>From the beginning, Spearman posited both the g (general) factor which >underlies most specific cognitive abilities (S1, S2, etc.) and explains the >correlation bewteen them. He did not say there was only g, just that g >explained the correlation between widely divergent specific abilities.
The authors of the new study are quoted as saying that g is an "artifact of interacting distinct brain areas engaged in different types of processing." How would that interaction produce an artifact simulating underlying relationships between these specific abilities? Does that make any sense? Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences John Brown University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 rfro...@jbu.edu ________________________________________ From: Jim Clark [j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 3:19 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Goodbye "g" -- We Hardly Knew Ya Hi I know the following will be viewed dubiously (by Mike P at least), coming from a Canadian and one with University of Western Ontario (aka Western University Canada, another story) connections, but here goes anyway. The short summary states: "No one component, or IQ, explained everything. Furthermore, the scientists used a brain scanning technique known as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), to show that these differences in cognitive ability map onto distinct circuits in the brain." But of course no respectable g person says that g is everything. Rather, the standard model today (I thought) was a hierarchical one with general and specific abilities. Did the researchers (not IQ researchers) indeed find rs=0 among their three components? That would, I think, be surprising given the extensive literature on IQ tests. Perhaps we will hear from Phil Rushton and Tony Vernon, also at Western, and (I believe in both cases) advocates for some contribution from general intelligence. Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor & Chair of Psychology j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca Room 4L41A 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax Dept of Psychology, U of Winnipeg 515 Portage Ave, Winnipeg, MB R3B 0R4 CANADA >>> "Mike Palij" <m...@nyu.edu> 19-Dec-12 2:31 PM >>> A research article in the journal "Neuron" argues that it is incorrect to think of intelligence as being a represented by a single underlying factor, usually referred to as "g". Instead, it is asserted that "g" is an artifact of interacting distinct brain areas engaged in different types of processing. A press release describing the article is accessible here: http://www.uwo.ca/its/brain/iqmyth/ A version of the published article is available on this webpage (lower right side; look for "Fractionating human intelligence (.pdf)" or click here: http://www.uwo.ca/its/brain/iqmyth/Hampshire%20Owen%20IQ%20Neuron.pdf Though I admit to being partial to this kind of thinking I'd like to point out two caveats: (1) Looking at the neuroimaging component and relating it psychometric performance worries me because such analysis is quite complex and really requires replication, and (2) the researchers are Canadians, eh, which should worry everyone. ;-) Just trying to get back to normal. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.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=22445 or send a blank email to leave-22445-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: rfro...@jbu.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5f8a&n=T&l=tips&o=22446 or send a blank email to leave-22446-13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5...@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=22449 or send a blank email to leave-22449-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
