Sat in a philosophy class today.

[Alawen]

I don't think you read that paper. I just did and it has several problems. He is operating under the assumption that IQ tests from different sources are designed to correlate. That assertion has no basis. More importantly, the entire article is devoted to debunking Spearman's unitary g factor model. If you've been paying attention, you will note that I, following Cattell, never mentioned that earlier model, and that I discussed the two-factor model, Gf and Gc. The more recent study I linked today identifies three distinct factors.

What really gets my nuts twisted, though, is that after spending almost two hours reading his horrible prose and looking up everything I wasn't positive that I understood, he writes off the whole exercise as too distracting from his real work to finish and delivers a weak conclusion: he doubts that there is a general factor of intelligence, but he's been wrong before. Along the way, he pretty much trashes all social science. I bet he's popular with other departments at CMU.

Well, that straw man is fucking dead and burned to the ground. You sure did a number on him.