g, a Statistical Myth

More from Cosma on the measurement of intelligence and heritability.

Anyone who wanders into the bleak and monotonous desert of IQ and the nature-vs-nurture dispute eventually gets trapped in the especially arid question of what, if anything, g, the supposed general factor of intelligence, tells us about these matters. By calling g a "statistical myth" before, I made clear my conclusion, but none of my reasoning. This topic being what it is, I hardly expect this will change anyone's mind, but I feel a duty to explain myself.

To summarize what follows below ("shorter sloth", as it were), the case for g rests on a statistical technique, factor analysis, which works solely on correlations between tests. Factor analysis is handy for summarizing data, but can't tell us where the correlations came from; it always says that there is a general factor whenever there only positive correlations. The appearance of g is a trivial reflection of that correlation structure. A clear example, known since 1916, shows that factor analysis can give the appearance of a general factor when there are actually many thousands of completely independent and equally strong causes at work. Heritability doesn't distinguish these alternatives either. Exploratory factor analysis being no good at discovering causal structure, it provides no support for the reality of g.

And Cosma's valuable sociological insight:

In primitive societies, or so Malinowski taught, myths serve as the legitimating charters of practices and institutions. Just so here: the myth of g legitimates a vast enterprise of intelligence testing and theorizing. There should be no dispute that, when we lack specialized and valid instruments, general IQ tests can be better than nothing. Claims that they are anything more than such stop-gaps — that they are triumphs of psychological science, illuminating the workings of the mind; keys to the fates of individuals and peoples; sources of harsh truths which only a courageous few have the strength to bear; etc., etc., — such claims are at present entirely unjustified, though not, perhaps, unmotivated. They are supported only by the myth, and acceptance of the myth itself rests on what I can only call an astonishing methodological backwardness.

The bottom line is: The sooner we stop paying attention to g, the sooner we can devote our energies to understanding the mind.

Comments

[JonJ]

Sadly, myths are far more socially powerful than rational demolitions of them.

Humans, being social animals who have evolved the power of speech, need myths the way our primate cousins need to constantly groom each other's fur. It's the way we seek to overcome our loneliness.

Could social solidarity ever be based on a sound understanding of mathematics and science, such as Cosma displays? Perhaps in the 23rd century, if Star Trek is right.

(To be clear, I am of course part of the small minority who thinks that we can do without irrational myths even today, but history doesn't seem to be going our way yet. The world of Star Trek apparently developed out of a close brush with universal apocalypse, but the back story of the series never made it clear, as far as I can tell, how the human race escaped extinction. That's what I'd like to know.)

[aguy109]

After so many have spent so many nights searching for the g spot, it is partly a shocking let down and partly a relief to learn from Robin that there isn't one.
I thought that g was related to satisfaction and was not aware that it was supposed to have something to do with intelligence, but this makes sense now that we know that women have neither.
In the absence of the g-spot, one must find other ways of seeking to satisfy them. With my wife, I find it helps to clean the floor, hang the laundry, walk the dog and bring her tea (this is an abridged version). If anyone has better suggestions regarding life's deepest purpose, please comment.