Re: Rich, poor....Gould

["Gerald W. Bracey" <gbracey@EROLS.COM>]

The ref. to Thorndike meant only that you appear to be a victim of
Thorndike's credo:  "If something exists, it exists in some quantity."
Therefore it can be measured.  One wonders how Thorndike might have measured
a Picasso, or measured an early because against a late one.

Your various pronouncements about "g" leave me confused.  I'd like a
definition of "g".

Finally, when you say talent for dancing is not a mental ability, I think
you are in very dangerous territory.  But do give me a definition of "mental
ability" and tell me where the talent for dancing resides, if not in the
brain.

"If I could tell you in words, I wouldn't have to dance".
Isadora Duncan


----- Original Message -----
From: George K. Cunningham <gkc@LOUISVILLE.EDU>
To: <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 1999 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: Rich, poor....Gould


> Gerald-
>
> See below
>
> George K. Cunningham
> University of Louisville
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gerald W. Bracey <gbracey@EROLS.COM>
> To: <ARN-L@listsrva.CUA.EDU>
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 1999 6:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Rich, poor....Gould
>
>
> > Goddard,  E. L. Thorndike and social Darwinism return from George K
> > Cunningham.  Still, there are lots of people who say "g?", gee, I don't
> > think so.
>
> I am not sure what this has to do with what I said, but I did co-author a
> book with E.L.'s son and grandson.  Does that make me guilty of something?
>
> > People in university settings tend to love g because they are partly
> victims
> > of two human traits and partly victims of their environments.
>
> When was the last time you hung around a university.  Didn't you know they
> are the bastions of P.C. thought.  No one in most universities would know
> "g" from a g-spot, much less be caught advocating its existence.  By and
> large it is people in universities who adore Gould and Gardner.
>
> > The two human traits which victimize the "g" theorists are these:
> >
> > 1.  Those human beings who find something hard to do find it nigh onto
> > impossible to understand how some people can find it so easy.
> >
> > 2.  Those human beings who find something easy to do find it nigh onto
> > impossible to understand how some people can find it so hard.
> >
> >
> > Thus:  When I was writing two articles each week for a newspaper and
> monthly
> > columns and lots of other stuff, my wife, dancer and actress, could not
> > understand how I could be verbally fresh, especially each week,
presenting
> a
> > restaurant revew and an article about the restaurant industry in Denver,
> > plus occasional editorials, the monthly research column, etc.  Said wife
> can
> > easily write very little besides her signature.
> >
> > Yet, said wife would come in when I was playing Bartok's Concerto for
> > Orchestra which she had never heard, listen, and, by the time the thie
> third
> > movement ended, work out a dance routine to the third movement that she
> > could use the next day in teaching modern dance to young children.  I
trip
> > over my feet.  Said wife can usually learn her lines as an actor, even
in
> a
> > lead role, faster than anyone else in the cast.  Said husband could
never
> > appear in more than a bit role.
>
> The existence of "g" does not mean that all cognitive abilities correlate
at
> the 1.0 levels.  People do have strengths and weaknesses.  This does not
> invalidate "g."   A talent for dancing is not a mental ability, despite
what
> Gardner may assert.  Recall Abraham Lincolns response to the question:
How
> many legs would a dog have, if you called a tail a leg?  His answer was
> none.  Calling a tail a leg does not make it one.
>
> > People who think Gardner is silly should come spend some time with us.
> >
> > Who are the people who most make pronouncements about human abilities,
> about
> > what schools should be like?  They are those who sit in chairs at
> > universities and judge ex cathedra the rest of the world.  Virtually
every
> > paper prepared for the National Commission on Excellence in Education
(the
> > fun bunch that gave us the dreadful, "A Nation At Risk"), was prepared
by
> > academics.  Only one was prepared by someone actually working in
> > schools--and that was a critique of the professors.
>
> What does the authorship of "A nation at risk have to do with the
existence
> of "g?"
>
> >  The professors are our
> > NFL and NBA of academics.   They do well on tests.  They are those who
> have
> > for all their lives been told how wonderful they are on the basis of
> > standardized tests that purportedly measure "g'.  No wonder they love
> tests;
> > the tests reinforce their self esteem and validate their interpretation
of
> > the world.
>
> Some of the most hostile critics of tests and testing are academics.
>
> > But, as George S. and Cao and others have shown, there ARE other
> > perspectives.  Equally valid.
> >
> >
> > As a statistical aside:   studies that use correlational techniques tend
> to
> > enhance the value of "g".  Studies that look at mean differences in
scores
> > of people raised in different environments tend to enhance the value of
> the
> > environment.
>
> I think you have this garbled up.  "g" is not the same thing as inherited
> intelligence so it is not the opposite of environmental explanations.  The
> concept of "g" could continue to exist even if it were established that
> intelligence were entirely dependent on environment.
>
> It should not be surprising that "g" emerges in correlational studies
since
> it is based on factor analysis, which is in turn based on correlations.
By
> definition, "g" can not emerge from comparisons of means.
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: George K. Cunningham <gkc@LOUISVILLE.EDU>
> > To: <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
> > Sent: Friday, November 12, 1999 6:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: Rich, poor....Gould
> >
> >
> > > Peter S and Peter F
> > >
> > > Oh my gosh I have been accused of the heresy of positivism and here I
> > don't
> > > even know what you mean by it.  I have never met a person who admitted
> to
> > > that disease.  Now if you are implying that I believe in objective
> reality
> > > and reject post-modernist views of science, you got me.
> > >
> > > A theory is not just some opinions and does not imply uncertainty.
> > Theories
> > > are the explanation for sets of observations.  There is the plate
> tectonic
> > > theory to describe  the cause of earthquakes.  There is the theory of
a
> > > spherical earth, and the theory of evolution.  All well established as
> any
> > > scientific theories.  You can add to that that the theory of "g" the
> > > explanation of why any sets of cognitive items or cognitive tests
> > correlate
> > > with each other.  I might add there are interesting number of
> > physiological
> > > measures that correlate as well.  (Peter S--  You don't have to
> carefully
> > > select the items to make this work.)  The shared variance is called
"g"
> > and
> > > can be obtained and always is the result of factor analyses of
cognitive
> > > measures and items.  To say that "g" is a mere reification, or an
> > > abstraction and is to be discounted because it lacks objective
reality,
> > now
> > > that is what I would call real "logical positivism."
> > >
> > > The implication of this theory is that humans can be ordered along a
> > > continuum according to mental ability.  This theory is a refutation of
> > > Howard Gardner's silly ideas about multiple intelligences.  There are
> > > physiological differences in the brains of humans that lead to their
> > > ordering according to the amount of mental ability.  Heredity plays a
> > large
> > > role in determining the amount of mental ability an individual
> possesses.
> > >
> > > Now this is an inconvenient theory.  It would be far better if
everyone
> > were
> > > endowed with equal mental ability and that the only thing that varied
> were
> > > character and motivation.  That would certainly be more fair.
> > > Unfortunatately that does not appear to be the way it is.
> > >
> > > Peter F. also said:
> > >
> > > "There's the danger of letting
> > > > straight quantitative methods determine our "scientific"
conclusions,
> > > > without actually bothering to use qualitative methods (like going
> > > > into classrooms and households to observe the functioning of
> > > > "intelligent" vs "non-intelligent" kids from day to day) to
> > > > triangulate."
> > >
> > > Excuse my sarcasm but---
> > >
> > > What a scary thought.  That scientific conclusions would stem from
> > > quantitative methods.  It is so much more scientific to "traingulate."
> > >
> > >
> > > George K. Cunningham
> > > University of Louisville
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: George K. Cunningham <gkc@louisville.edu>
> > > To: George <gkc@louisville.edu>
> > > Sent: Friday, November 12, 1999 2:17 PM
> > > Subject: Fw: Re: Rich, poor....Gould
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > George K. Cunningham
> > > > University of Louisville
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Peter Sacks <psacks@RMCI.NET>
> > > > To: <ARN-L@listsrva.CUA.EDU>
> > > > Sent: Friday, November 12, 1999 11:31 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Rich, poor....Gould
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > George Cunningham wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >  "The relationship between "g" and intelligence is one of the most
> > > solidly
> > > > > >grounded theories in the social sciences."
> > > > >
> > > > > What, exactly, do you mean by "theory" here? Do you mean an
account
> of
> > > > > causes and effects that reasonably concurs with the observed data?
> If
> > > so,
> > > > > please do tell us what "g" is and does with respect to cognitive
> > > > > functioning.  On the other hand, if you mean that g is a numerical
> > > > artifact
> > > > > that results from the careful selection of test items that
correlate
> > > > highly
> > > > > with one another, that's not a theory or an explanation of
anything.
> > As
> > > I
> > > > > understand it, statistical analysis is not science. It's a tool
for
> > > > science
> > > > > to help quantify relationships in social or natural phenomena.
> > > > >
> > > > > Peter Sacks
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> > > > > to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> > > to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> > to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.