« That Pepper Spray Looked Familiar | Main | An Octopus Goes For A Walk »

Wednesday, November 23, 2011



Thanks for this critique.


I'm not what Sullivan's point was, but Garlick's was that IQ research is underfunded relative to its social importance. To evaluate that statement you should compare the predictive power of IQ with that of some other set of variables and then compare the number of research articles published on both. My impression is somewhat in agreement with Garlicks. I noticed that you were rather dismissive of FIQ, in the last post. I agree that from the perspective of clinical psychology, it's not as informative as more specific ability measures, but the reverse is the case in IO. FIQ (which is a good index of individual general mental ability) carries the lion share of a cognitive test's predictive ability and generalizability, which is what's important in personal selection. Since the public debate on IQ revolves around predictability and generalizability, also, it makes sense that this what's being discussed.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)