I agree with you that my comparison of Flynn with Gould was not entirely fair. Flynn found the Flynn effect which is an important part. But a book by Flynn is not peer reviewed and may be influenced by his political views (he is author of “How to Defend Humane Ideals: Substitutes for Objectivity” after all).
> Anyway, scientific issues aren't decided by credentials, but by data.
This is true – but data in peer reviewed journals not books.
> In other words, what Jensen and others took as a "culture fair," "g-loaded" IQ test turns out to reflect modifiable educational experiences that children have or do not have.
The majority of psychologists believe that the g-factor is an innate and immutable property. The g-factor correlates with reaction times, glucose metallisation rate and is highly heritable. This indicates that the g-factor most likely have a neurobiological basis (see articles by Haier for example).
In a recent article the g-factor also appeared in a battery of 42 tests (Johnson,W Bouchard, TJ, “Just one g: consistent results form three test batteries”). Here is a quote from the abstract:
> The concept of a general intelligence factor or g is controversial in psychology. Although the controversy swirls at many levels, one of the most important involves g's identification and measurement in a group of individuals. If g is actually predictive of a range of intellectual performances, the factor identified in one battery of mental ability tests should be closely related to that identified in another dissimilar aggregation of abilities. We addressed the extent to which this prediction was true using three mental ability batteries administered to a heterogeneous sample of 436 adults. Though the particular tasks used in the batteries reflected varying conceptions of the range of human intellectual performance, the g factors identified by the batteries were completely correlated (correlations were .99, .99, and 1.00). This provides further evidence for the existence of a higher-level g factor and suggests that its measurement is not dependent on the use of specific mental ability tasks.
Stanovich is very clear on the distinction between "intelligence" (he is a mainstream psychologist in calling "intelligence" what I would simply call "IQ") and "rationality," an aspect of human cognition hardly tapped at all by most IQ tests. Stanovich comes at these issues from the framework of cognitive science, which also informs much of current behavioral economics. He previously wrote a textbook on understanding psychological research that has gone through a number of editions.
> A definitive reply to most of that outmoded thinking about g can be found in Nisbet's new book,
If you feel that these views are outmoded – give me peer reviewed research articles (not books). I do not have immediate access to books and books are not peer reviewed. The article that I referenced above was written in 2004 – you can find more recent articles in Google Scholar if you want to. I did not see that the above article (or any of the others) have been refuted. I doubt that you can refute thousands of research articles (a lot of them recent) and a discovery that is probably the hallmark of modern psychometrics with a simple reference to a book (calling anything that you oppose “outmoded”).
> Stanovich is very clear on the distinction between "intelligence" (he is a mainstream psychologist in calling "intelligence" what I would simply call "IQ")
Also I think you are confusing “intelligence” with the general intelligence factor (g) (also intelligence does not equal IQ. IQ is just a standardised intelligence test that is fairly well correlated with the g factor). The general intelligence factor is a factor that is common to almost all different tests on intelligence. While the general intelligence factor is immutable other parts of intelligence can be changed by training/learning (i.e. by the environment).
> "intelligence" (he is a mainstream psychologist in calling "intelligence" what I would simply call "IQ") and "rationality," an aspect of human cognition hardly tapped
The purpose of intelligence tests is to test intelligence – not factors such as rationality, emotion and inter-personal skills such as Stanovich's book suggest. The latter are all factors that is undoubtedly environmental and the value of such tests are doubtful to the intelligence debate.
Comments
I agree with you that my comparison of Flynn with Gould was not entirely fair. Flynn found the Flynn effect which is an important part. But a book by Flynn is not peer reviewed and may be influenced by his political views (he is author of “How to Defend Humane Ideals: Substitutes for Objectivity” after all).
> Anyway, scientific issues aren't decided by credentials, but by data.
This is true – but data in peer reviewed journals not books.
> In other words, what Jensen and others took as a "culture fair," "g-loaded" IQ test turns out to reflect modifiable educational experiences that children have or do not have.
The majority of psychologists believe that the g-factor is an innate and immutable property. The g-factor correlates with reaction times, glucose metallisation rate and is highly heritable. This indicates that the g-factor most likely have a neurobiological basis (see articles by Haier for example).
In a recent article the g-factor also appeared in a battery of 42 tests (Johnson,W Bouchard, TJ, “Just one g: consistent results form three test batteries”). Here is a quote from the abstract:
> The concept of a general intelligence factor or g is controversial in psychology. Although the controversy swirls at many levels, one of the most important involves g's identification and measurement in a group of individuals. If g is actually predictive of a range of intellectual performances, the factor identified in one battery of mental ability tests should be closely related to that identified in another dissimilar aggregation of abilities. We addressed the extent to which this prediction was true using three mental ability batteries administered to a heterogeneous sample of 436 adults. Though the particular tasks used in the batteries reflected varying conceptions of the range of human intellectual performance, the g factors identified by the batteries were completely correlated (correlations were .99, .99, and 1.00). This provides further evidence for the existence of a higher-level g factor and suggests that its measurement is not dependent on the use of specific mental ability tasks.
A definitive reply to most of that outmoded thinking about g can be found in Nisbet's new book,
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/convention/program_detai...
or in Stanovich's.
http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=97803001238...
Stanovich is very clear on the distinction between "intelligence" (he is a mainstream psychologist in calling "intelligence" what I would simply call "IQ") and "rationality," an aspect of human cognition hardly tapped at all by most IQ tests. Stanovich comes at these issues from the framework of cognitive science, which also informs much of current behavioral economics. He previously wrote a textbook on understanding psychological research that has gone through a number of editions.
> A definitive reply to most of that outmoded thinking about g can be found in Nisbet's new book,
If you feel that these views are outmoded – give me peer reviewed research articles (not books). I do not have immediate access to books and books are not peer reviewed. The article that I referenced above was written in 2004 – you can find more recent articles in Google Scholar if you want to. I did not see that the above article (or any of the others) have been refuted. I doubt that you can refute thousands of research articles (a lot of them recent) and a discovery that is probably the hallmark of modern psychometrics with a simple reference to a book (calling anything that you oppose “outmoded”).
> Stanovich is very clear on the distinction between "intelligence" (he is a mainstream psychologist in calling "intelligence" what I would simply call "IQ")
Also I think you are confusing “intelligence” with the general intelligence factor (g) (also intelligence does not equal IQ. IQ is just a standardised intelligence test that is fairly well correlated with the g factor). The general intelligence factor is a factor that is common to almost all different tests on intelligence. While the general intelligence factor is immutable other parts of intelligence can be changed by training/learning (i.e. by the environment).
> "intelligence" (he is a mainstream psychologist in calling "intelligence" what I would simply call "IQ") and "rationality," an aspect of human cognition hardly tapped
The purpose of intelligence tests is to test intelligence – not factors such as rationality, emotion and inter-personal skills such as Stanovich's book suggest. The latter are all factors that is undoubtedly environmental and the value of such tests are doubtful to the intelligence debate.