> That does not mean there isn't a general underlying "cognitive ability" factor.
Careful. "g" is a statistical regularity, not proof of a generalized "underlying cognitive ability."
From the same Wikipedia article:
>It is a variable that summarizes positive correlations among different cognitive tasks
>Yet, there is no consensus as to what causes the positive correlations between tests
This whole subject is a scientific, statistical, and ethical can of worms (as pg alludes to in the essay), and this isn't the place to get into it... I just want to flag that it's a bit more complicated/controversial than it might sound at first.
Careful. "g" is a statistical regularity, not proof of a generalized "underlying cognitive ability."
From the same Wikipedia article:
>It is a variable that summarizes positive correlations among different cognitive tasks
>Yet, there is no consensus as to what causes the positive correlations between tests
This whole subject is a scientific, statistical, and ethical can of worms (as pg alludes to in the essay), and this isn't the place to get into it... I just want to flag that it's a bit more complicated/controversial than it might sound at first.