Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:01:25.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An all-positive correlation matrix is not evidence of domain-general intelligence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2017

Rosalind Arden  and
Brendan P. Zietsch
Rosalind Arden
Affiliation:
London School of Economics & Political Science, London, WC2A 2AE, United Kingdomr.arden@lse.ac.uk
Brendan P. Zietsch
Affiliation:
University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072Australiazietsch@psy.uq.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We welcome the cross-disciplinary approach taken by Burkart et al. to probe the evolution of intelligence. We note several concerns: the uses of g and G, rank-ordering species on cognitive ability, and the meaning of general intelligence. This subject demands insights from several fields, and we look forward to cross-disciplinary collaborations.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e197
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barrett, L. (2011) Beyond the brain: How body and environment shape animal and human minds. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Borsboom, D. & Dolan, C. V. (2006) Why g is not an adaptation: A comment on Kanazawa (2004) Psychological Review 113(2):433–37. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.433.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Green, M. B. & Schwarz, J. H. (1984) Anomaly cancellations in supersymmetric D = 10 gauge theory and superstring theory. Physics Letters B 149(1–3):117–22. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(84)91565-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howrigan, D. P., Simonson, M. A., Davies, G., Harris, S. E., Tenesa, A., Starr, J. M., Liewald, D. C., Deary, I. J., McRae, A., Wright, M. J., Montgomery, G. W., Hansell, N., Martin, N. G., Payton, A., Horan, M., Ollier, W. E., Abdellaoui, A., Boomsma, D. I., DeRosse, P., Knowles, E. E., Glahn, D. C., Djurovic, S., Melle, I., Andreassen, O. A., Christoforou, A., Steen, V. M., Hellard, S. L., Sundet, K., Reinvang, I., Espeseth, T., Lundervold, A. J., Giegling, I., Konte, B., Hartmann, A. M., Rujescu, D., Roussos, P., Giakoumaki, S., Burdick, K. E., Bitsios, P., Donohoe, G., Corley, R. P., Visscher, , Pendleton, N., Malhotra, A. K., Neale, B. M., Lencz, T. & Keller, M. C. (2016) Genome-wide autozygosity is associated with lower general cognitive ability. Molecular Psychiatry 21(6):837–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, S. (2014) Why academics stink at writing. Chronicle of Higher Education 61(5):1–16. Available at: http://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/why_academics_stink_at_writing.pdf.Google Scholar
Woodley of Menie, M. A., Fernandes, H. B. F. & Hopkins, W. D. (2015) The more g-loaded, the more heritable, evolvable, and phenotypically variable: Homology with humans in chimpanzee cognitive abilities. Intelligence 50:159–63. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.04.002.Google Scholar