The author has anticipated this argument by claiming that there is some sort of general capability which scientists define as g. Fair enough. But the author never establishes whether or not "g" can even be measured, and is happy to assume that we will accept IQ and g are interchangeable despite offering no evidence that they are correlated.
Yeah, this was my foremost problem with the article. Especially since his "intelligence cannot be increased" assertion was predicated on a study about IQ. I won't argue with the assertion that there's some amount of variability in human intellectual potential, but the claim that many below-average performers are at or near their full potential strikes me as at best unproven and at worst flat-out wrong.
There are other bits and pieces in there that I can agree with, but the conclusions drawn seem, as a rule, to overreach the evidence.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-01-19 10:13 pm (UTC)Yeah, this was my foremost problem with the article. Especially since his "intelligence cannot be increased" assertion was predicated on a study about IQ. I won't argue with the assertion that there's some amount of variability in human intellectual potential, but the claim that many below-average performers are at or near their full potential strikes me as at best unproven and at worst flat-out wrong.
There are other bits and pieces in there that I can agree with, but the conclusions drawn seem, as a rule, to overreach the evidence.