Why are most of the artists in the USA democrats?

[loramin]

Originally Posted by fash [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In fact, they do mostly correlate. That's where the g factor comes from. The g factor is the underlying variable you get when you do a factor analysis on a wide range of cognitive tasks (similar to those other IQ types as you mentioned). A person who has a strong working memory is more likely to process information quicker, learn quicker, etc. Yes, sometimes you have idiot savant types, but generally there is a strong correlation, hence how the g factor is synthesized statistically

Like I said before, IQ tests do test something, and there is a correlation between some subject measurements and IQ tests. For instance, IQ correlates noticeably with both Math and English scores. So if you have a single test, and the results of that test correlate with several different subject competency measurements, surely that means the test measures a "g" intelligence that's shared between those subjects ... right?

As it turns out, not so much: let's imagine you make up an IQ test with half the questions about English and half about Math. The results of that test would also correlate highly with English and Math scores, but it wouldn't prove any link between English and Math, right?

As it turns out though there are some cross-subject connections that can't be explained that way, which leads to the "mutualism" theory:

Originally Posted by A Dynamical Model of General Intelligence: The Positive Manifold of
Intelligence by Mutualism (2006)

Scores on cognitive tasks used in intelligence tests correlate positively with each other, that is, they display a positive manifold of correlations. The positive manifold is often explained by positing a dominant latent variable, the g factor, associated with a single quantitative cognitive or biological process or capacity. In this article, a new explanation of the positive manifold based on a dynamical model is proposed, in which reciprocal causation or mutualism plays a central role. It is shown that the positive manifold emerges purely by positive beneficial interactions between cognitive processes during development. A single underlying g factor plays no role in the model.

I'm no Psych major, and again this is oversimplified, but my understanding is basically that Math and English are not intrinsically linked, but if all American students study Math and English together their brains will develop in a way that links those concepts. The example they give in the paper is lake ecosystems: if you look at one set of lakes and measure water quality, fish diversity, etc. you might notice that certain factors result in "healthy lakes". But those "healthy lake" factors only apply to the set of lakes you were looking at; other ecosystems have different factors.

Now to be fair this is not "settled" science, just the latest research I'm aware of. But it explains several problems with the "g" intelligence theory (eg. why do infant IQ tests not correlate with adult success the way later tests do? Because they haven't yet developed in a way that links those concepts).

But if it makes you feel any better, I'm guessing all you IQ fans aren't big fans of the idea of EQ ("emotional intelligence")? Well it turns out EQ is just like the above, only it's been proven to be bullshit statistically. A really smart friend of mine (the kid did high school in two years and UC Berkeley undergrad in three) actually did a breakdown of EQ and was able to prove that there is no "EQ", just a bunch of unrelated things (empathy, willpower, etc.) arbitrarily linked together by some overexcited researcher.