{"id":1858,"date":"2007-10-18T20:59:03","date_gmt":"2007-10-18T20:59:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/principles\/2007\/10\/18\/james-watson-and-the-myth-of-g\/"},"modified":"2007-10-18T20:59:03","modified_gmt":"2007-10-18T20:59:03","slug":"james-watson-and-the-myth-of-g","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/2007\/10\/18\/james-watson-and-the-myth-of-g\/","title":{"rendered":"James Watson and the Myth of g"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>I&#8217;m not sure whether it was prompted by James Watson&#8217;s little outburst (for which he has <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2007\/10\/19\/science\/19cnd-watson.html?_r=1&#038;ex=1350446400&#038;en=b1b7e2bcc317982d&#038;ei=5088&#038;partner=rssnyt&#038;emc=rss&#038;oref=slogin\">apologized &#8220;unreservedly&#8221;<\/a>) or just serendipity, but Cosma Shalizi offers an <a href=\"http:\/\/cscs.umich.edu\/~crshalizi\/weblog\/523.html\">exhaustive demolition of the idea of a single general intelligence factor<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Anyone who wanders into the bleak and monotonous desert of IQ and the<br \/>\nnature-vs-nurture dispute eventually gets trapped in the especially arid<br \/>\nquestion of what, if anything, <em>g<\/em>, the supposed general factor of<br \/>\nintelligence, tells us about these matters.  By calling <em>g<\/em> a<br \/>\n&#8220;statistical myth&#8221; <a href=\"http:\/\/bactra.org\/weblog\/494.html\">before<\/a>, I<br \/>\nmade clear my conclusion, but none of my reasoning.  This topic being what it<br \/>\nis, I hardly expect this will <em>change<\/em> anyone&#8217;s mind, but I feel<br \/>\na duty to explain myself.<\/p>\n<p>To summarize what follows below (&#8220;shorter sloth&#8221;, as it were), the case<br \/>\nfor <em>g<\/em> rests on a statistical technique, factor analysis, which works<br \/>\nsolely on correlations between tests.  Factor analysis is handy for summarizing<br \/>\ndata, but can&#8217;t tell us where the correlations came from; it <em>always<\/em><br \/>\nsays that there is a general factor whenever there only positive correlations.<br \/>\nThe appearance of <em>g<\/em> is a trivial reflection of that correlation<br \/>\nstructure.  A clear example, known since 1916, shows that factor analysis can<br \/>\ngive the appearance of a general factor when there are actually many thousands<br \/>\nof <em>completely independent<\/em> and <em>equally strong<\/em> causes at work.<br \/>\nHeritability doesn&#8217;t distinguish these alternatives either.  Exploratory factor<br \/>\nanalysis being no good at discovering causal structure, it provides no support<br \/>\nfor the reality of <em>g<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>It&#8217;s long, and comprehensive, and involves math, so it&#8217;s not for the faint of heart. It is, however, an excellent explanation of how statistical analysis can lead smart people astray.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I&#8217;m not sure whether it was prompted by James Watson&#8217;s little outburst (for which he has apologized &#8220;unreservedly&#8221;) or just serendipity, but Cosma Shalizi offers an exhaustive demolition of the idea of a single general intelligence factor: Anyone who wanders into the bleak and monotonous desert of IQ and the nature-vs-nurture dispute eventually gets trapped&hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/2007\/10\/18\/james-watson-and-the-myth-of-g\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">James Watson and the Myth of g<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"1","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[70],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1858","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-psychology","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1858","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1858"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1858\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1858"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1858"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1858"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}