What a man often sees he does not wonder at, although he knows
not why it happens; if something occurs which he has not seen before,
he thinks it is a marvel" - Cicero.
