Do ICQ Tests Measure Intelligence?

[Nereid]

A summary

Nacthwolf wrote (in response to Evo's comment "My opinion? Worrying about IQ scores is silly"): Your opinion is predicated on ignorance. The facts are anything but silly - in fact they are of grim importance.

Whites are losing approximately 1.6 points per generation via differential fertility, blacks are losing approximately 2.4 points per generation from differential fertility, and, due to shifting demographics the country the national IQ is shifting roughly 2 points downward every twenty five years.

The IQ of the average criminal is 8 points lower than the IQ of non-criminals.

The profile of the typical neglectful or abusive mother is a woman with an IQ of 80.

IQ is a better predictor of future earnings than the social class into which you are born.

The average IQ of a nation correlates at 40% with the per capita GDP of that nation.

The minimum IQ needed to graduate from a 4 year university is 100. The average IQ of college graduates is 115, and their average fertility is around 1.7, while the average fertility of those in this country without a high school education is around 2.8.

We should expect that a shift of 3 IQ points downward (which at current rates of decline will occur before 2050) will increase the number of permanent high school dropouts, men prevented from working by health problems, children not living with either parent, men ever interviewed in prison, persons below the poverty line, children in poverty for the first 3 years of life, women ever on welfare, women who become chronic welfare recipients, and children born out of wedlock by approximately 20%.

The crucial importance of intelligence, and the current drain on our intelligence, overshadows all other political concerns and represents the greatest threat to civilization in the modern world. Unless we enact some form of eugenic program or take voluntary action to solve this problem, we are living in the last days of modern civilization.

The above is Nachtwolf's own words, on the importance of IQ.

As has been shown in this thread and others, each of his points is either wrong, irrelevant, or quite unsubstantiated.

Evo 1, Nachtwolf 0.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Hahaha!

Just because I have better things to do than compose endless posts on this board endlessly doesn't mean a jot of what you just said. Pay attention, I'm only going to say this once:


In 1982, Vining took a sample of 2066 whites and 473 blacks and grouped them by fertility and IQ. Here are the results for the white group:

<= 71 IQ: 1.59 children
71-85 IQ: 1.68 children
86-100 IQ: 1.76 children
101-115 IQ: 1.44 children
116-130 IQ: 1.15 children
>130 IQ IQ: 0.92 children

Notice, that no group with an IQ above 100 has higher fertility than any group with an IQ below 100. Notice further that the group with the very lowest fertility is the above-130 group. I go on to provide the results for the black group:

<= 71 IQ: 2.60 children
71-85 IQ: 2.12 children
86-100 IQ: 1.79 children
101-115 IQ: 1.63 children
116-130 IQ: 1.20 children
>130 IQ IQ: 0.00 children

Vining's information was reported by Jensen in his The g Factor who wrote on page 486:

"The predicted overall weighted mean IQ, then, turns out to be 98.2 for whites and 82.6 for blacks, a drop of 1.8 IQ points and of 2.4 IQ points, respectively."

So what is this dysgenic decline, representing an average drop of around 2 points per generation, going to do for us? Well, let's go to The Bell Curve, page 365

Suppose we select a subsample of the NLSY, different in only one respect from the complete sample: We randomly delete persons who have a mean IQ of more than 97, until we reach a sample that has a mean IQ of 97 - a mere three points below the mean of the full sample.

How different do the crucial social outcomes look? For some behaviors, not much changes. Marriage rates do not change. With a three-point decline at the average, divorce, unemployment, and dropout from the labor force rise only marginally. But the overall poverty rate rises by 11 percent and the proportion of children living in poverty throughout the first three years of their lives rises by 13 percent. The proportion of children born to single mothers rises by 8 percent. The proportion of children living with nonparental custodians, of women ever on welfare, and of people dropping out of high school all rise by 14 percent. The proportion of young men prevented from working by health problems increases by 18 percent.

When we consider Lynn's data showing that low-scoring nations all have problems with poverty, education, health, and so forth, it becomes apparent that these numbers aren't statistical artifacts but are quite applicable to real life. Granted that I should have said these factors increase by around 15% rather than around 20%; darn, I mistook the column of factors that increase when IQ increases with the column of factors that decrease when IQ increases from where they're written down on my website at http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/science.htm

But hey let's take a look at that web-page because it shows something else which is really quite interesting at the moment!

The UN did a http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/ac/Qundp-index-list.RpLZ_Dl8.html on which nations were best to live in, and which nations were awful to live in. I said to myself, "Well this is very interesting; how does this report line up with IQ data on these countries supplied by Lynn?" Here's how.

Twenty best countries to live in, when IQ data exists for them:

Nation / IQ
Japan 105
Austria 102
Germany 102
Sweden 101
Switzerland 101
Belgium 100
New Zealand 100
United Kingdom 100
Australia 98
Denmark 98
France 98
Norway 98
United States 98
Canada 97
Finland 97
Spain 97


Thirty worst nations to live in, when IQ data exists for them:

Nation / IQ
Zambia 77
Uganda 73
Kenya 72
Tanzania 72
Nigeria 67
Guinea 66
Congo (Zaire) 65
Sierra Leone 64
Ethiopia 63
Equatorial Guinea 59

So yes, tell us, Nereid, about how this is all wrong, irrelevant, or unsubstantiated!

Nereid, the trouble is that you're woefully uneducated on this subject. Correct me if I'm wrong, but

You've never read IQ & Wealth of Nations.
You've never read either of The g Factors.
You've never read The Bell Curve.
You've never heard of Marian Van Court, Linda Gottfriedson, or

Because if you had, none of this stuff would be at all new for you. I wouldn't have to sit here for 45 minutes (yes, how long this post took to look up and compile) giving you information you don't really want to have. I feel like I'm trying to spoon feed a recalcitrant child. I have better things to do with my time; if you don't want to eat, don't! But don't sit there in ignorance and tell me that this is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, or quite wrong, because you haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about.

Now if you'll excuse me, reality calls.


--Mark

 

[selfAdjoint]

Double posting? I thought you were only going to say it once.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Natchwolf this/these is/are "statistics" hence they are 'indicators' NOT 'dictators'...you would do what to the worlds populations to try to save a 1.8% IQ number? something that can be bettered, simply through educational means, nutritional fulfillments, and you want to do what? to Cure this non-ailment??

Then again reality called you, so please, if you would wish to respond, please, if possible, keep it short...

 

[Nereid]

Point by point then

Nachtwolf (note the verb tense): Whites are losing approximately 1.6 points per generation via differential fertility, blacks are losing approximately 2.4 points per generation from differential fertility, and, due to shifting demographics the country the national IQ is shifting roughly 2 points downward every twenty five years.

From Nachtwolf's reply we learn that his statement is a prediction (or, being charitable, an unsubstantiated estimate), not an observation.

In fact, we learn from his own website that the data show that IQ is increasing; it's called the Flynn effect, and has apparently been observed in a large number of countries.

CONCLUSION: Nachtwolf wrong.

Nachtwolf, taking four points together: The IQ of the average criminal is 8 points lower than the IQ of non-criminals.

The profile of the typical neglectful or abusive mother is a woman with an IQ of 80.

IQ is a better predictor of future earnings than the social class into which you are born.

The minimum IQ needed to graduate from a 4 year university is 100. The average IQ of college graduates is 115, and their average fertility is around 1.7, while the average fertility of those in this country without a high school education is around 2.8.

No support provided by Nachtwolf; questions put to him to show the relevance of these points - in terms of his eugenics proposal - remain unanswered.

CONCLUSION: Nachtwolf irrelevant.

Nachtwolf: The average IQ of a nation correlates at 40% with the per capita GDP of that nation.

The strength of Lynn's work - which presumably underlies Nachtwolf's assertion here - is being discussed on a different thread; hitssquad has attempted a defence but his efforts have exposed many inconsistencies, contradictions, etc in Lynn's work.

In this thread Nachtwolf defends his position by quoting some figures from Lynn, but doesn't address the flaws in Lynn's work.

CONCLUSION: Nachtwolf unsubstantiated.

Nachtwolf's cry to arms: The crucial importance of intelligence, and the current drain on our intelligence, overshadows all other political concerns and represents the greatest threat to civilization in the modern world. Unless we enact some form of eugenic program or take voluntary action to solve this problem, we are living in the last days of modern civilization.

To support these assertions? The points examined one-by-one above.

I note in passing that Nachtwolf generalises from the US to the whole world, without any data to show that the predictions he makes for the US have any relevance to any country outside the US.

Just because I have better things to do than compose endless posts on this board endlessly *SNIP

Well excuse me, I was under the impression that you were keen to bring your ideas to the attention of PF members, with a desire perhaps to win some converts to the cause?

You're leaving us? Don't let me detain you. Mind the platform gap.

 

[recon]

Originally posted by hitssquad
This european guy Nico has a bunch of really cool nonverbal multiple-choice tests which he designed himself.
http://nicologic.free.fr/

He seems to be well read in the IQ liturature (Jensen, etc.):
http://nicologic.free.fr/FAQ.htm
http://nicologic.free.fr/GeneralIntelligence.htm

And he claims that he tries to design and norm the tests to some degree of scoring parity with reality.

-Chris

I'm wondering how reliable these tests are. Can anyone who already has a known IQ (as tested officially) try it out and tell me how optimistic the test is?

 

[hitssquad]

Originally posted by recon

Originally posted by hitssquad
This european guy Nico has a bunch of really cool nonverbal multiple-choice tests which he designed himself.
http://nicologic.free.fr/

He seems to be well read in the IQ liturature (Jensen, etc.):
http://nicologic.free.fr/FAQ.htm
http://nicologic.free.fr/GeneralIntelligence.htm

And he claims that he tries to design and norm the tests to some degree of scoring parity with reality.

I'm wondering how reliable these tests are. Can anyone who already has a known IQ (as tested officially) try it out and tell me how optimistic the test is?

IQ test construction is a process of invention and culling. Nicologic's tests demonstrate the concept of invention of nonverbal test items. Unless statistical analyses show that these tests smoothly and reliably differentiate along some non-zero-length section, the scores obtained on Nicologic's tests cannot, within a statistical worldview, be taken as reliable. Given that it is unlikely Nicologic has access to the resources necessary to cull his tests to a point of smoothly reliable differentiation of test subjects on a parity with professional IQ tests, Nicologic's tests are unlikely to be as reliable as professional IQ tests.

For a more-indepth exploration of the subject of mental test construction, I recommend Arthur Jensen's Bias in Mental Testing.




-Chris

 

[Nachtwolf]

Natchwolf

Please learn to spell my handle, Mr. Robin Parsons.

if you would wish to respond, please, if possible, keep it short...

Hopefully this wasn't too long for you, Mr. Robin Parsons. I look forward to future conversations!

From Nachtwolf's reply we learn that his statement is a prediction (or, being charitable, an unsubstantiated estimate), not an observation.

This is a simple prediction of the genetic component to IQ declining. You are aware that environmental gains can mask genetic declines. I shouldn't have to remind you of that.

In fact, we learn from his own website that the data show that IQ is increasing; it's called the Flynn effect, and has apparently been observed in a large number of countries.

And which you learn from my own website seems to be over now. I shouldn't have to remind you of that, either.

No support provided by Nachtwolf; questions put to him to show the relevance of these points - in terms of his eugenics proposal - remain unanswered.

I told you in my last post that my time was limited. I shouldn't have to remind you of that, either. If you would like me to substantiate these other facts I can of course pull them straight from The Bell Curve. But you don't want me to substantiate them - you want them to disappear. Somehow I suspect that my substantiating them will only result in perfervid denial from you.

Nachtwolf irrelevant

I can't help but be curious - If I'm so irrelevant, why are you so busy responding to me? You seem absolutely desperate to attack and discredit the facts I present here.

The strength of Lynn's work - which presumably underlies Nachtwolf's assertion here - is being discussed on a different thread

Why are you so desperate for me to run around reading your posts on other threads?

I note in passing that Nachtwolf generalises from the US to the whole world, without any data to show that the predictions he makes for the US have any relevance to any country outside the US.

Well I know we have a very strange spelling system over here, but it seems that these "generalizations" are generally borne out no matter which country you generally look at.

Well excuse me, I was under the impression that you were keen to bring your ideas to the attention of PF members, with a desire perhaps to win some converts to the cause?

That is indeed one way of spinning it! But what makes you think I'm so interested in winning you as a "convert?" Either you are reasonable enough to grasp the simple and rather obvious implications of Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, or you are not. Thus far, you have made every effort to make the facts disappear by picking and poking at irrelevant details, so why don't I strip away the details in order to make this simple and uncomplicated for you:

Any time members with a trait reproduce more than members without that trait, the trait will spread.

If you wish to deny this, feel free - I know lots of people who deny the Theory of Evolution. But is this really what you want to do, Nereid?


--Mark

 

[Nereid]

This is a simple prediction of the genetic component to IQ declining. You are aware that environmental gains can mask genetic declines. I shouldn't have to remind you of that.

Please get back to us when you've got solid observational data confirming your prediction.

And which you learn from my own website seems to be over now. I shouldn't have to remind you of that, either.

Please get back to us when there's a broad consensus that it's "over"; until then we will continue to be able to say "as yet not confirmed by any studies."

If you would like me to substantiate these other facts I can of course pull them straight from The Bell Curve.

Well, it's your choice; but then it's your proposal too.

You seem absolutely desperate to attack and discredit the facts I present here.

I'll be happy to discuss the facts you present. I'm even more interested in seeing how you use facts to support your proposal. So far the facts you have used are either wrong (Lynn's "National IQ" is the main determinant of national per capita incomes), irrelevant (the four points), or unsubstantiated (which you have just admitted, thanks for the honesty).

Well I know we have a very strange spelling system over here, but it seems that these "generalizations" are generally borne out no matter which country you generally look at.

Not everyone yet uses American English; your generalisations may be borne out "no matter which country you generally look at", but as you've not presented any evidence ...

Either you are reasonable enough to grasp the simple and rather obvious implications of Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, or you are not.

Huh? Where did this come from?? We haven't even started to discuss whether IQ (or g) is a 'trait'; I've been looking at the internal consistency of your proposal, and whether the 'facts' you present are (and if, then the extent to which they support your assertions).

More broadly, I'm keen to look at the 'g-race' claims; however, only hitssquad has posted any data, and his links are dead. To be clear on this, you deferred to hitssquad when I asked you to provide support for your assertions; jerryel has quoted a newspaper ad (from 1994?) which seems to contain one hard data point ... and that's it so far.

To repeat Tsunami: "Well, let’s see… This is a forum is it not? Questions and answers? You make a proposal, we ask questions. How bad can it be to expect an answer from the one who has made the proposal?"

 

[hitssquad]

Arthur Jensen's *The g Factor* 143399

Originally posted by Nereid
I'm keen to look at the 'g-race' claims; however, only hitssquad has posted any data, and his links are dead.

The Questia link to The g Factor was posted, and it works.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

If you want to know about g and race, The g Factor is the source.


The links to the genetic-linkage diagrams (from Chapter 12 of The g Factor) are now fixed:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=139764#post139764




-Chris

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Nachtwolf my apologies if my 'typo' off-ended you, must be a sign of a low IQ, I guess...But could you please use the quotation system properly so we know who you quote...it is quite simple there's a button above the box we all type in, or you could simply type it all out as I attempt to do regularily as it affords me typing practice...and it is practise, that makes you better, not eugenics...

Short is due to a want of something concrete that actually helps people, (AKA 'others') not just your ego...

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by hitssquad The Questia link to The g Factor was posted, and it works.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

[...]

The links to the genetic-linkage diagrams (from Chapter 12 of The g Factor) are now fixed:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=139764#post139764

Thanks Chris. Please see the 'wealth of nations' thread for my initial comments.

 

[Ejderha]

Hello all, (sorry to jump n like this)
The words IQ, genius, clever, brilliant, intelligent, intellectual have different meanings other than their common definitions. And their meanings are changing...Esp. Genius. What does genius mean ? Ok, everybody has an idea. Genius is just a renaissance term. There are some tests prepared to measure people's let's say mental abilities in numbers. Don't you think this is a little bit archaic and unsufficient for our time. Especially if you consider the communication skills a child introduced in his early stages. IQ tests includes some 'patterns' and 'basic mathematical situations' decided to be the basic of all in one, a couple of thousands of years ago actually. Some contains questions, one can only answer if he's a devoted reader of any kind. I don't think it has a point. We start to teach kids Eucledian geometry when they are 6 (at least here) and a history every nation made for themselves.

And the funniest thing is 'National IQ' !?

We live in a Western dominated world. Which's being westernized as the time goes. This is not something wrong or right. And eventually the IQ and its terms are based on the dominant culture.
I see this IQ thing as an industry. Not talking about academic researches, but to try to see our specie from outside -with formulas-doesn't convince me either. Honestly it looks to me a lame excuse to some group of people pointing themselves out. 'I am superior' And every human on this planet would be delighted to learn to be better than the rest. And most of the high IQ clubs looks like high society clubs you can only be a part of it, if you are coming from this or that wealthy family. You know what I am talking about.
In my opinion, being superior is to dare to be sickeningly objective with a passion to understand. To be crazy enough to get infected of any idea and never to be burried in one. So you can do something. Isn't it scientific enough ? Probably not :)

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Ejderha
(SNIP) The words IQ, genius, clever, brilliant, intelligent, intellectual have different meanings other than their common definitions. And their meanings are changing...Esp. Genius. What does genius mean ? Ok, everybody has an idea. Genius is just a renaissance term. (SNoP)

To take analogy from the present understandings of evolution, on of the pathways is called punctuatd evolution wherein evoloution progresses in a natural pace/speed with punctuation points, or bursts, of activity, Knowlede is a little like that, scientific research paces along, and every so often out pops a person capable of advancing it all a giant step forward, those are the Geniuses of history...the only difference today, is the ability of people to rip off anyone who would be that because they would be unknown (hidden) to/from the general public...if there was one alive, today...

 

[russ_watters]

The IQ->income relationship seems pretty self-evident to me: Higher IQ = higher income. Individually, you can test someone's IQ in childhood and get a pretty good idea if they will succeed.

BUT (as Nereid has exhaustively explained), nachtwolf simply misses the nature of the the cause-effect relationship and as a result draws the wrong conclusions as to what the problem is and how it can be fixed.

And that's even before you get into the moral aspects of the proposals.

Nereid, you speculated that Nachtwolf may have a secondary (or rather a hidden primary) objective. I tend to think so and think I know what it is. Disturbing.

 

[selfAdjoint]

BUT (as Nereid has exhaustively explained), nachtwolf simply misses the nature of the the cause-effect relationship and as a result draws the wrong conclusions as to what the problem is and how it can be fixed.

The purpose of the research reported in The Bell Curve was to fix the direction of causation. The data set was not ideally perfect, but it was sufficient to show that causation flows from g to ses and income, not the other way around.

 

[hitssquad]

G nexus cause-effect relationship

Originally posted by russ_watters
Individually, you can test someone's IQ in childhood and get a pretty good idea if they will succeed.

BUT (as Nereid has exhaustively explained), nachtwolf simply misses the nature of the the cause-effect relationship

What is the nature of the cause-effect relationship?





-Chris

 

[Nereid]

clarification

What I have established - at least until hitssquad et al respond - is that Lynn and Vanhanen's work is deeply flawed, and that they fail to make a case that "National IQs" are a leading cause of either current 'national wealth' (real per capita GDP) or recent economic growth, for the ~60 nations they report on.

It has also been clearly stated - by hitssquad, for example - that Jensen's work on the hereditability of "IQ" (this is shorthand; it's more complex than this) is limited to the US, and further limited to 'blacks' and 'whites'.

I've started a thread to explore some of the fundamental concepts (e.g. 'race', 'population group') here in Social Sciences, and noted that at least some racist claims (as reported in a thread in Biology) are patently false.

Nachtwolf, AFAIK, has been very open about his agenda - he has a website where it's laid out in some considerable detail. PF readers can judge for themselves how convincingly he presents his proposal, at least here in PF (please take the time to read the threads and posts; there's quite a number of them).

 

[Nachtwolf]

BUT (as Nereid has exhaustively explained), nachtwolf simply misses the nature of the the cause-effect relationship

The only thing I'm missing here is where Nereid suddenly became someone who knew what she was talking about when it came to IQ.

Originally posted by russ_watters
Nereid, you speculated that Nachtwolf may have a secondary (or rather a hidden primary) objective. I tend to think so and think I know what it is. Disturbing.

Hidden? What's hidden? My allegiance to a pro-eugenic religion, the symbol of which is my avatar? My design of a pro-eugenic website which I'm constantly linking to, www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics.htm[/url]? My moderator status of a [url=http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/phpBB2/index.php]bulletin board[/URL] devoted to eugenics which I have linked in my sig (and which, I'll add, I invited Nereid to in order that we could discuss the issue where it belonged rather than swamping physicsforums, as you see has occurred)? My being on first name terms with pro-eugenic researchers in the IQ field, like Marian Van Court? My incredible sexual prowess? Well, granted, not everybody knows about that, but I'm quite open about it, really!

If you think this stuff is [i]hidden[/i], I can't help but conclude that you have a poor grasp of the obvious, Russ.


--Mark

 

[Nachtwolf]

Originally posted by Nereid
Nachtwolf, AFAIK, has been very open about his agenda

There we go; thank you, Nereid.

--Mark

 

[Nereid]

Nachtwolf wrote: The only thing I'm missing here is where Nereid suddenly became someone who knew what she was talking about when it came to IQ.

I wasn't aware that this was a requirement for asking questions, challenging proposals, and refuting assertions.

What rather puzzles me is why you feel the approach you've taken to make and defend your assertions is an effective one. Would you care to share those reasons with us?

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
- - - - - - - - -
Originally posted by Nereid
Nachtwolf, AFAIK, has been very open about his agenda
- - - - - - - - -
There we go; thank you, Nereid.

You're welcome.

Some answers on your agenda would be nice too, e.g.:

[Nereid:]"Let's take just one of your four points: '[Nachtwolf] IQ is a better predictor of future earnings than the social class into which you are born.

First, your eugenics proposal aims to save the world ('The crucial importance of intelligence, and the current drain on our intelligence, overshadows all other political concerns and represents the greatest threat to civilization in the modern world') by halting the decline in national IQ (you actually meant g).

*SNIP

Assume your eugenics program was implemented and was successful. Assume that 'National IQ' (or some variant of g) was raised by 40 points; even assume that 'a natural side effect of eugenics is a reduction to the Standard Deviation, which would thus tighten the IQ distribution'.

In the brave new world, would IQ still be 'a better predictor of future earnings than the social class into which you are born?' Yes it would; there would be no change; the world would be exactly the same."

(From: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12789&perpage=12&pagenumber=6)

 

[hitssquad]

Originally posted by Nereid
Jensen's work on the hereditability of "IQ" (this is shorthand; it's more complex than this) is limited to the US, and further limited to 'blacks' and 'whites'.

It might seem more likely that some of Jensen's conclusions are limited to the U.S.


For example:

--
Cross-Cultural and Cross-Racial Consistency of g. Here we are not referring to differences between groups in the average level of g factor scores, but rather to the similarity of the g factor obtained when different groups are given the same battery of tests. Most of the relevant studies have been reviewed and referenced elsewhere. [13] The general finding, even when quite disparate cultures are included (e.g., North America, Europe, and various Asian and African subpopulations), is that there is a remarkable degree of consistency in the factor structure across different racial and cultural groups. All-positive correlations among ability tests, a large g factor, and most of the well-established primary mental abilities all show up in virtually every cross-cultural factor analysis. The g factor is certainly the most ubiquitous and invariant feature of all these analyses.
--
(Arthur R. Jensen. The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability. p87.)
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874





-Chris

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think that the research described in that quoted passage of The G Factor goes a long way to establish the "solidity" of g against the "statistical artifact" people. The g-loading patterns that the different test questions make are the same, no matter which population you give the tests too. g-loaded for US whites = g-loaded for US blacks, for Europeans, etc. If the g factor was as flimsy as some people claim, that wouldn't happen.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I think that the research described in that quoted passage of The G Factor goes a long way to establish the "solidity" of g against the "statistical artifact" people. The g-loading patterns that the different test questions make are the same, no matter which population you give the tests too. g-loaded for US whites = g-loaded for US blacks, for Europeans, etc. If the g factor was as flimsy as some people claim, that wouldn't happen.

IMHO, this may be one of the places where a distinction between the g-factor and the g-nexus is important. Perhaps it is moving down (genes, race) and up (crime, SES) - or, worse, confusing the three levels - that takes what might otherwise be relatively unexceptional into a swamp full of mines (if you can imagine such a thing).