« 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.

The comments to this entry are closed.