'g' Real?

[CDarwin]

I'm curious as to opinions. I took an introductory psychology course last semester where 'g,' general intelligence, was, at least, considered a legitimately measurable factor, even if others might be more important. And I just finished (or am finishing; I've got 3 of the essays in the back of 1996 edition to go) Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, which obviously has a rather strong opinion as to 'g,' holding it as basically a reified mathematical artifact (maybe that's stating Gould's position too strongly, but he's definitely skeptical of the concept).

 

So, what are some other opinions? Do you think 'g' is meaningful?

[Mokele]

Part of the problem is that, even if there are mutiple, distinct intelligences, they'll all be correlated because they're being tested in the same species.

[Sisyphus]

I don't think it's totally meaningless, but it's certainly very abstract. Some people talk about it like it's some metaphysical substance that minds possess in greater or lesser absolute quantities, and that just seems ridiculous. I think of it as an "overall rating," with various already abstract qualities taken into account, like something roughly analogous to "quality of life" ratings for countries.

[iNow]

A guy who's done a lot of really good work on this topic is N.J. Mackintosh. He's got an easily accessible book on the topic, and also many publications.

http://www.questia.com/library/book/iq-and-human-intelligence-by-n-j-mackintosh.jsp

 

 

Here's one that seems to speak directly to your question:

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6768/full/403378a0.html

Intelligence: Evolutionary Psychology Meets 'g'

 

 

In my estimation, the basic problem is that we get to arbitrarily choose what we consider intelligent, and we're likely to skew the measure in our own favor. It's as if you had blue skin, and just decided that blue skin was a measure of beauty. It doesn't so much mean you are beautiful, just that someone has arbitrarily chosen to measure beauty as "having blue skin." Similar with intelligence.

[granpa]

I think of g as a measure of how much curiousity you have

[Mokele]

I think of g as a measure of how much curiousity you have

 

Based on what?

[GutZ]

trying to define intelligence is tough. I think "g" make sense though, I think we have designed alot of IQ questions that test ability to solve a problem which relys on a persons ability to process information. Espectially with logic pattern tests.

 

I think the factors that limit tests is that like for example: Some people have short attention spans, so if a IQ test takes 60 mins, after 15 mins someone isn't using their full capacity, vs someone who can concentrate longer. Then it becomes more of a test on staying focused. I get bored within 5 mins of test unless it has some interesting problem, If you were to design a test that was shorter and less questions the degree of error also becomes larger.

 

Unless you make 1 question worth more than a point. IF two people get the question wrong, To what degree was the mental processes that cause the error...if person A missed a tiny bit of information, but his logic and reason was spot on, Persom B guesses with no process involved..Are they both at the same intelligence level whne they both for the answer wrong?

 

Then there the aspect of creativity as well. Finding solutions to a problem that don't nesscaralty require high analitical and logic skills. A person with above average logic skills and a wicked imagination can come up with a brillant idea that you most likely would ever arrive to if you use pure logic and reasoning.

[Severian]

I would agree with Kitcher and Gould that there is no such thing as general intelligence. Some people are better at some things, and some are better at others. Correlations in school children's tests are due to other things, such as the ability to concentrate in class, levels of nutrition, ability to communicate etc.