Re: Rich, poor....Gould

[George Sheridan <gsheridan@BOMUSD.EDCOE.K12.CA.US>]

To George Cunningham:

Is the concept of "g" important to your own research and published work?

At 11:21 AM 11/13/1999 -0500, George K. Cunningham wrote:

>"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.

He had previously written:

>> > 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.

and:

>> > > >  "The relationship between "g" and intelligence is one of the most
>> > solidly
>> > > > >grounded theories in the social sciences."

and again on 11/13/99:

>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.




>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
>> > > >
>> > >


George Sheridan

Northside School
Black Oak Mine Unified School District
P.O. Box 217
Cool, California 95633

Hope is...not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the
conviction that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out.

Vaclav Havel

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