Polls attached below, please peruse and respond if you love us….

 

Should we change the GNXP “look”
	Don’t care
	Yes
	No
Free polls from Pollhost.com

 

 

How should we change the “look”
	Brighter colors
	Cleaner format
	More “bells & whistles”
Free polls from Pollhost.com

I have received a few questions on g, John Carroll’s Theory (technically the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory, named after Raymond Cattell, John Horn and John Carroll), and intelligence.

While the field is far from in total agreement, I think these points are safe to say.

1. Intelligence is too broad and nebulous a term to use, except for common parlance. Moreover, it often evokes visceral reaction, which often hinders more than helps. Consequently, most use the term g, which stands for general intelligence (named by Charles Spearman). Spearman, like Galton and others before him, noticed that when he administered tests to kids that required cognitive ability (e.g., pitch discrimination, math facts), the zero-order correlations were all positive. Because of his rigorous math background (he was en engineer) he was able to use his correlation matrix to invent the technique of principal factor analysis (well, an early version of it anyway), which, basically, just took the first eigenroot and used the first set of eigenvectors. This gave him 2 things: a principal factor (which he called general intelligence, or g) and test-specific variance. There was lots of "controversy" over whether g was embedded in every cognitive task, and two of the main opponents were Raymond Cattell and John Horn. While over simplified, they said there were two general factors, Gf and Gc, which stand for fluid and crystallized general abilities, respectively, and not one common g. Gf was meant to denote the skills it takes to do tasks that require minimal previous knowledge (repeat numbers backwards, solve matrix analogies), and Gc was meant to denote the skills it takes to do tasks that do require specific content knowledge (vocabulary, math). While there was a debate on the specific hierarchy (i.e., whether g alone stood on top, or whether it was Gf and Gc), they all agreed that tasks could be broken down into specific (i.e., stuff that was unique to it alone) and general (i.e., stuff it shared with similar tests) parts. Well, this debate went on for a while until John Carroll came along with his 1993 classic, Human Cognitive Abilities, it which he re-factor analyzed hundreds of published cognitive test data sets (akin to a meta-analysis), using a factor analysis procedure that allows one to factor analyze correlated factors. The details are a little too complex to go into here (although he Carroll outlines it well in his book), but what he found was that when there were enough tests to analyze, g existed by itself as the higher order factor, but that there were 8 sub-factors (Gf and Gc being two of them) and under each subfactors were about 60 narrower abilities. See here for pictorial model. Because he had three different strata of abilities, ranging from specific to general, it is sometimes called the three-strata theory of cognitive abilities. Hands down, this is the most data-based and supported theory of cognitive ability currently viable.

2. Some researchers are more interested in g (e.g., Arthur Jensen), as it permeates all tests of cognitive ability, while others are more interested in some of the specific second order abilities (especially when working with those with learning difficulties) (e.g., the folks at IAP). Consequently, both study "intelligence", but with different goals for their research (i.e., differential psychology vs. clinical/practice-oriented psychology).

3. g, a subset of CHC theory, is probably the most researched aspect of the theory. After decades of research (about 100 years), these "facts" seem to have ample support, although new data is always being published:

a. g permeates every test that involves cognitive ability. Test is broadly defined and can mean regular daily activities (see Robert Gordon’s work), health and occupational outcomes (see Linda Gottfredson’s work—who, IMHO, ranks right up there with Arthur Jensen, Cyril Burt, and Charles Spearman for prolific research on g), reaction time (Mental Chronometric) tasks (see Arthur Jensen and Ian Deary’s work) or regular scholastic tasks.

b. g’s heritability is about .5, with it increasing as tasks get harder, and decreasing as tasks get easier. When you extract g from any body of tests, the heritability of performance goes to almost zero, which tends to show that it is the g component of a given task that is heritable, not the specific tasks themselves. Tony Vernon has done a lot here, as has Robert Plomin.

c. Race differences on cognitive ability tests tend to be primarily on the g factor. Phil Rushton has done oodles of work here. (some also say there is a sex difference, with men slightly higher, but I have not seen enough evidence to think it viable….at least at this time).

d. There appears to be a biological and neurological basis for g. The reason for this is that g correlates (and substantially so!) with a ton of biological variables. The best, although now a little dated, piece in this area was: Jensen, A. R., & Sinha, S. N. (1993). Physical correlates of human intelligence. In P.A. Vernon (Ed.) Biological approaches to the study of human intelligence (pp. 139-242). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Although, also see Jensen’s Psycoloquy posts, and the second section of the new Jensen festschrift.

I am not a biologist by training, so I cannot critique the literature here as well as most of the folks who will read this post. From my readings though, the purponderance of evidence seems indicate that g does have a biological basis.

Alex

I like this article over at Frontpage by Lowell Ponte-he’s a conservative, but pretty balanced I think about what’s going on[1]. I do want to add one thing though-Ponte points out the Left’s hypocrisy when it comes to the use of religion, good if it serves "progressive" ends, bad if it is in favor of socially conservative ones. For instance, the Catholic Church is great when the bishops push universal health care, not so congenial when they want to roll-back abortion rights. On the other hand, I used to watch CNBC years back, in college, and Jerry Falwell would sometimes be on this or that show. One time when asked why he opposed a lot of social welfare, he stated that "to force people to give to those in need removes the act of virtue since it is not done freely out of charity and compassion, but coerced." I remembered this when weeks later Falwell sadly admitted that though this country would never ban pornography, he wished it would, because it was a terrible sin. In this case, Falwell did not seem inclined to err on the side of free will and allow people to virtuously choose The Good and reject the sin. Just goes to show, hypocrisy is a human universal.

fn1. OK, before anyone jumps on me for saying a nice thing about a religious conservative, I was an activist for Campus Freethought Alliance back in the day and have been in the past relatively active in the internet atheist community. I can’t get worked up over this stuff going on in Alabama because I can’t relate to Alabama, the state I live in has the highest number of non-religious (almost 20%) in the country, and most of my friends are as non-religioius as me. The town I live in probably has a greater number of Buddhists than evangelical Christians. Not that I reject universal principles & church state separation-but I think there are bigger things in the world to worry about. I am thinking of pitching an article to Frontpage addressing my contention that seculars and christians should stop their bitching & clawing and look to the threats from the outside and the weakness at the heart of Western civilization that they both claim to love. Amen!

Godless briefly comments:

Moore is a fundy in the Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell mode:

The Alabama chief justice famous for his Ten Commandments fight warned an audience Tuesday night of "great consequences" when America turns away from God and suggested the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks might be an example.

Roy Moore, in Washington to accept an honorary doctorate in divinity from the National Clergy Council and Methodist Episcopal Church U.S.A., implied a parallel between the attacks and what he contends has been a 40-year legal erosion of religious rights, including his own right to display the Ten Commandments in court.

He pointed out similarities between the devastation and the Biblical words of Isaiah, who had forecast a "day of great slaughter, when the towers fall."

"How many of you remember Americans running to get gas masks because (of) some bearded man in Afghanistan?" Moore asked during his address at Georgetown University. "Fear struck this country. … You see, there are consequences when we turn away from our source of our strength."

Has anyone actually read the 10 commandments? There are several versions floating around, but in every case these are primitive taboos we’re talking about, on par with Thor and Asgard. Like Moore, the authors of the 10 commandments had an uncertain grip on "cause and effect" [2]:

I Am The Lord Thy God; Thou Shalt have no other gods Before Me.
Thou Shalt Not Take The Name Of The Lord, Thy God, In Vain.
Remember The Sabbath Day, to Keep it Holy.
Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.
Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor’s Wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s..

Obviously I’m not in favor of perjury, murder, theft, or disrespecting your parents. I’m neutral on greed, though…in my experience, it’s only considered "greed" if someone else is making money hand over fist 🙂

Beyond the obvious points of agreement, we get to the nub of the question, which is that many religious practices are primitive superstitions that make no sense whatsoever. Are we going to prevent stores from opening on Saturdays? Are we planning on outlawing adultery or utterances of "goddamn"? Are we planning on constraining religious freedom by preventing people from having other Gods (or no gods) besides the Christian God? Are we going to sanction the tacit endorsement of slavery ("the manservant is *thy neighbor’s*")?

What this manufactured controversy boils down to is whether we are going to accept the rambling injunctions of the jealous & vengeful Yahweh over the laws of the United States of America. Much more on this here. I’m not a militant atheist (anymore), but Moore-like stupidity brings it out in me…

fn2. Does anyone really think that the radical Islamists wouldn’t have attacked us on 9/11 if we had been more religiously observant?

Addendum from Razib: This post really wasn’t about the Roy Moore case per se, rather the role of religion in American life. Or rather, the lives of Americans, does it surprise us that the 10 commandments are being shown in an Alabama courthouse, while California funded the building of a statue to Quetzalcoatl? I think Lowell is being a bit disingenius, "One Nation Under God" is a patriotic assertion, the statue to Quetzalcoatl is more an acknowledgement of the historical past of some Californians (putatively)[3] than it is an attempt to promot his cult. We are a nation with schizophrenic attitudes toward religion-and Lowell is correct when he notes that the cultural Left has a double standard, heaping contempt on "toothless evangelicals" while respecting & promoting faiths espoused by minorities that are rather weird or quite often regressive. On the other hand, I do believe that the religious Right has not squared the circle of broad pluralism in concert with a tightly focused public piety.

fn3. It is disputable that many of the ancestors of today’s Latino Californians were Aztecs. Many are mestizo to begin with-and even then their indigenous ancestors were probably of the conquered peoples.

This is one of the funniest things I’ve found on the web for a while.

Posted by David B at August 27, 2003 10:08 AM| TrackBack | Email this article
Comments

George Bush Sr. is a saint! He signed the American’s With Disabilities Act! Today, I walked into Starbucks, and for the thousandth time I saw a guy using his laptop on the special "disabled" desk. He, like all others using the desk, had full use of his limbs, and he was not grotesquely obese. Have you ever had a lot of luggage or something? And you look at the steps and wonder how long and hard it’s going to be…and then, you see the roll-up ramp! Or you walk into a rest-room, and there is that big spacious stall….

From elevators, ramps, bigger seats and more comfy restroom stalls, the American’s With Disabilities Act has been a great boon for fully functional normals! I would even hazard to guess we used "disabled" services and access points more often than the disabled (differently abled, whatever).

Gweilo touches the average national IQ question. A good wolf smells the blood on the trail and pursues….

Godless comments:

I tossed in a few comments that readers/co-bloggers may be interested in.

In the 19th century there was the idea that the English were descended from Anglo-Saxons who drove the Welsh to the “Celtic Fringe.” But looking at some English people, it seems clear to me that they are a hybrid population, at least speaking from the perspective of one who has a keen eye for the Germanic physique. Victorians must have known this too on some level . . .

Keira Knightly….

Kate Beckinsale….

…or, a more typically Germanic actress, Naomi Watts:

Ain’t diversity great?

Here is a real German, Eva Habermann:

Ok, more Keira….

OK, so it has been conjectured that Supermensch…err, Superman, is Jewish-but how about Anglo-Indian? True, I don’t have much evidence compared to the Jewish hypothesis, but this is what I do have:

Atal Vajpayee, prime minister of India, seems to look a lot like: "Jor-El (Marlon Brando), Superman’s father":http://brando.crosscity.com/htmlver/gallerymb/Images/Films//Film62.jpg.

Did Jor-El escape Krypton contrary to the story told in his son’s true-life movie??? Is Vajpayee’s vow of celibacy in fact due to his undying love for his dead wife Lara, the mother of Kal-El (Superman)? That begs the question, were the Rishis of Hindu legend escaped Kryptonians???

And doesn’t Norah Jones kind of look like Christopher Reeve (ignore that pre-differently abled Reeve is much prettier). How exactly did the Kryptonians make it past border patrol? Though it seems plausible they could have flown over, don’t we have kryptonite laced cordons to prevent alien ariel intrusion? Joe Guzzardi needs to add something challenging the alien infiltration into his platform, after all, California is no doubt a magnet for Kryptonians like Marlon Brando[1].

Tell me where I’m wrong?

My back-up plan to de-center and Otherize Superman is to imply he’s gay, after all, look at the picture, they didn’t have Queer Eye For the Straight Guy back in 1978, that super-hero is way too sheik….

fn1. Marlon Brando was born in Nebraska, highly suspicious given Smallville’s midwestern locale, don’t you think? It’s all falling into place….

I have an article in Frontpage Magazine, thanks to Richard Poe for pushing me, and Jamie Glazov for giving me a chance. Also, check out the The American Conservative, I should have an article out in the current issue, though it might be next week (I can’t find it around here yet!). Thanks to Scott McConnell for giving me a shot to break into the ink & dead-tree world.

Update: This is from the Frontpage Forum:

Date: 8/26/2003 3:51:21 PM
Name: Khalid
Subject: American Women Can Learn Much From Islam
Comment:

American women are disrepectful and speak, when they should listen.

Moslem women cover their face out of modesty. Likewise they remain silent out of modesty.

’nuff said.

Update II: The piece I’ve got in The American Conservative dealt with Muslims, The Netherlands and a Dutch dude I met on the bus (Hi David!). Here is a report (audio file) from a recent issue of PRI’s The World on something called The Arab European League. Here is a snippet from an article by the President of the organization:

Yet by these standards, 11 September 2001 was an exceptional day in every sense. Against the natural order of things, in the Arab Ghetto in Brussels, people were smiling. They were out in the streets, exchanging glances with each other as they walked. Even total strangers would nod at one another; there was something different in the air that day. All that joyful display, because on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, a number of planes had crashed into buildings killing some 3000 people. Isn’t it sick, one might wonder, that such a tragic event could ever be perceived this way?

The article is kind of strange-the basic tone is that you brought 9-11 upon yourselves-but this guy is obviously worldly and urbane, European in a fashion, though he obviously rejects Europe and its ways. The funniest part for me is that the title is “Welcome to Adobe GoLive 5.” Oh, and most of the articles seem to deal with Israel, I don’t know what the European part of the oranization’s name indicates outside of the geographic locale of the members.

Two exquisite critiques on "pop intelligence" theories have recently been written.

1. In the August issue of Intelligence, L. Gottfredson and N. Brody do a masterful job dissecting R. Sternberg’s Tri-archic/Practical Intelligence theory.

2. In the Arthur Jensen festschrift, G.V. Barrett et al. have a great chapter entitled New concepts of intelligence: Their practical and legal implications for employee selection that spells out the minimal criteria for a scientific theory to stand in court, and most of the en vogue ones (e.g., emotional IQ) don’t come close to the minimum.

As it stands today, I have yet to see a better, more researched and supported theory (and I use the term loosely, here) than J. B. Carroll’s 3-strata one. It would be nice if it received even 1/2 of the attention of its "pop" counterparts. Case in point, 6 months ago the American Psychological Association’s newsletter, Monitor, did a piece on intelligence and the only mention of g came from Robert Plomin in a passing comment.

The reason this is important is because in the "real world" it is the parents/educational administrators who ingest this unadulterated pop-rubbish and it is inexplicably hard to explain to them the cogency of intelligence (g) when they are lead to believe that either there are multiple ways one can be intelligent, or that effort can easily overcome any inherent intellectual problems.

Anyway…three cheers for Gottfredson, Brody, Barret, and the others who let data speak over popular notions.