The paper:
http://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S0896-6273%2812%2900584-3
The controversy:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000270
There was already published a response paper here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886913012804
Based on which I made an infograph so one can quickly respond to those who want to 'disprove IQ' by posting that paper:
Back to [Archive] Other discussions
Yes, that study even found a g-factor.
This reasoning seems as silly to me as concluding that there can't be such a thing as general strength because bench presses and squats uses different muscle groups.
There is a paper by Pierce/Miller/Arden/Gottfriedson that explains some ways that genes can cause even seemingly unrelated biological phenomena to be correlated. These kinds of explanations should hold for more closely related biological phenomena (math/verbal/spatial skills) too: Why is intelligence correlated with semen quality?
This reasoning seems as silly to me as concluding that there can't be such a thing as general strength because bench presses and squats uses different muscle groups.
There is a paper by Pierce/Miller/Arden/Gottfriedson that explains some ways that genes can cause even seemingly unrelated biological phenomena to be correlated. These kinds of explanations should hold for more closely related biological phenomena (math/verbal/spatial skills) too: Why is intelligence correlated with semen quality?