Is psychometric g ineffable?

cranks

Is psychometric g ineffable or am I just limited?

Myksyk

Nah, used to frequently eff the bloody thing.

Valmont

I would say you're limited.

cranks

Valmont wrote: »

I would say you're limited.

Thanks for clearing that up for me Valmont - I'd suspected that was the case.

Thoughts and enlightenment most welcome on the subject of the general ability factor, g.

Is it some kind of 'force' that is captured by the common variance inherent across subtests within a given assessment battery ( or the "amount of a general mental energy" as Mr g himself, Spearman, described it); is it synonymous with fluid reasoning ability?; is it some kind of offshoot of neural efficiency as Eysenck proposed?; or is it redundant to talk of a general ability factor at the cost of multiple intelligences?.

How would I explain the concept of g to a 12 year old?

Great if anyone up for sharing their thoughts. Comments etc on Carroll's three-stratum theory welcome.

Valmont

cranks wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up for me Valmont - I'd suspected that was the case.

Thoughts and enlightenment most welcome on the subject of the general ability factor, g.

Is it some kind of 'force' that is captured by the common variance inherent across subtests within a given assessment battery ( or the "amount of a general mental energy" as Mr g himself, Spearman, described it); is it synonymous with fluid reasoning ability?; is it some kind of offshoot of neural efficiency as Eysenck proposed?; or is it redundant to talk of a general ability factor at the cost of multiple intelligences?.

How would I explain the concept of g to a 12 year old?

Great if anyone up for sharing their thoughts. Comments etc on Carroll's three-stratum theory welcome.

Well you can't be surprised at the responses given your original post. It seems you understand the concept well enough however. I always considered g to be synonymous, as you put it, with fluid intelligence although I wasn't aware of Eysenck's idea.

When you talk of multiple intelligences are you referring to Gardner's theory? If so, I don't rate that theory very highly at all. For example, Kinetic intelligence is simply a synonym for a word and phenomena that already exists; athleticism. I think Gardner just bent the applicability of the term intelligence to promote his pop-psych book and in doing so, he rendered to concept meaningless.

I don't see the point in describing g to a 12 year old.

Jupiter36

I don't see the point in describing g to a 12 year old.

Why not? It is an excellent test of parsimony (not that one should underestimate a 12 year old). If you can explain the concept of g to a 12 year-old in plain English, then I think you have answered crank's original question.

Valmont

Jupiter36 wrote: »

Why not? It is an excellent test of parsimony (not that one should underestimate a 12 year old). If you can explain the concept of g to a 12 year-old in plain English, then I think you have answered crank's original question.

Crank's original question simply asked if the concept was ineffable and I'm not going to engage any further in an argument about the merits of explaining psychometric terms to a 12 year old:rolleyes:

Odysseus

Would one of you guys supply a link as to what this is, we don't go near that type of stuff, so I haven't a cule what you guys are talking about;)

Myksyk

For a very old, but still relevant and very wide-ranging debate on the subject of g, you could read Stephen J. Gould's 'Mismeasure of Man' and useful reviews and criticisms of it here and here.

cranks

Thanks for the links Myksyk. I've scanned them and can't claim to have digested them completely. However, it does appear to me that Gould (and Gardner, as previously mentioned by Valmont) are in the same camp when it comes to decrying the notion of a single measure of intelligence because it somehow foments an elitist mindset. I haven't read Gould but from the little I know, I do think that there is value to Gardner's line of thinking in that it forces the notion of intelligence to be viewed in much broader terms than a single measure. I'm not so sure that Gardner's notion of Kinetic intelligence is synonymous with simply 'athleticism' , as you say Valmont - I think it more subtle than that and probably is best conceived in terms of the capacity to be proprioceptive; to have a 'feel' for something like playing an instrument, for example.
Having said all that, I do like the cut of Jenson's jib in Myksyk's link:"At an even more basic level, there is now considerable evidence that g is correlated with the amplitude, latency, and complexity of average devoked (sic) potentials in the brain.... (e.g., Eysenck, 1981; Jensen, Schafer, & Crinella, 1981)". This resonates well with me and evokes the idea that the notion of g as a moveable force is akin to picture controls we get on our TVs ('Volume, contrast, brilliance' etc) which, in purely visual terms, gives us a 'dull' picture or a 'bright' picture as we choose. The idea that we are 'set' (and therefore able to be ranked) on a 'dull-bright' continuum is appealing but somehow sounds elitist and grates on me.

As for the 12 year old question. I doubt that Jensen and his fellow academics wrote with 12 year olds in mind and that such writings would be top of the list when it comes to a 12 year old's bedtime reading. I accept that completely. The reason I ask is that 1) as someone for whom the best part of the the working week is spent assessing childrens' ability, I feel it the least courtesy I can afford them is to explain what they have been doing, what their performance means, and how it may impact on their day-to-day functioning and their future; 2) standard public service guidelines in relation to the dissemination of (written) information to the general public (information leaflets etc) suggests that such be at 12 year old reading age (by no means unsophisticated, BTW); and 3) I find it a real challenge in stepping outside my relative comfort zone of academic/profssional-speak to convey the concepts (such a g) which are central to what I do.

I really appreciate the feedback so far. As ever, and in the interest of healthy debate, thoughts welcome.

Valmont

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/110192.php

I found this a while back and thought it was interesting although I'm still not sure of its overreaching implications for intelligence testing.