My expectation is that all of the 5 skills you list are strongly correlated to each other and to Spearman’s ‘g’. However:
Some of the items listed are (at least partially) “learned skills”, on which performance can be improved by ‘practice’. So differing educational backgrounds may obscure the correlation.
Many of the skills decline with age. But they may decline at different rates. So mixed ages may obscure the correlation.
Some of the items listed are (at least partially) “learned skills”, on which performance can be improved by ‘practice’. So differing educational backgrounds may obscure the correlation.
Why shouldn’t we expect intelligence to improve with practice and wither with disuse? Intuitively, almost everything else seems to work that way.
I have no problem with intelligence changing. But if someone claims to be able to measure intelligence in any of five different ways, then each of those five metrics should change in lockstep. My point was that they might not.
Which in particular do you think are learned or will decay?
(2) and (3) seem to be very hard to teach without significantly contributing to what (I intuitively consider) overall intelligence. This is also true of (5) to a certain extent, and I certainly have anecdotal evidence suggesting that teaching (5) significantly improves performance at (1)-(4).
My expectation is that all of the 5 skills you list are strongly correlated to each other and to Spearman’s ‘g’. However:
Some of the items listed are (at least partially) “learned skills”, on which performance can be improved by ‘practice’. So differing educational backgrounds may obscure the correlation.
Many of the skills decline with age. But they may decline at different rates. So mixed ages may obscure the correlation.
Why shouldn’t we expect intelligence to improve with practice and wither with disuse? Intuitively, almost everything else seems to work that way.
I have no problem with intelligence changing. But if someone claims to be able to measure intelligence in any of five different ways, then each of those five metrics should change in lockstep. My point was that they might not.
Which in particular do you think are learned or will decay?
(2) and (3) seem to be very hard to teach without significantly contributing to what (I intuitively consider) overall intelligence. This is also true of (5) to a certain extent, and I certainly have anecdotal evidence suggesting that teaching (5) significantly improves performance at (1)-(4).
(1) and (3) are (in part) learned skills, and I don’t think that the learning involved transfers to performance on the remaining four.
I believe that my ability to do (2) and (5) has declined with age, though I have not declined much at (1) and (3) and perhaps not at all on (4).