tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post7195662080130740618..comments2024-03-14T09:50:44.315+00:00Comments on Psychological comments: The many-headed Hydra of alternate intelligencesAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-36536643431410154662014-02-24T15:09:39.512+00:002014-02-24T15:09:39.512+00:00Here's a point that I got from your post that ...Here's a point that I got from your post that I think it didn't state as clearly as it might have: <br /><br /> "Rationality" questions might well measure g better than standard questions because the standard questions are constrained by fear of discrimination lawsuits and so can't seem tricky or unfair. If true, however, an academic test designed on that basis would be illegal under current law, so we shouldn't pooh-pooh the current tests; they're the best the government will allow. <br /> Eric Rasmusenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01609599580545475695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-58184047089696010932014-02-22T13:55:40.163+00:002014-02-22T13:55:40.163+00:00I would agree it's not a test of "rationa...I would agree it's not a test of "rationality." That's just a new buzzword, I guess! Annehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13041676434895574477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-37486018752750677902014-02-22T08:57:28.363+00:002014-02-22T08:57:28.363+00:00Thank you! However, I take issue with your use of ...Thank you! However, I take issue with your use of the words "simple" and "mechanical". The problem requires people to understand the special meaning of "more than" in an unfamiliar context, and then know that another approach must be used, and then know that algebra will help, and then know and remember their algebra. Mechanical to you, Frau Katze, but not to me, and not, I imagine, to most other citizens. However, we are agreed that this is very much a test of intelligence, and not a separate test of "rationality". Thanks for your contribution.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-40505719769830753502014-02-22T07:05:30.794+00:002014-02-22T07:05:30.794+00:00The bat and ball question can be solved in half a ...The bat and ball question can be solved in half a minute using simple algebra. <br /><br />X + (X + 100) = 110<br />2X + 100 = 110<br />2X = 10<br />X = 5<br /><br />Mechanical. Annehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13041676434895574477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-75123079561126793462014-02-20T08:42:09.680+00:002014-02-20T08:42:09.680+00:00I read Kahneman's much celebrated book but it ...I read Kahneman's much celebrated book but it turned out to be a lot of magician's tricks and even optical illusions like you saw in Ripley's Believe It or Not comic strips many decades ago.<br />Steve Sailerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11920109042402850214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-87486522893965071602014-02-14T18:39:18.989+00:002014-02-14T18:39:18.989+00:00Glad you find the measure useful, and appreciate i...Glad you find the measure useful, and appreciate its power.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-88275750905154960942014-02-14T13:58:27.915+00:002014-02-14T13:58:27.915+00:00While I have published many scientific papers, I h...While I have published many scientific papers, I have only recently started to work with data that includes measures of IQ. Something happens to you when you work with IQ data. First, when you actually see the psychometric properties of IQ tests you realize that the tests are the products of serious and prolonged scholarly investigation. Few tests have psychometrics as neat as do IQ tests. Second, you see how well IQ tests predict status later in life. Finally, the data on group differences are so consistent that they cannot be produced by chance, by testing effect, or by any other known mechanism. IQ data over time, place, and culture reveal the same patterns. Not bad for something social constructionists say doesn't exist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-82037331020220335472014-02-14T09:12:38.486+00:002014-02-14T09:12:38.486+00:00Dr. Thompson I had one direct observation that mig...Dr. Thompson I had one direct observation that might help you look into some things, don't want to waste your time even though there is a lot to discuss on the subject. Since you specifically called it out as an example, that one test problem is from what is called the Cognitive Reflection Test. <br /><br />That set of items (three quick questions) actually been used in a lot of studies, made for many papers you'll see with that name and many correlations, to typical things like student grades, have been well documented. Having not investigated the rest of the piece I'm not sure what else is novel and untested. I personally agree that a lot of bad, unreliable psychometric testing is due to a single general effect that a subset of laypeople are going to be confused and manipulated by weird framing regardless of what is actually being studied, but that's not the sole intent of the specific test in mathematical/logical reflection.<br /><br />As for Stanovich I've criticized his work before in part because he is a poster child for the WEIRD issue, giving a lot of research a bad name without even making an effort compared to fields like evolutionary psychology. When methodology is even available in any given paper I've seen from him, besides the issue of self-reporting by subjects which you too noted, one finds worrisomely samples with small n's, skews sometimes like 80% female, within narrow age ranges, and volunteers being not even good university students but ones who are decidely in the bottom half of the curve. WEIRD however is a methodological criticism and Stanovich at least appears to be a hardworking, honest researcher. His research on reading/childhood learning is probably better than throwing his hat into the ring of vague, sometimes unreplicable priming and framing experiments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-78183155889736217702014-02-13T12:49:45.403+00:002014-02-13T12:49:45.403+00:00I believe you explain calls multiple intelligences...I believe you explain calls multiple intelligences , as well , because humans ( still ) are not robots . Personality influences deeply on how a person will interact in society and in their own building society . The problem of the tests is that they , again , are mathematical results in something that is complex although it is measurable .( X-man with iq 120 is smarter than Y-man with iq 110??)<br />Human beings are not parts , but a whole . Not matter much if you have a person with a super high IQ and an unfavorable personality to work it . Do not you just continue to select for high iq in China , if the result is an emotionally cold and materialistic population.<br />Everything that the human being has produced the highest level of their ability comes from their creativity . I've seen several test iq the internet and I'm sorry to tell you but they do not measure creativity , nothing is able to measure what is completely new or unexpected. There is no way to measure the future and creativity is always the future .<br />Yes , iq tests are the best means to measure raw intelligence in humans , are excellent for measuring anything based in large groups . Are still very good to measure individual intelligence .<br />But are useless for outliers . Because outliers are the future , they are creativity itself. The only deliberate way to measure these types would obtain funds by means of the g factor , which keeps them balanced between extreme madness and extreme rationality tests .<br /><br />GottliebAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-14274083606656607872014-02-12T15:22:20.669+00:002014-02-12T15:22:20.669+00:00i am in error - stanovich named the matthew effect...i am in error - stanovich named the matthew effect. what was i thinking? still, Flynn's a hero for noticing & dealing with the "secular increase" in IQ scores + it was valuable & accurate info to set your clocks by in the test norming industry. if we actually had been getting smarter we would've been smart enough to figure out why it was happening. fortunately, Armstrong & Woodley came along.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-84038394275156253402014-02-12T14:26:37.282+00:002014-02-12T14:26:37.282+00:00i rolled my eyes so much reading that book i final...i rolled my eyes so much reading that book i finally stopped reading, lest i develop permanently rolled eyes :) as is his way, he offers many non-occam's razor alternative (PC) hypotheses to the obvious un PC occam's razored monster in the closet. but, at least he doesn't ignore these things. he tends to come down on both sides of the fence (one side for this, the other side for that). he writes well, tho - & he's a hero for naming "the matthew effect." <br /><br />BUT, Elijah, your recent article shows why the Flynn Effect should be renamed the Armstrong-Woodley Effect. & why the idea of secular increase in (actual) intelligence should be thrown on the scrap heap of history. <br /><br />meanwhile, back at the test publishers, thru the 1990s, we could bank on 1/3rd of a point rise a year. But now, as 1) demographics change (more low scorers) & 2) we reach saturation limits on rule-learning/test-wiseness points - that increase has leveled off (e.g., DAS-II 2007's renorming only changed the GCA 2.9 points or so - they buried it deep in the manual, so people wouldn't say, "hey, why'd we have to buy a whole new test if the norms didn't change that much?" & also so people wouldn't say "hey, why didn't the norms change very much?") i wish Elijah had been born earlier so he could've cleared up that confusion back in the 1990s for us:)<br /><br />i do like how the field had to be schooled by a very smart THINKING teen. & how it unthinkingly accepted a theory that would've made all our great grandparents retarded or intellectually disabled (actually, idiots, morons, & imbeciles, to use the era-appropriate terms:) sorry, grandpa!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-45237910939953173872014-02-12T05:42:49.628+00:002014-02-12T05:42:49.628+00:00I have ordered Stanovich's book. I'll revi...I have ordered Stanovich's book. I'll review it when it arrives and I've finished it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-46966305967434066732014-02-11T23:58:54.519+00:002014-02-11T23:58:54.519+00:00Thank god that someone else shares my views on &qu...Thank god that someone else shares my views on "executive functioning"; I was beginning to think I was all alone! Damn near every single class this term has included some mention of this frustrating umbrella concept, with little critical scrutiny. But the tests are just rebranded WAIS subtests; there's little to no indication that they're measuring anything that RPM does not. After reading paper after paper where the construct is so uncritically accepted and measured again and again by tests obviously contaminated by g, with no indication that anyone has bothered to look at construct & discriminant validity - ugh. <br /><br />Actually, I tell a lie, because Timothy Salthouse did bother to check the discriminant validity - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16060828?dopt=Abstract - and the results were not promising for executive function.Andrew Sabiskynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-38914257486915462892014-02-11T21:20:35.864+00:002014-02-11T21:20:35.864+00:00You have hit one of the park on this one, Dr.
As ...You have hit one of the park on this one, Dr.<br /><br />As for "executive function", it sounds to me like taking IQ X lack of ADHD traits.JayManhttp://jaymans.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-38134944307744876772014-02-11T21:04:15.942+00:002014-02-11T21:04:15.942+00:00I was hoping YOU'd talk about it:) You made a ...I was hoping YOU'd talk about it:) You made a very cogent point about it being simply random things to measure which may be culpable for/capable of explaining - whatever's going on with a person (& for further justifying psychologists existence:) <br /><br />I've loathed the concept or "executive functioning" ever since first reading it in muriel lezak's neuropsych text book back in 1987/88 in my doc program (while at the same time reading a real scientist's book - Arthur Jensen's Bias in Mental Testing:) <br /><br />Executive functioning has caught on big time & become all the rage among easily duped psychologists & educators - but it has always remained a hodge-podge of scattered skills of varying degrees of g. <br /><br />its only validity (that i can see) is as a weak theory as to why some people with TBI do well on IQ tests, but fail to function in society. <br /><br />it's a random collection of "managerial skills" such as organizing, planning (often ridiculously measured thru mazes subtests! ahem - that's NOT REAL planning), multi-tasking, evaluating ideas, being patient, etc. all attributed (way too) exclusively to the frontal lobe/prefrontal cortex. <br /><br />I agree with your theory that it gives us more deficits to find in our bag of tricks:)<br /><br />it's a random grab bag of variables (of varying degrees of "measure-ability") endorsed by people who aren't bright enough (or statistically savvy enough) to understand "g." executive functioning certainly doesn't fit in well with g "theory" /(real psychometrics). <br /><br />however, perhaps i am just low on executive functioning & that's my beef with it:)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-62458103965267373632014-02-11T16:40:58.519+00:002014-02-11T16:40:58.519+00:00Can you talk more about "executive functionin...Can you talk more about "executive functioning" and suggest some references on how it behaves viz a viz intelligence? It is all the rage in medico-legal circles here, because it gives you lots more chances of finding apparent deficits.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-91341702864754368152014-02-11T15:19:42.975+00:002014-02-11T15:19:42.975+00:00excellent post -- educators (aka non-empiricists/g...excellent post -- educators (aka non-empiricists/g-deniers) love "multiple intelligence" & "emotional IQ." in the last decent IQ documentary (from the late 1960s with a young Dan Rather!) Jerome Kagan says coyly, "AbilitY... or AbilitIES?" knowing full well it's the former, but more money's to be made in the latter (the people want hope - & magic!)<br /><br />"executive functioning" is halfway between the sham of emotional IQ/multiple intelligences & the reality of g - it's a grab bag of various high & low g-loaded tasks (until i'm convinced otherwise!) But, a few TBI types score high on IQ yet can't function in the real world - "executive functioning" attempts to explain why - so it's a bit better (& more measurable!) than the execrable emotional IQ/multiple intelligences.<br /><br />Rationality puzzles will be too wordy, require too much crystallized g, & will not be psychometrically sound (one won't get equal item gradients between difficulty levels of items - the items are more likely to be biased/predict differently for each group, etc.) they will be useful only to the extent they measure g.<br /><br />3 cheers for noticing the restriction of range issue! one hears, "the ACT/GRE doesn't predict achievement well" - oh yeah? try giving them to everybody (the whole normal curve) & let the whole normal curve into those colleges/grad programs. then the correlation will be pretty high! <br /><br />side note - in the last 30 years, the GRE went from being an ability test to being an achievement test - both predict grad school performance about the same, but by being more explicitly "reading comprehension & math achievement" - it catches less political flack for having (the ever present) group differences. Yet, ironically, now it's less likely to catch minority "diamonds in the rough."<br /><br />side note 2: Das & Naglieri marketed an anti-g test - which publishers bought b/c the authors have good names, but, like the K-ABC of old - group differences are smaller b/c it had less g, & more saliently: it was less accurate a predictor b/c it had less g.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-29956160780322212014-02-11T13:51:45.561+00:002014-02-11T13:51:45.561+00:00Had I the time, and the inclination, I would join ...Had I the time, and the inclination, I would join them: "How to boost your IQ and lose weight at the same time"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-20637911968554112862014-02-11T12:02:46.179+00:002014-02-11T12:02:46.179+00:00Ha just before reading this post, I had come acros...Ha just before reading this post, I had come across press release about "another paradigm-shifting idea", this one known as "personal intelligence", which is apparently an "invaluable new framework". Of course, the " internationally recognized researcher" behind this new theory has a book to sell, which I assume he hopes to parlay into lucrative consulting gigs in the education industry. <br />And to cynical me, that's the main motivation behind these alternative theories, behind the Golemans and the Sternbergs etc,; not so much an intellectual hostility to IQ, but rather a chance to hit the jackpot. <br />http://www.newswise.com/articles/unh-personality-psychologist-unveils-new-theory-of-personal-intelligenceEduardnoreply@blogger.com