Editing Human intelligence (section)

=== General intelligence factor or ''g'' ===
{{Main|g factor (psychometrics)}}

There are many different kinds of IQ tests using a wide variety of test tasks. Some tests consist of a single type of task, others rely on a broad collection of tasks with different contents (visual-spatial,<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Delen | first1 = E. | last2 = Kaya | first2 = F. | last3 = Ritter | first3 = N. | year = 2012 | title = Test review: Test of Comprehensive Nonverbal Intelligence-2 (CTONI-2) | journal = Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment | volume = 30 | issue = 2| pages = 209–213 | doi = 10.1177/0734282911415614 | s2cid = 144773295 }}</ref> verbal, numerical) and asking for different cognitive processes (e.g., reasoning, memory, rapid decisions, visual comparisons, spatial imagery, reading, and retrieval of [[general knowledge]]). The psychologist [[Charles Spearman]] early in the 20th century carried out the first formal [[factor analysis]] of [[correlation]]s between various test tasks. He found a trend for all such tests to correlate positively with each other, which is called a ''positive manifold''. Spearman found that a single common factor explained the positive correlations among tests. Spearman named it ''g'' for "[[general intelligence factor]]". He interpreted it as the core of human intelligence that, to a larger or smaller degree, influences success in all cognitive tasks and thereby creates the positive manifold. This interpretation of ''g'' as a common cause of test performance is still dominant in psychometrics. (Although, an alternative interpretation was recently advanced by van der Maas and colleagues.<ref>{{cite journal|last=van der Maas|first=H. L. J.|author2=Dolan, C. V. |author3=Grasman, R. P. P. P. |author4=Wicherts, J. M. |author5=Huizenga, H. M. |author6= Raijmakers, M. E. J. |s2cid=10152374|title=A dynamical model of general intelligence: The positive manifold of intelligence by mutualism|journal=Psychological Review|year=2006|volume=113|pages=842–861|doi=10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.842|pmid=17014305|issue=4}}</ref> Their ''mutualism model'' assumes that intelligence depends on several independent mechanisms, none of which influences performance on all cognitive tests. These mechanisms support each other so that efficient operation of one of them makes efficient operation of the others more likely, thereby creating the positive manifold.)

IQ tests can be ranked by how highly they load on the ''g'' factor. Tests with high ''g''-loadings are those that correlate highly with most other tests. One comprehensive study investigating the correlations between a large collection of tests and tasks<ref>{{cite journal|last=Marshalek|first=B. |author2=Lohman, D. F. |author3=Snow, R. E. |title=The complexity continuum in the radex and hierarchical models of intelligence|journal=Intelligence|year=1983|volume=7|pages=107–127|doi=10.1016/0160-2896(83)90023-5|issue=2}}</ref> has found that the [[Raven's Progressive Matrices]] have a particularly high correlation with most other tests and tasks. The ''Raven's'' is a test of inductive reasoning with abstract visual material. It consists of a series of problems, sorted approximately by increasing difficulty. Each problem presents a 3 x 3 matrix of abstract designs with one empty cell; the matrix is constructed according to a rule, and the person must find out the rule to determine which of 8 alternatives fits into the empty cell. Because of its high correlation with other tests, the Raven's Progressive Matrices are generally acknowledged as a good indicator of general intelligence. This is problematic, however, because there are substantial gender differences on the ''Raven's'',<ref>{{cite journal|last=Lynnn|first=R.|author2=Irving, P.|title=Sex differences on the progressive matrices: A meta-analysis|journal=Intelligence|year=2004|volume=32|pages=481–498|doi=10.1016/j.intell.2004.06.008|issue=5}}</ref> which are not found when ''g'' is measured directly by computing the general factor from a broad collection of tests.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Halpern|first=D. F.|author2=LaMay, M. L.|title=The smarter sex: A critical review of sex differences in intelligence|journal=[[Educational Psychology Review]]|year=2000|volume=12|pages=229–246|doi=10.1023/A:1009027516424|issue=2|s2cid=142961814}}</ref>

Several critics, such as [[Stephen Jay Gould]], have been critical of ''g'', seeing it as a statistical artifact, and that IQ tests instead measure a number of unrelated abilities.<ref name="mom">''The Mismeasure of Man'', Stephen Jay Gould, Norton, 1996</ref><ref name="Schlinger2003">{{Cite journal |author=Schlinger, H.D. |year=2003 |title=The Myth of Intelligence |url=https://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5001903843 |journal=The Psychological Record |volume=53 |issue=1 |pages=15–33 |access-date=2008-03-18 |archive-date=2009-10-07 |archive-url=http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20091007164436/http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5001903843 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The 1995 American Psychological Association's report "[[Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns]]" stated that IQ tests do correlate and that the view that ''g'' is a statistical artifact was a minority one.