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: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=35993
or send a blank email to
leave-35993-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
