Quote:
Originally Posted by Splorf22
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Ah its in the notes. I actually find that a bit puzzling but I seem to recall reading somewhere that test designers do look at other tests. Regardless I don't think it's a critical point; the fact is the tests are correlated and the reason has no meaning on what he is saying.
When I say "all those theories of intelligence are bs" I am referring to all of these factor models that attempt to break up intelligence (and by extension personality) into nice linear combinations. Just because you can do some statistics and find some correlations and make models that may even predict with a moderate degree of accuracy doesn't mean that those models directly reflect reality.
Well then, in your opinion what is the summary of the essay?
|
It wasn't in the notes, it was early in the essay, and there is absolutely no basis for it. The tests are expensive and in competition. Stanford-Binet and Wechsler are the survivors after the deaths of a number of other tests.
The Big Five, like Myers-Briggs, has problems with test-retest. Comparing intelligence testing to personality profile testing is a stretch.
I already stated my one-sentence summary: he is asserting that exploratory factor analysis cannot prove the existence of g.